CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[montanaman]

And yet we find many other references (of course, you’ll say that the writers were ‘corrupted by the gnostic fables’ and ignore the fact that it could equally be likely that the gnostic gospels contain, in addition to the false elements which ‘make’ them gnostic, true elements as well) which are in no wise ‘gnostic’.

And while every other ‘gnostic’ or ‘heretical’ or ‘schismatic’ or otherwise wrong doctrine --from gnosticism to Manicheanism, iconoclassicism, Albigensienism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Donaticism, etc. managed NEVER to become ‘official’ Church teaching–even when Arianism was espoused by a MAJORITY of Christians, even when a POPE was under the Arian influence; even when schism and outright heresy caused the church to be split asunder. . .

Somehow this one ‘doctrine’ managed to infiltrate the church.

I. Don’t. Buy. It.

My position has 2000 years of Scriptural and traditional basis.

Yours has less than 500 years of ‘presumptive’ and conflicting basis. Even your first ‘reformers’ did not presume at first to challenge Church doctrines–the assumption included–only ‘individuals’ whose actions either themselves went against Church teachings, and whose ‘discipline’ the reformers felt was either too little, too late. Only after these reformers felt personally that the reforms were not advancing ‘quickly enough’ did they (to justify themselves) start cherry picking doctrine.

There is nothing wrong with honest doubt, but as a wise man once said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.” The problem comes not with the doubt, but with the deliberate choice to range one’s own (or another ‘human’) intellect above that of Almighty God.

Had the reformers been content to work with the Church, to raise their difficulties and doubts and, even when still confused and conflicted, to adhere to the Scriptural, GOD-GIVEN authority of the Church, not only would we have a united Christendom today, we would be celebrating St. Martin Luther, St. John Knox, and a unified doctrine in which we would ALL be sharing. God knows how different this world might have been but since He pled “that all might be one” it is most likely that most if not all of the ills of the past 500 years, including colonialism, communism, and many wars would have been avoided. How sad that to satisfy some individuals’ pride, others’ greed, the anger of many (and lest you feel I am too one sided, it is also the fault of many on ‘our side’ who did not obey Church teaching in the first place, those who, while the intention may have been to be ‘merciful’, may also have been unduly influenced to not take quicker steps to resolve differences), but above all, the greatest fault of refusal to submit to proper authority, in humility and obedience, we have come to such a fractioning of our Christian faith.

Excellent point, powerfully articulated.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2637600]The Divine Deposit of Faith, through both oral and written sources, is found in the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Apostolic Tradition is that truth about what Christ revealed to His Apostles that has been passed on through duly ordained ministers from the Apostlic times.

I think this is a pretty standard condition of all Protestants, having separated themselves from the Apostolic Traditin, there is no way to know anything about the Sacred Oral Traditions passed on through the Apostolic Succession.

What is this Sacred Oral Traditions that you refer to here? Can you give me a couple of examples?

I am not sure what this statement means, but it seems as though you are saying that no one else can know any truth other than what is taught in the Bible either. I think this is true if one is a Protestant, since the Sacred Tradition is rejected as a matter of course. I think the rejection of the Church’s authority to preserve that Tradition, as well as the Tradition itself is what defines Protestant.

The catholic makes a lot of claims about Mary that are not grounded in scripture. It takes more than just to say something is in Sacred Tradition when that Tradition is never shown to be studied. For example, is there a list of all the Sacred Traditions in the catholic church?

Well, yes and no. The Church does have the authority given by Jesus to say many other things. However, the Church does not say things that have not been revealed by God, so there are limitations on that.

What limitations would that be?

The scriptures themselves testify that they do not contain all of Jesus’ teachings and workings.

You are right. Would you not agree that it would be wrong to say something specifically about what He said that is not in the gospels?

I think not. I think you are getting the Teaching of the Church. Most of the tenets of our faith cannot be "proven’. Especially with the limitations you have placed on what can be used as proof.

What i see are catholics refusing to hold its church leaders accountable for teachings that can easily be seen either to be supported by scripture or not. Mary’s assumption is one of the most obivious example.

You don’t accept the Teaching Authority which Jesus gave to His Apostles, so there is little hope of “proving” anything to you.

No one should just accept something like this on authority alone. Not when you have the scriptures that tells you what they say about Mary.

We are not disparaging the scriptures, or their value. It is most excellent that you want the Word of God to dwell in you richly.

I

urge you, therefore, to remember that it was the Catholic Church that produced the scriptures to which you cling with all your heart, and she alone as the authority to interpret their meaning.

The catholic did not “produce the scriptures” but were used by God to be given to the people.
It is false to say that the catholic church alone has the authority to interpret the scriptures. No such authority was ever given to the church. Secondly, if what you say is true, does that mean protestants can never interpret them correctly?

 

[Mannyfit75]

justasking4:

The catholic makes a lot of claims about Mary that are not grounded in scripture. It takes more than just to say something is in Sacred Tradition when that Tradition is never shown to be studied. For example, is there a list of all the Sacred Traditions in the catholic church?

They are part of divine revelation. They are grounded in Scripture.

Tradition “Big T” in the Catechism states,

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

I don’t think there is a list. Would that really matter?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

They are part of divine revelation. They are grounded in Scripture.

Tradition “Big T” in the Catechism states,

I don’t think there is a list. Would that really matter?

Well… if you think about it… Isn’t the Catechism a list of all the Catholic Traditions?

 

[Bible_Student]

Since the scripture was written by, for, and about Catholics (the NT specifically) should it be surprising that Catholics are most qualfied to exegete?

Hi Guanophore,
Exegesis, as defined by Merriam Webster, comes from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι (which means ‘to lead out’) and involves extensive, critical interpretation of an authoritative text, especially those of the Holy Scriptures. In essence it always involves trying to ensure that we get the proper context. Some (such as the cults) use the Scriptures to serve their own ends - this usually results in bad fruit and even death. You see Scripture without context is really only a pretext. Just because you’re a Catholic or a Protestant doesn’t mean you’re astute at Biblical exegesis. It doesn’t even mean that you know how to get to first base exegetically speaking, any more that parking your keister inside a gargae makes you into a car. I have read some good Catholic exegetes (Peter Kreeft comes to mind) and some bad ones as well (they’ll remain unnamed. But if you approach Holy Scripture with preconceived notions, with some innate desire to twist them and conform them to your own liking, rather than making every attempt to derive the context and meaning of what the Holy Spirit is saying - then you have shut out God from sowing His seed in your heart. This is why pride always stands in the way of recieving God’s blessing. Take the Pharisee’s for example - they dismissed Jesus, His miracles, and even their own elders who admonished them to take a deeper look at Him, as being the promised Messiah, just because they were too caught up in being the “so called” authority.
Rejected by the Authorities
Saint John the Apostle from about 62 AD:

Gospel of John 7:45-52
Then the officers came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why have you not brought Him?” The officers answered, “No man ever spoke like this Man!” Then the Pharisees answered them, “Are you also deceived?
Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him?
But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.”
Nicodemus (he who came to Jesus by night, being one of them) said to them, “Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?”
They answered and said to him, “Are you also from Galilee? Search and look, for no prophet has arisen out of Galilee.”

They made this mistake because they were prideful and arrogant.
2 Jewish Christians:

James 4:6
But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it (Proverbs 3:34)says, “GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.”
1Peter 5:1-8
Shepherd the Flock
The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.
Submit to God, Resist the Devil
Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble."
Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

In Christ, pat

 

[Joero]

its not an exageration its been fulfilled, the Catholic Church has a name for her, THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.
Should’nt we all be calling her blessed?

My position has 2000 years of Scriptural and traditional basis.

Yours has less than 500 years of ‘presumptive’ and conflicting basis. Even your first ‘reformers’ did not presume at first to challenge Church doctrines–the assumption included–only ‘individuals’ whose actions either themselves went against Church teachings, and whose ‘discipline’ the reformers felt was either too little, too late. Only after these reformers felt personally that the reforms were not advancing ‘quickly enough’ did they (to justify themselves) start cherry picking doctrine.
Had the reformers been content to work with the Church, to raise their difficulties and doubts and, even when still confused and conflicted, to adhere to the Scriptural, GOD-GIVEN authority of the Church, not only would we have a united Christendom today, we would be celebrating St. Martin Luther, St. John Knox, and a unified doctrine in which we would ALL be sharing. .

Excellent point, powerfully articulated.

Well… if you think about it… Isn’t the Catechism a list of all the Catholic Traditions?

Well, most of the teaching in the catechism of the catholic church were from dogmas and if you go deeper how these dogmas existed, you’d find that majority of these were rooted from Christian’s traditions.

The assumption is a gnostic fable that gradually crept into the church.

If that is so, then give me proofs thru scriptures that the Blessed Virgin Mary may not be qualified to be assumed into heaven, okay?

 

[Bible_Student]

Your post seems to imply that someone other than Catholics have been grafted?

Hello Again,
No, I’m not **implying it **I’m stating it **as a fact **that those who trust in Christ, who are born from above via the Holy Spirit, belong to none other than Jesus Himself, the True Vine. If either you or anyone else implies something different then let the reader judge for themselves whether it is better to trust and believe the Words of Jesus Himself or those of mere mortal men.

**Jesus, LORD of Glory, Kings of Kings, circa. ETERNAL] **
He who WAS, IS, and IS TO COME says this:
**
Gospel of John 6:35:
And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
Jhn 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”
Jhn 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
Jhn 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.
And John 3:12-21
"If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
"that whoever believes in Him should not perish but[fn2] have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
"For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
**

In Christ, pat

 

[Bible_Student]

Funny, why did I think I was having this conversation with Pixie and not you?

I think 2000 years is a little long. I think, like the canon, the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and other truths germaine to our faith, understanding and definition took some time. If the canon of scripture took nearly 400 years, why limit yourself to that time frame?

Hi Guanophone,
I guess that means you may have had some trouble finding any documentation that was even remotely close to the Apostolic Age, the age in which Mary actually lived?

I
Early Church Fathers on the Assumption of Mary
Pseudo – Melito …

When a work begins with pseudo as its prefix then its always a good idea to be a little more cautious, and read its history. This was actually a spurious (false) work that was attributed to Melito of Sardis. I guess the writer didn’t understand the commandment, “Do not bear false witness”. :tsktsk: On top of this its believed to be a 5th century work, not that this much matters.

Timothy of Jerusalem
Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

Not sure where you got the date but it is generously liberal. Let’s look at the history according to
Zachariah of Mitylene: CHAPTER VI:

States the Chief Priests in the days of Justine who reigned 9 years, and his sister’s son Justinian who became king after him. PRIESTS IN THE DAYS OF JUSTIN, WHO, AFTER REIGNING
Now in the year nine, in the fifth year of the reign of this serene king, Justinian, the king of our day, being moved by God our Lord, who had foreknowledge of his deeds, he distributed justice, and ordered that all orders should return from exile and from the countries to which they had withdrawn in zeal for the faith, while he summoned the believing bishops to come up to him. And, after this had happened in the year nine, in the year ten a multitude of Huns entered the Roman territory and massacred those whom they found outside the cities;
The chief priests 51 in the days of Justin are as follows :— Of Rome, Hormisda; of Alexandria, Timothy of Jerusalem, Peter, who succeeded John of Antioch, …

So, Justinian and the Huns give us our time frame, We therefore proceed to history and mark the year.
from history:

When Justinian came to power his military strength on the Euphrates was slowly weakening against the constant Sassanid push. After some campaigning, however, the Pravoslav military skills began to improve and Belisarius obtained considerable success and a peace treaty with the Sassanid’s was concluded in 533 AD.** Unfortunately the treaty only lasted until 539 AD when the Sassanids declared war again alleging that Justinian had been secretly intriguing against them with the Huns.** Justinian at that time was involved in a campaign in Italy and was unable to adequately defend his eastern frontier. So the Sassanids advanced into Syria with little resistance and by 540 AD had captured Antioch and enslaved its inhabitants

That would put Timothy of Jerusalem at about circa 530 AD, hardly would half a millenium away suffice to enlighten us. Certainly it pales against the testimony of Paul (55 AD), Clement 195 AD, Tertullian 197 AD, Hippolytus 225 AD, and Cyprian 250 AD. My opinion on Timothy is he was probably not a false witness just someone who was duped by the whole pseudo Melito thing, probably thinking this really was from Melito of Sardis.

It would appear even your own exegete’s would agree the woman of Revelation is “the Church” and noy “Mary”.
justforcatholics.org/a131.htm

Hope this settles it for you. Have a good night.
In Christ, pat

 

[Bible_Student]

Yes, because if the woman in Revelation that gave birth to the male child is interpreted as Mary, then she is alive in heaven, and is wearing a crown. This is where the idea originated that she is Queen of Heaven, and Queen of Angels and Saints.

Actually that’s incorrect the conceptual idea that there was “a queen of heaven” originated years before the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians.

Jeremiah:

Chapter 7:1-2a;16-24
The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, "Stand in the gate of the Lord’s house, and proclaim there this word, and say, 'Hear the word of the Lord, …
“Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger. Do they provoke Me to anger?” says the Lord. “Do they not provoke themselves, to the shame of their own faces?”
Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Behold, My anger and My fury will be poured out on this place–on man and on beast, on the trees of the field and on the fruit of the ground. And it will burn and not be quenched.”
Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’ Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

Not that Mary does not have great honor as the Mother of our Lord, but nowhere is there a Biblical basis or an early church Father that calls her the “queen of heaven”, as you say.

 

[guanophore]

What is this Sacred Oral Traditions that you refer to here? Can you give me a couple of examples?

We already have, and you have rejected them. One is that Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, where she dwells with her divine Son.

Another is that the Bible is not the sole souce of revelation about faith and morals. The church is the final authority and arbiter of disagreements.

The catholic makes a lot of claims about Mary that are not grounded in scripture.

Indeed, Catholics make a great many claims that are not grounded in scripture. In fact, the entire Catholic faith exists before the grounding of scripture. The Catholic Church produced the scripture, and scripture reflects the Catholic faith, but the truths about the Teachings of Jesus predated all the New Testament, and existed completely without it for decades prior to a word of it being witten.

It takes more than just to say something is in Sacred Tradition when that Tradition is never shown to be studied. For example, is there a list of all the Sacred Traditions in the catholic church?

It is refreshing to hear you admit that you have never studied the Sacred Tradition. Hopefully this will change. I agree, it takes more than just saying. It takes a consistent 2000 years of practice and adherance to those Apostolic Teachings to demonstrate that Jesus preserved His Teachings as He promised he would.

What limitations would that be?

Since the Bible came from the Church, and not the Church from the Bible, it is difficult for the Sola Scriptura individual to understand any of the teachings of Jesus from the Bible. the Bible was never intended to be separated from the Source that produced it.

You are right. Would you not agree that it would be wrong to say something specifically about what He said that is not in the gospels?

Not at all! For example, where in the Gospel’s does it say “it is better to give than receive”? Yet we believe without question that this is one of His sayings, preserved orally, but not in the gospel accounts.

What i see are catholics refusing to hold its church leaders accountable for teachings that can easily be seen either to be supported by scripture or not. Mary’s assumption is one of the most obivious example.

Catholicism is different in structure than other faith communities. We believe that our shepherds are appointed by God, and that we are to be taught by them, and submit to their authority as God has directed. It is not the place of the disciple to refuse the teachings of the Master from the mouths He has ordained to teach it. Furthermore, we know we are not limited to scripture, realizing it is only part of the divine deposit of faith. It is not a concern that some matters of our faith (the Trinity, for example) cannot be found in scripture. We know that these are the Apostolic Teachings that have been handed down to us.

No one should just accept something like this on authority alone. Not when you have the scriptures that tells you what they say about Mary.

Additionally, no one should intepret the scriptures separately from the Divine Authority appointed to produce and preserve them.

The catholic did not “produce the scriptures” but were used by God to be given to the people.

Well, both things are true. The Holy Spirit inspired Catholics to write what God taught, so they did. It was written for those who were in union with the Apostles, and by ordination, their successors the bishops. Interpreting these books apart from the bishops is a misuse of them.

It is false to say that the catholic church alone has the authority to interpret the scriptures. No such authority was ever given to the church. Secondly, if what you say is true, does that mean protestants can never interpret them correctly?

Jesus gave the authority to the 12, and they passed it on through ordination. There is an unbroken line of apostolic succession.

No, I am not saying that others’ cannot interpret them correctly, but Jesus stated clearly that, when there was a dispute, it was to be taken to the church, and that those who refused to listen to the ruling of the church should be treated as unbelievers.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I spoke with a Jewish friend of mine regarding assumption of persons. Apparently, according to Jewish tradition, 10 OT persons were assumed into Heaven- 4 of which were female, and one was not even Jewish! (I will provide a list tomorrow)

So, there is already a president (did I spell that right, it’s so late!) in place regarding the assumption of those who do the will of God (Moses, Elijah, etc…)

So wouldn’t it stand to reason, then, that the woman who gave birth to God’s own son would also be rewarded with assumption?

 

[guanophore]

Hello Again,
No, I’m not **implying it **I’m stating it **as a fact **that those who trust in Christ, who are born from above via the Holy Spirit, belong to none other than Jesus Himself, the True Vine. If either you or anyone else implies something different then let the reader judge for themselves whether it is better to trust and believe the Words of Jesus Himself or those of mere mortal men.

Jesus, LORD of Glory, Kings of Kings, circa. ETERNAL] **
He who WAS, IS, and IS TO COME says this:
**

In Christ, pat

I thought you would say that. However, since Our Lord only founded One Church, and only has One Body, then by definition, all those who are grafted into Him are a part of it.

Betcha didn’t know you were Catholic, didja?

 

[guanophore]

Actually that’s incorrect the conceptual idea that there was “a queen of heaven” originated years before the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians.

Not that Mary does not have great honor as the Mother of our Lord, but nowhere is there a Biblical basis or an early church Father that calls her the “queen of heaven”, as you say.

I was not speaking of the pagan reference to the goddess, but to the Christian use of the term for Mary as the Queen of Heaven. That reference is based in the image in the book of Revelation. I have never advocated that the image has a single reference. It seems plain to me that it could be interpreted as Israel, or the Church, for that matter.

 

[onenow1]

HI, Bible_ Student
My brother in Christ, you seem to be bothered by catholic teaching on Mary; I’m hoping that I can possibly help you with some of my thoughts, so you may further your education on the
subject, with more research in traditions.

Here’s an assumption of mine. [no pun intended]Jesus will return at the end time,presumably in his risen body, for we all will see his glory. Now do you think its possible he will have his mother along with him ?

If indeed she is, I think we can presume Queen Mother would be her title according to Jewish tradition. As an end note must I remind you of the verses on Mary, that most sincere catholics adhere to, for nearly 2000 years.Mary the perfect creation of God as once Eve was a pure soul spotless.

Peace, OneNow1

Luke
46 And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, ]
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed;

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

guanophore;2647646]We already have, and you have rejected them. One is that Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, where she dwells with her divine Son.

You should also reject this since there is not one shred of evidence for this in scripture and history.

Another is that the Bible is not the sole souce of revelation about faith and morals. The church is the final authority and arbiter of disagreements.

Are you saying that your church receives revelations from God? If so, should not these revelations be included in the Scriptures themselves since they are on par with Scripture?

Indeed, Catholics make a great many claims that are not grounded in scripture. In fact, the entire Catholic faith exists before the grounding of scripture.

This is not true. The OT predates the catholic church and for another there is no pope in the NT. No supreme leader like the pope.

The Catholic Church produced the scripture,

What do you mean by this?

and scripture reflects the Catholic faith,

This is not entirely true. There is much in catholic doctrine that is not in scripture. Mary’s assumption is one such example.

but the truths about the Teachings of Jesus predated all the New Testament, and existed completely without it for decades prior to a word of it being witten.

Let’s asume you are correct. What follows from this?

It is refreshing to hear you admit that you have never studied the Sacred Tradition. Hopefully this will change.

I don’t know any catholics either. You may be the first. Where can i find a list of all the Sacred Traditions so i can study them?

I agree, it takes more than just saying. It takes a consistent 2000 years of practice and adherance to those Apostolic Teachings to demonstrate that Jesus preserved His Teachings as He promised he would.

Since the Bible came from the Church, and not the Church from the Bible,

This is not correct in the sense that the scriptures have their source in God Himself. That is why they are inspired-inerrant.

it is difficult for the Sola Scriptura individual to understand any of the teachings of Jesus from the Bible.

Why do you say this?

the Bible was never intended to be separated from the Source that produced it.

If that source is God then i agree. If you think its your church i don’t for the mere fact is made up of fallen men who have taught falsely on a number of doctrines.

Not at all! For example, where in the Gospel’s does it say “it is better to give than receive”? Yet we believe without question that this is one of His sayings, preserved orally, but not in the gospel accounts.

See Acts 20:35. That to is part of the scriptures. How about something not recorded in the scriptures?

Catholicism is different in structure than other faith communities. We believe that our shepherds are appointed by God, and that we are to be taught by them, and submit to their authority as God has directed.

So do protestants.

It is not the place of the disciple to refuse the teachings of the Master from the mouths He has ordained to teach it.

What do you do when you have a false teacher in your midst that has been “appointed” by God?

Furthermore, we know we are not limited to scripture, realizing it is only part of the divine deposit of faith. It is not a concern that some matters of our faith (the Trinity, for example) cannot be found in scripture.

Huh??? The Trinity doctrine is well grounded in the scriptures. It is there that we find it.

We know that these are the Apostolic Teachings that have been handed down to us.

All Apostolic Teachings are found in the scriptures. Apostolic teachings can only come from the apostles themselves and nowhere else.

Additionally, no one should intepret the scriptures separately from the Divine Authority appointed to produce and preserve them.

That is not found in scripture.

Well, both things are true. The Holy Spirit inspired Catholics to write what God taught, so they did. It was written for those who were in union with the Apostles, and by ordination, their successors the bishops. Interpreting these books apart from the bishops is a misuse of them.

If this were true then you would have to say all teachers and scholars in protestant churches have never ever interpreted the scriptures correctly. Would you agree with this?

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

Jesus gave the authority to the 12, and they passed it on through ordination. There is an unbroken line of apostolic succession.

There is mention of apostolic succession in the scriptures in the way that the catholic church uses the term. There are no more apostles.

No, I am not saying that others’ cannot interpret them correctly, but Jesus stated clearly that, when there was a dispute, it was to be taken to the church, and that those who refused to listen to the ruling of the church should be treated as unbelievers.

This has nothing to do with understanding what a verse means. What you are referring to has to do with church discipline.

 

[Church_Militant]

Part 2

There is mention of apostolic succession in the scriptures in the way that the catholic church uses the term. There are no more apostles.

JA4, can you show me in the New Testament where it says that there will cease to be apostles?

I’ll have to disagree with you based on the following scriptures.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors,

Luke 11:49 For this cause also the wisdom of God said: I will send to them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will kill and persecute.

1st Corinthians 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

Acts Of Apostles 1:26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

This has nothing to do with understanding what a verse means. What you are referring to has to do with church discipline.

Actually…Church discipline doesn’t even refer to just the apostles…Our Lord tells us in Matthew 18, to “tell it to the church”, right?

Still, I see nothing I scripture that indicates an end to apostles in the church? If you do please share it with me, okay?
CM

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;2651593] JA4, can you show me in the New Testament where it says that there will cease to be apostles?
There are a couple of questions we need to answer first:
1- What is an apostle?
He is one sent directly by Christ as with Paul or #2

2-What were the requirements of an apostle.
See Acts 1:21-22.

Both of these requirements cannot be fulfilled today.

1. There is no such office for the church today. Rather they were a unique and temporary office for the NT church.
   Also, i’m not aware of any church fathers referring to themselves as apostles. Are you?

I’ll have to disagree with you based on the following scriptures.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors,

Apostles as used here is a reference to the apostles of Christ who fulfilled the qualifications above and used by Christ to lay the foundation of the church and to receive revelation from Christ and to confim the message with signs and wonders. These other offices mentioned were for those who were qualified in a different way. See I and 2 Timothy.

Luke 11:49 For this cause also the wisdom of God said: I will send to them prophets and apostles; and some of them they will kill and persecute.

This was true during the NT period but not for today because of the requirements mentioned above.

1st Corinthians 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.

Acts Of Apostles 1:26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Actually…Church discipline doesn’t even refer to just the apostles…Our Lord tells us in Matthew 18, to “tell it to the church”, right?

Still, I see nothing I scripture that indicates an end to apostles in the church? If you do please share it with me, okay?
CM

When Paul describes the structure and qualifications for church leadership in I Timothy 3:1-13 he never mentions any thing about an apostle. Once the church is established and the apostles have done their work, they are no longer necessary. No one after John died has the authority of an apostle.

 

[RobHom]

Part 1

You should also reject this since there is not one shred of evidence for this in scripture and history.

Your opinion again? As to history…can you prove that? No, I didn’t think so. But the Catholic Church already has… No, I won’t post the links again…go do your required reading.

Are you saying that your church receives revelations from God? If so, should not these revelations be included in the Scriptures themselves since they are on par with Scripture?

Yes, but your second question is very obtuse. Besides… you know quite well if the Catholic Church was to add something to scriptures it would just give you something else to whine and complain about…right?

This is not true. The OT predates the catholic church and for another there is no pope in the NT. No supreme leader like the pope.

You got one right…the thing about the OT predating the Catholic Church, but the Jews always had “supreme leaders”…I guess you missed reading those books. Who were Abraham, Moses, King David and others? Just Jewish dudes?

There is much in catholic doctrine that is not in scripture. Mary’s assumption is one such example.

You finally got one more right. Its called “dogma”…and it was decided by Holy Men…far better educated as to the scriptures and holy writings than thee or me…so get over it.

I don’t know any catholics either.

A true shortcoming. Maybe going to a Catholic Church with an “open mind” and learning about our beliefs will answer some of your questions. It would be enlightening…and there is no obligation to join or buy a ticket to get in the door.

You may be the first. Where can i find a list of all the Sacred Traditions so i can study them?

The New Advent site I gave you links to several times is a good place to do your searches.

This is not correct in the sense that the scriptures have their source in God Himself. That is why they are inspired-inerrant

As are other writings…even though they were not included in the canon of the bible as it was established by the Catholic Church.

If that source is God then i agree. If you think its your church i don’t for the mere fact is made up of fallen men who have taught falsely on a number of doctrines.

Thats a kind of a brash statement coming from someone purporting to be a christian…judging others by your standard which may actually be far less valid and illegitimate. It might do you well to remember Christ’s admonition not to “judge”, since your judgements are not based on liturgical fact or full knowledge of the truth in facts.

See Acts 20:35. That to is part of the scriptures. How about something not recorded in the scriptures?

And that is precisely what we have tried to do…but you refuse to receive what is given freely.

What do you do when you have a false teacher in your midst that has been “appointed” by God?

Get rid of them…and apparently far quicker than some protestant denominations…

The Trinity doctrine is well grounded in the scriptures. It is there that we find it.

In what verse or verses in the bible does the word “Trinity” appear?

All Apostolic Teachings are found in the scriptures. Apostolic teachings can only come from the apostles themselves and nowhere else.

Maybe, maybe not…thats a matter of opinion.

If this were true then you would have to say all teachers and scholars in protestant churches have never ever interpreted the scriptures correctly. Would you agree with this?

I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say probably not all, but certainly “many” have and do interpret scriptures incorrectly, and in fact in my humble opinion…are not christians at all.

 

[RobHom]

Part 2

There is mention of apostolic succession in the scriptures in the way that the catholic church uses the term. There are no more apostles.

Again, thats your opinion. Our opinion is as you know quite the opposite, and thank you…we’ll stick with ours. Shucks, y’all can’t even figure out the correct interpretation of the scripture where Christ commissioned Peter to lead the Church.

This has nothing to do with understanding what a verse means. What you are referring to has to do with church discipline.

Wrong. It has everything to do with it. I realize that you are probably one of those people who is naive enough to believe anyone…(.and note the word “anyone” is an “absolute”) so that means that according to your standard…a person with an IQ and reading skills at less than 1st grade can “interpret” scripture.
Hardly is that the case. You know it as well as we do. Having a final arbiter is not “church discipline”…its just plain smart!
And the fact that you disagree with Christ’s instructions to take it to the Church is further proof of your propensity to embrace a burger king type of religion or theology. You cannot have it your way…and still expect to make it to Heaven. Thats not how it works. Sorry.