Hail Holy Queen

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2811004]Where in the Bible does it say that everything that Jesus (and by extension the apostles) ever taught, said, or did is recorded in the Bible?

Hint: It specifically says in the Bible that everything which Jesus said, taught and did with his apostles is NOT recorded in Scripture.

Your right. The scriptures do say there were other Jesus did. Now, what are these “other” things that are not in the scriptures? Can you give me a couple of examples of these “other” things?

Hint: The Bible never specifically says that all Truth and all ‘knowledge’ is ONLY to be found in the Bible. Else why would the Holy Spirit be sent to 'guide you into all truth" and why is the CHURCH (not the Bible) spoken of as the pillar and bulwark of all truth?

You are correct in stating that the Bible never says “all Truth and all ‘knowledge’ is ONLY to be found in the Bible” nor does it say it is in the catholic church either. The “you” that Jesus is referring is not the church but the disciples who would later preach the gospel of Christ and the writing of the NT.

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;2804784]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree you can write these down accurately. The problem is that even in your example you are going to have errors (since it was so long ago) and embelishments. Thats one of the main problems with the marian claims. In the NT, Mary is presented to us as a humble godly woman and yet the catholic church over the centuries has so emblished her as to now make her queen of heaven and elevated her just below the Trinity. That’s the problem.

Actually, the Catholic Church has done no more than to imitate Jesus who is the one who has honored her first. You do want to imitate Jesus, don’t you?

Not sure what you mean by imitate. Do you mean that Jesus taught that Mary was to be queen of heaven or prayed to?
If that is so, then where do i find Him teaching this?

If He didn’t teach such a thing why would you believe these things and practice them if He never did?

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;2804784]

As for embellishments, I have no problem with the fact that you have pointed this out as a concern. However, we’re not talking about a theological game of “telephone” here. We are talking about the maintenance of revelation given by God through the power of the Holy Spirit. Since EVERYONE wants to claim that the Holy Spirit leads them (indivdually) into all truth according to the words of John’s gospel, you won’t mind if I say that the promise applies most appropriately to the Church that Jesus Himself said HE (not Peter) would build, will you? And if the Holy Spirit is leading the Church, then she can certainly keep Her stories (or traditions) straight under His direction.

You have to assume that the HS has led the catholic church in these matters. How would you go about proving such a thing?
What is your method for determining truth from error from those who claim to speak by the HS?

I can think of a number of cults that make the same claims.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Catholic Church’s teachings cover (obviously) all that Christ has done and said that the Holy Spirit has guided us to knowledge thereof. If there is anything further that will be revealed more fully, its ‘roots’ will be there in Scripture and tradition. There will be no new ‘inventions’. . .no “latter day prophets or angels”, no ‘god is not a trinity but a foursome’, no ‘Jesus never ‘really’ existed’, no ‘abortion is okay if one’s conscience says so’, no ‘divorce is allowable’, etc.

So . . .we obviously believe that the Holy Spirit’s revelations on the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are a part of the deposit of Faith–that deposit being Scripture (that part you know) and Sacred Tradition (that apostolic teaching that logically supposes that those ‘things which Jesus did which are NOT recorded in Scripture’ were passed on by oral teachings --as documented by St. Paul and others), and which also include things you DO acknowledge like the teaching regarding the Trinity.
For nowhere does Scripture proclaim that the Father, Son and Spirit are three Divine Persons in One God. One can take it as ‘implicit’ and once the teaching is GIVEN one can ‘see’ it foreshadowed in the old and new testament. . .but it took the Spirit to ‘guide us to truth’. The Bible itself is ‘outside’ the Bible in that it never gave itself ‘chapter and verse’ or stated what books were to be included. . .the Holy Spirit had to guide that, and there was more than was just ‘in scripture’ to show what the apostles taught regarding Scripture.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

By its fruits. And I am not talking about a given individual, or by a historic event (especially given contemporary society’s propensity for revisionism and speculation regarding historical figures and events).

Look at what the Church teaches. It taught the same things ‘then’ as it does now. No changing to suit ‘social justice’ or ‘feminism’ or ‘pragmatism’. No backing down or sugar coating. No attempts to make Jesus into ‘only’ a teacher, or faith only a ‘personal choice’. You may not believe yourself but without 1500years of Catholic teachers, priests and laity together, you wouldn’t have had the Bible, or the faith behind it. Those early Christians were CATHOLIC. Those people who died for Christ were CATHOLIC. Those people who brought to the faith to lands where it was later rejected for a more ‘relevant’ one were Catholic. And despite persecution, rejection, hatred and scorn. . .that Catholic faith is still the ‘top’ Christian faith. Even its own adherents can’t ‘bring it down’. Even when there is ‘inside’ conflict, the faith prevails even when one would expect it to disappear.

Look at what Church the world hates MOST. Didn’t Christ tell us his followers would be hated as He was? Misunderstood as He was?

Look at the charities, the hospitals (what Church STARTED hospitals?), the ‘just plain folks’ who live so quietly and humbly that you never even notice them until they’re gone and suddenly you realize who was doing ‘for the least of my brothers’.

Now I’m NOT saying that Protestants aren’t ‘good Christians’ too. Many are. They have SOME of the fullness of truth.

But Catholicism has the fullness. . .and even in difficult times, that fullness WILL PREVAIL.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

You have to assume that the HS has led the catholic church in these matters. How would you go about proving such a thing?
What is your method for determining truth from error from those who claim to speak by the HS?

I can think of a number of cults that make the same claims.

Well the cults have not existed for nearly 2000 years. Cults are a dime a dozen.

Cults come and go.

For that matter each protestant is his own personal cult…

 

[historyb]

For nowhere does Scripture proclaim that the Father, Son and Spirit are three Divine Persons in One God. One can take it as ‘implicit’ and once the teaching is GIVEN one can ‘see’ it foreshadowed in the old and new testament. . .but it took the Spirit to ‘guide us to truth’. The Bible itself is ‘outside’ the Bible in that it never gave itself ‘chapter and verse’ or stated what books were to be included. . .the Holy Spirit had to guide that, and there was more than was just ‘in scripture’ to show what the apostles taught regarding Scripture.

And that’s the thing with Mary it is not implicitly taught. When Paul came and taught the Bereans things they searched Scripture to see if all he said were true, yet with the Mary doctrines there is nothing to search.

Yes I can hear it now “But it is the Bible” she a type of Ark. Okay, we’ll explore that what did the ark do? It contained things of God, now was it anything special? No, it was made that way by God. Was the wood special, the gold, the other things before it was used? Nope. So while we can say from Scripture that she was a Ark, there is not anything anywhere to say she was special ahead of time. God made her special when he overshadowed her.

Americans, me thinks are more like Thomas who like to verify first. Like the Bereans we have Scripture where we can do that. Yes I know Christ said blessed are those who believe without seeing, but he wasn’t talking about Mary.

All this has been my http://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/images/smilies/2cents.gif

 

[justasking4]

Well the cults have not existed for nearly 2000 years. Cults are a dime a dozen.

Cults come and go.

For that matter each protestant is his own personal cult…

Time has nothing to do with something being true. If time is an indication of truth then Hindusim would be true since its older than Christianity.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Time has nothing to do with something being true. If time is an indication of truth then Hindusim would be true since its older than Christianity.

Hinduism is not christianity. Christians cults come and go just as you will come and eventually go. The Catholic Church was there from the beginning on Pentecoste and will be there on the last day.

 

[guanophore]

What oral tradition are you referring to? Mary’s assumption is not mention until 377 A.D. That’s almost 4 centuries after the supposed fact.

The same one that defined the canon of the NT, which occured about the same time.

So how does this help you? If its not written down you have no grounds to believe it then.

Fortunately persons of Apostolic faith have been obedient to 2 Thess 3:14 and therefore we can be confident that we have grounds to believe it. God has kept His promise to preserve us in all truth.

That’s why protestants have such an advantage by limiting ourselves to what the Scriptures teach alone.

With all due respect, why are you here, ja4? If you have such an advantage, why do you spend so much energy trying to nail the jello to the wall? If you wish to be limited to the Scriptures alone, that is your perogative! Why bring it here?

That may be. This actually hurts these various beliefs in Mary so powerfully since there is no evidence for them in Scripture nor history.

The Marian Doctrines are not painful to those of us who have accepted Christ. We understand that He promised us many more mothers, brothers, sisters, houses and lands if we follow HIm. We accept that, by using His dying breath to give Mary to John on the cross, He gave her to "the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. "Rev 12:17

We know that Jesus did not intend to abandon His Church once the canon was closed, and that He wanted His living Spirit to guide us until the end of the age.

No, what is painful is to see the rejection of Mary who was specially honored by God to bear the Son in her womb.

 

[guanophore]

What the spurious protoevangelium of James!

A fascinating historical pictograph.

Its a apocrypha gospel i.e. false gospel.

The fact that it did not get included in the canon does not make it “false” necessarily. It still has value as an historical document. There are many documents used in the Church during the first 4 centuries that did not make it into the canon of the NT. Most contain orthodox teaching to one degree or another.

 

[guanophore]

She witnessed his sacrifice and I am sure wishes that Catholics would stop the devotion to her and focus totally on her Son.

This is an erroneous dichotomy. Devotion to Mary does not take away focus on her Son. On the contrary, she constantly points to her Son. It is no different than associating with any Godly person who always has the Word on her lips, and a song of praise to God in the heart. Fellowship with such a person always inclines one more toward God.

 

[guanophore]

Didn’t the church condemn these writings?

(i agree that they do have historical value)

No, the Church condemned “teaching” that was considered false. To the extent that any of the early writings contained erroneous theology, those ideas were condemned. However, such documents often also contain orthodox ideas that were later made dogmatic.

 

[guanophore]

What if i made a claim about something that happened 300 years ago in which it was never recorded. Would you believe me?

I suppose that would depend upon a number of factors. One would be the current evidence. Another would be the source of your assertion. In this case, the Source is the infallible proclamation of the Magesterium!

Where do those who knew Mary best i.e. apostles ever exalt her the way the catholic church does? Where do they call her queen of heaven, without sin, or assumed into heaven?
Where do they in their writings teach us to pray to her?

I am not at all sure the Apostles knew the extent of the role that Jesus had in mind for Mary. The record indicates that they were expecting her body to be in the tomb.

Sometimes it takes centuries to understand the implications of certain teachings.

As far as prayer, the Apostles did not distinguish between saints who were on this side of the veil of flesh, or the other. Their understanding of death is that they would be alive with the Lord. They did not cease to aske the prayers of members of the Body just because they had passed. I am sure the Apostles asked Mary for her prayers before her departure, and had no reason to stop just because her body was no longer in the tomb.

 

[guanophore]

Your right. The scriptures do say there were other Jesus did. Now, what are these “other” things that are not in the scriptures? Can you give me a couple of examples of these “other” things?

His teaching about the authority of the Church is found in the Apostolic practices. This is also true of the sacraments.

You are correct in stating that the Bible never says “all Truth and all ‘knowledge’ is ONLY to be found in the Bible”

If you agree with this, why do you keep repeating “all we know is what we have in the scripture”?

nor does it say it is in the catholic church either. The “you” that Jesus is referring is not the church but the disciples who would later preach the gospel of Christ and the writing of the NT.

There was only one church, and the Word DOES say it is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. And Jesus DID say He would preserve them in all truth. If He did not, then He is a liar, or a weakling.

You have to assume that the HS has led the catholic church in these matters.

It is not an assumption. It is a promise of Jesus that is found in scripture. I thought at least you accepted the testimony of the NT!

How would you go about proving such a thing?

Jesus’ word is sufficent for those who accept Him.

What is your method for determining truth from error from those who claim to speak by the HS?

This is an excellent question! We have infallible sources for this. One is found in the scripture, which we accept as the infallible and inerrant Word of God. In addition we have the Apostolic Teachings. Nothing that contradicts the teaching of the Apostles is accepted.

I can think of a number of cults that make the same claims.

You are right, of course.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2811902]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Your right. The scriptures do say there were other Jesus did. Now, what are these “other” things that are not in the scriptures? Can you give me a couple of examples of these “other” things?

guanophore
His teaching about the authority of the Church is found in the Apostolic practices. This is also true of the sacraments.

Where outside of scripture can i find this? Is there some kind document?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
You are correct in stating that the Bible never says “all Truth and all ‘knowledge’ is ONLY to be found in the Bible”

guanophore
If you agree with this, why do you keep repeating “all we know is what we have in the scripture”?

I keep getting getting confronted with this as if its it defeats my posiition. It doesn’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
nor does it say it is in the catholic church either. The “you” that Jesus is referring is not the church but the disciples who would later preach the gospel of Christ and the writing of the NT.

guanophore
There was only one church, and the Word DOES say it is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. And Jesus DID say He would preserve them in all truth. If He did not, then He is a liar, or a weakling.

This could be a topic in and of itself. There are a lot of assumptions continually being made by catholics about this and what it means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
You have to assume that the HS has led the catholic church in these matters.
guanophore
It is not an assumption. It is a promise of Jesus that is found in scripture. I thought at least you accepted the testimony of the NT!

i do accept the NT. However this is a complex issue theologically and historically. We can study catholic history and see many cases where is has erred for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How would you go about proving such a thing?

guanophore
Jesus’ word is sufficent for those who accept Him.

You still have to interpret His word and see its implications. I suspect that even with the catholics you know who read the His word come to different interpretations. Is this correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is your method for determining truth from error from those who claim to speak by the HS?
guanophore
This is an excellent question! We have infallible sources for this. One is found in the scripture, which we accept as the infallible and inerrant Word of God. In addition we have the Apostolic Teachings. Nothing that contradicts the teaching of the Apostles is accepted.

What about things they never taught? Things like Mary’s assumption for example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I can think of a number of cults that make the same claims.
guanophore
You are right, of course.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2811851]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What if i made a claim about something that happened 300 years ago in which it was never recorded. Would you believe me?

guanophore
I suppose that would depend upon a number of factors. One would be the current evidence. Another would be the source of your assertion. In this case, the Source is the infallible proclamation of the Magesterium!

Have you ever engaged a Mormon? They to tell me something similar to what you say here when they make claims about Joe Smith and being the only one who saw the plates.
What you say if they told you that their infallible authority told them them this is true even though it lacks any eyewitness accounts to support it?

 

[LilyM]

Have you ever engaged a Mormon? They to tell me something similar to what you say here when they make claims about Joe Smith and being the only one who saw the plates.
What you say if they told you that their infallible authority told them them this is true even though it lacks any eyewitness accounts to support it?

There’s no eyewitnesses to record that the Pope and Bishops are successors of Peter? There’s no witnesses recording that the Church founded upon Peter would prevail? Recording that Peter was, along with the other Apostles, granted the power to bind and loose? And granted that their church would never teach error? That Christ himself and the Holy Spirit would always be with it and preserve it in all truth, which is incompatible with teaching error?

And don’t tell me that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. It’s obvious you’d only say that because your own church leadership is so untrustworthy that you can’t understand that there IS a Church out there that IS truly, as Christ promised it would be and the scriptures proclaim it to be, the pillar and bulwark of truth.

Clearly yours doesn’t fit that bill, not being founded upon the Apostles as Catholicism and Orthodoxy are. And yours not being it, you lack faith in the promises of Christ that he WOULD found and preserve an infallible teaching authority.

 

[justasking4]

There’s no eyewitnesses to record that the Pope and Bishops are successors of Peter? There’s no witnesses recording that the Church founded upon Peter would prevail? Recording that Peter was, along with the other Apostles, granted the power to bind and loose? And granted that their church would never teach error? That Christ himself and the Holy Spirit would always be with it and preserve it in all truth, which is incompatible with teaching error?

And don’t tell me that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. It’s obvious you’d only say that because your own church leadership is so untrustworthy that you can’t understand that there IS a Church out there that IS truly, as Christ promised it would be and the scriptures proclaim it to be, the pillar and bulwark of truth.

Clearly yours doesn’t fit that bill, not being founded upon the Apostles as Catholicism and Orthodoxy are. And yours not being it, you lack faith in the promises of Christ that he WOULD found and preserve an infallible teaching authority.

This would be good to discuss eleswhere but i don’t want to derail this thread…

 

[guanophore]

Where outside of scripture can i find this? Is there some kind document?

Yes, ja4. You can find the Apostolic Teachings in the Counciliar Documents, Papal writings, Liturgy, Rubrics, Prayers and Hymns, writings if the Saints, Theologians, and Doctors of the Church, and the Catechism.

I keep getting getting confronted with this as if its it defeats my posiition. It doesn’t.

No one can woo you to cease rejecting the Spirit of Christ except the HS.

i do accept the NT. However this is a complex issue theologically and historically. We can study catholic history and see many cases where is has erred for example.

I think that would be a good study for you. I think you might find some of your resistance breaking down.

You still have to interpret His word and see its implications. I suspect that even with the catholics you know who read the His word come to different interpretations. Is this correct?

Yes, but irrelevant. The Catholic church, as the creator of the documents, has the best interpretation of them. When individuals come up with something contrary, we can recognize error easily.

What about things they never taught? Things like Mary’s assumption for example?

I can’t speak to that. I think you will not be able to find anything the Church teaches that was not taught from the beginning. But, you are welcome to try! Study is good for the mind.