How does Marian devotion save?

[crazzeto]

No, I didn’t misread what he wrote. I corrected what he wrote - according to the Scriptures.

I would ask only that you go back, and reread the original posting as well as my thoughts on it further. The problem is you’ve made a fundamental error in your thinking regarding the posting, thus not only did you not correct the posting but futher your comment doesn’t quite mesh with what he was saying.

God bless,

 

[crazzeto]

@moondweller

Your error was when you stated “the Catholic Church didn’t teach the Apostles…”… Yes, of course not and no one ever made any such claim. The Apostles (like Paul) taught the Catholic Church, which is the Universal Church founded by Jesus Christ and it is this Church that the Apostles taught.

God bless,

 

[moondweller]

@moondweller

Your error was when you stated “the Catholic Church didn’t teach the Apostles…”… Yes, of course not and no one ever made any such claim. The Apostles (like Paul) taught the Catholic Church, which is the Universal Church founded by Jesus Christ and it is this Church that the Apostles taught.

God bless,

To correct you as well, the church Christ is presently building is catholic (universal, catholic being an adjective); it is the church, catholic. It is not “the Catholic Church” which historically was a development over time of western Christendom. Western Christendom adopted the NAME “the Catholic Church,” while eastern Christendom adopted the NAME “Orthodox.” Western Christendom by its moniker claimed catholicity while eastern Christendom by its moniker claimed orthodoxy. Each to the exclusion of the other. Your church is not “universal” but is restricted to those who have put themselves under authority and are in communion with your Pope, its head.

There is a fundamental difference between the church, catholic, which Christ has been building since Pentecost and “the Catholic Church.” The former is made up ONLY of those whose sins have been forgiven, the saved, the redeemed, the reconciled, the justified, the sanctified and in the future, the glorified. It has no NAME but has an identity: the body/bride of Christ. The church, catholic, transcends earthly bounds and monikers, but the Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).

 

[Tomster]

Thank you and God Bless you Tomster, you provided an excellent explanation about the God’s perfect plan for Mary The Blessed Virgin, and our Mother. That is the precisely why many millions of Catholics throughout the world honour Mary on Earth, as do the saints and angels in Heaven.

I have read every post on this question and I would like point out that for a person to believe that everything in the bible is ture, is true, but for that person to then say that everything that is not in the bible is false, is false. It would be wise for anti-Catholic and anti Mary posters to bear in mind that what differenciates Catholicism from other Christian religions is that we have Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium - the full and complete package - dogmas, doctrines and apostelic succession going back almost 2000 years to Peter, the Rock.

Whether other Christian demonnations like it or not we Catholics will love and honour Mary until the end of time, as wel as in Heaven. I would humbly suggest that If God the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Sprit had a problem with Mary’s many and authenticated apparitions, the Holy Trinity would have asked Mary to “stop it.”. But no, She still keeps calling her children to the Father, through stressing the need for conversion through prayer, sacrifice and keeping the Ten Commandments. I personally believe that Mary is an istrument of salvation, and devotion to her can and will save souls because Mary always leads sinners to Jesus and to God the Father throught her great love and warnings to the world, and through her prayerful intercessions for us.

Moondweller, by your many postings you seem to restrict or contain God’s Plans and His Power to that what’s in the Bible only. What authority does any human being have, or dare to presume what the Father or Jesus can or cannot do! How can we be certain that They do not freely bestow special graces on Mary to dispense to whoever she chooses, to sinners (some who may honour her and have a devotion to Her, and also to those who dont).

To those who seem to delight in having a cheap shot and Mary and her devotees, a bit of generousity and humiluy will go a long way, which will be pleasing to the Father and to Jesus.

I believe it is downright insulting and rude for other Christians to highjack a Catholic Foum such as CAC to carry on with their anti-Mary insults and seek to have Catholics believe that we somehow practice some heresy and elevate Mary to a position that God somehow forbids. Those posters would do well to remember that Marian devotion among Roman Catholics will continue down the ages until the end of time WE LOVE MARY AND WILL ALWAYS HONOUR HER IN A SPECIAL WAY.

OH MARY CONCEIVED WIHTOUT SIN PRAY FOR US WHO HAVE RECOURSE TO THEE.

God Bless

Ryan

You are welcome, Ryan.

In regards to Sacred Tradition, that you mentioned, a fascinating problem appears in the writings of the early Fathers of the Church on the Blessed Virgin. For there is a remarkably persistent title for Mary which begins to appear in the works of the Fathers when the Apostolic Age is barely ended, and which swells until it finds a place in the writings of practically all the Fathers of the following centuries. The Fathers love to think of Mary as “the New Eve.” A little thought will show that many important truths about Mary and her position in the plans of God may be implied by this title.

It may be that the early Fathers of the Church derived their idea of the New Eve from the oral teaching of the Apostles, or it may be that they took up the very open hints in the writings of St. Paul. Certainly it is not hard to see that if there was a New Adam, Christ, to outbalance the old Adam, there should also be a New Eve, Mary, to outbalance the old Eve. For St. Paul said that the Redemption was superabundant : " . . . . where sin abounded, grace did more abound." (Romans 5:20)

cont.

 

[Tomster]

The Fathers love to dwell on the contrast of Mary and Eve. God had made great plans for the first Eve, but she, in her disobedience, blocked the original design of God. God, however, found a remedy that would more than compensate for Eve: in Mary He would have all that

 

[crazzeto]

To correct you as well, the church Christ is presently building is catholic (universal, catholic being an adjective); it is the church, catholic. It is not “the Catholic Church” which historically was a development over time of western Christendom. Western Christendom adopted the NAME “the Catholic Church,” while eastern Christendom adopted the NAME “Orthodox.” Western Christendom by its moniker claimed catholicity while eastern Christendom by its moniker claimed orthodoxy. Each to the exclusion of the other. Your church is not “universal” but is restricted to those who have put themselves under authority and are in communion with your Pope, its head.

There is a fundamental difference between the church, catholic, which Christ has been building since Pentecost and “the Catholic Church.” The former is made up ONLY of those whose sins have been forgiven, the saved, the redeemed, the reconciled, the justified, the sanctified and in the future, the glorified. It has no NAME but has an identity: the body/bride of Christ. The church, catholic, transcends earthly bounds and monikers, but the Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).

Well let me propose this challenge, the earliest Christians in fact left a host of writings for us to examin… I quoted St. Palycarp earlier, can you find any writings which support any idea that the historic christian church looks anything at all like your faith tradition?

 

[Tomster]

One of the earliest writers to compare Mary to Eve is St. Justin Martyr. This learned saint - for he was a philosopher before he became a Christian and well before Protestantism was even heard of - was born in Palestine not long after the year 100 A.D. In his “Dialogue with Trypho” he says that Christ " . . . was made man of the Virgin, so that the disobedience brought on by the serpent might be cancelled out in the same manner in which it had begun."

St. Justin continues, contrasting the disobedience of Eve with the obedience of Mary: " For Eve . . . conceiving the word from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But Mary . . . when the angel announced to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her . . . answered: Be it done unto me according to your word."

We notice that St. Justin not only thinks of Mary as the New Eve; he considers it part of God’s plan that the disobedience of Adam and Eve should “be cancelled out in the same manner in which it had begun.” This statement is of crucial importance. In the fall of our first parents, TWO persons had taken part. One was Adam, the real head of the human race. If he alone had fallen, it would have been enough to plunge mankind into original sin. Eve, on the other hand, was not head of the race. If she alone had sinned, we would have had a bad example but would not have contracted original sin. But the actual fact is that original sin was a joint work; both Adan and Eve co-operated in it, if in different ways. Only Adam could ruin us - but Eve did what she could. In her inferior way she shared in the fall. It seems quite possible that St. Justin is implying that the objective redemption was also a joint work, in which the New Eve shared as immediately as the first Eve had shared in the fall.

St. Irenaeus and Tertullian both attest to this.

 

[Tomster]

To correct you as well, the church Christ is presently building is catholic (universal, catholic being an adjective); it is the church, catholic. It is not “the Catholic Church” which historically was a development over time of western Christendom. Western Christendom adopted the NAME “the Catholic Church,” while eastern Christendom adopted the NAME “Orthodox.” Western Christendom by its moniker claimed catholicity while eastern Christendom by its moniker claimed orthodoxy. Each to the exclusion of the other. Your church is not “universal” but is restricted to those who have put themselves under authority and are in communion with your Pope, its head.

There is a fundamental difference between the church, catholic, which Christ has been building since Pentecost and “the Catholic Church.” The former is made up ONLY of those whose sins have been forgiven, the saved, the redeemed, the reconciled, the justified, the sanctified and in the future, the glorified. It has no NAME but has an identity: the body/bride of Christ. The church, catholic, transcends earthly bounds and monikers, but the Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).

Really, Moondweller, your concept of the invisible church has been debunked over and over again on many different threads.

Historically speaking, the Orthodox churches were once united to the Catholic Church but decided to go their way as did Luther some centuries later.

 

[Tomster]

Well let me propose this challenge, the earliest Christians in fact left a host of writings for us to examin… I quoted St. Palycarp earlier, can you find any writings which support any idea that the historic christian church looks anything at all like your faith tradition?

Moondweller can only go back to the writings of his spiritual forefathers, Martin Luther et al, when they broke away from Rome.

 

[crazzeto]

Moondweller can only go back to the writings of his spiritual forefathers, Martin Luther et al, when they broke away from Rome.

For some at least, this would be problematic as Christiantiy started in ~33A.D. when Christ was nailed to the tree. He has a rather difficult quesiton to answer, where did Christianity go for ~1,500 yrs?

 

[Tomster]

Just as I said. Catholicism is not Scripture based but tradition based. Scripture being just a part of your Tradition.

If you really thought about, moondweller, and I mean really thought about it, you would understand that the Bible is Tradition that has been written down.

 

[Tomster]

For some at least, this would be problematic as Christiantiy started in ~33A.D. when Christ was nailed to the tree. He has a rather difficult quesiton to answer, where did Christianity go for ~1,500 yrs?

I agree, He really does have a difficult question to answer.

It seems that the template his pastor gave him to place over most of the Bible, effectively blocking out the truth, has been glued on and will not come off.

As we all know, the Church is the kingdom of God on earth governed by the apostolic authority.

Jesus Christ, as is strikingly evident on EVERY page of the Gospel, represented Himself to the world as the founder of “the kingdom of God,” which in its earthly phase is ordained to gather together all men (cf. the parables of the kingdom): the people.

As rulers of the kingdom He appointed Apostles (cf. Luke 6:13; Matt. 18:15-18; John 20:21; Matt. 28:18-19, etc.): the clergy in the people.

As head of the Apostles He constituted St. Peter (cf. Matt. 16:18-19; John 21:17): the primacy of the clergy.

With these elements our Lord instituted a real society, hierarchically constituted (with subjects and superiors), VISIBLE to the eyes of all (cf. 4:3-10; 5:3-12; 6:33; 16:26-27, etc.), assigning it the function of applying, through the centuries, the fruits of the Redemption.

The above Scripture citations are very dangerous to the Moondweller. He will not address them for he has no rebuttal.

 

[Tomster]

Just as I said. Catholicism is not Scripture based but tradition based. Scripture being just a part of your Tradition.

Well then, I think all of the Catholic posters on this thread would be interested in your answer to the following:

a.) I, Moondweller, have searched the Scripture all on my own. I have determined the correct interpretation of the whole of Scripture by myself and am now presenting my interpretation to all for their benefit.

or

b.) I, Moondweller, have had help from either some other person and/or writing (translated: extra-biblical tradition) to enable me to interpret Scriptures and present them to all for their benefit.

Choose: A or B!

Either way, Moondweller, it appears that you are trying to give us your own interpretations of Scripture, dare I say, your own personal ORAL TRADITION, and expecting us to fall for it hook, line and sinker.

 

[anthony022071]

To correct you as well, the church Christ is presently building is catholic (universal, catholic being an adjective); it is the church, catholic. It is not “the Catholic Church” which historically was a development over time of western Christendom. Western Christendom adopted the NAME “the Catholic Church,” while eastern Christendom adopted the NAME “Orthodox.” Western Christendom by its moniker claimed catholicity while eastern Christendom by its moniker claimed orthodoxy. Each to the exclusion of the other. Your church is not “universal” but is restricted to those who have put themselves under authority and are in communion with your Pope, its head.

The Catholic Church was not just a historical development,it existed as universal from the day of Pentecost. It is not just an earthly institution,it exists in heaven as well. The true Church of the early centuries was named Catholic. And it was called Catholic in the East. There was no entity that was named Christian Church or Orthodox Church.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“Nor does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

"The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

 

[anthony022071]

scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html#tradition-I

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the Apostles by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.” Basil, Holy Spirit 27 (c. A.D. 370).

“The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370).

“While the unwritten traditions are so many and their bearing on ‘the mystery of godliness’ is so important, can they refuse us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;–which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;–a word for which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery.” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370).

“In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form ‘with the Spirit’ has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions. ‘I praise you,’ it is said, ‘that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you;’ and ‘Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.’ One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.” Basil, Holy Spirit 71 (c. A.D. 370).

‘Not to accept the voice of the Fathers as being of more authority than their opinion deserves reproof as something filled with pride!’ Basil, Epistle to Canonicas (c. A.D. 370).

‘But for all the divine words, there is no need of allegory to grasp the meaning; what is necessary is study and understanding to know the meaning of each statement. We must have recourse to tradition, for all cannot be received from the divine Scriptures. That is why the holy Apostles handed down certain things in writings but others by traditions. As Paul said:" Just as I handed them on to you."’ Ephiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 61, 6 (A.D. 377).

‘Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of the Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of command…’ Jerome, Dialogue Luciferians 8 (c. A.D. 379).

‘And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have Scripture authority since the devil himself has quoted Scripture texts…we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine.’ Jerome, Dialogue Luciferians 28 (c. A.D. 379).

 

[anthony022071]

“Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.” Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

“They who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

“This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense.” Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362).

“It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness of the two Testaments.” Ephraem, Against Heresies (ante A.D. 373).

“For they [heretics] do not teach as the church does; their message does no accord with the truth.” Epiphanius, Panarion, 47 (A.D. 377).

“Seeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion… And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

“Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth.” Ambrose, Commentary of Psalm 118,19 (A.D. 388).

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.” Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

" ‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

“My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the faith of the Catholic Church.” Jerome, To Minervius & Alexander, Epistle 119 (A.D. 406).

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.” Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).

“But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Antinquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 70 (A.D. 434

 

[moondweller]

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.” Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).

“But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Antinquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 70 (A.D. 434

The problem with all this, Anthony, is the early writers knew nothing of the “Catholic Church” that would develop in Western Christendom. There’s a vast difference between the church Christ Himself is building and the history of the Western and Eastern churches developed over time by men.

Since Pentecost there has always been the church catholic (still is). But the “Catholic Church” in the West and the “Orthodox Church” in the East slowly developed and were brought about by schism. By the end of the 4th cen. the churches and Bishops of Christendom came to be dominated by five great centers: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. Each having a “Bishop” called a Patriarch, and each recognized as having the same authority with full control over his own Province.

But after the Division of the Roman Empire (395) into East and West, the Patriarchs in the East: Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, gradually acknowledge the Leadership of Constantinople, not Rome. After that there arose the struggle for the Leadership of all Christendom between the Patriarch (Pope) of Rome in the West, and the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East. Of course this all occurred because of the union of church and state beginning with Constantine. Patriarchs wielded great political power, especially in the West where there was no Emperor.

But while all this was going on with men (and still is), Christ continued to go on with the business of building HIS church (and still does), calling it out from both individual Jews and Gentiles through personal faith in Him. There’s a fundamental difference between the true church of Christ (universal & spiritual) which He’s building and the churches built by men.

 

[brb3]

There is a fundamental difference between the church, catholic, which Christ has been building since Pentecost and “the Catholic Church.” The former is made up ONLY of those whose sins have been forgiven, the saved, the redeemed, the reconciled, the justified, the sanctified and in the future, the glorified. It has no NAME but has an identity: the body/bride of Christ. The church, catholic, transcends earthly bounds and monikers, but the Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).

So … MD, are you now calling yourself a Catholic bac ?

Remember, Christ called you to enter in thru the “narrow” front door … and to start partaking of the literal Eucharist

 

[Tomster]

Well then, I think all of the Catholic posters on this thread would be interested in your answer to the following:

a.) I, Moondweller, have searched the Scripture all on my own. I have determined the correct interpretation of the whole of Scripture by myself and am now presenting my interpretation to all for their benefit.

or

b.) I, Moondweller, have had help from either some other person and/or writing (translated: extra-biblical tradition) to enable me to interpret Scriptures and present them to all for their benefit.

Choose: A or B!

Either way, Moondweller, it appears that you are trying to give us your own interpretations of Scripture, dare I say, your own personal ORAL TRADITION, and expecting us to fall for it hook, line and sinker.

An answer, please, Moondweller.

 

[Tomster]

Just as I said. Catholicism is not Scripture based but tradition based. Scripture being just a part of your Tradition.

Moondweller,

There exists no obligation binding each individual to draw the subject matter of his faith directly from Scriptures.

The obligation of reading the Bible, if such existed, would be founded either in the nature of the subject itself or upon a positive divine command. The nature of the subject requires
only a knowledge of religion suited to one’s condition. This may be obtained in various ways, but chiefly by the oral teaching of the Church. Nor can we point to any divine precept enjoining the reading of the Bible on all. Whenever the Apostles addressed letters to the faithful these were intended, in the first place, for those to whom they were addressed, and were doubtless publicly read, with the necessary comments, by the pastors of those communities. Some of the inspired letters were addressed to individuals, others to particular churches. Nowhere do we find a precept enjoining on all Christians, either of the times of the Apostles or of later ages the reading of the Apostolic writings.

If any such divine precept existed, it could not have been unknown to the early Fathers. Now although these recommend the reading of the Scriptures to those who may profit by them, yet they expressly assert that there is no such universal obligation. “Thy faith has saved thee,” says Tertullian, “not the study of Scriptures; faith is contained in the Creed” (de praescript. c. 14). Nor does the same writer fail to censure in another place those who do not read the Scriptures in a proper spirit. St. Augustine (de doct. Christ. 1. c. 39) is still more explicit on this matter: “Established on faith, hope, and charity, and holdin to these immovably, man needs not the Scriptures, except as a means of instructing others. Hence many live by these three virtues in the desert without the Scriptures.” What St. Augustine here says of hermits St. Irenaeus (adv. haeres. 3. c. 2.) asserts of whole nations, who had received and preserved the faith by the ORAL teaching of the Church alone. And St. Jerome (ep. ad. Paulin.) severely rebukes the presumption of those who pretend to interpret the Scripture without authority.