The only apostolic writings are the Scriptures. There is no other. Now we both know that they never mention Mary’s assumption nor even hint at such a thing.
Not so. I’m trying to hold catholics to what the Scriptures teach.The pit that you are falling into are doctrines that are of men and not God.
Could you be a little more specific? Who was it that determined the Bible canon at Carthage: was it the Catholic Church or the original Christian church? If it was the earlier, why do you accept the false Bible? If it was the later, could you prove it?
Interesting, I just listed four passages where the word “priest” is used. But I have a question: if there was no office in the Church, does that mean that the apostles had the same authority the laypeople did? Who are the “elders” that James refers to in James 5:14-15?
I’m aware of this. Clergical celibacy was a practice introduced in the 7th century. It’s not mandatory, though; it’s a discipline. You’ll occassionally find a married priest, especially if he’s an Anglican or Eastern Orthodox convert.
The darndest thing, I can’t find Sola scriptura or Sola fide in any part of the Bible or any writings of the Church Fathers, but I do read about the primacy of Peter, the authority of the Church and the Real Presence.
… thus, Peter held the authority of Heaven, and since Peter was a member of the Church, the Church therefore held the authority of Heaven. This isn’t a Biblical argument, this is a logical following.
2 Thessalonians doesn’t say “only hold to the writings we have given you,” it says “hold unto the writings AND TRADITIONS.” Although it wasn’t recorded until a little bit later, things like the Sign of the Cross and Assumption were clearly held by the apostles.
Apostolic Traditions? Yes.
So?
Psalm 131:8. “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.”
That’s a shame. The apostles clearly used Judith to write the New Testament, why isn’t it in your Bible?
Yes, Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant.
Yes! Luke made a distinct connection.
Eyewitnesses, no. Though it was clearly held by the Early Church, which is what you’re disputing.
Yes, at ecunemical councils (such as in Acts 15) and when the Pope invokes Papal infallibility.
Your citations were bunk since you’re wrong, they don’t contradict Church teaching.
The Septuagint reads, “They shall construct an ark of INCORRUPTIBLE wood.” The apostles used the Septuagint (LXX) to write the New Testament. Mary is incorruptible, i.e. sinless.
The writer of this post is showing a lack of knowledge of the early church.
The above quote is completely wrong. Typical non-/anti-Catholic belief.
Riiiiiight…I think you have that backwards in a big way.
. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.Not so…as I pointed out they held the same Eucharistic teachings that we do today…do you?
Wrote as follows: CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
Was infant baptized and speaks of it here: CHAPTER 9
Says as follows about the Eucharist and proves that the Early Church did not practice an “open communion”. Chapter 9.—The Thanksgiving (Eucharist)
Why? Because they are the tradition. And yet they all teach Catholic doctrines that you do not hold. You tell me that you find validation in indicting Catholic belief in their writings when they indict the errant modern post reformation errant doctrines all over the place.
Typical a-C historical revisionism and inaccuracy presented as truth when the simple historical facts refute you.
This is just rhetorical propaganda which has no basis in fact. It cannot be substantiated from actual history and worse still its proponents deny the very doctrines that the ECF taught as I have exemplified above.
I’m sorry but there is more than ample scripture that supports the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin. This statement is wishful thinking at best and an outright misstatement at worst.
Right… and so on what Bible passage did they base this supposed Sola Scriptura? You cannot provide one because it does not exist.
Well said. Old Scholar sure have his/her facts incorrectly. I think when the poster said, Roman Catholic Church came into being in the 5th centuryRight… and so on what Bible passage did they base this supposed Sola Scriptura? You cannot provide one because it does not exist.
The Bible could not be “the ultimate authority for the Church of the early church” because it was by the early church’s own authority that they decided what was inspired and set the canon of scripture to begin with.
Moreover, the New Testament outright tells us that the church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1st Timothy 3:15) and then St. Paul further tell us to “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15)
Notice if you will that nowhere does St. Paul say that that study should be limited to the scriptures.
If the early Church Fathers believed that all traditional doctrines had to conform with Scripture or else be rejected, then how could they have believed in and taught the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, since it is supposed to be unscriptural according to your opinion? Could it be they taught this doctrine because they considered it scriptural? By your line of reasoning, they must have. :yup: Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Basil, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine all leave us writings with respect to the perpetual virginity of Mary before the “Roman” Catholic Church was supposed to have begun in the fifth century. It looks like the Catholic Church had already existed long before then. Tertullian wrote about this doctrine in A.D. 213, long before the canon of Scripture in the late fourth century, at a time the Church Fathers had even referred to the Protoevangelium of James, an apochryphal work, from which they were traditionally inspired to treat the Virgin Mary in their writings. The principle of sola scriptura as it is embraced to today by modern Protestants could not have existed at a time when apochryphal works were still appealed to. And who was it that eventually decided which texts were divinely inspired and which were not other than the Catholic Church in Council under the Bishop of Rome (St.Peter’s successor) before the fifth century?
In the hope of getting back on topic did Jesus truly give the church to pronounce doctrines not taught in Scripture based in part on the passages in Matthew?
Are you saying that Romans 5:12 is a false statement about all of mankind?
Yes. However He was unique in His conception and birth that resulted in Him not inheriting the sin of Adam.
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom.” {Mt16,19}
There is not one shred of support from the scriptures to support your claim about Mary. Not one writer of the NT ever comes close to making this claim. Secondly, there no one for centuries who ever claimed this either.
Eph is usually Biblical typology. There are types in OT that prefigured those revealed in the New Testament. One example is that Jesus is consider as the New Adam.
This passage in Revelation clearly invokes the words of the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah 7:14 states:
That’s all well and good JA4, but when 99.99% of Protestants use this quote to declare Mary sinful, Original Sin is not in the picture. They declare that “All have sinned” means that all have sinned on their own recognizance. Original Sin has nothing to do with this. I don’t want to allow you to use part of our doctrine to cement up the holes in your doctrine.
(While overlooking the fact that Mary was also conceived sinless, since it’s not germane to this part of the argument…)
My response at this point would apply to why the catholic church baptizes babies. There are sinners (even though they have not sinned in deed) because of the sin of Adam which they inherit. This would also apply to Mary since she to is a child of Adam.
Where are getting this from 5:12?
What is the doctrine of Original sin?
Not so. Its your doctrines that are inconsistent as we are seeing with this doctrine that Mary was sinless.
You can make this claim but there is absolutely no evidence for it.
True because that is what the Scriptures clearly teach.
Not exceptions but qualifications. All men born of 2 human parents are sinners. Jesus, Adam and Eve were not created-born in this manner and so did not inherit the sin nature from Adam. Surely you are aware of these distinctions.
You already know our answer to that. But again, Protestants do not look to the doctrine of Original Sin to defend Romans 5:12. They declare that everyone sins. You state that definitively yourself when you say:
So don’t look to Original Sin to defend this. You state that Scriptures declare this, and then overlook that infants, the mentally handicapped, and Jesus are exceptions.
I’M not getting it from 5:12. Protestants that declare that everyone has sinned use 5:12 to support this. You yourself support this. And then when presented with exceptions you turn to our doctrine of Original Sin to defend it.
We are born in a fallen state, without Sanctifying Grace) Even in Baptism, which wipes away this state, we are still stained with concupiscence which is a tendency to sin.
Not so. Nothing fits together any better than Mary being
Ah, there you are wrong. The evidence is written throughout Scripture, and the Early Church Fathers clearly saw this.
This proves my point I made earlier about you and other Protestants. You don’t look at Original Sin to defend your position.
Yes, surely I am. But if you are going to cling to Romans 5:12 like a life raft, then you are stuck with 5:12. You state it clearly teaches this, but then you say “Hey, but there are qualifications”.