Bible Discussion with Family baptized but no longer practicing Catholics

[itsjustdave1988]

Rome also teaches that they are not sure if those outside the Catholic Church will be saved or damned.

If we are trying to understand Catholic ecclesiology, St. Augustine taught that nobody (Catholic or non-Catholic), unless they have a special revelation from God, can know with absolute certainty that he has been given the gift of final perseverance. This remains the teaching of the Catholic Church.

There is no such thing as an “invisible church” of Christ however. That idea is foreign to Sacred Scripture. There is such a thing as people being joined to the one visible Church of Christ, by either implicit or explicit desire, so long as they have supernatural faith and charity. For example, Cornelius was baptized by the Spirit during the preaching of Peter. He was so baptized “by implicit desire” even before mentioning anything about Jesus being his Lord and Savior. In fact, he never mentions Jesus anywhere in Acts ch. 10. But an interesting thing occurs next. Even though he was clearly infused with the Holy Spirit, Peter COMMANDS that he be sacramentally baptized. Appearantly, there’s something important about unity in this regard, so important, Peter COMMANDED that they be baptized into the Church which is called “catholic” by Scripture, or in Biblical Greek *kata holos ekklesia (“the Church throughout the whole”) *(cf. Acts 9:31).

There is but one Church universal (catholic). It is pastored by the Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI, the historical successor of Peter. That’s Catholic ecclesiology. The Church universal consists of what are called “particular” or local churches. However, they are true churches if and only if they have true apostolic succession, valid priestly orders, and valid Sacrament of Holy Eucharist.

For instance, some Eastern Orthodox Christians are, for example, worshipping in what the Catholic Church calls a “true particular church.” Which means they have true apostolic succession, valid priestly orders, and valid Eucharist. As such, they are a true particular church. However, particular churches (like particular Christians) may or may not be in full communion with the universal Church of Christ, whose chief pastor is the Bishop of Rome.

Protestants who do NOT have valid priestly orders and do NOT have valid Eucharist are no more considered a “true particular church” than two or three lay Christians who meet on Wed night to study Scripture in their home. That is not to say that they are not truly Christian, and that God is not among them. If they have been validly baptized, then they are Christian, even if not in full communion with the one Church of Christ pastored by Benedict XVI. Instead of “true particular churches,” the Catholic Church refers to these as “Christian communities.” Lay persons who get together to pray have no priestly orders, and are therefore not a true Church in the true sense of the word.

Could these who are in Christian communities attain eternal glory? Yes. But there is neither an absolute assurance for these or those Christians in full communion with the Catholic Church. Only those given the gift of final perseverance by God will attain eternal glory.

Nonetheless, there is greater risk for those outside full communion with Christ’s Church, however. They lack the valid sacramental means of restoring their soul which Christ Himself established for His Church (Confession, Eucharist, etc.). They lack a full canon of Sacred Scripture since many have truncated the Holy Bible in the 16th century, not contemplating “every word” which comes from the mouth of God. They lack the authoritative teaching regarding the deposit of faith which God Himself appointed and the Church has taught in every century since the advent of Christ. Separated brethren practice a Christianity which is in it essentials, incomplete. Even if the sin of heresy or schism is merely material (not deliberately obstinate), it is still an objectively grave disorder which is harmful to the soul. This is why Christ prayed for unity among the brethren of Christ. This is why the Roman Pontiff has an important mission in strengthening his brethren through the unfailing voice of Peter, seeking Christian unity and pastoring the flock of Christ.

 

[kevin3705]

Dave, can you explain more in depth the last paragraph of your previous comment from Sep 6th? (see quote below), thanks.

Secondly, as I explained in my OP I have family members who have left the Catholic church for various reasons. Those family members at times send emails or post on our family blog arbitrary scripture verses/statements/comments and the like with no explaination whatsoever. Below are two examples.

1.) “God Loved us enough to sent his Son. Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.”

2.) “The distinctive nature and what needs to be explored is to see if what the Catholic church teaches is in agreement w/ the Bible and is the doctrine that is being preached from the pulpit. The bible is written so that all men can read it and examine it for themselves it is not written for an elite class.”

How would you respond to such arbitrary comments, arbitrary scripture postings and the like?

BTW, I’ve visited your blog. We’re headed to Rome in April '09, returned to the Holy Land in April '08, our family’s second journey there, previous journey in Feb '01.

Thanks again.

itsjustdave1988:
Consequently, the same Church today warns those calling themselves Christian, who likewise practice the “deeds of the flesh.” The message of St. Paul remains the warning today, that those who practice such things “***will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

***Yet, because some practice such things, I should not conclude that the Church of Galatia which Paul addressed is not indeed among the authentic churches of Christ present throughout the world. Paul was himself a cergyman in the Church of Christ. While there were no doubt some members of the Church of Galatia guilty of the sins of the flesh, this did not mean that Paul approved of such things. In fact, my priest, my bishop, and my pope all join with St. Paul in condemning the “sins of the flesh.” They preach instead that “they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance.” (Acts 26:20).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave, can you explain more in depth the last paragraph of your previous comment from Sep 6th? (see quote below), thanks.

I’ll try.

I gathered from your orginal post that the first question pertained to why Christians are not “one” as our Lord willed it. The correct answer was: sin. Sin keeps Christians from being fully one with God, and therefore fully one with each other.

Then came this comment:

Comment by C. N. Harrison 1 day ago
The Bible says that if we live by the Spirit we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. Therefore if we live by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit will lead us and guide into all truth. There’s too much flesh in the church and not enough Truth.

I can only say Amen!

Christians, because of their sin, have become willfully heretical/schismatic, choosing to live according to the flesh and not the Spirit.

Christians even in Paul’s day were sinning, and he warned these Christians of Galatia that those who practice “sins of the flesh” risk eternal damnation.

I agree with Scripture that all Christians should “live by the Spirit” and not fulfill the “lusts of the flesh.” The Holy Spirit is indeed guiding us toward the truth, but not all who call themselves Christian are following that guidance. Consequently, there is indeed to much “flesh” and not enough “truth” among those calling themselves Christian.

Living by the flesh and not by the Spirit is the cause of division among Christians. The response of the Church to those living by the flesh and not by the Spirit is “repent, turn toward God, perform deeds worthy of repentence.” The kind of repentence that St. Paul exhorted in his letter to Galatia, and the Church exhorts today, if heeded, will serve to unite Christians with God, and therefore with one another.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Secondly, as I explained in my OP I have family members who have left the Catholic church for various reasons. Those family members at times send emails or post on our family blog arbitrary scripture verses/statements/comments and the like with no explaination whatsoever. Below are two examples.

1.) “God Loved us enough to sent his Son. Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth.”

2.) “The distinctive nature and what needs to be explored is to see if what the Catholic church teaches is in agreement w/ the Bible and is the doctrine that is being preached from the pulpit. The bible is written so that all men can read it and examine it for themselves it is not written for an elite class.”

How would you respond to such arbitrary comments, arbitrary scripture postings and the like?

I respond: Amen! I agree that we are to “test everything, hold fast to the good.” (1 Thess 5:2). That’s why I’m Catholic.

The presumption they seem to be clinging to is that one must be Catholic only due to ignorance of Scripture. However, I disagree. It was my study of Scripture that led me to believe the Catholic faith.

In fact, the Catholic Church has always believed and taught that Catholic doctrine is regulated and nourished by Sacred Scripture.

Perhaps you can share with them one or more of the following quotes, which is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church:

St. John Chrysostom (344/354 -407 AD) “To become adult Christians you must learn familiarity with the scriptures” (Letter to Ephesians)

“But what is the answer to these charges? ‘I am not,’ you will say, ‘one of the monks, but I have both a wife and children, and the care of a household.’ **This is what has ruined everything, your thinking that the reading of scripture is for monks only, when you need it more than they do. Those who are placed in the world, and who receive wounds every day have the most need of medicine. **So, far worse even than not reading the scriptures is the idea that they are superfluous. Such things were invented by the devil.” (Homily on Matthew)

St. Jerome, *Against Vigilantius, *AD 406: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.”

Pope St. Gregory I (died 604 AD):“The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage—and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.” (Letters, 5, 46)

St. Isidore (560-636 AD) "Prayer purifies us, reading instructs us… If a man wants to be always in God’s company, he must pray regularly and read regularly. When we pray, we talk to God; when we read, God talks to us.

All spiritual growth comes from reading and reflection. By reading we learn what we did not know; by reflection we retain what we have learned.

**Reading the holy Scriptures (the Bible) confers two benefits. It trains the mind to understand them; it turns man’s attention from the follies of the world and leads him to the love of God. **

Two kinds of study are called for here. We must first learn how the Scriptures are to be understood, and then see how to expound them with profit and in a manner worthy of them. A man must first be eager to understand what he is reading before he is fit to proclaim what he has learned.

The conscientious reader will be more concerned to carry out what he has read than merely to acquire knowledge of it… Learning unsupported by grace may get into our ears; it never reaches the heart. It makes a great noise outside but serves no inner purpose. But when God’s grace touches our innermost minds to bring understanding, his word which has been received by the ear sinks deep into the heart." (Lib.3,8-10: PL 83,679-682)

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 AD)“The person who thirsts for God eagerly studies and meditates on the inspired Word, knowing that there, he is certain to find the One for whom he thirsts.” (Commentary on the Song of Songs, Sermon 23:3)
St. Bonaventure (1221-1274 AD):

In his day, only the wealthy learned to read.** He composed a copy of “Biblia Pauperum**” which means the “Bible of the poor.” It contained a collection of pictures illustrating the important events of the Old Testament. It also contained parallel scenes in the New Testament and it showed how the Old Testament prefigured and was fulfilled in the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. This helped the people to learn God’s Word by showing them the important stories of both the Old and New Testament.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

It says at the end of a Koberger Vulgate of 1477: The Holy Scriptures excel all the learning of the world . . . All believers should watch zealously and exert themselves unremittingly to understand the contents of these most useful and exalted writings, and to retain them in the memory. Holy Scripture is that beautiful garden of Paradise in which the leaves of the commandments grow green, the branches of evangelical counsel sprout…

The publisher of the Cologne Bible 1480] writes . . . : All Christians should read the Bible with piety and reverence, praying the Holy Ghost, who is the inspirer of the Scriptures, to enable them to understand . . . The learned should make use of the Latin translation of St. Jerome; but the unlearned and simple folk, whether laymen or clergy . . . should read the German translations now supplied, and thus arm themselves against the enemy of our salvation.

Saint Teresa of Avila (1515 -1582 AD) "all the harm that comes to the world comes from its not knowing the truths of Scripture in clarity and truth; not one iota of Scripture will fall short.’ To me it seemed I had always believed this, and that all the faithful believed it. " (La Vida, ch. 40, #1)

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903 AD)“The solicitude of the apostolic office naturally urges and even compels us…to desire that this grand source of Catholic revelation (the Bible) should be made safely and abundantly accessible to the flock of Jesus Christ”

“…For sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the ‘coming’ of the same Holy Ghost; that is to say, His light and His grace…It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred… and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration is not only essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.” (Providentissimus Deus, Nov. 18, 1893)

Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914 AD) “Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day.”

Pope Pius XII, “Divino Afflante Spiritu,” 1943"Our predecessors, when the opportunity occurred, recommended the study or preaching or in fine the pious reading and meditation of the sacred Scriptures.

…This author of salvation, Christ, will men more fully know, more ardently love and more faithfully imitate in proportion as they are more assiduously urged to know and meditate the Sacred Letters, especially the New Testament…"

 

[sola_scriptura]

If we are trying to understand Catholic ecclesiology, St. Augustine taught that nobody (Catholic or non-Catholic), unless they have a special revelation from God, can know with absolute certainty that he has been given the gift of final perseverance. This remains the teaching of the Catholic Church.

No one said Augustine had it exactly right???

There is no such thing as an “invisible church” of Christ however. That idea is foreign to Sacred Scripture.

*Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it (1 Cor. 12:27).

so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another (Romans 12:5).*

These are references to the “invisible church” (the collective of all the faithful in Christ).

To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours (1 Cor. 1:2).

This is one of many examples. There were many individual churches. Indeed even Revelation writes of seven independent churches. Church unity has nothing to do with a central bureaucracy. We are bound together by one God, one Son, and one Holy Spirit.

If Roman Catholics do not consider themselves part of this union – then fine; good luck with that.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Despite you slective quoting of Church Fathers sprinkled with you personal interpretation of whatb they said there is little dispute there was just one Church from day 1. You said the invisible Church is in Scripture-I cant find it. If there was one where did it hide for 1,500 years? Can you show us any documentaiton of this invisible Church?

Little dispute that there was one church from day one? That’s absurd.

Have you ever read these early church documents, like the epistles of the early Apostolic Fathers or the Didache?

Indeed you don’t even have to look that far – just real Paul’s epistles & the book of Revelation?

John outlived Peter by quite a bit of time & funny Revelation never mentions Rome in its list of seven churches (and of course John wrote Revelation)?

It was a power grab by Rome pure & simple. Well, the Romans are gone (to bad so sad – well not really) … so think what you want? The French are still mad that Napoleon is dead too?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No one said Augustine had it exactly right???

He got at least this right: Faith is a gift distinct from the gift of final perseverance. “Once saved, always saved” is a heresy, one of many Protestant against Protestant disputes which characterize the dis-unity of Protestantism.

*Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it (1 Cor. 12:27).

so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another (Romans 12:5).*

There was nothing invisible about the Church of Corinth and the Church of Rome, to whom St. Paul was writing.

There were many individual churches. Indeed even Revelation writes of seven independent churches.

Nowhere does Scripture call them “independent.” That’s a man-made tradition of Protestantism, contrary to the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints.

There were many local churches, but they were not “independent.” They were part of the one Church (singular) which Christ built upon the rock of Peter, called kata holos (“catholic”) by Scripture, meaning “throughout the whole.” The whole idea of independence is antithetical to Scripture. They were all members of the one Body of Christ, not “independent” from each other.

 

[sola_scriptura]

He got at least this right. Faith is a gift distinct from final perseverance. Once saved, always saved is a heresy, one of many Protestant against Protestant disputes.

How many times do I have to say on this board that I do not adhere to OSAS? Geesh

There was nothing invisible about the Church of Corinth and the Church of Rome, to whom St. Paul was writing.

This is one of many examples. There were many individual churches. Indeed even Revelation writes of seven independent churches.

There were many local churches, but they were not “independent.” The whole idea of independence is antithetical to Scripture. They were all members of the one Body of Christ, not independent from each other.

Indeed – I agree with you wholeheartedly. I merely point to the fact that there was no central church government (in the sense of a church ruled by a Roman Pope) envisioned by any apostle.

I view the decrees established by ecumenical councils as a valid expression of right doctrine & reject the idea of Papal infallibility. The only ecumenical councils I take issue with (but not even in an extremely strong sense) is the Fifth and Seventh ecumenical councils.

The fifth isn’t a huge source of contention – but it was convened by a Roman Emperor (Justinian) rather than the clergy. Moreover, the bishop at Rome disagreed with its findings (in other words it was really a political council thrust upon the church by the Roman government) – so I reject the idea that Origen was a heretic.

The Seventh council reinstated the use of icons (overturning the council of Hieria). I’m not sure if one ecumenical council can overturn another one (this is obviously a problem for the idea of church infallibility). Moreover, I think overall the use of icons is a bad idea (obviously this is a common protestant view). However, I don’t necessarily find the EOC view overly objectionable (though maybe a little bit)?

 

[estesbob]

Little dispute that there was one church from day one? That’s absurd.

Have you ever read these early church documents, like the epistles of the early Apostolic Fathers or the Didache?

Indeed you don’t even have to look that far – just real Paul’s epistles & the book of Revelation?

John outlived Peter by quite a bit of time & funny Revelation never mentions Rome in its list of seven churches (and of course John wrote Revelation)?

It was a power grab by Rome pure & simple. Well, the Romans are gone (to bad so sad – well not really) … so think what you want? The French are still mad that Napoleon is dead too?

As usual you expect us to support something based only upon your personal interpretation of a few Scripture verses and in this case history itself. I’m especially amused by your contention that since revelations doesn’t mention Rome that means there is an invisible church . Nowhere in Scripture does it talk about an invisible church. The idea of the invisible church was foreign to all for 1500 years.

 

[jblake]

estesbob;:

1. Show us where anyone even had a concept of an “invisible” Church prior to the “reformation”

Explain how somebody that died 1,000 years before the Reformation, can be construed as living after the Reformation?

Or did you really not know that the Early Church Fathers taught the doctrine of an invisible church?

xan

jonathon

 

[estesbob]

Explain how somebody that died 1,000 years before the Reformation, can be construed as living after the Reformation?

Or did you really not know that the Early Church Fathers taught the doctrine of an invisible church?

xan

jonathon

Prove it.

 

[estesbob]

Explain how somebody that died 1,000 years before the Reformation, can be construed as living after the Reformation?

Or did you really not know that the Early Church Fathers taught the doctrine of an invisible church?

xan

jonathon

Then you should have no problem showing us they did.

 

[patrickmwebb]

Please read the below string. I am in need of rebuttal assistance to family members. At the root of my family was a very strong Catholic patriarch (grandfather) and matriarch (grandmother) from South Louisiana. As aunts and uncles 13 children total including my father began to marry, a shift, away from the Catholic church began and this discussion is with my 1st cousins, the children of those aunts and uncles – some of whom are baptized Catholics, were educated 12 years in Catholic schools, as was I (yeah, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet!!) but are now followers and contributors to the “Joel Osteen Retirement Fund” (Lakewood Church Houston, TX) or Sola Scriptura believers, agnostics, muslims and the like. At 43, I feel the need as the oldest grandchild and an active member of my Catholic Community who is consistently seeking growth and enrichment of faith to discuss with civility my Catholic Faith and encourage those both within my family and friends to *come home *to the Catholic Church.

Before closing, I must state that my father is the oldest child of the 13, he and my mom have been happily married for 44 years and are very active Catholic church members. The brother immediately following him, the same, long happy marriage, practicing Catholic and concluding Diaconate studies in Central Louisiana. Following these two fine examples the family is rot with religious descension and of the remaining 11 children, 7 have divorced, with 4 of the 7 leaving the Catholic Church.

Below is the discussion I need assistance with​

Comment by C. N. Harrison 1 day ago
The Bible says that if we live by the Spirit we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. Therefore if we live by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit will lead us and guide into all truth.
There’s too much flesh in the church and not enough Truth.

Truth is always right in front of use, the question is will we accept it? “The Spirit is willing but the flesh is week”. Is there anyone out there that is perfect, “NO” so it’s an on going process, the Spirit leads us into truth and helps us to over come the flesh. St Paul said “I’m running the race with the finish in sight but I haven’t got the prise yet”,or words to that affect. He also said he had a thorn in his side which he asked the Lord three times to takeaway from him, but the Lord said my grace is enough for you.

Comment by MP on August 29, 2008
But if we seek to allow the bible to speak for God and not interject our man made interpretations. 2Peter 1: 20-21 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 For prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit.

How do we know that we are being lead by the Holy Spirit? There are literally thousands of Christen Church’s out there all saying they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit confused? or is it those of us that won’t except the words of Jesus in the Holy Gospel, upon this Rock I found my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church from the beginning through Peter and will to the end. Is it faith to pick and choose the parts of Scripture that suet us, or is it faith to accept the words of Jesus Christ, upon this rock I found my Church.

Comment by Kevin Pichon on August 29, 2008
Q: If God is unified, then why are there so many variations of Christianity?
A: Because man, since the Fall, is not.

Adam and Eve would not accept the [Word of God] in the beginning. But put their trust in themselves and that’s why we have to learn the hard way. Because we have a free will, just as they did, the right to choose, as so many are doing to day. WE CAN ETHER CHUSE GODS WAY OR OURS. AND ACCEPT THE CNSECQUENSIS.

Comment by MP on August 29, 2008
If God is unified, then why are there so many variations of Christianity?

God is one. It is man who will not accept his Word that Is why we are not one with him. So unless we ask God continually to help us see ourselves as we really [are] we will continue to blame others and anything else we can find Rather, then face the truth. To become one with God WE MUST ACCEPT HIS WORD IN FAITH.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Indeed – I agree with you wholeheartedly. I merely point to the fact that there was no central church government (in the sense of a church ruled by a Roman Pope) envisioned by any apostle.

I disagree. Peter knew he was the chief apostle, and exercised pastoral authority in the Catholic Church as such.

Moreoever, St. Ignatius (AD 50-110) was a pupil of St. John the Apostle. St. Ignatius became the Bishop of Antioch approx. AD 70, the place where they were first called “Christian.” He remained Bishop there until being brought in chains to Rome to be eaten by lions around AD 110. On his way to his martyrdom, he wrote letters to the other Churches. In the letters of St. Ignatius, which Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars believe are authentic, he wrote about his Church, which he explicitly called the “Catholic Church.” He described some doctrines of the Catholic Church in his letters:

1. 
   *]the primacy of the Church of Rome (Rom., introd.).
   *]the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii)
   *]the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi)
   *]the threefold character of the Church hierarchy (Magn., c. vi)
   *]the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii; Trall., c. iii)
   *]the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi; Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);
   *]the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.);
   *]the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii);
   *]the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii);
   *]the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament
   *]in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase “Catholic Church”, used to designate the one Church of Christ for all Christians;
   *]Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii);
   *]the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v);
   *]the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v);
   *]the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii);
   *]He denounces in principle the doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (Philad. c. iii)
   

   I view the decrees established by ecumenical councils as a valid expression of right doctrine & reject the idea of Papal infallibility.

   Your rejection or acceptance has nothing to do with the veracity of Church dogma. Papal infallibility was decreed by an ecumenical council.
   

   Moreover, the bishop at Rome disagreed with its findings (in other words it was really a political council thrust upon the church by the Roman government) – so I reject the idea that Origen was a heretic.

   That ecumenical council (AD 553) agreed with the prior synod of Alexandria (ca. AD 400) presided by an Eastern bishop who used to agree with Orgenist teachings. However, at this synod of Alexandria, he condemned them. Consequently, I don’t find at all convincing or agree with the claim it was politically driven. The Roman government had nothing to do with the synodal condemnation of AD 400, by a former Origenist bishop of Alexandria.
   

   The Seventh council reinstated the use of icons (overturning the council of Hieria). I’m not sure if one ecumenical council can overturn another one

   What ecumenical council was “overturned” by the Nicea II? Hieria is not among the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, so it seems like a “strawman” argument to me.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I disagree. Peter knew he was the chief apostle, and exercised pastoral authority in the Catholic Church as such.

Moreoever, St. Ignatius (AD 50-110) was a pupil of St. John the Apostle. St. Ignatius became the Bishop of Antioch approx. AD 70, the place where they were first called “Christian.” He remained Bishop there until being brought in chains to Rome to be eaten by lions around AD 110. On his way to his martyrdom, he wrote letters to the other Churches. In the letters of St. Ignatius, which Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars believe are authentic, he wrote about his Church, which he explicitly called the “Catholic Church.” He described some doctrines of the Catholic Church in his letters:

1. 
   *]the primacy of the Church of Rome (Rom., introd.).

1. 
   I will stop here as I’m well aware of Ignatius (and have read most of his epistles). There is not any indication that Ignatius acknowledged primacy at Rome. All of his epistles speak of solely the primacy of the episcopate (and the presbytery). There is one short phrase the Roman church twists way of context to support their claims – frankly it’s a preposterous assertion. Here’s some language from his epistles:
   
   Epistle to the Romans
   
   Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, Or, “most holy.” and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.
   
   The highlighted language is used by the RCC to justify its supremacy. However, Ignatius would say to his exhortations to most of the other churches he wrote to that they were named (or elected) by God and Christ. Moreover, the term “presides over love” (which is the particular language used by Rome) simply means the church at Rome presides over a congregation filled with Godly love. There is no logical conclusion of supremacy that can be reached from these words.
   
   The epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
   
   Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church sojourning in Syria, which has obtained mercy from God, and been elected by Christ, and which first received the name Christ, [wishes] happiness in God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
   
   It was said to be Peter who consecrated Ignatius (the only Apostolic Father known to have been consecrated by Peter) as bishop of Antioch.
   
   Epistle to Polycarp
   
   Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.
   
   Ignatius states quite clearly that Polycarp’s bishop is God and Christ (not the bishop at Rome). This is the most sure evidence that the bishop of Rome was not viewed as a Pope of the church during this early period. It wasn’t until the time of Ireneaus that the idea of Roman supremacy began to emerge (long after Ignatius and other apostolic fathers like Clement died or were martyred).*

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…There is not any indication that Ignatius acknowledged primacy at Rome. All of his epistles speak of solely the primacy of the episcopate (and the presbytery). There is one short phrase the Roman church twists way of context to support their claims – frankly it’s a preposterous assertion.

I disagree. That St. Ignatius referred directly to the primacy of Rome is held even by non-Roman Catholic scholars:

“We find the first direct evidence about the priority of the Roman Church in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. Speaking of the Church of Rome, Ignatius uses the phrase ‘which presides’ in two passages… The Roman Church ‘presides’ in love, that is, in the concord based on love between all the local churches. The term ‘which presides’ [Greek given] needs no discussion; used in the masculine it means the bishop, for he, as head of the local church, sits in the ‘first place’ at the eucharistic assembly, that is, in the central seat. He is truly the president of his church…[Ignatius] pictured the local churches grouped, as it were, in a eucharistic assembly, with every church in its special place, and the church of Rome in the chair, sitting in the ‘first place.’ So, says Ignatius, the Church of Rome indeed has the priority in the whole company of churches united by concord…In his period no other church laid claim to the role, which belonged to the Church of Rome.”

(John Meyendorff, ed. The Primacy of Peter : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992 page 126-127)

 

[sola_scriptura]

I disagree. That St. Ignatius referred directly to the primacy of Rome is held even by non-Roman Catholic scholars:

You’re view is not a widely held view outside of RCC circles (though I’m sure you could dig up some non-Catholic scholar who would agree with you).

The contention that the words “presides in love” evidences the notion that Ignatius envisioned Roman supremacy is perhaps the height of fallacy; and misrepresentation of truth for personal benefit (I’m speaking of the church not you personally).

The language was merely an exhortation to a church and its membership. When Ignatius used the word “presiding” there’s absolutely no evidence to indicate he viewed Rome as presiding over anyone other than Romans.

However, no doubt the RCC will continue in this view. The bottom line is with regard to its most objectionable doctrines (the Papacy and Mariology) the RCC simply has no good evidence in support of its views. Its claim to a continuum of knowledge dating back to the Apostolic era is sheer fallacy & strains its credibility in other areas.

You know in all these debates between Catholics and Protestants over whether Mary remained a virgin or whether perhaps the children mentioned in scripture were Joseph’s from a prior marriage – the real important problems with Catholic Mariology gets lost sometimes. The idea that Mary is a queen of heaven or co-redeemer of some kind (and all the other faulty typologies of Rome) are simply false doctrines. None of these ideas originated from any apostolic source; and a rudimentary comparison with scripture in most cases will readily debunk them.

The same folly and misrepresentations of truth exists with the idea of Papal infallibility and Rome’s definition of “church.” Catholics will not see it this way – you’ve been raised to believe that yours is the one true church. Frankly, if I were to even accept your rendering of Apostolic Succession the Eastern Orthodox Church would probably fit the titles Rome ascribes to itself far more appropriately. Hence, I reject Papal authority and all doctrines that were invented by Rome outside of a proper ecumenical council; and I do believe at some point in history the Roman church became corrupted and no longer represents sound Christian doctrine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You’re view is not a widely held view outside of RCC circles (though I’m sure you could dig up some non-Catholic scholar who would agree with you).

I’m pretty sure the “Protestant” circle is the narrowly held view, that is, the minority within Christianity, as about 60% of all Christians reject Protestantism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…misrepresentation of truth for personal benefit…

I remain unconvinced. I don’t agree that the Russian Orthodox author I cited gains anything personnally by his conclusion that St. Ignatius was indeed speaking of the primacy of Rome. Your attempt to make this out to be a singularly Roman view is unconvincing. The evidence speaks for itself, which is why Christianity since the 1st century insisted upon the primacy of Rome, the “minority” view of a small circle of protestors notwithstanding.

The idea that Mary is a queen of heaven or co-redeemer of some kind (and all the other faulty typologies of Rome) are simply false doctrines. None of these ideas originated from any apostolic source; and a rudimentary comparison with scripture in most cases will readily debunk them.

I see, now you’re onto another minority view of a narrow circle of protestors about Mary. See here: Doctrines about Mary are Biblical

That you also claim Marian doctrines are a singular view of “Rome” is equally absurd.

For instance, according to Protestant pastor, Charles Dickson:

"As Lutheran theologian Harding Meyer recently observed, ‘Luther, Malancthon and Zwingli not only did not question teachings about Mary, they explicitly adopted them.’ These teachings included the virgin birth, the doctrine of the Theotokos (Mother of God), the semper virgo (ever-virgin) of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the sanctification of Mary as advocated by St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas and others. … [Rev. Charles Dickson, “Mary: Bridge to Christian Unity.” *New Covenant

, May 1997]

Additionally, from the Eastern fathers:

St. Irenaeus (ca. AD 189) stated: “Mary … by her obedience became the cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race.” (Adv. haer. III 22,4).

St. Ephrem (d. 373) said of Mary, in a prayer ascribed to him: “**After the Mediator thou art the *mediatrix ***of the whole world” (Oratio IV ad Deiparam. 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast).

St. Germanus of Constantinople (d. 733) stated, regarding Mary: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chast One” (Or. 9,5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast, cite by Ott, ibid., p. 214)

Seems to me, your dispute regarding doctrines about Mary is just one of many Protestant vs. Protestant disputes.

The same folly and misrepresentations of truth exists with the idea of Papal infallibility and Rome’s definition of “church.” Catholics will not see it this way – you’ve been raised to believe that yours is the one true church.

This is a presumption on your part, as many Catholic were not “raised” Catholic, but converted from Protestantism and Orthodoxy, or other religions, or even raised atheist or agnostic. Yet, they come to assent to the truth of Catholic teaching, by the grace of God.

St, Maximus of Constantinople, for example, affirmed:

"from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone * as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him* "

Furthermore, even some Orthodox scholars expressed their substantial agreement with Catholic ecclesiology and papal infallibility. For instance,

19th cent. Russian Orthodox scholar Valdimir Soloviev concluded:

While true heroes of orthodoxy, such as Maximus the Confessor, could not find words strong enough to extol the preminence and achievements of the Roman See

, the orthodox anti-Catholics, though profiting by its achievements, were too jealous of its preeminence to give it recognition…

As a member of the true and venerable Eastern or Greco-Russian Orthodox Church…I recognize as supreme judge in matters of religion him who has been recognized as such by St. Irenaeus, St. Dionysius the Great, St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Flavian, the Blessed Theodoret, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Theodore of the Studium, St. Ignatius, and on and on–namely,*** the apostle Peter, who lives in his successors.*** (Vladimir Soloviev, *Russia and the Universal Church, *cited from an abridged edition called *The Russian Church and the Papacy, *Catholic Answers, 2001, pg. 36, 37, 47)