So why aren’t you Catholic? I apologize if you find this question intrusive - it’s just that while reading your last paragraph I wondered why you list your religious affiliation as Protestant. It’s no problem if you don’t want to answer; I understand that sometimes questions are asked that can’t or won’t be answered and the reasons are none of my business.Specifically, I am referring to the gospel, the promises of God. Regarding the OT, I am referring to looking for Christ and types of Christ. This comes much later. Notwithstanding, there are many clear things in the OT that a child would understand. For instance, God punishes sin. Man is extremely sinful, and God must punish. God insists upon perfection; man is sinful. I understood these as a child. I understood that the only thing that pleased God was obedience and that I could not obey and was in trouble. The Old Testament shows how evil we are, and how good God is. And then in the NT, the Savior appears.
We are sinful at birth; therefore, all sin does not appear that bad to us–because we are accustomed to sin. Due to that, we turn around and judge God because He judges ALL sin. We will ask questions like, “How can God order all men, women, children, and animal be killed in the OT? How can He do that and be good?” He is God; He is holy; He is just. Is it justice for a murderer to go without punishment? The NT tells us we are all murderers at heart. Do we get away with it? No, Jesus Christ was punished for it.
You are right. There are also many things a child cannot understand. This is because Christ is veiled in the OT; therefore, they have to be taught. The Catholic church goes back to Christ, the apostles, and the early church fathers. We do the same thing. The Holy Spirit teaches us through the church, through men. God has consistently done this. He taught through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, etc. I have known people who said that they were not going to learn from man, that they were going to let the Holy Spirit teach them, and they fell into heresy. They became extremely prideful and arrogant. They thought they were above others. You can find when other denominations and churches began. Find out when the Catholic church began. Christ is the Head of the Church, and He promises to keep the Church. Trust Christ; trust that He will keep His church. Christ tells us that He will save us through the Church. He did, and He will. You are not trusting in man; you are trusting Christ and that Christ will teach you through the Church, by men of the Church. For instance, you were baptized by men, but it was the Baptism of Christ. Confess that you are weak and ignorant. In your weakness, He is strong; in you ignorance, He is wise. Just trust Christ and that He is teaching and working through the Church.
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?
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?
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).
Question: Have you ever asked anyone to pray for you? Yes or no. If yes, tell us why you did.
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.
I agree, but… I think of St. Paul, the apostle, telling the overseers at Ephesus that “wolves would enter in among you, not sparing the flock, and from among your own selves (whether the congregation or the overseers themselves, I do not know) shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” And then I read about the seven churches and the false doctrines in some of them and the fact that our Lord says, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.” As a result, I am looking at our Lord and Him alone. I watch EWTN quite often. In some of the speakers, from the tones of their voices and their expressions–may Christ forgive me if I am sinning here and lead me to repentance–in adoration of Mary is more than when they speak of our Lord. I am going to take some time and look at the Catholic catechism. I probably should have started there. Tommy
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.
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.
How do you reconcile this belief with your belief that it’s ok for you to ask me to pray for you?If I were to pray to Mary, it would for the fact that God might not do what is good for me or what is best for me unless Mary was to intervene.
=krbray;6800096]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?
kr,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?
Good advice.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
I’m going to be honest with you, kr, and say this argument has the least impact on me. First, there is a presumption that Rome is, alone, the one true Church, which is at least reasonably disputed by Orthodoxy. It also presumes that the one true Church is only the Church Militant, in other words, it is a temporal argument. If Catholics for centuries have been mistaken about invocation (which in itself does no harm), how does this prove that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church Triumphant, or if you are so inclined, the Church Suffering. Finally, how do the mistakes of mortal, sinful humans in any way ever make Christ a Liar?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.
And while we here in the Church Militant dispute doctrine, the Church Triumphant has all truth.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.
He is indeed, and you are a kind, patient partner in dialogue.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.
Because of the fact even non Christians have displayed a love for neighbour. I would like to cite Matthew 25:32-46 here.What do you mean?
But since a very small fraction of humanity probably posses perfect charity, does that mean that the rest of us have dead faith?I would say that if it is a live, saving faith, and not a dead faith, it will have love and charity along.
But faith is is both a gift and a response. God’s gift is perfect but our response is rarely ever so. God will not twist our arms into faith. God invites and we respond in faith.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.
But one can’t have qualifiers like that. Charity is charity. Perhaps not perfect but nonetheless charity.Almost everyone’s charity is tainted by self love.Their’s is charity in earthly eyes.
But faith is faith. I think this distinction between live and dead faith is a distinction that came up to allow the reformers wiggle room from an untenable doctrine.It may be evidence of a dead faith.
Tommy,Perhaps you can understand the difficulty I have with the Marian doctrine with this. This is from the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Large Catechism, the First Commandment.
"Thou shalt have [and worship] Me alone as thy God. What is the force of this, and how is it to be understood? What does it mean to have a god? or, what is God? 2] Answer: A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and believe Him from the [whole] heart; as I have often said that the confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol. 3] If your faith and trust be right, then is your god also true; and, on the other hand, if your trust be false and wrong, then you have not the true God; for these two belong together, faith and God. That now, I say, upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god.
4] Therefore it is the intent of this commandment to require true faith and trust of the heart which settles upon the only true God, and clings to Him alone. That is as much as to say: ‘See to it that you let Me alone be your God, and never seek another,’ i.e.: Whatever you lack of good things, expect it of Me, and look to Me for it, and whenever you suffer misfortune and distress, creep and cling to Me. I, yes, I, will give you enough and help you out of every need; only let not your heart cleave to or rest in any other."
To be more thankful to Mary than to God for answered prayers, based on my understanding of Marian doctrine, is a mistake and not consistent with what I have read in the Catechism.If I were to pray to Mary, it would for the fact that God might not do what is good for me or what is best for me unless Mary was to intervene. If I was to pray to Mary and God granted my prayer, although I would be thankful to God for granting my prayer, I would be much more thankful to Mary;
There’s nothing wrong with asking the Blessed Mother to intercede again, but based on everything you have written in these forums, I doubt that you would be mistakenly led into believing that she was the one answering your prayers.and, the next time I desired something, I would go to Mary again.
For a person to turn to Mary for their salvation would, again, be contrary to what I have found in the Catechism. Again, I don’t think you could be led astray like this.She would be the door I used instead of Jesus Christ. She would be the door to my salvation, not Christ. Therefore, from my reasoning, I would be committing idolatry. Although she is not God, it would be to her that I would look for “good.”
I will have to disagree that the Church has been taught anything. The Church does the teaching to us, not the other way around.Although the “trinitarian doctrine” itself may have not come about until centuries later, the Church has always been taught regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the fact that we believe in one God.
As far as the development of doctrine is concerned, I don’t agree that it’s different. I will agree that trinitarian doctrine is implied in the epistles (scripture) but it’s not explicit. The scriptural evidence led to the pronouncement of a triune God at the Council of Nicaea. Likewise, there is scriptural evidence of Marian doctrine from Genesis to Revelation and Deacon JAR gave you a lot of it. St. Ignatius wrote extensively about the Virgin Mary, as did St. Irenaeus, who wrote that “by yielding to obedience, [she] became the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.”We know this from the the epistles, the early church fathers, the Apostles Creed. The Marian doctrine is completely different.
And well they should be focused on Jesus Christ. What’s wrong with that? I’m not sure what your point is here.The only references I can find are where she is the mother of God, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mother, and also to she being the second Eve. When she is mentioned, it seems as if she was mentioned “in passing” when they were really focused on Jesus Christ.
Nothing I know of in Catholic doctrine supports a position of being dependant upon Mary and the saints, rather than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are there to help. Nowhere in Catholic teaching can I find anything that requires Catholics to go through Mary and the saints for their salvation.My great fear would be that my devotion to Mary and the saints would become idolatry, that I would become more dependant upon them than Jesus Christ–especially when I hear that at some future time the Catholic church may determine that Mary is a co-redemptrix. This is very troublesome to me at this time. Tommy
I’d recommend doing just that (look at the Catechism). When you do, please let me know if you ever find that part where we are taught to adore Mary, as you have described being done by the speakers on EWTN. In my study of it, I can only find adoration of God. The guests on EWTN may be (I, like you, don’t know for sure where they are, spiritually) those who give such great honor and veneration (NOT worship) to the Blessed Virgin Mary and are so enthusiastic about it that it appears that they are placing her on par with God.I agree, but… I think of St. Paul, the apostle, telling the overseers at Ephesus that “wolves would enter in among you, not sparing the flock, and from among your own selves (whether the congregation or the overseers themselves, I do not know) shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” And then I read about the seven churches and the false doctrines in some of them and the fact that our Lord says, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.” As a result, I am looking at our Lord and Him alone. I watch EWTN quite often. In some of the speakers, from the tones of their voices and their expressions–may Christ forgive me if I am sinning here and lead me to repentance–in adoration of Mary is more than when they speak of our Lord. I am going to take some time and look at the Catholic catechism. I probably should have started there. Tommy
I’m not sure what you mean by this. The concept of “dead faith” is a Catholic one. The traditional Catholic view is that faith on its own is dead but is made “alive” by charity.But faith is faith. I think this distinction between live and dead faith is a distinction that came up to allow the reformers wiggle room from an untenable doctrine.
=benedictus2;6808872]
Because of the fact even non Christians have displayed a love for neighbour. I would like to cite Matthew 25:32-46 here.
But since a very small fraction of humanity probably posses perfect charity, **does that mean that the rest of us have dead faith?**But faith is is both a gift and a response. God’s gift is perfect but our response is rarely ever so. God will not twist our arms into faith. God invites and we respond in faith.
Hi Cory,
Is that what Catholicism says? That to be justified, one must have perfect charity? Of course not, and neither do we. It may be our goal, but virtually never the reality of the Christian. Together we share an understanding that by confession and absolution, we return to Him over and over again, striving to grow in His grace. We look to word and sacrament to strengthen us, and try our best to “go and sin no more”.
But scriputre qualifies our righteous works: We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.In real life there are some days when we have greater faith others when we have less. But one can’t have qualifiers like that. Charity is charity. Perhaps not perfect but nonetheless charity.Almost everyone’s charity is tainted by self love.
Is there not here a distinction between the good works of the regenerate, and those of the unregenerate And is not that distinction because of the Holy Spirit within us?
Jon
Were the works of the Good Samaritan those of an unregenerate?But scriputre qualifies our righteous works: We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Is there not here a distinction between the good works of the regenerate, and those of the unregenerate And is not that distinction because of the Holy Spirit within us?
Jon
Christ doesn’t go into the faith of the Samaritan, so we can’t really know. What we do know from the parable is that, 1) Christ intends us to love our neighbor - all of them, and 2) not acting on one’s faith, as was the case of the priest and the Levite, calls into question whether they had a living or dead faith.Were the works of the Good Samaritan those of an unregenerate?
I believe the Samaritans works were counted to him as faith because by his works he showed his faith…because by them, *he showed his love. *IOW, love implies faith and all the rest.Christ doesn’t go into the faith of the Samaritan, so we can’t really know. What we do know from the parable is that, 1) Christ intends us to love our neighbor - all of them, and 2) not acting on one’s faith, as was the case of the priest and the Levite, calls into question whether they had a living or dead faith.
What is more, I am not claiming that the unregenerate can’t do good works. I am claiming that all of our good works are, as Isiahs say, filthy rags, in the sight of God. Our righteousness comes from Christ alone, and the value of our good works are due to His righteousness, not ours.
Jon
Or said another way, he had faith, and his good works were accounted to him as righteousness. But you are right, a live faith MUST show love and charity.I believe the Samaritans works were counted to him as faith because by his works he showed his faith…because by them, *he showed his love. *IOW, love implies faith and all the rest.
To summarize my understanding of Catholic and scriptural teaching in simplified form:Or said another way, he had faith, and his good works were accounted to him as righteousness. But you are right, a live faith MUST show love and charity.
Jon
As far as I can tell, the First Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) is the earliest council that establishes any Marian doctrine. I’m not sure how you define “truly ecumenical”, but this is known as an “ecumenical” council and it officially pronounced that the Virgin Mary was the “Mother of God”. The council went no further, but this, without a doubt, laid the foundation for further development of doctrine. I’m still looking but haven’t found any other early ecumenical councils that refer to Marian doctrines.kr,
I have always considered the fact that invocation of the Blessed Virgin and saints over the centuries, both East and West, should give us pause before we condemn the practice.
The fact is that millions of Christians have gained comfort from the practice. As to your point about the Trinity, are any of the marian doctrines alluded to in any of the early truly ecumenical councils? If so, that would lend weight to your argument. If not,then the comparison isn’t as strong, IMO.
There’s actually a third presumption: infallible teaching.I’m going to be honest with you, kr, and say this argument has the least impact on me. First, there is a presumption that Rome is, alone, the one true Church, which is at least reasonably disputed by Orthodoxy. It also presumes that the one true Church is only the Church Militant, in other words, it is a temporal argument. If Catholics for centuries have been mistaken about invocation (which in itself does no harm), how does this prove that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church Triumphant, or if you are so inclined, the Church Suffering. Finally, how do the mistakes of mortal, sinful humans in any way ever make Christ a Liar?
That isn’t what I meant.how do the mistakes of mortal, sinful humans in any way ever make Christ a Liar?
Hi kr,As far as I can tell, the First Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) is the earliest council that establishes any Marian doctrine. I’m not sure how you define “truly ecumenical”, but this is known as an “ecumenical” council and it officially pronounced that the Virgin Mary was the “Mother of God”. The council went no further, but this, without a doubt, laid the foundation for further development of doctrine. I’m still looking but haven’t found any other early ecumenical councils that refer to Marian doctrines.
=krbray;6816362]There’s actually a third presumption: infallible teaching.
If this is true, if the Bishop of Rome has univeral jurisdiction, by did early councils feel it necessary to determine the Bishop of Rome’s juridiction as that of the west?Yes, the first presumption is that Rome is, alone, the one true church. This claim may be disputed by Orthodoxy, but I disagree that it is reasonable because they don’t trace their apostolic succession and authority to St. Peter. I believe (or I wouldn’t be Catholic, I guess) that Matthew 16:18 means what it says and that Peter is the apostle that the Church was built upon and that he was given the lead in it’s authority by being given the “keys to the Kingdom”. That’s powerful stuff and since the Orthodox churches don’t go back to this point, they have no claim to primacy, in my opinion. Moreover, it seems that there was no “Orthodoxy” or eastern churches failing to submit to Rome’s authority until almost three hundred years after Christ’s death. Several ECF’s speak on the authority of Rome for this entire period.
We would say that guide is the Holy Spirit, but I wouldn’t argue with you that it is desirable that there be one bishop who is “1st among equals” in a leadship capacity. I would frankly disagree, and find no reason to believe in scripture or the early councils, that the Pope authority and jurisdiction is such that Rome claims today.Presumption #2: the one true Church is only the Church Militant. If your point is that the one true Church is both the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant combined, I won’t disagree. If this is the case and the Church Triumphant has all truth, then the Church Militant has it, too. I’d argue that the Church Militant has this truth at its disposal because Jesus Christ promised the apostles (the first bishops of the Church Militant) that they would be led into all truth in John 16:13 and that this promise/guarantee was given to them until the end of the age, as I posted in post 217. Temporal argument though it may be, it still has eternal implications and our Lord made a provision for it. The Church Militant still needs (and has) an infallible guide to ensure that we are taking the right paths (doctrine) that will lead us to eternal bliss in His presence. How can we be assured of our salvation without this guide?
Human sin, that’s how Pope Benedict XVI describes it. And I don’t think he meant human sin on the part of the reformers and Orthodoxy alone.Look about, Jon. How many different beliefs have been preached about the path to salvation? They can’t all be right and there must be a final answer. Which church has this answer? If I understood you correctly (forgive me if I’m wrong), the Church is the “congregation of believers” to the Lutherans. If so, explain how the “congregation of believers” reaches a final authoritative decision on salvation *or anything else *when they all disagree and have no central body to go to for an answer.
In a specific sense, the local church, and its leadership up to the bishop. I don’t think it would have been possible to conclude that He meant, specifically, the Bishop of Rome. I’ve also highlight the word you used - disciples plural.I don’t think you’ll disagree that truth from the Holy Spirit must be infallible. The promise of John 16:13 tells us that the one true Church (Militant) has this truth and that is why Jesus also told his disciples in Matthew 18 to go to the Church as the final arbiter in the case of a brother who sins against you and will not listen. Which church is this that Jesus is referring to?
Thee HS’s guidance is all truth, sinful humans often misunderstand them. That’s why Lutherans do accept the early councils, and why the Augsburg Confession says that the writers believe that its teachings are consistent with the historic Church Catholic.This takes us back to the OP’s question of how we know that we have the right interpretation of scripture? How do we ensure that our doctrines are true? Everybody says that they have the Holy Spirit to guide them, but, clearly, not all do or there would be no disagreements and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The CC is part of the one true Church, even if it errs, and we agree on a vast amount of what that truth is. I know also, that the Holy Spirit can guide us to greater agreement, not by one or the other submitting or offering a mea culpa. We can see this already happening. The guidance of the HS into one truth is a continuing process, not a stagnant, finite, or signular event. Like in sanctfication, His guidance is ongoing. And this is why I say that, in the end, He will lead all of us in His Church to one truth, even if it is at the Parousia. And the gates of Hell have no power to stop it.Let me put it another way. If the RCC for centuries has been mistaken about any teaching of faith or morals, then it is not the one true Church. My statement about Christ being made a liar was facetious from the standpoint that the one true Church teaches infallibly. Jesus tells us that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” and I’m arguing that fallible teaching is a way for the gates of the netherworld to prevail. My point was that although the Catholic Church is being run by mortal, sinful humans, they have the guidance of the infallible truth to protect them from teaching incorrectly.
You are mistaken as a matter of fact here.There’s actually a third presumption: infallible teaching.
Yes, the first presumption is that Rome is, alone, the one true church. This claim may be disputed by Orthodoxy, but I disagree that it is reasonable because they don’t trace their apostolic succession and authority to St. Peter.
They have just as good a claim to “go back to this point” as you do.I believe (or I wouldn’t be Catholic, I guess) that Matthew 16:18 means what it says and that Peter is the apostle that the Church was built upon and that he was given the lead in it’s authority by being given the “keys to the Kingdom”. That’s powerful stuff and since the Orthodox churches don’t go back to this point, they have no claim to primacy, in my opinion.
That of course is not how the Orthodox define themselves. You could just as easily argue that there was no “Catholicism” or “Western churches claiming as a matter of dogma that Rome is infallible” until 1870! The fair way to to put it is that both of your Communions (also the “Oriental Orthodox” and the “Church of the East”) have approximately equal claim (insofar as it can be judged without accepting the premises of one or the other of you) to go back to Jesus and the Apostles. No other Christian church can legitimately make this claim.Moreover, it seems that there was no “Orthodoxy” or eastern churches failing to submit to Rome’s authority until almost three hundred years after Christ’s death.
But by the admission of Catholics, they do not formulate it in quite the way it’s formulated today.Several ECF’s speak on the authority of Rome for this entire period.
Yes, and we could do without such facetious statements!Let me put it another way. If the RCC for centuries has been mistaken about any teaching of faith or morals, then it is not the one true Church. My statement about Christ being made a liar was facetious
Where have you argued this? Or have you really just assumed it?from the standpoint that the one true Church teaches infallibly. Jesus tells us that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it” and I’m arguing that fallible teaching is a way for the gates of the netherworld to prevail.