C
Cranmer2010
Guest
Sure am. I think you need to learn about the Anglican Communion before making wild assumptions as you have.
- Status
B
Belloc_Fan
Guest
I think, properly understood, there’s a gap, but a relatively small one, on issues of justification. At the end of the day, no mainstream Catholic or Protestant I know of maintains that you can believe in God, refuse to obey Him, and then be saved; simultaneously, they don’t believe you have to *earn *Heaven, or that you can do enough good that God “owes” you Heaven. All the saved in Heaven will be those who lived by faith, and living by faith includes works – although perhaps a very few number of works, for deathbed conversions, for example. The precise mechanism of when and how are areas we disagree, but these seem like comparatively insignificant issues to me.
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
I was referring to the baiting OP.
You have misunderstood me, Cranmer. I do not do this. In fact, I have more extensive and varied experiences if Protestant communites than most of the Catholics here on CAF.
I think that we as humans get off track. I think that the Reformation was absolutely necessary and I think that reformations to some degree are necessary from time to time all the time. The truth never changes, the Scriptures never change either, but views and perceptions do. We cannot pretend to ever posess even an inkling of the wisdom that God has.I think you will find that there are very few umbrellas that all of them can fit under.
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
That’s a pretty good analogy other than Cranmer and King Henry VIII were of the same time period and worked out the worship for the Anglican church together. Low church and High church are pretty much choices left up to clergy of individula churches. I am not a Low church worshipper, in fact I am closer to High church. In my parish, we cross ourselves often, commune every Sunday, have intercessory prayer always during communion, we use incense every single Sunday, have a very vivd array of vestments and use holy water. I’d say that’s much more High church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. So here we have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.
Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”
However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.
And I have to say, Cranmer, you win the prize for being the fastest new poster to succumb to the CAF’s version of Godwin’s Law (still searching for a catchy name for it–how 'bout CAFvofGL?). Only been here 7 days–quick on the draw you are!
npatrol:
G
guanophore
Guest
It is also against the catechism, which does not hold the faithful accountable for the sins of their ancestors.
I would like to add that reconciliation will be furthered by repentance and humility on both sides. Both sides committed grievious errors against love during the Reformation.
G
guanophore
Guest
LexOorendi, Lex Credendi.
No. The Apostles believed that Jesus was both man, and God. When the heresies arose about the identity of Christ, the Church fought them with the Apostolic Tradition. All the Marian doctrines come out of the doctrine about Christ. He was born of a woman, flesh of her flesh. He did not take to Himself the sinful flesh, but the untainted. Jesus called His Mother “Woman” because she is the new Eve. He was created as she was, without stain.
Anyway, that is grist for another thread. What I am saying is that it developed out of an understanding of who Jesus is, and who He isn’t.
I am sorry, I am not following you here. Doctrine can be developed, by which we mean that our understanding develops. For example, the Apostles did not use the term “hypostatic union”. This was a term that was developed, based upon what the Apostles believed and taugth.
There are certainly things that are “realized” after the fact. That does not mean they just came into existence.
John.12
[16] His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him.
Peter did not understand that the Church was also for the Gentiles, but God helped him 'realize" this some time later.
It was especially important in the first two centuries for the Church to focus on the person of Christ. The Marian doctrines grew out of that later, but the nature of Christ and His mother have always been that way.
There are plenty of well meaning believers then, as well as now that do not see this.
And how would you suggest that I determine which doctrine is “manufactured”?
This is consistent with my experience as well. Are you going to judge the Catholic Church by those who don’t adhere to her teaching and guidance? That is like saying that Jesus was deficient, since Judas betrayed Him.
This is the reason we need the gift of infallibility.
Reform is always necessary. Unfortunately, the Apostolic Doctrine was not in need of reformation. People need reform, not the doctrine.
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
This is quite amusing but unfortunately unfounded and therefore assumed to be untrue.Ah. So here we have it. What I call the CAFs version of Godwin’s Law.
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions —regardless of topic or scope —inevitably wind up being about Hitler and the Nazis. Also the poster who mentioned Nazis loses all debates/discussions they had in said topic, and their insults are nullified.
Here’s the CAF version of Godwin’s Law I’m proposing: “As an online discussion about the CC grows longer, the probability of a reference to sexual abuse by priests approaches 1”
However, the poster who mentions the abuse loses all debates/discussions said in topic, and his insults are nullified.
And I have to say, Cranmer, you win the prize for being the fastest new poster to succumb to the CAF’s version of Godwin’s Law (still searching for a catchy name for it–how 'bout CAFvofGL?). Only been here 7 days–quick on the draw you are!
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Unfounded that it took you about a week to bring up sexual abuse by clergy? I think not!
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
Untrue that one automatically loses the debate when (and if) it turns to this.
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
Hey look. The child sexual abuse scandal shouldn’t be an ace in the hole for Protestants to use against Catholics at will like a death ray; just as homosexual clergy and women’s ordination should not be used in the reverse. The facts remain that each and every church has its challenges, skeletons in the closet and it’s epiphanys.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It just makes you lose credibility.
Godwin’s Law. It’s an amusing but true observation.
I mean, really, you couldn’t have waited, say, a month, before bringing it up?
I’m just sayin’.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Proof-texting is not found in the bible.
What does the Bible say about Mary having stain?
Huh?
C
Cranmer2010
Guest
Scripture never shows anything that suggests that Mary was without original sin.
The Song of Mary where she states that she rejoices in God her Saviour.
P
PRmerger
Guest
**
The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture**
Originally posted by Randy Carson
*The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?
Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?
Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?
Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?
John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—
Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?
John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?
John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?
Now, consider the following three verses:
1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.
Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?
In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”*
P
PRmerger
Guest
That Mary needed a Savior is a Catholic teaching, Cranmer.
*"Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. **Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. **This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain." * source
BTW, that analogy of Mary being prevented from falling into a pit was attributed to Dun Scotus, who lived in the 12th century.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So I provided Biblical proof of Church infallibility, and now here’s some ECFs who professed the infallibility of the Church:
*"Cyprian of Carthage had this to say of the Church, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).
Prior to this, Irenaeus of Lyons said, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
In 433 Pope Sixtus III said that “all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.” While there are many other passages from the early Church Fathers that demonstrate the infallibility of the Church, these should suffice to prove that the doctrine was not “invented” in 1870 when Vatican I defined it formally." *source
B
Belloc_Fan
Guest
Three things:
(1) Even if Scripture doesn’t declare it explicitly, it’s implied in Mary’s role as the New Eve, in Her role as the New and Stainless Ark, and so on. Jesus referring to Her as “Dear Woman” signifies that She’s the un-fallen Eve that helps to bring about redemption through Christ, the “last Adam.” It’s also why She’s a Virgin - it’s a symbol of Her purity.
(2) We’re not bound to Scripture alone. By the terms of Scripture, we’re to follow Apostolic teaching “whether by word of mouth or epistle.”
(3) The Church Fathers are very clear on this one. Jerome is disgusted when it’s even questioned in the Fourth Century, if memory serves. In any case, the controversy the Church Fathers faced was, “Given the fact that Mary was without original sin, did she experience birth pangs, as a literal Rev. 12 reading might suggest?” Clement of Alexandria, for example, expressly refutes the notion She had birth pangs in the Stromata. That’s not really important, though: the important thing is simply that all sides in the dispute took as a baseline the idea that Mary was without original sin.
This was answered above: if someone saves my life, it doesn’t require that I previously be dead – they can simply prevent me from dying. Likewise, Jesus Christ prevented Mary from sinning. This is the purest form of salvation possible, just it’s more perfect to save someone’s life than to restore their life by bringing them back from the dead.
G
guanophore
Guest
LexOorendi, Lex Credendi.
People who have problems with trust often feel that others make things up as they go along, usually with negative results.
Whether you accept it or not, Cranmer, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Divine Deposit of faith was made “once for all to the saints”. Nothing can be added since the death of the last Apostle.
I understand that the Reformers were trying to get back to the purity of the Apostolic faith. They went about it in such a manner that more problems were created than solved. The splintering of the Body increases on a daily basis, because the Reformation is founded upon untruths.
Ok, Cranmer. I guess that means you do not accept the prayers of the church as evidence.
Really? Where is that?
I can understand why you would see it that way. It seems that you do not trust God to preserve the once for all deposit of faith that He gave to the Church.
People who have problems with trust often feel that others make things up as they go along, usually with negative results.
Whether you accept it or not, Cranmer, the Catholic Church believes and teaches that the Divine Deposit of faith was made “once for all to the saints”. Nothing can be added since the death of the last Apostle.
You mean “realize” the doctrines of the faith? Well, we believe that God revealed truths to the Apostles, but that public revelation was closed after them. The fullness of His glory that He intended to reveal was given to to the Church.
There are plenty of non-trinitarians on CAF. They also use the Scripture to support their views.
No, Cranmer, it is not self explanatory. You have made it clear that you do not accept the same evidence that I do when determining whether a doctrine is false. Therefore, it begs the question. How am I to determine if a doctrine is manufactured. Should I send you and email, so that you can provide me with this 'self explanatory" perspective? Do you consider yourself the standard by which Truth should be measured?
I never said that Protestant doctrine is wrong or invalid because people don’t follow it. I said it is deficient because it derives from rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ, and the teachings of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church. When the Reformers decided to jettison the Apostolic Succession, some replacement had to be found. The Scriptures, an infallible product of Sacred Tradition, were chosen for that role. They were forced into a role they were never intended to play (authority). From this heresy more continue to spring up daily. It has nothing to do with the conduct of hypocrites. The people that cling to Sola Scriptura do so in good conscience and intention. It is not their fault they have embraced error. They don’t know any better.
Ok. We can disagree on this point. It is off topic in this thread anyway. Suffice to say that I see it in both the Scripture and the early Church. I see it because I look with the faith of the Apostles, and not through lenses that have been separated from that faith for 500 years.
People corrupting the doctrine of the faith also does not give anyone leave to revise the doctrine. The doctrine was not wrong! the men who molested it were wrong, and the ideas they were spreading that were a departure from the Apostolic faith were wrong. Creating new and different doctrines does not solve the problem.
I understand that the Reformers were trying to get back to the purity of the Apostolic faith. They went about it in such a manner that more problems were created than solved. The splintering of the Body increases on a daily basis, because the Reformation is founded upon untruths.
- Status