Hail, Holy Queen

[CentralFLJames]

Actually that is man made error indoctrinated in an effort to get people to follow the teachings of an organized denomination within the Church instead of the teachings of the Apostles as recorded in scripture. We must always be vigilant that we are not being decieved (SP) into following man made traditions like the Pharisees or the pagans.

You are again guilty of spreading calumny against the Catholic Church without any historical evidence whatsoever to back up what you are saying. State your evidence or kindly “shut up”.

The Church has always been organized under an ecclesial structure and priesthood from the very beginning. It was in fact how The Catholic Church was able to bring the bible together and distinguish it from over 300 fake heretical texts that “unorganized” heretics were attempting to pass around and invent a new cult

The scripture verses you spew here do not have anything to do with making a case against the Holy Catholic Church. In fact they must support the Catholic Church since the Bible is Catholic.

You are nothing but a typical anti-Catholic who knows nothing at all about true biblical Christianity. You can’t even come up with original material - all you can do is spew the same old polemics that Catholics have put down centuries ago. You are preaching a new gospel here - a neo-Christianity that Jesus nor any apostle would recognize.

Those lucky brethren that got to hear Paul and the other apostles sermons were able to hold those traditions they heard directly from them. For us many generations removed we hold their traditions uncorrupted as we learned them from their writings. Since we are sure that these writing hold the only authentic apostolic direction we conclude that following them is the only honest way to follow the authentic teachings and traditions of the apostles.

Please do “us” here a favor and not include “us” in your church of one when you make comments like this. The Catholic Church has directly handed down traditions for 2000 years. What you have is a new tradition and philosophies and theories handed down a mere 500 years ago from so called “reformers” who are all dead and buried. May God have mercy on them for spreading their new traditions that contradict the true Christian faith.

You are showing your complete contempt for history or else showing your utter ignorance in saying “traditions” were written down. You MUST BE KIDDING - RIGHT??? Traditions are LIVED not written down. PLEASE - go get a church history book at Amazon or someplace and learn what actually happened in the early church. There was not even a bible for about 350 years. The Bible came out of Catholic Traditions on what was held orally as the true words of the apostles and Christ. How do you think the cannon we developed - TRADITIONS. For now just go read Timothy and see where he speaks of “TRADITIONS” and things that were “TAUGHT”.

However we can discern if we have been given saving faith by grace in that we will now be a new creature and will want to build up the kingdom of God and do things that promote the glory of God. If we don’t want to do these things we can be assured that our faith is dead which means that we might believe in the existence of God but have not been given the grace to have faith in him, to trust him with our souls. So faith without works is dead. So we must not be lazy in our joy but fruitful as the Lord wishes.

Then “we” must conclude from your counter-traditional revolutionary words and strange new doctrines that you are one strange creature since you are trying to tear down what the apostles built up on the rock of Peter - The Catholic Church. But we know that is impossible since “the gates of hell will not prevail”. But you seem to imaging yourself a walking and talking wrecking ball and in trying to tear down the Church. Don’t look now but I notice that you are incompetently swinging the wrecking ball in your own direction – toward your own throne-chair inside your control cab… and to think you imagined yourself infallable.

Watch out - it sure looks like you think your polemics are a work of faith to me…

As request - please spare “us” the hobbyist private theology and bible interpretation. Catholics already have the one true apostolic teachings and traditions from 2000 years ago – so we don’t need these new wrecked ideas of yours.

James

 

[adrift]

An idol is anything you pray to that isn’t God. There is only one God. So if we worship something that isn’t Him it is idolatry.

Now define prayer.

 

[kobudodave]

Paul and the apostles preached sermons to people who heard them. They were able to be taught by word of mouth.

After the apostles deaths the only way anyone can receive apostolic teaching is by hearing or reading their writings. The apostles are no longer around to teach us anythign by word of mouth.

Paul was simply stating that what the apostles said was authoritative regardless if they wrote it or they said it.

This verse in no way means to take a sermon of the apostles and pass it on by word of mouth as tradition. Is anyone aware of any tradition that is binding on christians by apostolic authority that isn’t written down? No. All we have of the Apostles teachings is the New Testament. The RCC nor any other denomination has not any apostolic writings or directives besides the New Testament. It is the testament of the Apostles and is filled with the teachings entrusted to them by Christ and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is the entire reason the Church is apostolic.

You are making things up! Nowhere in the NT does it say that being taught by word of mouth will end with the apostles! Teaching by word of mouth is most certainly what happened, even AFTER their deaths. The letters and the Gospels were confined to certain areas, and the vast majority did not have access to them, and certainly not all of the bishops and presbyters had them either to teach by. They had the “Deposit of Faith” that was given to them by the laying on of hands, by ordaining. My friend, you need to take the Bible as an entire work, and look at the holes that you are leaving unpatched.

All we have is the NT that contains the Apostles Teachings? What of the ECF’s then? They spoke of many things that weren’t written in the NT letters. They made clarifications based on what they were taught by the Apostles and their successors.

 

[mlchance]

Actually that is man made error indoctrinated in an effort to get people to follow the teachings of an organized denomination within the Church instead of the teachings of the Apostles as recorded in scripture.

http://www.geocities.com/torisstarburst/deadhorse.gif

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[DD2007]

As request - please spare “us” the hobbyist private theology and bible interpretation. Catholics already have the one true apostolic teachings and traditions from 2000 years ago – so we don’t need these new wrecked ideas of yours.

James

I’m sorry if bible verses offend you. It says what it says. It was inspired by God. It is better to just follow it as opposed to leaning on the false crutch of the traditions of men.

Romans 1:16-18
[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
[17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

 

[Church_Militant]

Paul and the apostles preached sermons to people who heard them. They were able to be taught by word of mouth.

After the apostles deaths the only way anyone can receive apostolic teaching is by hearing or reading their writings. The apostles are no longer around to teach us anythign by word of mouth.

Paul was simply stating that what the apostles said was authoritative regardless if they wrote it or they said it.

This verse in no way means to take a sermon of the apostles and pass it on by word of mouth as tradition. Is anyone aware of any tradition that is binding on christians by apostolic authority that isn’t written down? No.

Not true DD. We have things written down by those who were direct disciples of the apostles and they not only concur with the New Testament, but do indeed pass on things that were taught by the apostles by word of mouth. Three of those are The Didache, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, and THE MARTYRDOM OF THE HOLY POLYCARP. Start there and you can then follow the rest here.

All we have of the Apostles teachings is the New Testament.

As you can see above, that is not true.

The RCC nor any other denomination has not any apostolic writings or directives besides the New Testament.

Again, as shown above that is not true.

It is the testament of the Apostles and is filled with the teachings entrusted to them by Christ and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is the entire reason the Church is apostolic.

Some people wish that was true, but that is nowehere stated in the Bible and it is not evident from the writings of the early church, which most n-Cs are woefully ignorant of and have never been exposed to.

Looka at what St. Paul told St. Timothy. (2nd Timothy 2:15) "Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. " Notice that it nowhere even infers that he should limit his studies to just the scriptures, and it is evident from careful reading of the New Testament that the other apostles did not either.
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Church_Militant]

… It is better to just follow it as opposed to leaning on the false crutch of the traditions of men.

Romans 1:16-18There you go with that a-C polemic again.

The fact is that because SS is not taught in the Bible, you have based your entire religion upon the errant modern teachings of men because their interpretation does not hold up to the simple reading of the New Testament it claims to be based upon.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that this passage that you have cited better applies to you and those who taught you these errors. It is one reason that Galatians 1:8 actually applies to those who so often seek to hang it on us Catholics.

 

[fnr]

To me, the words in “Hail Holy Queen,” “our life, our sweetness, and our hope” implies “our” longing for the humility and holiness exhibited in the life of Mary. Her words to Gabriel, "ehold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word," (Luke 1:38) spells out the humility and grace that she experienced and received simultaneously. As Catholics, we yearn to love in the same type of all-embracing way that Mary exemplifies. I, for one, fail to meet this goal on a consistent basis. Still, I keep trying.

 

[DD2007]

All we have is the NT that contains the Apostles Teachings? What of the ECF’s then? They spoke of many things that weren’t written in the NT letters. They made clarifications based on what they were taught by the Apostles and their successors.

Here is Peter showing us that his and the other apostles teachings are true because they have the prophetic gift and they witnesses Christ firsthand. He then tells us that he is going to provide a means for us to remember apostolic teaching (scripture) and says that scripture is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is not made up by man’s private interpretations of what the Spirit is leading him to write.

2 Peter 1:10-21
[10] Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;
[11] so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
[12] Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15] And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
[16] For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”
[18] we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
[19] And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

The ECF’s are good for historical study and some spiritual guidance. However they are no more authoritative than any pastor today. The writings of the Apostles were distributed at a very early time and their teaching is what the Church was built upon.

Here is what St. Jerome had to say about the New Testament books:
“I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else …” St. Jerome

Link: bible-researcher.com/jerome.html

So, in understanding that the New Testament is actually the authentic Apostolic teachings that God has preserved for our instruction today, we notice that prayers to anyone but God isn’t in there. The only time prayer to someone other than God is mentioned is when the bible is talking about idolatry.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Paul said that scripture is inspired by God so that man may be complete. The entire authoritative deposit of faith is within the contents of inspired scripture.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I’m sorry if bible verses offend you. It says what it says. It was inspired by God. It is better to just follow it as opposed to leaning on the false crutch of the traditions of men.

Romans 1:16-18
[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
[17] For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

Yes scripture is inspired. And so is apostolic scripture teaching inspired. It is you who has a new vulgar tradition of pulling out single verses of scripture and tossing them around irreverently without any context and in any place. That is showing blatant disrespect for The Word of God only for the purpose of making yourself fell like your case is relevant. That is also a sign of desperation and hubris. You take ALL the word of God together or none of the word of God.

Also, you can not divide apostolic teaching from written scripture anymore so than the Jews could divide their oral tradition from their OT writings (under pain of death by stoning to those who tried). That my friend is also blaspheming The Word of God and in OT times it was the death penalty to do so.

These verses tell us quite clearly that those who try to suppress the truth will face God’s vengeance. Catholics know that The Truth is in apostolic teaching that must go hand and hand with scripture and the one who thinks to suppress The Church from teaching The Truth through calumny is suicidal and wicked.

I recommend you change your approach - and fast.

James

 

[kobudodave]

DD, the verses in 2 Peter that you present do NOT say that the scripture is the ONLY rule of faith. I agree with you that they are for reminding us. You make things up when you say that this verse is telling us that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

Your position on the 2 Timothy passage is moot. At that time, the “Scripture” referred to the Septuagint. The Apostles REGULARLY taught Christ from the Septuagint. That was all they had. And that was what they wrote about when referring to scripture. They had no idea that their writings would turn into such.

I am sorry, but I don’t consider a few copies of the the writings of the Apostles to be “distributing” when the Christian community was growing very fast.

As for prayer, the meaning you see in the word prayer isn’t necessarily the intention of our use of the word. Did you even read my analogy to the word love?

And St. Jerome is not by himself authoritative on scripture, or on anything that pertains to doctrine. He was not free from error, and just because he makes a claim doesn’t make it 100% true. You also have made this claim already. Stick to it.

 

[DD2007]

Yes scripture is inspired. And so is apostolic scripture teaching inspired. It is you who has a new vulgar tradition of pulling out single verses of scripture and tossing them around irreverently without any context and in any place. That is showing blatant disrespect for The Word of God only for the purpose of making yourself fell like your case is relevant. That is also a sign of desperation and hubris. You take ALL the word of God together or none of the word of God.

 

[mlchance]

And St. Jerome is not by himself authoritative on scripture, or on anything that pertains to doctrine.

True, but there is the subtle irony of relying on St. Jerome – who himself had a devotion to the Blessed Virgin – to attack the idea of devotion of the Blessed Virgin.

IOW, the claim is really, “Jerome is right when I intrepret him such a way that he agrees with me. The rest of the time, he is part that ‘man made error indoctrinated in an effort to get people to follow the teachings of an organized denomination within the Church instead of the teachings of the Apostles as recorded in scripture.’”



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[DD2007]

DD, the verses in 2 Peter that you present do NOT say that the scripture is the ONLY rule of faith. I agree with you that they are for reminding us. You make things up when you say that this verse is telling us that the Bible is the sole rule of faith…

I didn’t say it did. I said it is clear that Peter is telling us he is going to provide a means for us to recollect apostolic teachings when he is gone. He then goes into how he and the apostles have the prophetic word. He then tells us that no prophecy of scripture is written by the writers own opionion but is inspired of God.

So, Peter has said that he and the apostles are going to leave us inspired scripture to remember the apostolic witness through the reading thereof.

 

[kobudodave]

I don’t understand why you keep spouting that verse then, because we all agree that was what Peter is talking about.

 

[fnr]

Here is Peter showing us that his and the other apostles teachings are true because they have the prophetic gift and they witnesses Christ firsthand. He then tells us that he is going to provide a means for us to remember apostolic teaching (scripture) and says that scripture is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is not made up by man’s private interpretations of what the Spirit is leading him to write.

The apostles were no doubt first-hand witnesses. But what about Acts 6? Acts 6 says that the number of disciples continued to grow. Acts 6 mentions how the Twelve, including Mattias who filled Judas’ “office,” ordered that “seven reputable men” be selected from among their number to be “appointed” to “serve at table”, while the Twelve dedicated themselves to “prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The Apostles laid hands on them. Acts 6 describes Stephen, one of the “seven reputable men,” working “great wonders and signs among the people,” debating challengers who “could not withstand the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke.”

Why was it that the Twelve chose the seven men to be appointed? The explanation for the choice of seven (or two or 12 or 196) isn’t in the Bible (to my knowledge, I could be wrong). Why did they lay hands on them? Was there anything special about the Apostolic laying of hands on these men, or was it just a “good luck” gesture? Also, why did the Twelve differentiate the jobs that they were going to do from those that the “seven reputable men” were going to do? Could it be that the Apostles were formalizing the positions of these seven men?

So, in understanding that the New Testament is actually the authentic Apostolic teachings that God has preserved for our instruction today, we notice that prayers to anyone but God isn’t in there. The only time prayer to someone other than God is mentioned is when the bible is talking about idolatry.

The entire authoritative deposit of faith is within the contents of inspired scripture.

Yes, but if the New Testament is all that’s required, why did the Apostles bother laying hands on seven men in the Book of Acts, rather than strongly urging them to follow their teachings?

1 Timothy 3 describes the qualifications of the office of bishop, in addition the qualifications of deacons. If the New Testamant alone is sufficient to describe the “authentic Apostolic teachings” (as in sola scriptura), why did would such a requirement be needed? Just to make sure that people who profess themselves bishops are really serious?

Further, before there was a biblical canon, how did the faithful know which letters and books were useful and not heretical?

 

[DD2007]

The apostles were no doubt first-hand witnesses. But what about Acts 6? Acts 6 says that the number of disciples continued to grow. Acts 6 mentions how the Twelve, including Mattias who filled Judas’ “office,” ordered that “seven reputable men” be selected from among their number to be “appointed” to “serve at table”, while the Twelve dedicated themselves to “prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The Apostles laid hands on them. Acts 6 describes Stephen, one of the “seven reputable men,” working “great wonders and signs among the people,” debating challengers who “could not withstand the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke.”

 

[CentralFLJames]

One takes all of the word of God to understand the fullness of truth that is complete within the scriptures…

Yes it takes ALL of the Word of God to understand the fullness of Truth. But NO! SCRIPTURE IS NOT THE FULLNESS OF TRUTH - JESUS IS THE FULL LIVING WORD OF GOD. This is where you completely invent scripture and elevate your Bible (the tithe-lite Protestant version) above Christ. NO! NEVER!

You are worshiping the Bible - Catholics worship JESUS. You are guilty of idol worshipping by trying to equate The Bible to Jesus.

One must live by every word that comes from the mouth of God - that Word is the Word Made Flesh - JESUS. You COMPLETELY MISS THE ENTIRE apostolic teaching by making the bible “complete”. The focus is JESUS. And this is why you MUST also eat of the living Word of God so that you might have eternal life (the divine body and blood of Christ through the sacrament of the mass). ALL the apostles and ALL the ECFs and ALL the early TRUE Christians ate and drank the body and blood of Christ or desired to do so spiritually (when a priest was not available due to persecution).

The Word of God thus is complete in Jesus. The Word of God is also substantially available in The Holy Eucharist (body and blood of Christ).

The Bible contains ONLY the written Word of God - things God elected to have written down. But God also spoke some things that were not to be written down since He did not want His Kingdom to be taken by thieves and spiritually blind people who could simply go down to the bookstore and buy a bible as if it was a ticket to get in on Salvation. God also gave us Sacred Tradition.

Scripture itself NOWHERE tells us it is inspired nor does scripture tell us that it is complete. For that matter scripture does not tell us what ‘constitutes’ scripture and what books belong in the bible. It is the SACRED TRADITION that tells us what is in the bible and that it is inspired and what it all means.

You can not refute this since you can find no verse that contradicts anything I have said. So please stop inventing theology and new neo-Christian teachings that no apostle EVER taught. No apostle ever saw a bible and no Christian ever saw a bible until late in the 4th century - almost 400 years AFTER the birth of Christ.
Scripture Refutes "By Scripture Alone":

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Even Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus,** Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God. **

1 Cor. 11:2 -** Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone**.

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - **Paul prefers to speak **and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive but sure make a “profit” selling protestant books on the proper way to interpret Protestant theology.

There are dozens more here:
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

[continued]

James

 

[broski234]

There is a difference between an Apostle of Christ and an apostle of the Apostle.

This shows your lack of understanding of the Jewish Tradition. Pick up any commentary on Matt 16 and Is 22 with reference to the keys and you will find out what apostolic succession means. May the scales be removed from your eyes.

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from above]

I never divided Apostolic teaching from written scripture. I said the New Testament is the only apostolic teaching we have available to us. That is true. So the New Testament and apostolic teaching are one in the same…

YOU ARE UTTERLY WRONG! The Catholic Church is the apostolic teaching - we even call ourselves The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church in our Creed. DOES ANY OTHER “CHURCH” CALL ITSELF APOSTOLIC WITH THE CREDIBILITY of 2000 years of continuous presence and teaching? NO. Protestants are not even so brash to call themselves apostolic - they would be laughed off the planet.

You are trying to teach a new gospel and utter nonsence as if you imagine yourself to be Jesus or an apostle. At this points its past invincible ignorance and squarely into the realm of naked HUBRIS guy. You no longer have an excuse and your continued spreading of these heresies and errors will not go well for you at your judgement.

There is no lie in reverencing the scriptures by saying they are true or in following the example of Christ and quoting the scriptures to show where your conclusions originate from.

The problem is YOU DON"T KNOW CHRIST except by what you imagine to know from reading a book. You are one of those kinds of people who will read some author’s book and then try to tell them what they meant. You really don’t have even a clue what you are talking about. The Catholic Church apostolic succession comes to us from men who all personally knew Christ or an apostle. You lack any experiential or familial knowledge. The Apostles were a friend of ours (The Catholic Church). We knew the apostles, You never knew anyone who knew an apostle You are no apostle - so stop pretending like you have any idea what an apostle actually taught.

Peter also gave us this instruction:
…

Peter was talking to members of The Catholic Church.

The Apostle Peter’s bones are interned under the altar at St. Peter’s in Rome. St. Peter was our first pope. The Catholic Church is his family. Peter passed on his instructions and his blessings to his replacement popes and bishops and Christ’s Church which he was given original custody over.

You are no bishop and you are no Catholic and you have no true handed down faith. What you teach is non-apostolic and utter lies and human precepts.

James