How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[krbray]

The LCMS website says “when one dies”. Bodily death. I’m not sure that I’m knowledgeable enough to be more specific.

None of us are, I suppose. Who can say how long it takes to pass from life to death? But, using my limited mind, I think that either you’re either dead or you’re not. But, if it’s not instantaneous and there is a “moment of death” where you’re not here and not in heaven, where are you? To say that “when one dies” he is cleansed prior to entering heaven strongly suggests some inbetween state or place, no matter how long it takes (momentary or not). I don’t see how the Lutheran Confessions can get around this logic; it seems as though they’re admitting a middle state while denying purgatory.

Fr. George Tavard made this brief explanation in Lutheran Catholic dialogue:

*Father Tavard showed how purgatory has been understood by Catholics as both a place of punishment and a state of cleansing, ***perhaps even momentary, at the time of death. ****

Either Fr. Tavard poorly chose his words or he was carefuly choosing them in an attempt to “converge” Lutheran and Catholic beliefs. God bless him, but I’ll defer to official church teaching (yes, here I go again with that authority thing) as found in the CCC:

Paragraph1051: Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.

(Please note that it says from the moment of death, not AT the moment of death.)

Paragraph 1054: Those who die in God’s grace and friendship imperfectly purified, although they are assured of their eternal salvation, undergo a purification after death, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of God.

 

[Tommy555]

*]Marian doctrines are easy to understand and believe once you know that they scriptural. They are not non-essential add ons but form part of the overall theology of salvation.

Let me start with this. When in church history do we find Marian doctrine? I do not find it in the Acts of the Apostles nor in the epistles; therefore, I am thinking it must be in the early church. Where would I find this? To me, it would seem as though there would be a separation between Christ and us and that Mary would intervene on our behalf. I think of the Pharisee and the tax collector; the tax collector went home justified. I think of Christ as inviting us to come because He has removed all obstacles. I can see Mary as a picture of the church, as the Mother of the Church. I see that in her words, “Do as He says.” The Church says, “Do as Christ commands.” In many of the miracles that Jesus performed, the people came directly to Jesus, requesting to be healed; and they were healed. The Marian doctrine, to me, causes Christ to be aloof, distanced from me.

I think of the Israelite kings and the queen mothers; and I am thinking they went to the queen mother because, otherwise, their desires probably would not be accomplished. I am not seeing Christ in this way. I hear Him saying, “Come to me. Come to me ye who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Come to me, for all the promises of the Father are yea in Me.” I do believe that Mary and the saints do pray for us, but I think they pray for the things we need that we are not aware. For example, a non-believer probably will not ask us to pray for him/her, but we pray for them because we see the need of salvation for them. When we are praying for temporal things, I think the saints are praying for our spiritual needs.

 

[Deacon_JAR]

*]Marian doctrines are easy to understand and believe once you know that they scriptural. They are not non-essential add ons but form part of the overall theology of salvation.

Let me start with this. When in church history do we find Marian doctrine? I do not find it in the Acts of the Apostles nor in the epistles; therefore, I am thinking it must be in the early church. Where would I find this?

 

[Deacon_JAR]

*]Marian doctrines are easy to understand and believe once you know that they scriptural. They are not non-essential add ons but form part of the overall theology of salvation.

Let me start with this. When in church history do we find Marian doctrine? I do not find it in the Acts of the Apostles nor in the epistles; therefore, I am thinking it must be in the early church. Where would I find this?

 

[Deacon_JAR]

*]Marian doctrines are easy to understand and believe once you know that they scriptural. They are not non-essential add ons but form part of the overall theology of salvation.

Let me start with this. When in church history do we find Marian doctrine? I do not find it in the Acts of the Apostles nor in the epistles; therefore, I am thinking it must be in the early church. Where would I find this?

 

[shaky]

Can you be more specific? What “different interpretations” do the EOCs have with the Roman CC?

Indeed! And you are in agreement with the CC on this, shaky!

Hi PRmerger

At the moment i have Just found time to Look into this myself but there seems to be a difference that is why there is a split between East and West.
Have a look into it yourself.
My main Question is does it matter on eternal salvation?
After the problems i have had on the protestant side I am deciding to become catholic
I am Just deciding which way to Go.

 

[benedictus2]

What is this grace to you?

Second reply to this question. It is hard to discuss grace without talking about free will.

Below are links to a post I did on predestination which sort of tries to come to grips with this tension between grace and free will.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4367691&postcount=185

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4367692&postcount=186

 

[benedictus2]

It is rewarding. My wife says that, despite my mid-fifties age, I am at heart 11 years old, so I’m a perfect fit to teach. lol

I have no doubt about that. :)I think it is always important not to lose sight of the child in all of us.

My personal view on this (and many other things) is that we do well to use caution when considering things long used or practices long employed by the Church both east and west.

Can you explain this a bit more?

Is he then both “sinner and saint”?

On this earth yes, in heaven no, he is only saint. That is the goal of a human being, to be a saint. If all that is required for entry to heaven is to be declared just, then there is no need to be made a saint. One can remain a sinner and still go to heaven.

The “in this life” part here Lutherans would refer to as sanctification, and we view it in many respects as synergistic. Growing in grace, and endeavoring to be more Christ-like.

But here again I come to the inconsistency with this belief and the belief that justification is imputed. If we go to heaven still sinners but only clothed in Christ’s righteousness what is sanctification for? What do you mean by sanctification?
When you say that a person has been sanctified, what is the state of his soul?

First, I would encourage you to unlink Lutheran and Calvinist mindsets.

Okay.

James Akin: However, the Protestant [he means here specificallu Lutheran] idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which works by charity then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestants idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan salvation by faith alone becomes the Catholic slogan salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).

Just commenting on the highlighted part.

This may be what current Lutheran thinking (i.e. a re-definiton of what Luther called faith) but is this in consonance with Luther’s own view?

Based on his forensic understanding of justification and this split between justification and sanctification I don’t think this is the case at all. I think the Protestants faith may be equal to the Catholic idea of faith plus hope but does include charity because charity falls under the banner of “works”.

From the LCMS website
lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedi…ord=CONVERSION

I will read this on the weekend and post a comment then.

 

[Contarini]

This may be what current Lutheran thinking (i.e. a re-definiton of what Luther called faith) but is this in consonance with Luther’s own view?

Based on his forensic understanding of justification and this split between justification and sanctification I don’t think this is the case at all. I think the Protestants faith may be equal to the Catholic idea of faith plus hope but does include charity because charity falls under the banner of “works”.

No, I think you are misreading Luther. Luther distinguished between faith and charity, but always insisted that anyone who had one had the other. Perhaps it’s not quite correct to say that Luther’s view of faith included charity, so much as that faith always came along with charity. Luther insisted that charity never had a causal role in bringing about justification; that charity was always imperfect and thus could not be the basis for one’s standing before God; and that faith did not need charity to be added to it in order to make it perfect. This last statement in particular is commonly misunderstood by Catholics (and by many Protestants) to mean that one can be justified without charity. But Luther made it abundantly clear that he did not believe any such thing.

Whoever has faith has charity, and whoever has charity will do good works. Luther never denied either of these claims, and indeed frequently affirmed both. What he didn’t want to do was to make justification dependent on the end result of this chain rather than simply on faith, which he saw as the root from which charity (and hence good works) inevitably spring.

I would not say that Luther thought charity “falls under the banner of works” so much as that any attempt to measure charity as something needed to perfect faith will use works as the standard. In other words, if you look at charity in terms of its root (which is faith) then Jon is correct. If you look at it in terms of its fruit (works) then you are correct.

Edwin

 

[benedictus2]

No, I think you are misreading Luther. Luther distinguished between faith and charity, but always insisted that anyone who had one had the other.

Okay, that may capture what Luther believed, but hardly captures reality.

Perhaps it’s not quite correct to say that Luther’s view of faith included charity, so much as that faith always came along with charity.

Which is not true in real life.

Luther insisted that charity never had a causal role in bringing about justification; that charity was always imperfect and thus could not be the basis for one’s standing before God; and that faith did not need charity to be added to it in order to make it perfect.

Can it be said then that faith is always perfect and thus can be made the basis for one’s standing before God?.

This last statement in particular is commonly misunderstood by Catholics (and by many Protestants) to mean that one can be justified without charity. But Luther made it abundantly clear that he did not believe any such thing.

Whoever has faith has charity, and whoever has charity will do good works. Luther never denied either of these claims, and indeed frequently affirmed both. What he didn’t want to do was to make justification dependent on the end result of this chain rather than simply on faith, which he saw as the root from which charity (and hence good works) inevitably spring.

Do you think Luther has grasped the reality of the manner of salvation in that statement?

I would not say that Luther thought charity “falls under the banner of works” so much as that any attempt to measure charity as something needed to perfect faith will use works as the standard. In other words, if you look at charity in terms of its root (which is faith) then Jon is correct. If you look at it in terms of its fruit (works) then you are correct.
Edwin

So therefore, there is no charity where there is no faith? How do you account for humanitarian atheists?

And how do you account for Christians who lack charity.

P.S. I am aware that you are only explaining Luther’s point. The questions are for clarification of the points you raised.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger

At the moment i have Just found time to Look into this myself but there seems to be a difference that is why there is a split between East and West.
Have a look into it yourself.
My main Question is does it matter on eternal salvation?
After the problems i have had on the protestant side I am deciding to become catholic
I am Just deciding which way to Go.

When you have time to look into this please post the doctrinal differences that you’re questioning between the EOC and CC.

Prayers going up right now for you on your journey towards Truth! May I suggest you go to a church that offers Eucharistic Adoration, sit in quiet silence in the Presence of God, and ask for guidance? It can’t fail!

 

[Pitcharan]

When you have time to look into this please post the doctrinal differences that you’re questioning between the EOC and CC.

Prayers going up right now for you on your journey towards Truth! May I suggest you go to a church that offers Eucharistic Adoration, sit in quiet silence in the Presence of God, and ask for guidance? It can’t fail!

Hi Shaky,
are you aware that Simon means ‘shaky’ and Peter means ‘rock’ (unshakable). Consider meditating on shaky Simon’s transformation to unshakable Peter.

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6796212]Okay, that may capture what Luther believed, but hardly captures reality.

What do you mean?

Which is not true in real life.

I would say that if it is a live, saving faith, and not a dead faith, it will have love and charity along.

Can it be said then that faith is always perfect and thus can be made the basis for one’s standing before God?.

In the sense that faith comes by grace, yes, as it is a gift of God. But again, I’m not talking about a dead faith.

So therefore, there is no charity where there is no faith? How do you account for humanitarian atheists?

Their’s is charity in earthly eyes.

And how do you account for Christians who lack charity.
It may be evidence of a dead faith.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Can it be said then that faith is always perfect and thus can be made the basis for one’s standing before God?.

Luther would say that our standing before God does not depend on the quality of our faith but on the work of Christ which is grasped by faith. But generally I do see Luther portraying faith as an either/or rather than a matter of degrees. (Sometimes I think he spoke otherwise.) Other reformers, like Martin Bucer, were more sensitive to the presence of degrees of faith.

Do you think Luther has grasped the reality of the manner of salvation in that statement?

No. Or more precisely, I think that his fear of giving charity a causal role is misguided. I don’t think that his soteriology is outrageously wrong, so much as unnecessarily cumbersome based on an excessive fear of anything smacking of “works righteousness.”

So therefore, there is no charity where there is no faith? How do you account for humanitarian atheists?

The proposition that there is no charity where there is no faith is not generally a controversial one among traditional Christians of any tradition. Zwingli may have thought otherwise, but Zwingli was wacky and the Reformed tradition did not follow him on that point–and he was speaking of infants or those who had never heard the Gospel, not atheists who reject the faith.

With regard to such atheists, I would say that there are two possibilities: either their “charity” is simply sentimental humanitarianism, or they do have an implicit faith. “Charity” does not just mean “wishing people well,” but the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Similarly, “faith” does not just mean “holding the right beliefs,” but a divine gift by which we rely humbly on God rather than on ourselves.

Consider the alternative: if atheists can have faith without charity, then either you can be saved without faith or you can have charity and be damned. Both of these options are clearly heretical, I believe.

And how do you account for Christians who lack charity.

Their “faith” is just a human opinion.

P.S. I am aware that you are only explaining Luther’s point. The questions are for clarification of the points you raised.

I agree with Luther that the divine gift of faith always goes along with the divine gift of charity, and that any time you apparently find one without the other the appearance is deceptive.

I do not agree with Luther’s insistence on distinguishing sharply between the role played by faith and the role played by charity, or the other unfortunate dichotomies that follow from this.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6796114 Can you explain this a bit more?

From my own perspective as a Lutheran, I see tradition and teachings that date back to the early councils and ECF’s, their close proximity to the time of the Apostles, as having a credibility that we should be reluctant to ignore or condemn. And in much the same way practices and piety, particularly those shared by East and West.
Example: while Lutherans do not practice invocation of saints, and the confessions mention that this invocation lacks a scriptural command, promise or example, it also
states “…it would have no danger…”. (really abreviating here, the whole passage is at
bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php
Mention of the practice dates back to probably as early as Gregory. So, I personally would (obviously) lend more weight to that than, say, an evangelical who calls it idolatry.

On this earth yes, in heaven no, he is only saint. That is the goal of a human being, to be a saint. If all that is required for entry to heaven is to be declared just, then there is no need to be made a saint. One can remain a sinner and still go to heaven

But justification must be followed by sanctification. Christ requires us to follow His commands. I do not dispute your first two sentences. I agree with them.

But here again I come to the inconsistency with this belief and the belief that justification is imputed. If we go to heaven still sinners but only clothed in Christ’s righteousness what is sanctification for? What do you mean by sanctification?

Who says we go to Heaven still sinners?
Sanctification is the process of growing in grace. This may not be the best way, but think of it this way: For Catholics (if I have this right) justification is ongoing. One is initially justifiied by grace through faith, but the process goes on from there.
The comparison would be that what we call justification is what you call initial justification. For us, we follow justification with sanctification, what you think of as that ongoing process.
When we say faith alone, we are narrowly referring to initial justification. We view it as monergistic - God’s grace. Sanctification is in many ways synergistic, we are attempting to grow in grace, become more Christ-like, with the help of the Spirit. We do good works, make ourselves available to hear the word and receive the sacrament.

When you say that a person has been sanctified, what is the state of his soul?

Sanctification is an ongoing process, of those who are regenerate.

Based on his forensic understanding of justification and this split between justification and sanctification I don’t think this is the case at all. I think the Protestants faith may be equal to the Catholic idea of faith plus hope but does include charity because charity falls under the banner of “works”.

Here is what the confessions say:

1. That good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith, if it is not a dead, but a living faith, as fruits of a good tree.

7] 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God, as the apostle testifies with clear words, when he writes as follows: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, Rom. 4:6ff And again: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8-9.

8] 3. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

“Bound” not only means “certain to”, but also “required to”. This is in the realm of sanctification.

Later it says:

1. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

1. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

[bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.)
Here is the crux, we are required to do good works!! Not that it adds to our salvation, but that in new obedience, we do what Christ commands.

We are not Calvinists. We reject Perseverence of the Saints. We simply make a distinction between what God does, and how we receive grace.

Jon

 

[Tommy555]

*]
Marian doctrines are easy to understand and believe once you know that they scriptural. They are not non-essential add ons but form part of the overall theology of salvation.

PART III
A New Creation Week
Therefore, whatever Jesus’ words "woman, what have you to do with me . . . " may mean, they do not imply a negative relationship between Jesus and Mary. Now let us consider the positive significance that the title “woman” has for Mary in light of the opening two chapters in John’s Gospel.
The Gospel of John starts with the words “In the beginning . . . ,” which hearken back to Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In the next four verses, John goes on to write of light, life, creation, and light shining in darkness—once again, images taken right out of the creation story (Jn. 1:2–5). By drawing on these themes from Genesis, John introduces the story of Jesus against the backdrop of the story of creation, highlighting how Jesus comes to bring about a renewal of all creation.
Some scholars have noted how John’s Gospel continues this creation theme by setting up a series of days that establishes a new creation week. The sequence begins in 1:1 with the phrase “In the beginning.” John then demarcates a second day in 1:29 with the words "The next day . . . " He then uses the same phrase to note a third day in 1:35 and a fourth day in 1:43. Finally, after the succession of these first four days, the story of the Wedding at Cana is introduced as taking place three days after the fourth day: "On the third day there was a marriage at Cana . . . " (2:1). The third day after the fourth day would represent the seventh day in the Gospel of John. Consequently, the wedding at Cana comes at the climax of the new creation week, the seventh day.

The New Eve
Now we are ready to understand the profound meaning of Jesus calling His mother “woman” at the wedding feast of Cana. Highlighting how this scene takes place on the seventh day of the new creation week, John’s Gospel leads us to view Jesus and Mary in light of the creation story. And in this context, Jesus calls Mary “woman.” With the Genesis themes in the background, this title would bring to mind the “woman” of Genesis, Eve (Gen. 2:23; 3:20).

This woman of Genesis played an important part in the first prophecy given to humanity. After the fall, God confronted the serpent and announced his eventual defeat, saying:
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:15)
Given at the dawn of creation, these words, known as the Protoevangelium (“First Gospel”), foretell how the woman one day will have a seed, a son, who will crush the head of the serpent (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 410). Centuries later, at the wedding feast of Cana, this prophecy begins to be fulfilled. By calling Mary “woman” with the creation story in the background, Jesus in the narrative of John’s Gospel is not merely addressing her politely as He does Mary Magdalene or the Samaritan woman. Rather, He is identifying Mary as the woman of Genesis 3:15.

Far from rebuking His mother or distancing Himself from her, Jesus, in calling Mary “woman,” honors her in a way no woman had ever been honored before. She is the New Eve, the woman whose long-awaited Son will defeat the devil and fulfill the prophecy of Genesis.

I truly see a marian doctrine extrapolated from this scripture.

I want to learn. Do I have preconceived ideas right now? Of course. I have been protestant all my life. I am not here to debate, but to learn. Please realize that sometimes it takes a wrecking ball, sometimes a little stick to break that wall.

Your three parts are interesting, and I will concede them. Apostle John lived until late first century I believe. If he was trying to teach Marian doctrine–and it would be important–he did not do clearly. In his other writings, does he teach Marian doctrine? From what I am reading, Marian doctrine began around mid to late second century. It would help if Marian doctrine was taught in the epistles. Even if I could find it in the writings of Clement of Rome or Polycarp. This is troublesome to me. Also, I am finding that, although there was a prayer to Mary in the second century, it did not gain “steam” until around the third or fourth century. Therefore, this troubles me. For something so important, I am finding that it took a century or more to get started.

Also, I was reading about the rosary–which I think is great because it is so Christ-focused–and I was reading about the Marian apparition in Fatima. The website I was at said that Mary said, “If you will serve me in this way…” The phrase “serve me” causes me some consternation for I have been taught we serve Christ and only Christ.

The three parts you wrote–which I like; they are well written–causes me to continue seeing Mary as a picture of the Church, being the Mother of the Church. If we need a mediator between us and Christ, should it not be in the epistles or the Acts of the Apostles? I am “stuck in the mud” on this part.

I do believe the Catholic church was the original church and the other denominations rebelled from her. My question is: Did the Catholic church remain faithful, or was she one of the churches that did not remain faithful, allowing false doctrine? If I know she remained faithful, I would love to join her for it is my heartfelt desire to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.

May God bless you tremendously and bless me in knowing the Truth. Thank you. Tommy

 

[Tommy555]

Good Works. Here is the crux, we are required to do good works!! Not that it adds to our salvation, but that in new obedience, we do what Christ commands.

We are not Calvinists. We reject Perseverence of the Saints. We simply make a distinction between what God does, and how we receive grace.

Jon

Forgive me for interjecting. This is good. I am Lutheran also. Experientially, most protestants, Lutherans, and Catholics I know are pretty flippant when it comes to sin. I find protestants to be more arrogant than than Lutherans and Catholics, and I find Lutherans more arrogant than Catholics. I do believe that we are created unto good works and that Christians will do works. On the other hand, must we not be constantly thinking good works? But, when we do good works, is not the involuntary reflex that occurs is to pat ourselves on the back, thinking how good we are? And then we begin to judge our works against the works of others, thus elevating ourselves before them? I am in agreement with both Lutherans and Catholics on good works. Atheists also do good works. I truly think–and I think Scripture supports, i.e. “You can do no good thing without Me”–that it is the Lord Jesus Christ causing good works in them and they trying to derive credit for the good works. I believe the Christian–Catholic, Lutheran, or protestant–sees how sinful he is and, when he does good works, he knows it is not him but Christ or he fails to see the good work in the first place. I know that I see no good in myself and therefor pray, “Lord, you said I was created unto good works; do good works through me.” You see, at heart, I am a Pharisee; therefore, I must constantly be confessing and asking forgiveness. Do I think good works? Yes. Do I try to do them? Yes, but I cannot prevent the pride that follows. When I read your discussions, I am thinking, are we not really on the same page, singing the same music; it is just a play on words? Tommy

 

[krbray]

Your three parts are interesting, and I will concede them. Apostle John lived until late first century I believe. If he was trying to teach Marian doctrine–and it would be important–he did not do clearly. In his other writings, does he teach Marian doctrine? From what I am reading, Marian doctrine began around mid to late second century. It would help if Marian doctrine was taught in the epistles.

I have heard this theme many, many times and I always respond that it would also have helped if Trinitarian doctrine was taught in the epistles, too. But, it wasn’t. Trinitarian doctrine developed in the early church and it is accepted as truth by both protestants and catholics. Why not Marian doctrine, then?

Even if I could find it in the writings of Clement of Rome or Polycarp. This is troublesome to me. Also, I am finding that, although there was a prayer to Mary in the second century, it did not gain “steam” until around the third or fourth century. Therefore, this troubles me. For something so important, I am finding that it took a century or more to get started.

Again, Trinitarian doctrine took more than a century to “get started” and wasn’t definitively established until the Council of Nicaea in 325, yet protestants believe in it today as firmly as catholics. Why not Marian doctrine, too?

Also, I was reading about the rosary–which I think is great because it is so Christ-focused–and I was reading about the Marian apparition in Fatima. The website I was at said that Mary said, “If you will serve me in this way…” The phrase “serve me” causes me some consternation for I have been taught we serve Christ and only Christ.

I’m not sure where you got that but I’ve never been taught to serve the Blessed Virgin Mary. Be careful about taking just any website’s theological information as true, no matter what Christian affiliation it may be, catholic or otherwise. When in doubt, I always refer back to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM) to measure what any website and even any member of the catholic clergy (except the Magisterium in union with the Pope when authoritatively teaching faith and morals).

The three parts you wrote–which I like; they are well written–causes me to continue seeing Mary as a picture of the Church, being the Mother of the Church. If we need a mediator between us and Christ, should it not be in the epistles or the Acts of the Apostles? I am “stuck in the mud” on this part.

Question: Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you? Yes or no. If yes, tell us why you did.

I do believe the Catholic church was the original church and the other denominations rebelled from her. My question is: Did the Catholic church remain faithful, or was she one of the churches that did not remain faithful, allowing false doctrine? If I know she remained faithful, I would love to join her for it is my heartfelt desire to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.

For the Church to have allowed false doctrine to infect it would have made Jesus Christ a liar when he told Peter that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” in Matthew 16:18, and you’ll note he didn’t put a time limit on it. He further promised the apostles (the first bishops/leaders of the Church) that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth in John 16:13 and that He would be with them “until the end of the age” (Mt. 28:20). I believe all truth means no false doctrine and, taken into context with Mt. 16:18 and 28:20, I also believe this means being guided into all truth to the last day.

Have there been leaders of the Church who did not remain faithful and fell into sin and/or were led into false doctine? Yes. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is being run by a bunch of sinners who are less than perfect. The saving grace is that the protection promised by Jesus Christ was given for the teachings of the Church.

May God bless you tremendously and bless me in knowing the Truth. Thank you. Tommy

God will spread his blessings upon you in your search for the Truth. Your heart is in the right place and you are asking all the right questions.

 

[Deacon_JAR]

Deacon JAR;6794940:

[SIGN]I want to learn. Do I have preconceived ideas right now? Of course. I have been protestant all my life. I am not here to debate, but to learn. Please realize that sometimes it takes a wrecking ball, sometimes a little stick to break that wall.

Your three parts are interesting, and I will concede them. Apostle John lived until late first century I believe. If he was trying to teach Marian doctrine–and it would be important–he did not do clearly. In his other writings, does he teach Marian doctrine? From what I am reading, Marian doctrine began around mid to late second century. It would help if Marian doctrine was taught in the epistles. Even if I could find it in the writings of Clement of Rome or Polycarp. This is troublesome to me. Also, I am finding that, although there was a prayer to Mary in the second century, it did not gain “steam” until around the third or fourth century. Therefore, this troubles me. For something so important, I am finding that it took a century or more to get started.

Also, I was reading about the rosary–which I think is great because it is so Christ-focused–and I was reading about the Marian apparition in Fatima. The website I was at said that Mary said, “If you will serve me in this way…” The phrase “serve me” causes me some consternation for I have been taught we serve Christ and only Christ.

The three parts you wrote–which I like; they are well written–causes me to continue seeing Mary as a picture of the Church, being the Mother of the Church. If we need a mediator between us and Christ, should it not be in the epistles or the Acts of the Apostles? I am “stuck in the mud” on this part.

I do believe the Catholic church was the original church and the other denominations rebelled from her. My question is: Did the Catholic church remain faithful, or was she one of the churches that did not remain faithful, allowing false doctrine? If I know she remained faithful, I would love to join her for it is my heartfelt desire to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.

May God bless you tremendously and bless me in knowing the Truth. Thank you. Tommy[/SIGN]

Tommy, may the Peace and Love of our Lord be with you. Thank you for accepting my invitation to read the article I shared with you. Anyone, who profess with words and actions that Jesus Christ is Lord, is my brother or sister. We share the same Father, Lord, Savior, Holy Spirit, and baptism. I pray that our names will be written in the “Book of Life” and we will receive the blessing to share in the banquet of the Lord.

Like you, I am here not to debate, but to learn and share. If I disagree at any given time I have the responsibility, desire, and obligation to do it with a great sense of love and respect. I want to apologize if anyone in this forum will not show you the same respect.

The Catholic Church and I agree with you, we serve and worship God alone: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Like our friend *krbray *

said we must be sure that the source we read is an official statement of the Catholic Church (IMPRIMATUR), not someone’s personal opinion. *Krbray *answers some of your concerns. His analogy of the Trinitarian doctrine to explain Marian doctrines is a very good example.

Let’s say someone gives you a box containing hundreds of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and ask you to put it together. One major problem, you don’t get a copy of the “PICTURE” to assist you. What would you do?; you have no reference to guide you. You probable separate them by colors and begin to match them the best way you can. One piece at a time and the “PICTURE” begins to come alive and when the final piece is in place the TRUE and FINAL PICTURE is revealed. My dear friend, this is how doctrines develop.

Besides the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who do you think knows the Son better? His Mother, Tommy, His Mother. About “false doctrine” I agree with *krbray *(post # 217).

Tommy, I sense in my heart the great love you have for the Lord and your desire to get closer to the TRUTH. I pray the Lord will guide you and reveal to you the way. One humble advice: we must be willing to be like the “CLAY” in the hands of the Master (see Jeremiah 18). God bless you, my friend.

 

[Pitcharan]

Deacon JAR;6794940:

I want to learn. Do I have preconceived ideas right now? Of course. I have been protestant all my life. I am not here to debate, but to learn. Please realize that sometimes it takes a wrecking ball, sometimes a little stick to break that wall.

May God bless you tremendously and bless me in knowing the Truth. Thank you. Tommy

Hi Tommy,

May I help you arrive at the truth?

I hope what I believe is true and giving below the link to my recent post, which can throw some light.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6788861#post6788861

best regards

Yours truly
Pitcharan