How many deny Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

[Radical]

You seem to confuse SUPREME with IMPECCABILITY.

That is an extremely odd conclusion given that I haven’t mentioned anything to do with “IMPECCABILITY”. I say A, B and C and in response you do a rather poor job of attacking X, Y and Z

Yes and the pope also uses other titles too. And? He uses the title Servant of the Servants of God. Sure does not sound SUPREME to me.

Christ took on the nature of a servant. Are you suggesting that means that supremacy can’t be claimed for him?

Oh I yeah! I am going to embarass myself …

agreed

 

[Nicea325]

That is an extremely odd conclusion given that I haven’t mentioned anything to do with “IMPECCABILITY”. I say A, B and C and in response you do a rather poor job of attacking X, Y and Z

Christ took on the nature of a servant. Are you suggesting that means that supremacy can’t be claimed for him?

agreed

Poor job of attacking? speak for yourself. You talk A,B,C and want it to equal X,Y, and Z.

Exactly! And and you suggesting Christ forbids ANY human repesentative to have supremacy for His Church? Sure seems to me.

 

[Nicea325]

Your problem isn’t that it is just Protestants who are proposing a history of the church that undermines the Catholic claim to a unanimous consent of the Church fathers…your problem is that this bothersome history is also coming from Catholic, Orthodox, and all stripes of non-Christian historians. It seems that your response is to simply complain that they are reaching a conclusion that is different from the old one that you treasure…I guess that shouldn’t be too surprising, after all, how long did it take the CC to admit Galileo had a true discovery?

And your problem is that you want it to be suit your modernist view,whether you care to admit or not. So the RCC was always against science? LOL

Right…and I wouldn’t suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine wrt Christ’s two natures are the product of divine revelation…they are the product of man’s attempt to reasonably define the mystery of God (with reference to God’s revelation).

You know I am right. It is not a matter of divine revelation,but it was a matter of explaining explicitly the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.And why? Due to the facts heretics were questioning Christ two natures. Hence…the need for a Creed. Study some history,it is called doctrinal development.

No, b/c everyone has a bias…it is merely a question of how well one eliminates its effect.

And yours is not biased?

do really want to put your knowledge of the ECFs up against the likes of Pelikan?..you are only going to embarass yourself.

And is Pelikan’s knowledge above the ECF? Pelikan alone can rebuke the ECF by himself? And Pelikan lived 2,000 years ago? Go and re-read what you quoted from Pelikan: Not ONE 2nd or 3rd church father DECLARED the RP. Speaking of embarassment.

Did you read these? Did you note that Iggy says Christ’s blood = incorruptible love? Not exactly literal…which isn’t unusual at all. Ignatius tends to stray from the literal which is why you can’t be sure that when he said that the “Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” that he was talking about a RP. At that point he is talking about the Docetists. When Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the flesh, he could mean that the Eucharist is the flesh a)literally, b)symbolically, c)sacramentally, d)representatively, or e)mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. In fact, they would not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ in any way, shape or form b/c (they believed that) no such flesh existed. Here is an article that goes into detail…you won’t like the conclusion (b/c it doesn’t suit your faith), but the reasoning is sound.

And do you COMPREHEND the ECF writings? Nnaaaaaa…I have never read and STUDIED the ECF. I forgot,only Christians who popped up 1500 years were capable of understanding them now. Get a grip of yourself.
You are not going to convince me and tell me otherwise that the ECF denied it without a doubt.

No it is you who is confused…I suspect you are projecting your usage onto Augustine’s words. Just b/c you mean a RP by that terminology doesn’t mean that Augustine did. You need to read more than a few snippets of Augustine to grasp his view. Follow this thread from start to finish and tell me if you have anything to add…your quoting of a few sentences out of context does not begin to address the matter…but before you even start, you should ask yourself, if Augustine’s support for a RP is as obvious as your sentence or two from sermon 227 would suggest, how could the experts so badly miss Augustine’s belief in a RP? What is more likely? A) that you haven’t grasped Augustine’s meaning; or B) the experts somehow missed those passages that every Catholic apologist wannabe copies and pastes at the drop of a hat?

Riighhttt…sure. Augustine thought and believed like a Protestant? I find it so laugable at times at what extremes some Protestants will go. Save it! You are not going to tell me anything new which I have not heard my entire life from Protestants.

As stated,if the RP is a heresy or a usurpation of Christ,then kindly provide the overwhelming works of St.Augustine attacking the RP?

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

A couple points

 I [SIGN]must confess that I admire "Cafeteria Catholics", those who think, study, ponder and then decide what parts of traditional Catholicism they will embrace.[/SIGN] Somehow I have never thought that remaining true to all the traditions that go back hundreds and hundreds of years is altogether and always admirable and a good thing. The world has changed enormously, and our understanding and perceptions are very different. What was easy for the faithful to believe then seems a bit far fetched today.  

 If Christian unity is ever achieved it will be in large part because traditionalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants and the hyper-Orthodox of the eastern church come to realize that this world is full of mystery and that no church has a monopoly when it comes to understanding it. They may continue to believe what they now believe, but they will have new respect for other Christians and their beliefs and/or doubts. The bitterness that some seem to feel will be replaced by a geneuine sense of Christian harmony and mutual appreciation.

 We need a 'big tent' faith that respects different interpretations of scripture. Some will continue to be loyal to the Holy See - and that is fine - but Christians need the freedom to 'think and let think' without having to endure sharp condemnation. 

 As for Christ in the Eucharist, some of those early mystery religions were big on consuming the flesh and blood of their god or gods in one way or another. This - some would argue - is a relic from the days when human sacrifice was thought to be required to appease the wrath of God. Now think a minute. Is there something just a bit bizarre about God killing his only son so that our sins can be forgiven? Moreover, while Jesus, of course, underwent enormous torment, he knew that shortly he would again reign forever and ever, King of kings and Lord of lords. Millions of people have gone through intense and prolonged suffering and death without that expectation of an eternal throne. I personally see Jesus on the cross as representative of all the innocent people who have been tortured and/or slaughtered by wars, persecutions, natural disasters, horrendous diseases, slavery, and other cruelties. That's how I personally view Christ in the Eucharist.  

 God bless all people of faith, and may religion become a bridge and not a barrier.

You know Roy I must say you got me here I hope I am misunderstanding what you said. I am hoping you will explain it better. But are you saying you admire the Catholics who really do not understand the faith that they have. And you think its great that they study the word of God and then you think its great that they turn around and pick and choose what they decide is true and what it not???

See I always thought that when Jesus said it he meant it. I never heard him or the Apostles say now you read all of my teachings study them, and then you choose what you want to believe. Just pick the ones you want to incorporate into your life style.

See I was told you are either HOT (which means you believe and accept all of the teachings of Christ. Or you are COLD(which means you do not accept them all. It was Christ himself who said you cannot be LUKEWARM!!! Would a person rather they are Catholic or Protestatant who decide what parts if Christ teaching they would like to embrace be LUKEWARM?

 

[rinnie]

I don’t believe there is anyting in Jewish law that forbids one from changing their name.

I believe I have to agree with you on that one. But what I think they were trying to imply is that Jesus changed Peters name to Rock which Translates into Father. Jesus refers to himself as the Rock, The rock that the builders rejected becomes the cornerstone.

ANd Jesus changes Abram to Abraham which translates into Father.

Abraham was called our Father Abraham and our leader who was led by God. Jesus is the word made flesh which means God the Father. And Peter is the leader of the Sheep who we refer also to Father. The Pope the Holy Father. All have in common one name. Father (ROCK)

 

[seamusmohr]

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”

head of the college of bishops

Where does it mention the Bishop of Rome in Scripture or Tradition?
Where does Tradition separate the Bishop of Rome from the other Sees of Peter,Antioch or Alexandria?
Didn’t the Bishops give up their freedoms at the Council of Trent?

Y

 

[Nicea325]

Where does it mention the Bishop of Rome in Scripture or Tradition?

Where does Scripture state it must say EVERYTHING and teach EVERYTHING explicitly? Where does Jesus even state to have a one volume Bible? No where!

Tradition? Are you kidding? Here only a few from the early church fathers/Tradition

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

**Where does Tradition separate the Bishop of Rome from the other Sees of Peter,Antioch or Alexandria? **

Separate? Who told you The See of Rome was separated? The See of Rome in the early church as early church history has shown was the primary See followed by Constantinople,of course after the Council of Constantinople in 381. Don’t believe me? Read the early church fathers and read how many times Western/Eastern bishops appealed to the Bishop of Rome. I have plenty sources you can read yourself.

Didn’t the Bishops give up their freedoms at the Council of Trent?

Give up their freedoms? Be more specific

 

[seamusmohr]

Where does it mention the Bishop of Rome in Scripture or Tradition?

Where does Scripture state it must say EVERYTHING and teach EVERYTHING explicitly? Where does Jesus even state to have a one volume Bible? No where!

But Rome claims a position of authority over all Christ’s Church and indeed over all Christians for the Pope? Your priests in this country, at least, claim a scriptural base, Matthew , through Petrine Claims? If I am wrong where does the Roman Church get its authority from then?

Tradition? Are you kidding? Here only a few from the early church fathers/Tradition

With all due respect to S.Ignatius, he was a bishop. Both St,Paul and St,Peter were members of the Apostolic College !

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Many people doubt Peter’s position as Bishop of Rome, if not his place alongside Paul in the genesis of the Roman Church. The question has to be asked, where do the prerogatives of the Apostles descend on to the Popes,? Where’s the warranty from either scripture or Holy Tradition?

**

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century

. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.” **

Are you saying that what we seek is to be found in Eusebius? If it is I can’t find it! Please give details.

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

Really, the question isn’t answered by referring to St.Peter! The question is how was Peter’s powers transferred to Linus,or Cletus etc!

Separate? Who told you The See of Rome was separated?

If we look at history we find that quite often the Sees, or the Churches of Antioch or Alexandria or indeed Constantinople, were quite often separated from Rome and not simply by water! Fuller. Early Church.]

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Where does it mention the Bishop of Rome in Scripture or Tradition?

Quote:
Where does Scripture state it must say EVERYTHING and teach EVERYTHING explicitly? Where does Jesus even state to have a one volume Bible? No where!

**But Rome claims a position of authority over all Christ’s Church and indeed over all Christians for the Pope? Your priests in this country, at least, claim a scriptural base, Matthew , through Petrine Claims? If I am wrong where does the Roman Church get its authority from then? **

That is the first thing which always sticks out by non-Catholics,the phrase: Rome CLAIMS. First of all, Rome did not make the claim all on its own. Jesus is the one who set up His church in such a fashion and many simply have an issue with it. Look at the end results of the Reformation not having the Church as a teaching authority? Chaos and divisions upon divisions.Why would Jesus even bother to pick 12 men,if he intended no authority at all and simply have a loose-knit church? To whom did Jesus speficially give the keys? The power to bind and loose?

Quote:
Tradition? Are you kidding? Here only a few from the early church fathers/Tradition

With all due respect to S.Ignatius, he was a bishop. Both St,Paul and St,Peter were members of the Apostolic College !

That is right and they too were bishops.If they were not bishops,then why would Peter replace Judas in Acts? Because it was an office,not just a title.Were not they not spiritual leaders?

Quote:
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Quote:
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Many people doubt Peter’s position as Bishop of Rome, if not his place alongside Paul in the genesis of the Roman Church. The question has to be asked, where do the prerogatives of the Apostles descend on to the Popes,? Where’s the warranty from either scripture or Holy Tradition?

Warranty? Scripture does teach it and Tradition. Did Jesus not found His Church or a Bible? Were Timothy and Titus not bishops? Actually the questioned to be asked is where does the NT teach with the death of the last Apostle all matters of faith,doctrine and morality were to be binded to written scripture alone?

Quote:
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century

Quote:
. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Are you saying that what we seek is to be found in Eusebius? If it is I can’t find it! Please give details.

One source gives such evidence,but one can go to any local public library and look up the writings of the early church fathers.

Quote:
Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

Really, the question isn’t answered by referring to St.Peter! The question is how was Peter’s powers transferred to Linus,or Cletus etc!

Throught Apostolic Succession. And by whom? The Apostles.To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . **Our apostles **knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they[the apostles] appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Quote:
Separate? Who told you The See of Rome was separated?

**If we look at history we find that quite often the Sees, or the Churches of Antioch or Alexandria or indeed Constantinople, were quite often separated from Rome and not simply by water! Fuller. Early Church.] **

Yes on and off through out history,but it was not set up in such a fashion. If you are referring to heresies and schims? Nothing new whether it was internally or externally.

 

[seamusmohr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325

Where does it mention the Bishop of Rome in Scripture or Tradition?

That is right and they too were bishops.If they were not bishops,then why would Peter replace Judas in Acts? Because it was an office,not just a title.Were not they not spiritual leaders?

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.,

Many people doubt Peter’s position as Bishop of Rome, if not his place alongside Paul in the genesis of the Roman Church. The question has to be asked, where do the prerogatives of the Apostles descend on to the Popes,? Where’s the warranty from either scripture or Holy Tradition?

Warranty? Scripture does teach it and Tradition. Did Jesus not found His Church or a Bible? Were Timothy and Titus not bishops? Actually the questioned to be asked is where does the NT teach with the death of the last Apostle all matters of faith,doctrine and morality were to be binded to written scripture alone?

**Authority in the Church was given by Christ to the Apostolic College! With the deaths of the Apostles, Authority became the prerogative of the Bishops and that collectively through the Councils! It was this way that all the great Christological discussions of the early Church were solved and indeed the question of the Church’s attitude to Mary and the Holy people of God. (7th,Council.)
**
Quote:

 

[Roy5]

Rinnie

A couple of points.

1. I have come to believe, over the years, that Christians should be free to interpret scripture as they see fit. I have enjoyed some Bible studies at which various members of the group came up with different interpretations of one verse or another. No one jumped on anyone else and shouted ‘heresy’. They were more like to say, “While I may not agree with you, that’s an interesting point of view. Tell me more.”
2. “Cafeteria Catholics” come in for bitter criticism. I admire them because they don’t simply turn over their minds to the church, the Pope or the catechism. They weigh things. My lady friend (I am a widowerer) attends mass faithfully, is devoted to the church, but she can’t bring herself to believe certain things, such as the infallibility of the Pope in faith and morals or the Immaculate Conception - that Mary was the only person born without origin sin, and that she lived a sinless life. She says they may be true, but that she has serious doubts about these as well as other Catholic doctrines. But she (and me, too) is sure that God will not punish her because she is an honest questioner.
3. Obviously, the Bible isn’t all that clear. Take the Sermon on the Mount. Quakers and the Amish and some others believe Jesus taught absolute pacifism - “love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, etc.” Quakers won’t take an oath (but affirm instead) because Jesus said “swear not by heaven or by earth.” Some Christians believe that our lives are mapped out in advance - “even the hairs on your head are numbered” - somewhere in scripture. Some Christians handle snakes as a sign of their faith, quoting final verses in Mark. How literally should we take Jesus? He said he was the gate, the door, the vine, the good shepherd. He spoke in similes and metaphors. And frankly, I have trouble with the time when he directed demons into pigs and sent them headlong over a cliff. Well, we could go on. My point is that scripture is filled with verses that can be interpreted in different ways, one reason for so many Christian groups. The commandment - one of the ten - against graven images convinces many Christians that statues in church are not appropriate. Then we have those verses that justify slavery, that women should cover their heads in church, that they should not speak in church - scores of other tough verses to explain.
4. Heresy? That doesn’t trouble me for a moment. When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, he said nothing about doctrine. He said love God and others, then told the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate his point. In his day, he was something of as heretic himself and we admire him for that. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” etc.

Let’s make our faith a bridge and not a barrier.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6550358:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325

**Regarding mention of the Bishop of Rome? There’s no word or discussion in Scripture!
Tradition is a different kettle of fish!
Several times in Holy tradition there’s mention of the Bishop of Rome! he’s mentioned in and by the Holy Ecumenical Councils! I’m surprised you weren’t aware. Three times the Councils delineated Rome’s undoubted position in the Catholic Hierarchy and it was simply because of the political position of the Capital and the Bishop’s position as servant of the Emperor that Rome and Constantinople were given authority and duties within the Church other than those given to all bishops.
**

Again,where does Scripture declare everything has to be explicitly stated in scripture? Where does scripture explicitly declare Matthew wrote Matthew? It does not,it is called Apostolic Tradition. When did I say I was not aware of the Bishop of Rome being mentioned at councils? I am very aware of it!

You said:

Three times the Councils delineated Rome’s undoubted position in the Catholic Hierarchy and it was simply because of the political position of the Capital and the Bishop’s position as servant of the Emperor that Rome and Constantinople were given authority and duties within the Church other than those given to all bishops.

WRONG! The councils did not give Rome the position due to the fact it was the captial or close to emperor. It was given to Rome due to Peter and that is called Apostolic Tradition. Look it up.

**Regarding Jesus and the 1 Vol, Bible, I must confess you’ve lost me! Even so through Scripture we can see the Magisterium of the Church laid out quite plain and the papacy doesn’t play any part, other than being a diocesan bishop and we assume that!
**

I was not trying to confuse you, I was simply making a point. The Bible does not contain everything and does not teach everything explicitly.

**Jesus most obviously did set up the basic system but the system he bequeathed us was first His Revelation, then the Apostolic College leading to the College of Bishops! In amongst the early fathers, [First Four Cent.] there is no discussion of Rome being other than a Petrine See, something it shared with other Sees.
** I have never said that Christ intended no leadership within the Church! All the great problems of the Christian Religion, the Christological ones were settled by the College of Bishops through the Councils. This is where the answer lies! Don’t forget there are anywhere between four and thirty popes at the present times, [At least according to the internet! There are some four Churches all claiming to be the Roman Catholic Church. For myself, it matters not, but it doesn’t bode well for your argument!

Yes the Apostolic College of bishops and the Bishop of Rome as the head. Again, read the early church fathers and early church history. I am sorry that is not true there was no discussion of Rome being the primary See. If the Bishop of Rome had no primacy,then explain to me why would bishops from other dioceses either write or visit the Bishop of Rome to settle issues? I can give you case after case after case. Even heretics would go to Rome to get the papal appeal.

Quote:

**With all due respect to S.Ignatius, he was a bishop. Both St,Paul and St,Peter were members of the Apostolic College ! He was simply a member of the College of Bishops.

That is right and they too were bishops.If they were not bishops,then why would Peter replace Judas in Acts? Because it was an office,not just a title.Were not they not spiritual leaders?

Many people doubt Peter’s position as Bishop of Rome, if not his place alongside Paul in the genesis of the Roman Church. The question has to be asked, where do the prerogatives of the Apostles descend on to the Popes,? Where’s the warranty from either scripture or Holy Tradition?

Well unfortunately doubt is based off silent proof. The NT provides 50 scriptural proof of Peter’s primacy and the early church fathers all state Peter resided in Rome. Hence, if he has the primacy,then evidently he was the head bishop.

**Authority in the Church was given by Christ to the Apostolic College! With the deaths of the Apostles, Authority became the prerogative of the Bishops and that collectively through the Councils! It was this way that all the great Christological discussions of the early Church were solved and indeed the question of the Church’s attitude to Mary and the Holy people of God. (7th,Council.)
**
Quote:

Yes, and again,Peter as the head.

 

[Nicea325]

**1. I have come to believe, over the years, that Christians should be free to interpret scripture as they see fit. **

I am sorry,but that is a dangerous approach or belief. Precisely why there exists thousands of different churches due to the fact each is free interpret as they wish.

**2. “Cafeteria Catholics” come in for bitter criticism. I admire them because they don’t simply turn over their minds to the church, the Pope or the catechism. They weigh things. My lady friend (I am a widowerer) attends mass faithfully, is devoted to the church, but she can’t bring herself to believe certain things, such as the infallibility of the Pope in faith and morals or the Immaculate Conception - that Mary was the only person born without origin sin, and that she lived a sinless life. She says they may be true, but that she has serious doubts about these as well as other Catholic doctrines. But she (and me, too) is sure that God will not punish her because she is an honest questioner. **

Isn’t amazing how carnal we can be at times? So it is impossible for God to have not allowed Mary to be born without original sin? Who are we as mere creatures to know without a doubt God cannot have chosen one special woman not be born with original sin? Why would God allow a sinner to conceive His sinless Son? God is perfect and the vessel/ark (Mary) which carried Him for 9 months had to be without original sin.

As for papal infallibility? Does your friend question the canon of scripture? Did the Catholic Church make an error as to what books belong in the Bible? Did not Christ say the HS would guide the Apostles/Church to the truth? If the Holy Spirit has not guided the bishops in regards to doctrines (ie., Trinity,Incarnation,canon,etc) then our entire salvation is in jeopardy or in serious question.

 

[Roy5]

Nicaea325

Or, I guess you spell it Nicea, not quite the preferred spelling of the 325 Council.

A couple random thoughts in response.

What does one do with the Biblical assertion that "all have sinned"? Exclude Mary? And if Mary had to be born without original sin, what about her mother, St. Anne. Actually, I can't find Anne in scripture. Guess she is part of tradition. Besides, I don't really understand original sin. Is it inherited from Adam and Eve, which seems a bit unfair. Or, is it because sexual relations, even between married couples, involves sin? How else was Mary going to get born???

 My widow friend, like me, has a real struggle believing parts of the Bible. I've dealt with this with illustrations earlier. For example, would a loving and omniscient God create humankind, apparently with innate flaws (the temptation and ability to sin), then regret that he had created humankind, then decide to drown everybody but eight adults - thereby slaughtering all sorts of people, including innocent children and babies in the womb? Would Jesus really do that? I simply don't believe it. It would be the action of a monster, more like Hitler than Jesus. How does it fit in with Catholic theology and its pro-life stance?  I would find it hard to worship such a god, a god who makes such a 'mistake' (creating humankind), then tries to solve the problem by killing nearly everybody and starting over. Wild story, more incredible than science fiction.   

 But my friend and I try our best to reflect the love of Christ in our daily lives. We see that as far, far more important than any doctrine or church connection. I believe Jesus instructed us to love God and love one another - upon these two commandments rest all the law and the prophets. This yakity-yak about this dogma or that, this verse or that, is of minor importance compared to Christ's call to live lives of faith, hope and love - "and the greatest of these is love" (I Cor. 13:13).

 May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier. God bless people of every creed, color and country.

 

[Nicea325]

**Nicaea325

Or, I guess you spell it Nicea, not quite the preferred spelling of the 325 Council.**

Yep! Spelled different on purpose.

A couple random thoughts in response.

**What does one do with the Biblical assertion that “all have sinned”? Exclude Mary? **

Oh of course,the famous Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”?

Let me you ask you this:Have all people committed actual sins?

Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus who was also 100% HUMAN (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

And if Mary had to be born without original sin, what about her mother, St. Anne. Actually, I can’t find Anne in scripture. Guess she is part of tradition. Besides, I don’t really understand original sin. Is it inherited from Adam and Eve, which seems a bit unfair. Or, is it because sexual relations, even between married couples, involves sin? How else was Mary going to get born???

Again,is it IMPOSSIBLE for God to prevent someone from original sin? You mean Anne is an obstacle for God? When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

 

[brkn1]

So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Jesus is described as the New Adam in the Bible.
This “New Eve” description for Mary is invention and can not found in the Bible.
Eve was the spouse of Adam, not his mother.
There needs to be less of a stretch in how one may argue for exceptions if they want to be convincing.
You use Scripture to set up your argument or example, and then you seem to have no problem coming to an important conclusion that is not even in Scripture, nor does it fit the example very well.

 

[seamusmohr]

seamusmohr;6552935:

Yes, and again,Peter as the head.

Quite possibly so, but you give only your belief or preference and with all due respect this isn’t enough!
When we refer to scripture, which is simply Revelation writ down, or Tradition in writing, who decides just what it means?Who explains the intricacies of the Faith?
To all intents and purposes it was the apostolic college and the bishops in council! Again, I point out that the problems of the early church were dealt with in this way. There are ,[according to the Orthodox teaching which is very close to Anglican ideas,] at least seven or eight councils mentioned in Acts. One is clear and that is the Council of Jerusalem. Where Peter was present and authority was held by James, the brother of Our Lord! All the great Christological problems and the Marian developments stemmed from the ,‘Great Seven Councils of the first thousand years’!
It is a saying of the Catholic Church of the First Thousand Years"
“We believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed,explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.”[Pref. Longer Orthodox Catechism. Cairo 1900.] Indeed, The Council of Trent says that Scripture must be translated through the fathers and that is what the Ecumenical Councils are!

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus is described as the New Adam in the Bible.
This “New Eve” description for Mary is invention and can not found in the Bible.
Eve was the spouse of Adam, not his mother.
There needs to be less of a stretch in how one may argue for exceptions if they want to be convincing.
You use Scripture to set up your argument or example, and then you seem to have no problem coming to an important conclusion that is not even in Scripture, nor does it fit the example very well.

Invention? Nope! Problem is that so-called Bible-Only Christians have a faulty belief the Bible has to explicitly say something in order to be true. Likewise,the Bible no where teaches everything must be taught explcitly. Show me where scripture explicitly explains the 3 distinct persons of the Trinity?

Who gave us the defined and explicit doctrine of the Trinity? The Bible or the Church?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6557649:

Quite possibly so, but you give only your belief or preference and with all due respect this isn’t enough!
When we refer to scripture, which is simply Revelation writ down, or Tradition in writing, who decides just what it means?Who explains the intricacies of the Faith?
To all intents and purposes it was the apostolic college and the bishops in council! Again, I point out that the problems of the early church were dealt with in this way. There are ,[according to the Orthodox teaching which is very close to Anglican ideas,] at least seven or eight councils mentioned in Acts. One is clear and that is the Council of Jerusalem. Where Peter was present and authority was held by James, the brother of Our Lord! All the great Christological problems and the Marian developments stemmed from the ,‘Great Seven Councils of the first thousand years’!
It is a saying of the Catholic Church of the First Thousand Years"
“We believe that the Holy Scriptures are completed,explained and interpreted by Holy Tradition and that this is found in the teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.”[Pref. Longer Orthodox Catechism. Cairo 1900.] Indeed, The Council of Trent says that Scripture must be translated through the fathers and that is what the Ecumenical Councils are!

Quite possibly so, but you give only your belief or preference and with all due respect this isn’t enough!

I beg your pardon? My BELIEF? No! It is the BELIEF of the early church. No offense,but the problem is that you simply have not taken the time to study the early church.

I’ll ask you again,if Peter had no primacy,then explain to me why would bishops from the East and West take their issues to Rome to be settled? I have the historical cases to back up my argument,where are yours clearly showing papal primacy was a usurpation of Christ?

 

[brkn1]

Invention? Nope! Problem is that so-called Bible-Only Christians have a faulty belief the Bible has to explicitly say something in order to be true. Likewise,the Bible no where teaches everything must be taught explcitly.

Something as important as Mary being the “New Eve” had better have some Biblical support and it does not. I prefer to stick to God’s Word over what some human deducts as truth. The original sin came from Adam and Eve being convinced by Satan that God’s Word was not really so explicit or true. Both Satan and Eve added to God’s Word before Eve disobeyed God.

Show me where scripture explicitly explains the 3 distinct persons of the Trinity?

Who gave us the defined and explicit doctrine of the Trinity? The Bible or the Church?

(John 15:26) “But when the Comforter is come, whom I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, (even) the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he (HS) shall testify of me.”

(Matthew 28:19) “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

There are many other references in the Bible that further define the role of each Person in the one God, Who said in Genesis 1:26 " And God said, ‘Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness:…’ ".

The Bible is clear enough for any serious student who has the promised Holy Spirit as teacher. To say that the Church is the final word on Scripture is to reject the role of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus in John 15:26.
God has the final word and that is why the Bible is called God’s Word.