J
justasking4
Guest
Is his intterpretation of Hebrews 12:1 the offical interpretation for the entire church?
- Status
L
Lampo
Guest
What do you think? Was he a pope? Did he write an Encyclical or Dogmatic Constitution that stated that that interpretation to be the official interpretation of the Church, including the phrase, "I declare and define … "?
Otherwise, why do you ask this question? HONESTLY! Is it to show that the Church hasn’t infallibly defined this passage? If that is your intention, what is the point?
J
justasking4
Guest
Just because some individual or church father writes something somewhere does that mean this is to be taken as the truth for the entire church?
L
Lampo
Guest
Why do you avoid questions that pertain to your motives?
The writings of the ECF taken collectively support the truth found in the Catholic Church.
J
justasking4
Guest
They are irelevant to the topics.
Do all the individual writings of the ECF support the Catholic church?
L
Lampo
Guest
That might be true, but your motives are misguided and point to the untruthfulness of your questions.
I don’t think ALL writings do when you cherry-pick them, but taken as a whole and in context, they do.
J
justasking4
Guest
Are you to able to read a person’ mind over the net? I know of 2 that claim to. Secondly since you think you know my motives it does no good to tell you otherwise since you already think i’m being a liar.
Huh? Either they support everything the church teaches or they don’t. Its not about “cherry picking” but what do their individual writings say.
L
Lampo
Guest
No I can’t. But after reading post after post from you I can glean some insight behind your motives. Do you try to prove that the Catholic Church is not what she claims?
I have seen posters quote the ECF that seem to contradict Church teachings. When they do this, I have discovered that they cherry-pick quotes and take them out of context. Does that make sense now?
J
justasking4
Guest
And what does the Catholic church claim?
I don’t know the ECF that well.
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
JA4, you gave the impression that you are very knowledgeable about theology. You did this yesterday when I suggested you did not adequately comprehend that the theology of Mary as defined by the Catholic church (though subject to abuses) flows logically from principles and precepts in scripture.
Now, you seem to fail to grasp the relevance of the first ECF to use the phrase that was adopted as part of the Nicene Creed, “the communion of saints”.
The relevance of this ECF is that 1) he was orthodox and trinitarian and in good standing with the Church in the late 300 century AD. 2) the canon was closed during his lifetime. 3) the teaching of the “communion of saints” as a literal understanding of Hebrews 12:1 was adopted into a Christian creed.
We can conclude, definitely, that the Catholic interpretation of the Communion of Saints, as taught today, can be traced to the closing of the canon.
Therefore, this Sacred Tradition had as much consensus as the canon at the time it was adopted as part of the Nicene Creed.
As a Protestant scholar, you should be able to trace the denial of the literal communion of saints after death to the Enlightenment. Suddenly someone determined that the practice of asking for the prayers of the saints was superstitious, ordinary, and heathen-like. That determination was made on the basis of cultural prejudices, not on the basis of continuity with historical Church teaching.
Now, you seem to fail to grasp the relevance of the first ECF to use the phrase that was adopted as part of the Nicene Creed, “the communion of saints”.
The relevance of this ECF is that 1) he was orthodox and trinitarian and in good standing with the Church in the late 300 century AD. 2) the canon was closed during his lifetime. 3) the teaching of the “communion of saints” as a literal understanding of Hebrews 12:1 was adopted into a Christian creed.
We can conclude, definitely, that the Catholic interpretation of the Communion of Saints, as taught today, can be traced to the closing of the canon.
Therefore, this Sacred Tradition had as much consensus as the canon at the time it was adopted as part of the Nicene Creed.
As a Protestant scholar, you should be able to trace the denial of the literal communion of saints after death to the Enlightenment. Suddenly someone determined that the practice of asking for the prayers of the saints was superstitious, ordinary, and heathen-like. That determination was made on the basis of cultural prejudices, not on the basis of continuity with historical Church teaching.
L
Lampo
Guest
Quite a lot! Try these links:
kofc.org/un/publications/cis/catechism/index.cfm
catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp
What else would they be since there was only one Christian Church at the time? Which one(s) do you think were not Catholic?
L
Lampo
Guest
So after two years of asking the same questions over and over and over and getting the same answers, you do not know what the Catholic Church claims? You said you are on these forums to learn. After two years you do not know what the Church claims?
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
This statement reveals that you have absolutely no education in formal theology or Church history. Nobody who had even a cursory understanding of the formation of the Church could say this. Please do not miss my last post! I’d like to see you attempt to explain how the communion of saints is “Un-Scriptural”
when the communion of saints was defined and made part of the Creed at the same time the canon was closed!
J
justasking4
Guest
I try not assume anything in this kind of format. That’s why i want to be sure what people believe so that were not missing each other. As you noted in another post the church believes a lot of things.
J
justasking4
Guest
What do you mean by “communion of saints”? How is it defined and do you have a couple of examples?This statement reveals that you have absolutely no education in formal theology or Church history. Nobody who had even a cursory understanding of the formation of the Church could say this. Please do not miss my last post! I’d like to see you attempt to explain how the communion of saints is “Un-Scriptural”
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
The communion of saints is the principle that the mystical body of Christ is one, whether dead or alive, and we can ask those departed to pray for us.
Why didn’t you just read the Wikipedia link I posted? Most of the theology articles have references, so you can check the sources in case you don’t trust the author. Here is the article on the communion of saints-
The Communion of Saints (in Latin, communio sanctorum) is the spiritual union of all Christians living and the dead, those on earth, in heaven and, in Catholic belief, in purgatory. They share a single “mystical body”, with Christ as the head, in which each member contributes to the good of all and shares in the welfare of all.
The earliest known use of this term to refer to the belief in a mystical bond uniting both the living and the dead in a confirmed hope and love is by Saint Nicetas of Remesiana (ca. 335–414); the term has since then played a central role in formulations of the Christian creed.[1]
The term is included in the Apostles’ Creed, a major profession of the Christian faith whose current form was settled in the eighth century, but which originated from not long after the year 100, the basic statement of the Church’s faith (William Barclay, The Plain Man Looks at the Apostles Creed, pages 10-12).
The doctrine of the Communion of Saints is based on 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul compares Christians to a single body.
The words translated into English as “saints” can refer to Christians, who, whatever their personal sanctity as individuals, are called holy because they are consecrated to God and Christ. This usage of the word “saints” is found some fifty times in the New Testament.
The Heidelberg Catechism defends this view, citing Romans 8:32, 1 Corinthians 6:17, and 1 John 1:3 to claim that all members of Christ have communion with Him, and are recipients of all His gifts.
The persons who are linked in this communion include those who have died and whom Hebrews 12:1 pictures as a cloud of witnesses encompassing Christians on earth. In the same chapter, Hebrews 12:22-23 says Christians on earth “have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.”
In Catholic terminology, the Communion of Saints is thus said to comprise the Church Militant (those alive on earth), the Church Penitent (those undergoing purification in Purgatory in preparation for heaven), and the Church Triumphant (those already in heaven). The damned are not among the Communion of Saints. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East point to this doctrine in support of their practice of asking the intercession of the saints in heaven, whose prayers (cf. Revelation 5:8) are seen as helping their fellow Christians on earth. These same churches refer to this doctrine in support of the practice of praying for the dead.
The word “sanctorum” in the phrase “communio sanctorum” can also be translated as referring not to holy persons, but also to holy things, namely the blessings that the holy persons share with each other, including their faith, the sacraments and the other spirituals graces and gifts they have as Christians. William Barclay, The Plain Man Looks at the Apostles Creed, pages 10-12; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 9
K
Kelly17
Guest
Wow!!!
I’ve learned so much about Hail Mary and Marian devotion from this thread here!!!
Thanks for all!
Am going to the Catholic church now, though not initially Catholic, and I also had a question why Catholics are paying so much attention to Mary.
I think that this explanation (by BlestOne) of covenant ark carried by Aron was very impressive!
And I think that is what non-Catholics often say but really do not believe – that people who have died being Christians, are actually not dead but alive, in the Heaven.
Reformed say that they believe it but as I see how many of them attack Catholics because Catholics practise their faith, asking saints who are in Heaven to pray for them – I conclude that those attacking non-Catholics only believe this scripture of the Bible to be a nice fairytale…
I think that Catholics have so much to give to reformed churches!
I’ve learned so much about Hail Mary and Marian devotion from this thread here!!!
Thanks for all!
Am going to the Catholic church now, though not initially Catholic, and I also had a question why Catholics are paying so much attention to Mary.
I think that this explanation (by BlestOne) of covenant ark carried by Aron was very impressive!
And I think that is what non-Catholics often say but really do not believe – that people who have died being Christians, are actually not dead but alive, in the Heaven.
Reformed say that they believe it but as I see how many of them attack Catholics because Catholics practise their faith, asking saints who are in Heaven to pray for them – I conclude that those attacking non-Catholics only believe this scripture of the Bible to be a nice fairytale…
I think that Catholics have so much to give to reformed churches!
J
justasking4
Guest
Lets start with Scripture. Even if the dead and living are one body in Christ where specifically did Jesus or His apostles ever teach that you a living breathing human being are to communicate with a person who has died? This is the main: communication between the living here and the living there.
A
Angels_Unaware
Guest
The wikipedia article demonstrates the scriptural support for the communion of saints. The article, and another reference in this thread to archeological evidence from the 1st century AD, demonstrates that the earliest Christians believed that death does not truly separate those who are alive in Christ from those who remain on earth. So, it is established that the first Church believed in the communion of saints and believed their belief was supported by scripture.
Having established this fact, then we are left with two questions. First, on what basis do we demand that all beliefs be explicity spelled out in scripture, rather than implicity supported by scripture? We certainly cannot use scripture to support that supposition. As it has also been quoted in this thread, John 21:25 says “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” What we conclude from that verse is that we have enough revelation of what Jesus did to understand His character, and enough revelation to understand what is good and what is not. We do not need things spelled out to us word for word, so that we begin misusing text and making text a narrow arbitrator, and in effect, a god. We need to understand the spirit of the text, not the letter of the text. Therefore, if the Church believes the scriptures quoted above support the belief in the communion of saints, who are you to demand it spelled out word for word?
Second, let’s examinethe fact that your objection to the teaching of the communion of saints is logically inconsistent given other Church teachings that you accept that also were not specifically taught by the apostles and Jesus. The best example is the trinity, there are others, but I do not have time write now to research them in detail.
Essentially, you are asking the wrong question. Your question should be, “why did some factions of the Church cease to believe the historical teaching of the communion of saints?”
J
justasking4
Guest
The problem is that we are separated. The dead are no longer a part of our lives. Your dead ancestors from a couple of hundred years ago play no part in your life today. Nor in mine.
If you don’t understand the letter of the text you will not understand the spirit of it either. This is why we must not go beyond what is written. To do so invites error in belief and practice. As you may know the Scriptures are primarily about the Lord Jesus and what He has done for us. In terms of needing spiritual help He alone has promised to help us since He alone is our Great High Priest Who intercedes before the Father for us. He alone is our Advocate. With this we need no other help from Mary or any saint who has died. He is more than sufficent.
The warning of the Scriptures that warn of false teachers coming into the church and decieving.
The Trinity is well supported by the Scriptures.
Problably because it cannot be supported biblically i.e. communication with the dead.
- Status