James White calls Called to Communion to the carpet on the Assumption of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arizona_Samson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow I like this thread 🙂

Arizona… I just want to let you know that your debate challenge against the doctrine of transubstantiation is a recipe for disaster. YOU CAN’T WIN. Want to know why ? Here is why :

"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
blood, hath everlasting life and I will
raise him up in the last day."
John 6:54

“And taking bread, he gave thanks, and
brake; and gave to them, saying: This is
my body, which is given for you. Do this
for a commemoration of me.”
Luke 22:19

Oh and since you asked for evidence an early Church teaching on Transubstantiation :

It doesn’t get any clearer or earlier than St.
Ignatius’ (died by 117 AD) denunciation of the Docetic
heretics in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,
because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of
our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and
which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.
Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God,
incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were
better for them to treat it with respect, that they also
might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should
keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them
either in private or in public, but to give heed to the
prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the
passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the
resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all
divisions, as the beginning of evils.”

More evidence from Ignatius’ letter to the Romans:

“I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the
pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the
heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterward of
the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink
of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love
and eternal life.”

This last citation of St. Ignatius in his letter to the
Philadephians is less explicit but still supportive:

“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is
one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show
forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one
bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my
fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do
it according to [the will of] God.”

And here are others :

St. Irenaeus (died circa 200 AD) is also very clear in
upholding transubstantiation in his rebuke of heretics:

“But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when
they say] that the bread over which thanks have been
given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if
they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the
world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood
fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth
gives “first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in
the ear.” Then, again, how can they say that the flesh,
which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with
His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of
life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or
cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our
opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the
Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to
Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship
and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread,
which is produced from the earth, when it receives the
invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the
Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and
heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the
Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of
the resurrection to eternity.”

“The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the
Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change
of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the
flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”
(Justin Martyr, First Apology).

“That bread which you see on the altar, having been
sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That
chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been
sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
(Augustine, Sermons, 227).

The Didache (written 100 AD) says:

“But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving
(Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the
name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has
said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

In Good faith, God be with you and us all. Amen:)
 
Arizona_Samson said:
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Debate Challenge for “Called to Communion” Team

***Dr. James White has offered a debate challenge to the Roman communion group at the “Called to Communion” blog ***(mp3, you can start around 6 minutes, if you just want to hear the challenge in context).

I am laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion: 2013 - let’s set up a debate. I’ll take on ten of you at once, if you’d like. I don’t care. If you want to roll through the whole group, I don’t care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn’t matter. You simply defend the following words, ok? You defend these words:

… a truth which is founded on the Sacred Scriptures, has been fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful in Christ, has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times, is quite in harmony with other revealed truths, and has been splendidly explained and declared by the zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the theologians."
(full text at #2332)

To what do we refer? Those are words from the definition of the bodily assumption of Mary, which actually began:

Since, then, the universal Church, in which the Spirit of Truth flourishes, who infallibly directs it to achieve a knowledge of revealed truths, has through the course of the ages repeatedly manifested its own faith; and since the bishops of the whole world with almost unanimous consent request that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faith
and then you have that following description. So will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is a truth which is founded on the sacred scriptures? Secondly, that it has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times? So, will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is founded on the Sacred Scriptures and was a part of the teaching of the ancient church in the earliest times? Now, I know factually beyond any doubt that that is a lie. It is untrue. There is not any reason on this planet to believe that, other than you have already accepted the authority claims of the bishop of Rome. Period. End of discussion.

I would second Dr. White’s challenge and his comments. I did a debate with William Albrecht on the Assumption of Mary, and in the course of the debate, it became readily apparent just how frail the Scriptural and patristic argument for Rome’s position is (link to mp3). So, if any of Rome’s apologists, either from CtC or elsewhere would prefer to Skype debate me, I’m willing to offer the same challenge.

-TurretinFan
Click to expand...
Why the need for attention… things are much better discussed over coffee :coffeeread:
 
James White is “laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion”. You will notice that the confusion is on James White. It is not clear at the moment if he is challenging “Called to Communion” or “Called to Confusion”. Until he clears up his confusion we should continue to regard him as confused or something worse.
 
Dozie said:
James White is “laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion”. You will notice that the confusion is on James White. It is not clear at the moment if he is challenging “Called to Communion” or “Called to Confusion”. Until he clears up his confusion we should continue to regard him as confused or something worse.
Click to expand...
“Called to Confusion” sounds like the name of a metal band to me. Maybe he’s branching out?
 
loko said:
Catholics base the Assumption of Mary on the Biblical passages that refer to Assumption of others. These include: Gn 5:24(Heb 11:5) Enoch was taken; 2Kg 2:11 Elijah assumed into heaven; Mt 27:52 Many saint who had fallen asleep were raised; 1 Thess 4:17 Caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

There are a few more who were Assumed body and soul into Heaven.

God chose to Assume Enoch, Elijah and various Saints.

I have no doubt that Christ has the power to do the same for his own Mother, the Ark of the New Covenant and the First Christian.

Would you do the same for your mother? I hope so.

EO’s and Catholics believe Mary was assumed into Heaven. The Assumption is Catholic dogma. Whether it occurred before or after her death is not defined by Catholic dogma, Catholics are free to believe either.

Both (EO &Catholic) believe in the Assumption although I think with the EO it is not dogmatically defined as it is in the CC although they believe it was 3days after her death. Maybe an EO poster could confirm either way.

Both have a history linking them back to the Apostles. Are both wrong even though we are separated brethren now and disagree on some doctrines? Both still believe in the Assumption.
Click to expand...
I also think that the assumption is strongly implied with Moses since he went up on a mountain to die and was never seen again and his body never found. It would fit with the others and Moses was present with Elijah at the transfiguration in other words already present in heaven with Elijah. thanks for your scripture references.
 
James White is a bully. People like him do more harm to Catholic/protestant relations than anything else. As some of the other posts pointed out and shared links, he has debated this topic before with others. He is harassing Catholics. He doesn’t realize that he is fighting God while he believes he is defending truth. What a deceived blinded man that is full of hate and venom.
 
Nicea325 said:
I cannot remember where at statement by someone where it read: The very foundations of Protestanism is self-centered,not Christ-centered. Luther,Calvin,etc were more concerned with their own doctrines and wills than that of the church.
Click to expand...
Amen, and Luther lamented that instead of getting rid of one Pope, he ended up with 1000 more. Luther also suffered from a number of psychological problems from his horrible childhood and abusive father. Luther had trouble always with authority unless it was his own.
 
Catholics base the Assumption of Mary on the Biblical passages that refer to Assumption of others. These include: Gn 5:24(Heb 11:5) Enoch was taken; 2Kg 2:11 Elijah assumed into heaven; Mt 27:52 Many saint who had fallen asleep were raised; 1 Thess 4:17 Caught up to meet the Lord in the air.
Click to expand...
We have Enoch taken physically alive to have. We have Elijah the prophet being taken physically taken to heaven. Some OT dead saints were physically resurrected in Matt 27:52. Yet in none of those we have any evidence of the virgin Mary being physically taken alive or of her being resurrected and being taken to heaven. Now as far as 1 Thes 4:17-18 is concern this involved all Christians who are resurrected or are changed while alive and being taken to heaven. That has all Christians being " taken to heaven " together. We dont have Mary singled out alone for this. In the end none of those text teaches anything of Mary being taken to heaven in the early church.
There are a few more who were Assumed body and soul into Heaven.
Click to expand...
None of those examples shows this is what happened to Mary.
God chose to Assume Enoch, Elijah and various Saints.
Click to expand...
True enough yet we dont find Mary as being a specific example. We are missing proof for Mary being taken to heaven physically like those examples.
 
The Old Testament consisted of a threefold division which is known as the Law of Moses, the prophets and the writings. It was written by chosen men of God whom were prophets by office or had the prophetic gift or was a prophet by Office and had the prophetic gift

Here is a listing of the Old Testament Canon of the Jewish people.

DIVISION of the Old Testament Books. : The thirty-nine books of the OT were anciently divided by the Hebrews into three distinct classes: ( 1 ) The law ( Torah ) , which consisted of the five books of Moses- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These are the oldest of the biblical books, Mosaic in origin but incorporating much earlier material. ( 2 ) The Prophets ( Nevi’im ) , Which embraced the four earlier Prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings and the four later prophets, Isaiah, Jermiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. These were believed to have been written by those who had the prophetic office as well as the prophetic gift. ( 3 ) The Writings ( Kenthuvim ) , which consisted of ( a ) poetical books- Psalms, Proverbs, Job; ( b ) the Rolls- Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and ( c ) prophetical-historical books- Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The Heb. books number twenty-four and are identical in content with the thirty-nine of the English order, the difference being made up by the division of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books respectively instead of one, and by counting the twelves minor prophets individually instead of as one. ( THE NEW UNGER’S BIBLE DICTIONARY, 169-170 )

Proper arguments againist the Apocrypha as not being part of the Old Testament Canon is based on :

1 ) It was not included within the threefold division of the Hebrew Canon which consist of the law of Moses, the prophets and the Writings. The Lord Jesus affirmed this threefold division of the OT Canon of Jews in Israel.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

2 ) The Apocrypha was not written by one who was a prophet by office or had the prophetic gift or both.

3 ) Though the Apocrypha was read they were never viewed as inspired Scripture by the Jews.

4 ) Roman Catholicism did not dogmatically and infallibly define it’s Old Testament Canon until the year 1546 at the Council of Trent. The Apocrypha generally speaking were not viewed by the church fathers as being part of the OT Canon. They were viewed as books read for edification and not for the establishment of doctrine. The general catholic position of the OT Canon is reflected by Saint Jerome prior to the Council of Trent. Many Roman Catholic apologist contend their OT Canon was followed prior to Trent. Here is a refutation.

Catholic scholar Cajetan said " Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest ( that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees ) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage " ( Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, In ult. Cap., Esther. Taken from A Disputation on Holy Scripture by William Whitaker (Cambridge: University, 1849), p. 48. )
 
Jerome (340-420) was born near Aquileia, lived in Rome for a time, and spent most of his later life as a monk in Syria and Palestine. He was the most learned churchman of his time, and was commissioned by the bishop of Rome to produce an authoritative Latin version (the Vulgate).

Preface to the Books of the Kings. Circa A.D. 391.

This preface, also known as the Prologus Galeatus, “Helmeted Preface,” was written by Jerome about the year 391. In it he maintains that, for the Old Testament, only the Hebrew books traditionally regarded as Holy Scripture by the Jews are canonical, and the extra books of the Septuagint “are not in the canon.”

St. Jerome’s Prologue to the Books of the Kings 2

That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified also by the Syrian and Chaldaaen languages, which for the most part correspond to the Hebrew; for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also write the Pentateuch of Moses with just the same number of letters, differing only in the shape and points of the letters. And it is certain that Esdras, the scribe and teacher of the law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the restoration of the temple by Zerubbabel, invented other letters which we now use, for up to that time the Samaritan and Hebrew characters were the same. In the book of Numbers, moreover, where we have the census of the Levites and priests [Num. 3:39], the same total is presented mystically. And we find the four-lettered name of the Lord [tetragrammaton] in certain Greek books written to this day in the ancient characters. The thirty-seventh Psalm, moreover, the one hundred and eleventh, the one hundred and twelfth, the one hundred and nineteenth, and the one hundred and forty-fifth, although they are written in different metres, are all composed [as acrostics] according to an alphabet of the same number of letters. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his Prayer, the Proverbs of Solomon also, towards the end, from the place where we read “Who will find a steadfast woman?” are instances of the same number of letters forming the division into sections. Furthermore, five are double letters, viz., Caph, Mem, Nun, Phe, Sade, for at the beginning and in the middle of words they are written one way, and at the end another way. Whence it happens that, by most people, five of the books are reckoned as double, viz., Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah with Kinoth, i.e., his Lamentations. As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the human voice is comprehended within their limits, so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast.

The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is, ‘Law.’

The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, which among them is called Joshua ben Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezekiel; and the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among them Thare Asra.

To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms. The third is Solomon, in three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; and the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim. The sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more descriptively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.

And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb and offer their crowns with lowered visage, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and will be.”

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted * introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.

Although these things are thus, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are intended to disparage the ancients *. For the service of the tabernacle of God each one offers what he can; some gold and silver and precious stones, others linen and blue and purple and scarlet; we shall do well if we offer skins and goats’ hair [cf. Exod.25:3-5]. And yet the Apostle pronounces our more contemptible things more necessary than others [1 Cor. 12:22]. Accordingly, the beauty of the tabernacle as a whole and in its several kinds (and the ornaments of the church present and future) was covered with skins and goat-hair cloths, and the heat of the sun and the injurious rain were warded off by those things which are of less account. First read, then, my Samuel and Kings; mine, I say, mine. For whatever by diligent translation and by anxious emendation we have learnt and made our own, is ours. And when you understand something of which you were before ignorant, reckon me a translator if you are grateful, or a paraphraser if ungrateful, although I am not in the least conscious of having deviated from the Hebrew original. At all events, if you are incredulous, read the Greek and Latin manuscripts and compare them with these poor efforts of mine, and wherever you see they disagree, ask some Hebrew in whom you can have more faith, and if he confirm our view, I suppose you will not think him a soothsayer and suppose that he and I have, in rendering the same passage, divined alike.

But I ask you also, handmaidens of Christ, 3 who anoint the head of your reclining Lord with the most precious myrrh of faith, who by no means seek the Saviour in the tomb, for whom Christ has long since ascended to the Father—I beg you to confront with the shields of your prayers the dogs who bark and rage against me with rabid mouths, and who go about the city, and think themselves learned if they disparage others. Knowing my lowliness, I will always remember what we are told: “I said, I will take heed to my ways that I offend not in my tongue. I have set a guard upon my mouth while the sinner standeth against me. I became dumb, and was humbled, and kept silence from good words.” [Psalm 38:2-3]

Link :
bible-researcher.com/jerome.html*

Also see here :

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html*
 
Athanasius OT Canon listing contradicts that of Councils of Hippo, Cartage , Rome and Trent. Athanasius on the Canon

Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373) was the most prominent theologian of the fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. His list of canonical books was published as part of his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367. After the list he declares, “these are the wells of salvation, so that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the sayings in these. Let no one add to these. Let nothing be taken away.”

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

bible-researcher.com/athanasius.htmlEpiphanius

(about A.D. 385). Epiphanius was bishop of Salamis (isle of Cyprus) from 367 to 402. His list of canonical books is given in his major treatise against heresies, the Panarion (Πανάριον “Medicine Chest”), also known by its Latin name Adversus Haereses (“Against Heresies”).

By the time of the captives’ return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings. 1 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 2 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which (Jews) reckon as five are double. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these sacred books taught (them) Judaism and Law’s observances till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

bible-researcher.com/epiphanius.html
 
Kristen1999 said:
Funny. James White has every oppturtunity to engage people on the ‘Called to Communion’ website in the comments but he has never done so.
Click to expand...
This. It’s easy to leave comments on CtC’s site. There’s a moderation process but they don’t hide from tough questions. And the regular posters there are noteworthy for their kindness even in disagreement; they also tend to be quite prompt and methodical (a few are painstakingly Thomist, in fact) when responding to inquiries. They’ve written articles on the Assumption if I’m not mistaken, and Mr. White could post his comment (or diatribe) there.

Mr. White would either have to tone down the rhetoric (which is his main strength, based on what I’ve heard from him), or find himself looking silly by comparison.

Andrew Preslar, one of CtC’s regulars, recently noted that he prefers a dialogue/discussion to a formal debate because the latter so easily turns into a sporting event–ego over truth.
 
robwar said:
Amen, and Luther lamented that instead of getting rid of one Pope, he ended up with 1000 more. Luther also suffered from a number of psychological problems from his horrible childhood and abusive father. Luther had trouble always with authority unless it was his own.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Dozie said:
James White is “laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion”. You will notice that the confusion is on James White. It is not clear at the moment if he is challenging “Called to Communion” or “Called to Confusion”. Until he clears up his confusion we should continue to regard him as confused or something worse.
Click to expand...
Mr.White should look at his own backyard…how many denominations? THOUSANDS! Mr.White should resolved the never-ending division and theological confusion within his own house!
 
Chafer_DTS said:
We are missing proof for Mary being taken to heaven physically like those examples.
Click to expand...
Read here:

catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

There is a great deal of good explanation here. Further, as the article points out, there is negative historical proof in the fact that there are no remains of Mary to be found (general consensus is that the Blessed Mother did die before being taken body and soul to Heaven). If the Church has enshrined the mortal remains of such as Peter and Paul, why not Mary, who is considered the greatest of all the Saints in the Catholic Church?

‘cause there wasn’t a body to protect. Plain n’ simple. This info really rather floored me when I read it, it made so much sense.
 
Lochias said:
Read here:

catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

There is a great deal of good explanation here. Further, as the article points out, there is negative historical proof in the fact that there are no remains of Mary to be found (general consensus is that the Blessed Mother did die before being taken body and soul to Heaven). If the Church has enshrined the mortal remains of such as Peter and Paul, why not Mary, who is considered the greatest of all the Saints in the Catholic Church?

‘cause there wasn’t a body to protect. Plain n’ simple. This info really rather floored me when I read it, it made so much sense.
Click to expand...
And why I would not attack the doctrine. Not yet convinced but I do see the evidnce for the Assumption of Mary
 
Father Mitch Pacwa, who hosts EWTN Live, has debated James White several times. I think those debates are a good study in character contrasts. White often seems aggressive and on the attack, while Pacwa patiently defends the faith that has been articulated and taught by the Catholic Church. Although White may be the stronger debater, Pacwa always wins in my book because of his charity. Rather than attack White’s views, Pacwa sympathetically tries to lead White to understand the rich Catholic position, which, of course, White may not always fully understand, though he knows a caricature of it. Catholics have a lot to say, and they can rest on the beauty and truth of their heritage and tradition, not their debating tactics.

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness…”.

(2 Timothy 2:24a)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top