J
jpaul1953
Guest
Pastor Gary,
I truly appreciate your respect for the Church’s position on this which was also held by your founding father. Your response was indeed “full of grace”.
May God guide us always to the truth.
jpaul1953
- Status
I truly appreciate your respect for the Church’s position on this which was also held by your founding father. Your response was indeed “full of grace”.
May God guide us always to the truth.
jpaul1953
J
jpaul1953
Guest
Dear Jerome 3,
The true Church of Christ will not crumble over your misguided anti-Catholic rhetoric. For all the anti-Catholic books out there, there is always a Catholic book out there they are judging to be wrong. There is no sola scriptura and I don’t recall seeing anywhere in Scripture where it says “sola Jerome3” You can read and reread your twisted view of the Church’s path. So be a good Protestant and bless the heretics and condemn Christ’s only Church.
The prayers of the righteous are to much avail. I will pray to (ask) the righteous mother of our Lord to pray for me since I’m not near as righteous as she, because: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Oh that’s right you don’t like the epistle of James, the one you say is Jesus’ blood brother, because he doesn’t speak for Martin Luther, does he?
Faith without works is dead, confess your sins to one another, prayers of the righteous and for the sick, help bring a sinner back from his evil ways, God gives grace to the humble, say what you mean and mean what you say, the tongue is small and yet it can do much good or much bad… Bah Humbug. Who does James think he is, saying all this stuff?.
Shall I start with the Epistle of Jude. I did not know Jesus had slaves and that Jude was one of them. Brother of James, it says also. Why doesn’t it say brother of Jesus and James! James says Jesus is his brother, along with many other brother remarks… Why doesn’t Jude?
Paul says that Timothy and Tiitus are his true children. Does that mean true or does true mean false. Hm. Let’s ask 'Sola Jerome3" Wait in Colossians Paul says that Timothy is our brother. What is Timothy Paul’s brother and ours or the people there’s brother, Paul true son. What?
Hey, by the way, James uses the word ‘BROTHERS’ often. Was he only speaking to his blood brothers or to his brothers in solidarity with Christ? He never cleared that one up as far as I can see.
Things can be so confusing if we all get a crack at biblical understanding from our own 100% Holy Spirit- guided perception of the Scriptures.
I am, with all my love of Christ, going to accept the Church (not churches) that Christ placed Simon Petros(Kephas) in charge of, which is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth according to St Paul.- 1Tim 3:15.
Remember also what St Paul said in 2Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is inspired by God, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work ." There’s that term ‘good work’ again… BUT, look at the first verse again- Sola Scriptura…Bah Humbug…It’s the Church with the authority.
Knock on the door and it will be answered.
jpaul1953
Hey,if James looked like he came out of the same womb, that would let you know that he didn’t. Because if he did, there would have been no reason to make that statement.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
First, I must say this to Oneheartway: You didn’t want your query to become a free for all, but it apparently has. Let’s face it, you ask controversial (but good) questions. Keep it up. Second, I look at the heading for this forum and it says “Non-Catholic Religions”, and it is supposed to be a discussion of viewpoints comparing and contrasting beliefs from protestant and other religions. But apparently only opinions or beliefs that adhere to Catholic Dogma are acceptable.
dpgreen said: “If you are going to be an advocate for Catholic teaching, please ensure that you give the official teaching,” and “what you have posted is clearly not Catholic teaching”. Jpaul1953 wrote that my post was “uninformed” and “Protestant”. I did not say I was advocating Catholic teaching, and I do not feel “obligated” to do so, as Jpaul1953 declared. I was responding to a question that struck a chord, since I had the same one many years ago.
Dpgreen also said: “Catholics do not worship Mary but honor her.” I agree that is the way it should be. But for many Catholics I have observed over the decades it is not. Statues of Mary in the yard, shrines to Mary in the home, constant prayers to Mary, her various titles, it all looks like worship to me. Where does Jesus and the Gospel (which was not about Mary, but about God) fit into this devotion? How much of your faith life is centered around Mary in comparison to Jesus?
In refuting my logic dpgreen rhetorically questioned: “If Paul emphasized Mary, then that is proof positive that the Marion beliefs are correct?” It would certainly help, since we look to Paul for much of what Christians believe. But my point was that the role of Mary was not on his radar, and it was not important to his purpose or his message, as it was given to him by Jesus.
dpgreen also wrote that my comments about Mary’s status were “nonsense”. Which comments in particular? The first one that Mary’s importance is due to being the mother of Jesus? That is pretty basic grade school catechism. The second one that the early disciples did not all have the same perspective on when Christ became divine? That is obvious from reading the four gospels, and from the early church councils which were needed to sort out the different ideas about who and what Jesus is, Mary’s role in salvation, and to define the Trinity. That’s why we have the Nicene Creed, and that is undeniable Catholic history.
An unless you are going to re-write that history, or throw out the records from all those councils and dogmatic proclamations over the years, the evolution of Mary to her status today is there for all to see.
As I became older (but apparently not much wiser) and studied, thought and prayed over this and other matters, I came to a conclusion, startling to some (unless you have read my posts). That is that much of what we are told to believe about Mary, about church dogma, about rules, rubrics and canon law, is not essential to our faith. I am not saying they are not true or that none of it is essential, but that a lot of it is confusing and contradictory and prevents us from seeing what is important. Think Martha and Mary here; I am trying to choose the “better part.”
We have constructed a huge building around a modest home that was first built 2000 years ago. We have added on to it many times, patched together with various materials and by many workmen over the centuries. In that building there is still a small basement room, simple and unadorned, containing the core of our faith that was given to us by Jesus. But we are so intent on making sure that all the other floors and rooms of this imposing structure meet the “building code”, and on protecting what we have built on top of that simple foundation, that we have lost sight of the building’s original purpose and meaning, when it was just a small, one room house in Palestine.
dpgreen said: “If you are going to be an advocate for Catholic teaching, please ensure that you give the official teaching,” and “what you have posted is clearly not Catholic teaching”. Jpaul1953 wrote that my post was “uninformed” and “Protestant”. I did not say I was advocating Catholic teaching, and I do not feel “obligated” to do so, as Jpaul1953 declared. I was responding to a question that struck a chord, since I had the same one many years ago.
Dpgreen also said: “Catholics do not worship Mary but honor her.” I agree that is the way it should be. But for many Catholics I have observed over the decades it is not. Statues of Mary in the yard, shrines to Mary in the home, constant prayers to Mary, her various titles, it all looks like worship to me. Where does Jesus and the Gospel (which was not about Mary, but about God) fit into this devotion? How much of your faith life is centered around Mary in comparison to Jesus?
In refuting my logic dpgreen rhetorically questioned: “If Paul emphasized Mary, then that is proof positive that the Marion beliefs are correct?” It would certainly help, since we look to Paul for much of what Christians believe. But my point was that the role of Mary was not on his radar, and it was not important to his purpose or his message, as it was given to him by Jesus.
dpgreen also wrote that my comments about Mary’s status were “nonsense”. Which comments in particular? The first one that Mary’s importance is due to being the mother of Jesus? That is pretty basic grade school catechism. The second one that the early disciples did not all have the same perspective on when Christ became divine? That is obvious from reading the four gospels, and from the early church councils which were needed to sort out the different ideas about who and what Jesus is, Mary’s role in salvation, and to define the Trinity. That’s why we have the Nicene Creed, and that is undeniable Catholic history.
An unless you are going to re-write that history, or throw out the records from all those councils and dogmatic proclamations over the years, the evolution of Mary to her status today is there for all to see.
As I became older (but apparently not much wiser) and studied, thought and prayed over this and other matters, I came to a conclusion, startling to some (unless you have read my posts). That is that much of what we are told to believe about Mary, about church dogma, about rules, rubrics and canon law, is not essential to our faith. I am not saying they are not true or that none of it is essential, but that a lot of it is confusing and contradictory and prevents us from seeing what is important. Think Martha and Mary here; I am trying to choose the “better part.”
We have constructed a huge building around a modest home that was first built 2000 years ago. We have added on to it many times, patched together with various materials and by many workmen over the centuries. In that building there is still a small basement room, simple and unadorned, containing the core of our faith that was given to us by Jesus. But we are so intent on making sure that all the other floors and rooms of this imposing structure meet the “building code”, and on protecting what we have built on top of that simple foundation, that we have lost sight of the building’s original purpose and meaning, when it was just a small, one room house in Palestine.
H
happilycatholic
Guest
"Thank God for Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, Johannes Hus, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and many others, the world was finally able to see what the Scriptures actually said instead of what they had been told by someone who wanted them to say what they wanted. "
Who’s doing the manipulating here?
Who’s doing the manipulating here?
D
dpgreen
Guest
Am I imagining it or did you change your status to a “Disciple of Jesus”, because I could swear that you were initially a ‘Catholic’?
“Dpgreen also said: “Catholics do not worship Mary but honor her.” I agree that is the way it should be. But for many Catholics I have observed over the decades it is not. Statues of Mary in the yard, shrines to Mary in the home, constant prayers to Mary, her various titles, it all looks like worship to me. Where does Jesus and the Gospel (which was not about Mary, but about God) fit into this devotion? How much of your faith life is centered around Mary in comparison to Jesus?”
This same logic can be applied to protestants. Some protestants say they believe in faith alone, yet their actions do not witness to this (just an example). I can only speak for myself, but my faith is based solely on Christ, but not at the expense of His body, the Church and its members.
“In refuting my logic dpgreen rhetorically questioned: “If Paul emphasized Mary, then that is proof positive that the Marion beliefs are correct?” It would certainly help, since we look to Paul for much of what Christians believe. But my point was that the role of Mary was not on his radar, and it was not important to his purpose or his message, as it was given to him by Jesus.”
Each is given a different role in the body of Christ. So what if Paul didn’t give us 16 letters to the Corinthians regarding Mary. I could use the logic conversely by showing you that Jesus said many times “eat my flesh and drink my blood” yet Protestants refuse to accept this obvious command.
If Mary said ‘no’ to the Angel, then where do you think we would be today? Does she not play a pivotal role in the salvation of man?
… The second one that the early disciples did not all have the same perspective on when Christ became divine? That is obvious from reading the four gospels, and from the early church councils which were needed to sort out the different ideas about who and what Jesus is, Mary’s role in salvation, and to define the Trinity. That’s why we have the Nicene Creed, and that is undeniable Catholic history."
As I said, show me where you are getting this information. In all my reading of the early Church Fathers, nothing in Catholicism was ‘made up’. Can I recommend to you Cardinal John Henry Newman’s “The Development of Doctrine”. This will demonstrate to you the role of the councils and how doctrine was ‘developed’ not made up.
An unless you are going to re-write that history, or throw out the records from all those councils and dogmatic proclamations over the years, the evolution of Mary to her status today is there for all to see.
No evolution involved. You are sincerely wrong and have been misguided. Please refer to some orthodox Catholic literature or ask an apologist at Catholic.com.
As I became older (but apparently not much wiser) and studied, thought and prayed over this and other matters, I came to a conclusion, startling to some (unless you have read my posts). That is that much of what we are told to believe about Mary, about church dogma, about rules, rubrics and canon law, is not essential to our faith. I am not saying they are not true or that none of it is essential, but that a lot of it is confusing and contradictory and prevents us from seeing what is important. Think Martha and Mary here; I am trying to choose the “better part.”
I too, studied, pray yet I come to different conclusions. Sounds a bit like what happens when we believe in scripture alone. 30,000+ denominations. The bible says the pillar and foundation of truth is the…bible? No, it says the CHURCH.
*We have constructed a huge building around a modest home that was first built 2000 years ago…
*
No, Jesus said that He will build His Church and that He would protect His Church. Lk10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me…Jn 14:16,26 - the Holy Spirit is with you always to teach and remind you everything that He told them. Jn10:16 - one fold, one shepherd. Rom 16:17 - no divisions among you. Phil 2:2 - be of the same mind, united…Mt18:17 - when someone doesn’t agree, Jesus tells them to tell discuss scripture among themselves? No, Jesus says they need to tell it to the Church. Which Church? If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15) then it cannot err, because it is Jesus who is building it and He has given His Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:13). It is so simple. If we believe the bible is written infallibly by fallible men then why do some people have a problem with that infallibility being carried through for all times. If you believe what you say in your post, then you are believing something that you have no assurance of. Yet I can, because of Jesus’ promise, believe that the Church will lead us into all truth. You believe something that fallible men are telling you.
I urge you to investigate this faith to the full extent. You will not be disappointed if you do it with an open heart and pray that God’s grace will be sufficient for you.
- I did not say I was advocating Catholic teaching, and I do not feel “obligated” to do so, as Jpaul1953 declared. I was responding to a question that struck a chord, since I had the same one many years ago. "*
“Dpgreen also said: “Catholics do not worship Mary but honor her.” I agree that is the way it should be. But for many Catholics I have observed over the decades it is not. Statues of Mary in the yard, shrines to Mary in the home, constant prayers to Mary, her various titles, it all looks like worship to me. Where does Jesus and the Gospel (which was not about Mary, but about God) fit into this devotion? How much of your faith life is centered around Mary in comparison to Jesus?”
This same logic can be applied to protestants. Some protestants say they believe in faith alone, yet their actions do not witness to this (just an example). I can only speak for myself, but my faith is based solely on Christ, but not at the expense of His body, the Church and its members.
“In refuting my logic dpgreen rhetorically questioned: “If Paul emphasized Mary, then that is proof positive that the Marion beliefs are correct?” It would certainly help, since we look to Paul for much of what Christians believe. But my point was that the role of Mary was not on his radar, and it was not important to his purpose or his message, as it was given to him by Jesus.”
Each is given a different role in the body of Christ. So what if Paul didn’t give us 16 letters to the Corinthians regarding Mary. I could use the logic conversely by showing you that Jesus said many times “eat my flesh and drink my blood” yet Protestants refuse to accept this obvious command.
If Mary said ‘no’ to the Angel, then where do you think we would be today? Does she not play a pivotal role in the salvation of man?
… The second one that the early disciples did not all have the same perspective on when Christ became divine? That is obvious from reading the four gospels, and from the early church councils which were needed to sort out the different ideas about who and what Jesus is, Mary’s role in salvation, and to define the Trinity. That’s why we have the Nicene Creed, and that is undeniable Catholic history."
As I said, show me where you are getting this information. In all my reading of the early Church Fathers, nothing in Catholicism was ‘made up’. Can I recommend to you Cardinal John Henry Newman’s “The Development of Doctrine”. This will demonstrate to you the role of the councils and how doctrine was ‘developed’ not made up.
An unless you are going to re-write that history, or throw out the records from all those councils and dogmatic proclamations over the years, the evolution of Mary to her status today is there for all to see.
No evolution involved. You are sincerely wrong and have been misguided. Please refer to some orthodox Catholic literature or ask an apologist at Catholic.com.
As I became older (but apparently not much wiser) and studied, thought and prayed over this and other matters, I came to a conclusion, startling to some (unless you have read my posts). That is that much of what we are told to believe about Mary, about church dogma, about rules, rubrics and canon law, is not essential to our faith. I am not saying they are not true or that none of it is essential, but that a lot of it is confusing and contradictory and prevents us from seeing what is important. Think Martha and Mary here; I am trying to choose the “better part.”
I too, studied, pray yet I come to different conclusions. Sounds a bit like what happens when we believe in scripture alone. 30,000+ denominations. The bible says the pillar and foundation of truth is the…bible? No, it says the CHURCH.
*We have constructed a huge building around a modest home that was first built 2000 years ago…
*
No, Jesus said that He will build His Church and that He would protect His Church. Lk10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me…Jn 14:16,26 - the Holy Spirit is with you always to teach and remind you everything that He told them. Jn10:16 - one fold, one shepherd. Rom 16:17 - no divisions among you. Phil 2:2 - be of the same mind, united…Mt18:17 - when someone doesn’t agree, Jesus tells them to tell discuss scripture among themselves? No, Jesus says they need to tell it to the Church. Which Church? If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15) then it cannot err, because it is Jesus who is building it and He has given His Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:13). It is so simple. If we believe the bible is written infallibly by fallible men then why do some people have a problem with that infallibility being carried through for all times. If you believe what you say in your post, then you are believing something that you have no assurance of. Yet I can, because of Jesus’ promise, believe that the Church will lead us into all truth. You believe something that fallible men are telling you.
I urge you to investigate this faith to the full extent. You will not be disappointed if you do it with an open heart and pray that God’s grace will be sufficient for you.
J
jpaul1953
Guest
*Dear DP Green,Am I imagining it or did you change your status to a “Disciple of Jesus”, because I could swear that you were initially a ‘Catholic’?
I urge you to investigate this faith to the full extent. You will not be disappointed if you do it with an open heart and pray that God’s grace will be sufficient for you.
I appreciate, along with others here, your kindness to ChaunceyGardner. I was offended by his matter-of-fact look at the non-Catholic approach to solid Catholic beliefs.
Your straight forwardness is refreshing. As soon as I hear any Christians claiming Paul to be the scriptual legitimizer a flag goes up. Non-Catholics use a host of Paul’s verses to invalidate the Church, as you are well aware of. The non-Catholic Christians feel that St Paul is their Apostle, the teacher of Gentiles because he noted in Scripture that he personally rebuked Peter (the Church’s Authority) thereby reduces in the non-Christian’s mind the legimate position of Peter.
I get the feeling many times that many non-Catholic Christians place the Catholics with the Jewish faith in a category of antiquity, having no real bearing on Christ and his ‘real church’ (no capitalization required).
Just a few points non Christians assert by St Paul’s epistles:
- No need for Confession, Paul never made that clear enough to believe.
BUT CHRIST DEEMED IT NECESSSARY in John 20:21-23, Matt 18:18. - No need for good works, even though St Paul always stated that “works of the law” are useless (not works of love that Catholics live by), which is referring to the 618-commandments of law the old Jewish tradition was placing above the ten commandments, synopsed into two by Jesus.
JESUS IS GOOD WORKS, along with what His disciples did daily, including St Paul and of course the GOOD SAMARITAN. - Home many times has St Paul appeared to people since he was called home. When was Paul telling the world that ‘all generations shall call him blessed’. Also, at the wedding of Cana, our Blessed Mother was given the knowledge from God to tell her son that Jesus was ready to begin his ministry *
- No need for the Eucharist even though St Paul gives a hard line to any who receive it unworthily.
I stop now. take care.
jpaul1953
U
ufamtobie
Guest
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
To jpaul1953 & dpgreen:
I appreciate your reasoned postings and kindness regarding our discussion about how we approach Mary. I apologize to jpaul1953 for feeling offended by what I wrote, but am somewhat at a loss to understand why a “matter-of-fact” approach would be bad or offensive. I would usually take such a statement about anything I submitted to be a compliment.
You later state that “I, as a Catholic, believe what I am taught to believe whether my feelings like the belief or not.” I respect that steadfastness but personally it is not in my nature to do that. I have been traveling on a journey to God for many, many years, with the hope that I will arrive there when I die. This forum is a recent stop along the way. At each stop or turn in the road, and as I meet people along the path, I learn something new: sometimes about myself, sometimes about other people, sometimes about the meaning of existence, and sometimes about God. It all contributes to completing my journey.
*dpgreen’s *perceptive comment about my status was right. After seeing the reactions to several of my postings I changed my status from Catholic to Disciple of Jesus. First, I was a little worried about what would happen if someone with high blood pressure or heart issues read one of my posts and then saw that I was Catholic. This way, they won’t have a coronary over what they perceive as my apostasy. They could just chalk it up to some mis-guided Protestant babbling. Plus I would not be “obligated” to follow a party line, and could say what I truly felt.
So I picked a “religion” that would not be readily identified with any specific Christian denomination, but would reflect what I consider myself at this moment. I truly mean no disrespect for the Catholic faith, into which I was baptized.
A couple of comments to dpgreen:
You asked: “If Mary said ‘no’ to the Angel, then where do you think we would be today?” IF that had happened, God would have found someone else. But she wasn’t going to say no, because God already knew that she would accept that great blessing.
I am mystified by your comment that I implied the Church “made things up” regarding how our image of Mary came to be. All I said was that it took several hundred years, many debates and various councils and proclamations to complete the picture of Mary’s role in salvation and in our faith. I shouldn’t need to prove it, since it is in every church history I have ever read, whether authored by Catholics, Protestants, or whomever. And you can see it develop hand-in-hand with the definition of Christ and the Trinity in the early centuries. But I will take a look at Newman; thanks for the great tip (responding to suggestions like yours is a big part of my journey).
You and others often decry how Protestants rely on scripture for their faith, pointing to those who use what Paul said to “invalidate the Church”. I did not claim that Paul was a “scriptural legitimizer”, I just said that Paul did not write much about the status of Mary, in making my point that this issue was not at the top of the “to do” list for the earliest Christians. They had many other things to be concerned about at that time.
Right after talking about the problem of believing in scripture alone, you have a paragraph with, let’s see, one, two, three…wow, eight different scriptural quotes. Including three from Paul! (that Protestant). For someone who says we should rely more on the teaching of the Church than the Bible, you sure know your way around scripture. I commend you.
This thread is about how we approach Mary. As others have said, it is up to the individual to decide how much and in what way you honor Mary. If you don’t feel that you can have the same devotion to Mary that you see in others, that’s okay. Heaven is filled with many dwelling places with room for all, as some well known person once said (I bet *dpgreen *could tell us who and where).
I appreciate your reasoned postings and kindness regarding our discussion about how we approach Mary. I apologize to jpaul1953 for feeling offended by what I wrote, but am somewhat at a loss to understand why a “matter-of-fact” approach would be bad or offensive. I would usually take such a statement about anything I submitted to be a compliment.
You later state that “I, as a Catholic, believe what I am taught to believe whether my feelings like the belief or not.” I respect that steadfastness but personally it is not in my nature to do that. I have been traveling on a journey to God for many, many years, with the hope that I will arrive there when I die. This forum is a recent stop along the way. At each stop or turn in the road, and as I meet people along the path, I learn something new: sometimes about myself, sometimes about other people, sometimes about the meaning of existence, and sometimes about God. It all contributes to completing my journey.
*dpgreen’s *perceptive comment about my status was right. After seeing the reactions to several of my postings I changed my status from Catholic to Disciple of Jesus. First, I was a little worried about what would happen if someone with high blood pressure or heart issues read one of my posts and then saw that I was Catholic. This way, they won’t have a coronary over what they perceive as my apostasy. They could just chalk it up to some mis-guided Protestant babbling. Plus I would not be “obligated” to follow a party line, and could say what I truly felt.
So I picked a “religion” that would not be readily identified with any specific Christian denomination, but would reflect what I consider myself at this moment. I truly mean no disrespect for the Catholic faith, into which I was baptized.
A couple of comments to dpgreen:
You asked: “If Mary said ‘no’ to the Angel, then where do you think we would be today?” IF that had happened, God would have found someone else. But she wasn’t going to say no, because God already knew that she would accept that great blessing.
I am mystified by your comment that I implied the Church “made things up” regarding how our image of Mary came to be. All I said was that it took several hundred years, many debates and various councils and proclamations to complete the picture of Mary’s role in salvation and in our faith. I shouldn’t need to prove it, since it is in every church history I have ever read, whether authored by Catholics, Protestants, or whomever. And you can see it develop hand-in-hand with the definition of Christ and the Trinity in the early centuries. But I will take a look at Newman; thanks for the great tip (responding to suggestions like yours is a big part of my journey).
You and others often decry how Protestants rely on scripture for their faith, pointing to those who use what Paul said to “invalidate the Church”. I did not claim that Paul was a “scriptural legitimizer”, I just said that Paul did not write much about the status of Mary, in making my point that this issue was not at the top of the “to do” list for the earliest Christians. They had many other things to be concerned about at that time.
Right after talking about the problem of believing in scripture alone, you have a paragraph with, let’s see, one, two, three…wow, eight different scriptural quotes. Including three from Paul! (that Protestant). For someone who says we should rely more on the teaching of the Church than the Bible, you sure know your way around scripture. I commend you.
This thread is about how we approach Mary. As others have said, it is up to the individual to decide how much and in what way you honor Mary. If you don’t feel that you can have the same devotion to Mary that you see in others, that’s okay. Heaven is filled with many dwelling places with room for all, as some well known person once said (I bet *dpgreen *could tell us who and where).
D
dpgreen
Guest
I get the feeling you may think the Church does not hold scripture with the same reverence as do the protestant church.
Let me show you where you should begin with the CC regarding scripture:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - Article 3 - Sacred Scripture
*102 - Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, His one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely.
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.*
The problem is that God’s Word is not confined to the written word. The irony is that the written Word nowhere tells us that God’s Word is confined to pen and paper. We must hold fast to the traditions which have been handed, either by word of mouth or the written word (2 Thess 2:15). Let’s us also take heed of what St Peter says about St Paul’s letters: 2Peter 3:15-16) And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures
I don’t think there was a suggestion that Paul was protestant. On the contrary, Paul was Catholic. In fact, the Church has declared 2009 as the year of St Paul. I notice that the present Pope has written several books regarding him which I believe will be great. He is an excellent theologian.
I continue to encourage to investigate the Catholic Church’s claims. Start with the latest Catechism. It is exhaustive with references from scripture, the early Church Fathers, council documents etc. There is no ambiguity within its pages.
C
chaunceygardner
Guest
Thanks for the advice re: the Catechism. I have a copy of it but use it more as a reference than to read it cover to cover.
One problem that I have found with my writing is that people don’t know when I am serious or kidding a bit. I don’t always clearly communicate my meaning. That was the case with the parenthetical comment about Paul “(that Protestant)”. I was picking up on your discussion of Protestants using Paul to invalidate Catholic teachings, and noting that YOU too used quotes from Paul. I thought there was a little humor and irony there, but did not communicate my “non-seriousness”. I should have used a “smilie” there to show that.
As to your first point, I did not mean to suggest that Catholics don’t hold scripture in as much reverence as Protestants do. I DO think their approaches to it are different. The Catholic Church relies on the total deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles which includes the scriptures (see, I do read the Catechism). Scripture is obviously the starting point for it all. I would also agree that just because something is not clearly stated in the Gospels or Epistles doesn’t mean it is not true. I think Protestants reverted to a more scripture-centric or scripture only theology when they saw (as Catholics at that time) the abuses of authority by the hierarchy that the Catholic approach had brought about.
So now Protestants are “gun-shy” when it comes to proclamations and dogma that they can’t trace back to the NT or can’t readily deduce from what is written there. And that is the case with some of the Catholic dogma about Mary.
In the grand scheme of things, I don’t believe it matters who is right regarding Mary (I also realize that is not Catholic teaching but still feel that way). I would think Jesus would be angry with us over the time we spend arguing over things which are ultimately not important to our salvation, instead of seeking and doing what IS necessary. As in the story of Martha and Mary of Bethany, we need to choose the “better part” and worry a little less about the rest.
S
Sellers1
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
This expression represents a fallacy. There really is no such thing as “biblical doctrine”. Doctrine is committed to the Church by Jesus, and preached/taught by the Apostles. Part of that divine deposit of faith is reflected in the NT. However, the NT is not the “source” of doctrine. Jesus is the Source. The concept of “biblical doctrine” is a modern innovation that developed when men separated themselves from the Apostolic faith. It was necesary, when rejecting the authority appointed by Christ, to " authoritatives source. Sola Scriptura was invented during the reformation for his purpose. Since that time, doctrine has been developed in separation from what the Apsotles believed and taught. Persons creating it believe it is “biblical doctrine” but it is really only their own ideas that they validate by using various scriptures to support it. This is not how doctrine is to be transmitted.
Actually, many do. It seems like some people think that the Bible just dropped out of the sky fully formed.
I am glad you are not one of them.
Such a statement can only be made by a person who does not undersand CAtholic teaching or does not understand the Scriptures, or both. There are no contradictions between the NT and Catholic teaching. It was written, preserved, promulgated and canonized by the Catholic Church. There is nothing in it ithat is not Catholic.
I will concede that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”, however, Jesus only built one Church, and the Catholic Church was the only one in existence for over a thousand years. How do you account for that?
S
Sellers1
Guest
This expression represents a fallacy. There really is no such thing as “biblical doctrine”. Doctrine is committed to the Church by Jesus, and preached/taught by the Apostles. Part of that divine deposit of faith is reflected in the NT. However, the NT is not the “source” of doctrine. Jesus is the Source. The concept of “biblical doctrine” is a modern innovation that developed when men separated themselves from the Apostolic faith. It was necesary, when rejecting the authority appointed by Christ, to " authoritatives source. Sola Scriptura was invented during the reformation for his purpose. Since that time, doctrine has been developed in separation from what the Apsotles believed and taught. Persons creating it believe it is “biblical doctrine” but it is really only their own ideas that they validate by using various scriptures to support it. This is not how doctrine is to be transmitted.
Actually, many do. It seems like some people think that the Bible just dropped out of the sky fully formed.
I am glad you are not one of them.
It was just magically discerned to the RCC either
Such a statement can only be made by a person who does not undersand CAtholic teaching or does not understand the Scriptures, or both. There are no contradictions between the NT and Catholic teaching. It was written, preserved, promulgated and canonized by the Catholic Church. There is nothing in it ithat is not Catholic.
.
I will concede that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”, however, Jesus only built one Church, and the Catholic Church was the only one in existence for over a thousand years. How do you account for that?
G
guanophore
Guest
I have no reason to “validate exclusivity to myself”. I am not even sure what that means. You have invented an idea that is found no where in Apostolic Teaching. You are using the idea to promote the ideas you have that have departed from the Apostolic Teaching.
No, the Reformation had a lot of factors, many of them political and economic. None of them had anything to do with exclusivity. The Reformers were reacting to abuses of the clergy,and ended up jettisoning Apostolic Teaching with the rest.
Doctrine was delivered to the Apostles whole and entire, before a word of Scripture was ever written. The doctrine does not come from Scripture, but is reflected in Scripture. The Doctrine comes from Christ.
The sentence construction here leaves me a bit mystified.
There is nothing “magical” about discernment, Sellers. It is a long process of sorting out what is of God, and what is not. This process took about 350 years, and was done on the NT entirely by Catholics. It was guided by the HS, not “magic”. I agree, though. The Catholic Church is not 'Roman".
I think you will find, if you are ever brave enough to study the history of your faith, that there is none of my personal opinion involved in it whatsoever.
Scripture (NT) was written by, for, and about Catholics. The Catholic Church assembled, protected, promulgated and canonized the NT. They did not allow anything in it that was not Catholic. There were 400+ works floating about at the time, claiming to be inspired. Any that contained any elements that are not Catholic were not included.
I did not claim that it was. What I said was that Jesus only founded one church, and for 1000 years, it was exclusively CAtholic. Now, how do you account for that?
All other denominations defined themselves about what was CAtholic they did not accept.
S
Sellers1
Guest
I have no reason to “validate exclusivity to myself”. I am not even sure what that means. You have invented an idea that is found no where in Apostolic Teaching. You are using the idea to promote the ideas you have that have departed from the Apostolic Teaching.
No, the Reformation had a lot of factors, many of them political and economic. None of them had anything to do with exclusivity. The Reformers were reacting to abuses of the clergy,and ended up jettisoning Apostolic Teaching with the rest.
Doctrine was delivered to the Apostles whole and entire, before a word of Scripture was ever written. The doctrine does not come from Scripture, but is reflected in Scripture. The Doctrine comes from Christ.
The sentence construction here leaves me a bit mystified.
There is nothing “magical” about discernment, Sellers. It is a long process of sorting out what is of God, and what is not. This process took about 350 years, and was done on the NT entirely by Catholics. It was guided by the HS, not “magic”. I agree, though. The Catholic Church is not 'Roman".
I think you will find, if you are ever brave enough to study the history of your faith, that there is none of my personal opinion involved in it whatsoever.
Scripture (NT) was written by, for, and about Catholics. The Catholic Church assembled, protected, promulgated and canonized the NT. They did not allow anything in it that was not Catholic. There were 400+ works floating about at the time, claiming to be inspired. Any that contained any elements that are not Catholic were not included.
I did not claim that it was. What I said was that Jesus only founded one church, and for 1000 years, it was exclusively CAtholic. Now, how do you account for that?
All other denominations defined themselves about what was CAtholic they did not accept.
that is simply false.
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
Sellers, if you find the time, could you please go back and respond to my old points?
Z
zerinus
Guest
That really isn’t true. From the earliest days the early Christians had a pretty good idea of what writings were inspired and what were not, and could be considered scripture. Peter for example identifies the writings of Paul as scripture. The writings of the Church Fathers of the second century indicate that by then most of the books of the New Testament as we know them today were recognized as scripture—before any “councils” had decreed them to be so:
In A.D. 140, an anti-Semitic heretic called Marcion was the probably
first to form a list of what he considered the ?official? New
Testament canon. Marcion predictably edited out everything Jewish
from the texts. However, by this time, the four gospels (Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John) are an integral part of every Christian church.
By A.D. 200, the church was using all the books that are now part of
the New Testament. Although some people of this era argued that
additional books should be included in the NT, The Gospel of Thomas
was not one of them.
In A.D. 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria announced the first
official list of books to be included in the New Testament; they are
the 27 books we know today. Source.
The councils didn’t so much “determine” what book was scripture and what was not. Rather, they merely acknowledged what various Christian communities had already recognized in practice to have been scripture:
Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.
Thus, McDonald states:
Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be included in the biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is that the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.
Similarly, from Patzia:
It appears that the books that finally were canonized are those that enjoyed a special status and were utilized both frequently and universally by the church. Source.
Similarly, from Patzia:
It appears that the books that finally were canonized are those that enjoyed a special status and were utilized both frequently and universally by the church. Source.
Also, your use of the word “Catholic” is a bit disingenuous here. The first, second, or third century Christians were not “Catholics”. They were just Christians. At that time most of the Christians were concentrated in the Eastern (Greek speaking) part of the Roman Empire, and they paid no allegiance to the “church of Rome” at all. The Bishop of Rome was just one bishop among many, and had no special status among the Eastern Christians. Those developments took place much later, especially after Constantine. Athanasius was not Roman! Eusebius was not Roman! None of them paid allegiance to the bishop of Rome. They were just Christians, and recognized as scripture what Christian communities had traditionally recognized to be scripture. So this incessant mantra by Catholics that they somehow “gave us our scriptures” is becoming tiresome and wearing thin. It is God who gave us our scriptures through His inspired prophets and Apostles, and Christian communities recognized them by the Holy Spirit to be such, and church councils merely acknowledged that fact.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you will find, if you are ever brave enough to study the history of your faith, that there is none of my personal opinion involved in it whatsoever.
Scripture (NT) was written by, for, and about Catholics. The Catholic Church assembled, protected, promulgated and canonized the NT. They did not allow anything in it that was not Catholic. There were 400+ works floating about at the time, claiming to be inspired. Any that contained any elements that are not Catholic were not included.
I did not claim that it was. What I said was that Jesus only founded one church, and for 1000 years, it was exclusively CAtholic. Now, how do you account for that?
All other denominations defined themselves about what was CAtholic they did not accept.
Why is it a problem that all denominations are defined by how they depart from Catholic teaching?
Scripture (NT) was written by, for, and about Catholics. The Catholic Church assembled, protected, promulgated and canonized the NT. They did not allow anything in it that was not Catholic. There were 400+ works floating about at the time, claiming to be inspired. Any that contained any elements that are not Catholic were not included.
I did not claim that it was. What I said was that Jesus only founded one church, and for 1000 years, it was exclusively CAtholic. Now, how do you account for that?
All other denominations defined themselves about what was CAtholic they did not accept.
Perhaps you have a need to believe what I have said here is false, so as to justify remaining separated from the Church Jesus founded. But, let us say, for the sake of arguement, that what I have said here is true. Would that change anything? Why is it a problem for you that Catholics wrote scripture, or that all of it represents what the Catholic Church believes and teaches?
Why is it a problem that all denominations are defined by how they depart from Catholic teaching?
G
guanophore
Guest
Both things are true. Yes, the inspired inerrant writings were recognized and used in the Mass from the time they were penned. Those early church fathers were Catholic, and recognized the Catholic faith in what was written.
I did not mean to imply that it was. Those earlier local councils and fathers were all Catholics, as were those that penned the Scripture.
Yes, this is also true, however, there were many disputed books, and these required the proclaimation of the council. there were also some books frequently used in communiites, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache that were not included in the canon.
The Bishop of Rome was just one bishop among many, and had no special status among the Eastern Christians.
While I disagree with this statement, unity among the bishops is only one element of Catholicism. The Bishop of Rome was always considered in the East as “first among equals”. But, during those years, the need for the role of the successor of Peter was not as critical as it has been since.
zerinus;5518388:
Right, you make my point. Catholicism is not “Roman”. Athanasius and Eusebius were Catholic.
You might consider just conceding the point, since it it true. You can still hold to Apostasy theory! In fact, accepting that all the Christians prior to the formation of the canon were Catholic actually strengthens Apostasy theory, doesn’t it?
Yes, I agree 100 percent. The men the Spirit inspired were Catholic, and the prophets and Apostles were Catholic, and the Communities wer Catholic, and the Fathers, and the councils.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Thank you guanophore for your comments. I have one general observation to make about them. Your definition and description of what is means to be a Catholic is so nebulous that it becomes meaningless. By the same token I could also argue that they were all Mormons, and your inability to understand that boils down to your misconception of what it means to be a Mormon.Both things are true. Yes, the inspired inerrant writings were recognized and used in the Mass from the time they were penned. Those early church fathers were Catholic, and recognized the Catholic faith in what was written.
I did not mean to imply that it was. Those earlier local councils and fathers were all Catholics, as were those that penned the Scripture.
Yes, this is also true, however, there were many disputed books, and these required the proclaimation of the council. there were also some books frequently used in communiites, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache that were not included in the canon.
I think you say this because you don’t understand Catholicism. I will agree that they did not fit your misconceptions of what it is to be Catholic. They were all Catholics, Syrian, Greek, Egyptian (coptic), Asian, and Latin.
While I disagree with this statement, unity among the bishops is only one element of Catholicism. The Bishop of Rome was always considered in the East as “first among equals”. But, during those years, the need for the role of the successor of Peter was not as critical as it has been since.
Right, you make my point. Catholicism is not “Roman”. Athanasius and Eusebius were Catholic.
You might consider just conceding the point, since it it true. You can still hold to Apostasy theory! In fact, accepting that all the Christians prior to the formation of the canon were Catholic actually strengthens Apostasy theory, doesn’t it?
Yes, I agree 100 percent. The men the Spirit inspired were Catholic, and the prophets and Apostles were Catholic, and the Communities wer Catholic, and the Fathers, and the councils.
- Status