C
Cruxis117
Guest
Well, stating that Mary is the Mother of Jesus doesn’t exactly elaborate on why Jesus is important in the first place. Whereas stating that Mary is the Mother of God, that kind of just…explains itself.
- Status
C
Cruxis117
Guest
ToucheNo, I wouldn’t call Jesus a prophet or a teacher. That would be as inadequate as calling the ocean “wet”.
E
ERose
Guest
Are you saying that Jesus isn’t God?
Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is God
Thus Mary is the mother of God
To deny that Mary is the mother of God is to deny that Jesus is God.
J
Janet1983
Guest
I never denied that Jesus Christ is God.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Schaick…
Show me where scripture identifies these oral traditions and reveals to me (in the bible) - that all of these oral traditions were eventually committed to scripture and I will reject sacred tradition as well!
Apostolic tradition which is just as important as apostolic scripture: 1 Cor. 11:2/2Thess. 2:15/2Thess. 3:16 - Man made (pharisaic) - tradition which is to be ignored: Matthew 15:2/Mark 7:5
Historical fact: the individual books of the inspired word of God existed alongside spurious books (for hundreds of years) - which were also considered to be the inspired word of God in certain parts. Books like Hebrews two of John’s books one of Peter’s books, Revelation, James and Jude were not always considered inspired in certain parts, while some books not found in our bible today, were considered inspired in certain parts. I was quite surprised to learn this. In the end, who officially determined what would be included and what would not be included,at a time when the certainty, regarding the inspired word of God was NOT firmly established, ergo the need to officially canonize sacred scripture? It was the CC, centuries after the apostles lived. Why can I trust that the CC got it right about the correct inclusion and the correct exclusion, regarding sacred scripture? Perhaps, because the Holy Spirit is forever guiding the CC into all truth. If the CC has corrupted truth, eg Marian dogmas, purgatory… then who is to say that the CC didn’t corrupt the inspired word of God? They certainly were in a position of authority for a very long time, to remove inspired books and include their own spurious books, but no one ever suggests that as being even remotely possible. Why is that? They simply believe that it was impossible for the CC to tamper with the inspired word of God, due to the ever presence of the Holy Spirit, but have no problem at all, believing that the HS abandoned the CC when it comes to other teachings that were fleshed out as time progressed (just as was the case with scripture) - such as the teachings of the mother of God. That makes no sense to me. We can either trust the CC or we cannot trust the CC; we can’t have it both ways in my opinion.
Firstly, Paul’s letters served a particular purpose at a time when apostasy was rearing its ugly head in the churches he established. Secondly, I am sure Paul was more concerned with the teachings of Jesus as opposed to Marian dogmas, when faced with heretical movements from within the church. Does that mean that Paul would have rejected the notion that Jesus’ mother was a perpetual virgin or immaculately conceived, etc? Just show me where the Marian dogmas are rejected and I will reject them? Catholics believe that the word of God is comprised of sacred tradition and sacred scripture, so, even if it’s not found in scripture, that certainly doesn’t mean that these Marian dogmas couldn’t have been preserved via sacred tradition. I of course certainly respect your choice to reject sacred tradition. Paul says that tradition is just as important, be it by word of mouth or letter, and nowhere does scripture identify these oral traditions or tell me that all of these oral traditions were eventually committed to scripture, even though that is the general consensus among non-Catholics. By claiming such a thing sola scriptura advocates are breaking their own rules.
Show me where scripture identifies these oral traditions and reveals to me (in the bible) - that all of these oral traditions were eventually committed to scripture and I will reject sacred tradition as well!Apostolic tradition which is just as important as apostolic scripture: 1 Cor. 11:2/2Thess. 2:15/2Thess. 3:16 - Man made (pharisaic) - tradition which is to be ignored: Matthew 15:2/Mark 7:5
P
PRmerger
Guest
Exactly!
Paraphrasing apologist Mark Shea: Schaick has the mysterious conviction that he can reject the priesthood, reject the Eucharist, “burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.”
K
KathleenGee
Guest
PRMerger, that fellow, M.S., doesn’t understand what sacrilege and blasphemy is…
I just posted on another thread that the Orthodox circles are now finally coming to the table about reuniting with the Latin rite…when that happens and our combined traditions synthesized and articulated, it will cause a restoration of Christian unity…I think the USA will be among the last places, however, because we are so independent and do our own thing.
The protestants still retain a substantial number of doctrines, but as they are not participating in the communion of saints, they will not understand anything about Mary from a Catholic position.
I just posted on another thread that the Orthodox circles are now finally coming to the table about reuniting with the Latin rite…when that happens and our combined traditions synthesized and articulated, it will cause a restoration of Christian unity…I think the USA will be among the last places, however, because we are so independent and do our own thing.
The protestants still retain a substantial number of doctrines, but as they are not participating in the communion of saints, they will not understand anything about Mary from a Catholic position.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Clarify…to want to destroy the altar, the sacred vessels and vestments, the priesthood…this was apparent last year during Holy Week when there was a great movement to destroy any credibility of the Catholic Church.
But in response to Patrick’s remarks, the more I read the ongoing objections people have to the Catholic Church…apparent from the sources of their own indoctrination, the more I believe and have peace that the Catholic Church, as Michael Shea stated …inspite of faulty members who give scandal…the chaff always with the wheat…the more opposition convinces me of our Church’s truth.
But in response to Patrick’s remarks, the more I read the ongoing objections people have to the Catholic Church…apparent from the sources of their own indoctrination, the more I believe and have peace that the Catholic Church, as Michael Shea stated …inspite of faulty members who give scandal…the chaff always with the wheat…the more opposition convinces me of our Church’s truth.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’m not following you. Mark Shea is a Catholic apologist who I am certain understands sacrilege and blasphemy.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Yes, Michael Shea is what you say, PRmerger…I was going to edit my post but it timed out.
There is an article today on Catholic Online, that has an article written by Cardinal George, ‘The Nature of the Sacraments and Holy Orders’…and makes general comments about the priesthood as a sacrament and the nature of the Church…
We are not a man-made church, but that of Jesus Christ…‘the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not an order of rights but …the reality of gift…’, touching on those who make public protest to force change on the Church, which it cannot…as well as reference to those who teach in error…
www.Catholiconline.com/national_story.php?id=38679
There is an article today on Catholic Online, that has an article written by Cardinal George, ‘The Nature of the Sacraments and Holy Orders’…and makes general comments about the priesthood as a sacrament and the nature of the Church…
We are not a man-made church, but that of Jesus Christ…‘the Sacrament of Holy Orders is not an order of rights but …the reality of gift…’, touching on those who make public protest to force change on the Church, which it cannot…as well as reference to those who teach in error…
www.Catholiconline.com/national_story.php?id=38679
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes. The legacy of our country is founded upon rebellion against authority, specifically, religious authority. The fierce rebellion against authority that forms the basis of our constitution also suggests that every person has the right to obtain “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. This being the case, Christian unity is inherently individualzed, and therefore, an uphill battle.
All those who are baptized into Christ participate in the communion of saints, whether they know it, or not.
Most of our separated brethren (liturgical communities) have indeed retained the faith in the communion of saints. Our Anglican brethren, for example, highly esteem Mary and her role, pray the Rosary, and include her in the liturgy, just as do many Lutherans. Luther, for example, prayed his Rosary daily up to his death.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am not sure what you are talking about here with the destruction of those things considered too “Catholic”. However, if we look in the OT we see Israel ravaged by her enemies, the sacred vestments, furnishings, and vessels desecrated and stolen. This is not a new activity for the enemies of God.
During the Reformation, Zwingly had a strong adverse reaction to all these “trappings of Papists” and purged any and all from the Church that would reach the faithful through the senses. The Swiss Reformed Church became quite stark and empty. It was out of this tradition to look within that the Quaker movement drew the practice of waiting upon the Lord by looking within.
S
schaick
Guest
We know the nature of Jesus, the nature of GOD through Scripture- we can verify statements of faith, the trinity doctrine, etc.
The Mary Dogmas are about Mary- not the nature of Jesus. It is an attempt to try and explain how Jesus could be the son of the Virgin Mary a human sinner.
Many atheists, pagans and even Muslim do believe that Catholics think Mary is divine because of the Mary Dogmas.
Why is my simple question not being answered? Why is it being twisted, reverse or diverted?
The burden of proof is on the Catholic Church- it is this branch of the universal Church that has developed the Dogmas and Doctrines.
I am accused of attacking the Catholic Church saying that I am breaking altars, ripping vestments? My Church uses vestments, we have an altar. I believe in the Real Presence- not all Catholics do. I believe in the Creeds that are supported by Scripture.
I ask for verses that support the same idea of Scripture being as important as Scripture as in:
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I have seen 2 Thessalonians 2 used to equate Scripture and Tradition.
If you read the verse in context of the chapter you see that the tradition or teaching is about the second coming of Jesus, holding to the truth of the Gospel.
Wouldn’t it be confusing to receive a letter saying simply hold onto the teachings and not list the teachings Paul meant? That isn’t the case- we know what teachings/traditions Paul is referring to by reading the Chapter or entire Epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2
1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers,
13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3
6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.
14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him.
The term universal Church:
We can see where the term universal Church was first used by Ignatius of Antioch around 106AD. The term is supported with Scripture, but also supported is the thought of a local Church. All the pop-el called out one in faith, yet governed locally.
**Can anyone prove that Paul, the Disciples, Apostles believed in what Catholics call the developed Doctrines and Dogmas about Mary, the Pope, Infallibility, etc.?
Can anyone show the chain of transmission of this knowledge?**
The Mary Dogmas are about Mary- not the nature of Jesus. It is an attempt to try and explain how Jesus could be the son of the Virgin Mary a human sinner.
Many atheists, pagans and even Muslim do believe that Catholics think Mary is divine because of the Mary Dogmas.
Why is my simple question not being answered? Why is it being twisted, reverse or diverted?
The burden of proof is on the Catholic Church- it is this branch of the universal Church that has developed the Dogmas and Doctrines.
I am accused of attacking the Catholic Church saying that I am breaking altars, ripping vestments? My Church uses vestments, we have an altar. I believe in the Real Presence- not all Catholics do. I believe in the Creeds that are supported by Scripture.
I ask for verses that support the same idea of Scripture being as important as Scripture as in:
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I have seen 2 Thessalonians 2 used to equate Scripture and Tradition.
If you read the verse in context of the chapter you see that the tradition or teaching is about the second coming of Jesus, holding to the truth of the Gospel.
Wouldn’t it be confusing to receive a letter saying simply hold onto the teachings and not list the teachings Paul meant? That isn’t the case- we know what teachings/traditions Paul is referring to by reading the Chapter or entire Epistle.
2 Thessalonians 2
1Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers,
13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thessalonians 3
6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.
14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him.
The term universal Church:
We can see where the term universal Church was first used by Ignatius of Antioch around 106AD. The term is supported with Scripture, but also supported is the thought of a local Church. All the pop-el called out one in faith, yet governed locally.
**Can anyone prove that Paul, the Disciples, Apostles believed in what Catholics call the developed Doctrines and Dogmas about Mary, the Pope, Infallibility, etc.?
Can anyone show the chain of transmission of this knowledge?**
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, yes and no. Yes the Holy Scriptures reflect the Catholic faith about the nature of God, and to the extent you understand them as Catholics do, then you do know the nature of God. However, many people read those same scriptures and come to conclusions about the nature of God that is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.
No, schaick. When you are willing to study how the Marian doctrines were developed, you will realize that this is no true. The Marian doctrines are corollaries that came from the development of doctrine about Christ. In no case are they an attemp to explain how Jesus was the “son of a human sinner”. The Church never considered Mary a sinner. On the contrary, she has been described since the beginning with the title the Angel used to greet her “Full of Grace”. When a person is full of grace, there is no room to be “a sinner”. She is called Theotokos, and “All Holy”.
Yes. I think there are more people that misunderstand Catholicism than there are people that understand it. Unfortunately, many of them are also catholics!
The question is based upon erroneous presuppositions. It would not be appropriate to accept those.
I must have missed that post.
I am glad to hear that you have retained some of the Sacred Tradition. There are many of our separated brethren that consider these elements of the faith to be wrong.
And I gave you scriptures that demonstrate that teh duty of teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness belong to the Church. You refuse to accept this. That is your perogative.
This is how the early Christians understood the Apostolic commandment. The Word of God came to them both orally/in person, as well as in writing. They respected that both came from the same Source,a nd were equal in validity and authority.
Yes. Sacred Tradtition is one of the ways we hld to the truth of the Gospel. We are not allowed to accept any other Gospel than the one that was delivered to us by the Apostles.
No. They received His Teaching as the Word of God when it was delivered to them. They did not need a 'LIST".
Some of them are certainly evident. Some are not.
G
guanophore
Guest
Where do you justify, in reading this, that the faith ful should stop holding firm to the teachings after some of them were written?
Where do you find in here that all the “teachings received from us” were written in the letter, or anywhere else?
Yes. One Church. One Faith. One Body, the same all over the world. Not differences of doctrine or divisions and schisms where some parts of the Apostolic faith is rejected.
No. these doctrines, like the canon of scripture, were not developed for some centuries after the Apostles had gone to their heavenly reward.
Not to you. It is like you are standing in the noon day sun, demanding proof for the stars, which you insist are not there, because you cannot see them.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Be assured that you are accused of a metaphorical breaking of altars and ripping of vestments.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Schaick…
Continued…
If so then why do so many people deny that Mary gave birth to God, as can be attested here on this thread?
To me, Mary’s perpetual virginity shows that Mary was consecrated to God alone, by devoting all of her time to Jesus only. The IC shows that God would not become one with sinful flesh. I believe in her perpetual virginity and IC because I trust the interpretation/teachings of the church founded by Jesus, forever guided by the HS into all truth, more than I trust my own interpretation of the bible alone, for the simple fact that the HS was not sent to me on Pentecost.
So what! Many protestants, such as my sister, believe that catholics worship Mary, which is so silly, but that doesn’t make it true.
It’s rea simple Schaick. If you continue to reject sacred tradition there is really nothing any catholic can say to convince you that Mary was a perpetual virgin and had no other children. What you want is for someone to show you where the bible says that Mary was the IC or that Mary had no other children. It’s not gonna happen, because the bible nowhere says that. Jesus gave us a teaching church and Jesus gave His church the holy spirit to guide His church into all truth. He didn’t just give the world a collection of books to be interpreted individually.
Continued…
J
joe370
Guest
You don’t seem to be attacking the CC per se. However, you so seem to be saying that the CC made stuff up. I wonder what the CC has to to gain by insisting that Mary had no other children or that Mary was conceived immaculately? What’s the hidden agenda?
Schaick, if scripture is the Christians final authority, as opposed to you, me or any one church, then truth regarding the real presence can never really be known. Some insist that you are wrong about the real presence, and you in turn simply defer to scripture to prove that they are wrong, and they in turn do the same etc etc. Who is right and who is wrong? Who knows, if scripture via individual interpretation is the Christians final authority, and you seem to be okay with not knowing, with any certainty, who is right and who is wrong. I decided to put my faith and trust in the church established by Jesus. Like you, I too had a bevy of doubts but I knew that I didn’t have the answers to my questions, nor did any of the PC’s for none of these churches were founded by Jesus and none of these churches claimed to teach infallibly, which meant that these churches really didn’t have the answers to my questions either, which left me with one choice.Schaick, please identify all scripture? Ignore the table of contents for that was put there by the CC. Prior to the CC identifying all scripture, all scripture looked a lot different.
But Paul does not confine the gospel (good news) - to the written word:
2 Th 3:6 Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.
So, there is no chance that Paul, via word of mouth, taught something that is not found in our bible today, but was still passed down through the church via tradition? Interesting perspective, however, that idea is not biblical. The bible says that all scripture is inspired. The bible does NOT say that ONLY scripture is inspired - right Schaick? The bible does say that the church is inspired due to the fact that the holy spirit is forever guiding the church. Which church??? No one has ever answered that question. They simply respond by saying the CC can’t teach infallibly because her members are all fallible, which ignores my question and the fact that the HS, Who is infallible, is guiding these fallible folks until the end of time, according to scripture.
I agree. Too bad the called out, all belong to isolated local churches. I don’t think that is the universal church Jesus had in mind.
Schaick, nowhere in the bible does the bible expound on the concept of developed doctrine, even though the bible itself is developed doctrine. Nowhere does the bible tell us that Mary was a perpetual virgin or immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven, bodily. Nowhere in the bible does the bible tell us that the pope is infallible, nor should it, for the pope is a mere man, not God, and therefore is NOT infallible. As long as you reject the teachings of the CC via sacred scripture and sacred tradition, no one will ever be able to convince you that Mary was immaculately conceived, or that Mary had no other children. As long as you reject the notion that Jesus founded the CC and therefore the CC is not being guided by the HS into all truth, as opposed to partial truth, no doubt you will continue to reject some of the teachings of the CC, that are not explicitly spelled out in scripture, and that is certainly your right.
The chain of transmission, for me, is sacred scripture and sacred tradition via the church founded by Jesus circa AD 33. However, for you, the chain of transmission appears to be sacred scripture via your interpretation of sacred scripture. By whose authority do you interpret and teach? Like I said before, I know that I was not endowed, by God, with the authority to teach, outside the church that was endowed with said authority.
E
ERose
Guest
Ok so if Jesus is God which we both agree then His mother must be the Mother of God. The truth that alot of people do not see about the Marian teachings is that they are response to attacks on Jesus and affirming these teachings about Mary is a result of protecting teachings about our Lord. For instance the teaching of Mary being the Mother of God is a defense of the true incarnation of the Son of God (being fully God and fully man). If Jesus is both God and man then Mary must be viewed as the Mother of God because Jesus is God.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Yes, Jesus is both God and man. Let me therefore repeat what I said while changing it to where it will mean what I wanted to say. I will add comments in brackets:
My intentions behind this logic go to show why I do not call her the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, that is true. Jesus Christ is God.
However, she is not the mother of God the Father or of God the Holy Spirit.
Therefore I will not actively call her the mother of God as I do not wish to be a stumbling block for anybody who might then assume that she was the mother of the Trinity.
I (and I am only speaking for myself) will therefore refrain from using such vocabulary. I will instead point to Him who is my Saviour, my Deliverer, my King, my Master, my Lord and my God: Jesus Christ.
- Status