Protestants and Mary

[lil_flower_luv]

Obviously I didn’t communicate very well. I agree we can all learn from what Jesus said to Peter and to John, but Peter was the only one (not us) directed to go and get that fish with the drachmas and John (not us) as the only one directed to treat Mary as his mother. We can always listen and learn, but is doesn’t mean that we are to carry out the 2000 year old directions that were suited for the particular circumstances way back then.

I see. Lol, are we back to the interpretation thing again? If that is the way you see it, I respect that.
But one thing I must correct is (and I will keep on correcting it if I must): Jesus did appoint Mary to be our Mother also. And that scripture wasn’t the only time He implied that. (Read the Early Church Father’s teachings…)

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Thank you, once again, Elvisman.

 

[Dokimas]

**PROVE **that.

I’ve been accused of circular reasoning on another thread. Your belief that your church is the one true church started by Jesus in Matt 16:18 seems to me to be based on circular reasoning. Your church claims to be the church Jesus started therefore your church started back in the 1st century.​

BTW, who was the second pope and when did he live? Actually, the better question is: Who is the first pope to take on the title of pope? Your church thinks Linus was the second pope in 76AD. Or was it Clement the First?

 

[elvisman]

I’ve been accused of circular reasoning on another thread. Your belief that your church is the one true church started by Jesus in Matt 16:18 seems to me to be based on circular reasoning. Your church claims to be the church Jesus started therefore your church started back in the 1st century.

In other words, you can’t prove your nonsensical claim.​

BTW, who was the second pope and when did he live?

According to Church records and the writings of Irenaeus (Against Heresies), Linus is said to have been the 2nd Pope (67-76).
He is also believed to be the same Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21.

 

[Dokimas]

I see. Lol, are we back to the interpretation thing again? If that is the way you see it, I respect that.
But one thing I must correct is (and I will keep on correcting it if I must): Jesus did appoint Mary to be our Mother also. And that scripture wasn’t the only time He implied that. (Read the Early Church Father’s teachings…)

Lil, could you explain how the verse reveals Jesus was telling us that Mary was our mother?​

When you tell Radical that you’re correcting her/him, are you correcting according to your understanding, according to what the RCC teaches or directly according to what the Bible says?​

As far a interpretation is concerned, the straight forward answer is so often the correct interpretation.

 

[Dokimas]

**In other words, you can’t **prove your nonsensical claim.​

According to Church records and the writings of Irenaeus (Against Heresies), Linus is said to have been the 2nd Pope (67-76).
He is also believed to be the same Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21.

Your proof is that your church says so. Some reason for believing.​

Is it true that Paul ‘ordained’ Linus? Makes sense because it probably was Paul who started the church in Rome.

 

[Dokimas]

He is also believed to be the same Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21.

Interesting that Paul was in Rome when he wrote 2 Timothy.

 

[elvisman]

Your proof is that your church says so. Some reason for believing.

It can be traced - unfortunately your claim can’t.

-s it true that Paul ‘ordained’ Linus? Makes sense because it probably was Paul who started the church in Rome.

Ahhh - so you’re one of thse who doesn’t believe Peter was ever in Rome because it’s not explicitly mentioned in Scripture - althought it is mentioned implicitly (1 Pet. 5:13)?

It’s interesting that the Early Church Fathers taught that he was as well.
It’s also interesting how Protestants will use the writings of secular historians of the day such as Josephus and Pliny to prove certain things but refuse the testimony of the Early Fathers when their claims sound just a little too Catholic . . .

 

[Dokimas]

Ahhh - so you’re one of thse who doesn’t believe Peter was ever in Rome because it’s not explicitly mentioned in Scripture - althought it is mentioned implicitly (1 Pet. 5:13)?

QUOTE]​

Could you help me? Could you please show me where I said Peter wasn’t in Rome?

 

[Canaus]

However, there is simply too much evidence pointing to the fact that Mary was considered "the Mother of all the living in Christ" - just as Eve was called "the Mother of all the living."
Your arguments usually discount sacred Tradition as developmental errors when Scripture clearly proves you wrong (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14).

Hi elvisman
So are you saying that the Marian dogmas that have been developed in the Catholic church and that are being promoted today by the Catholic church…are part of the same traditions that the above verses are talking about, or is the “development” of dogmas to be considered separately from the original traditions that the Apostles taught?

 

[elvisman]

I’ve been accused of circular reasoning on another thread. Your belief that your church is the one true church started by Jesus in Matt 16:18 seems to me to be based on circular reasoning. Your church claims to be the church Jesus started therefore your church started back in the 1st century.

Ummmmm . . . name ANOTHER Christian body of believers that came before the Catholic Church.
The only reason this seems like circular reasoning to you is because you don’t like it.

BTW, who was the second pope and when did he live? Actually, the better question is: Who is the first pope to take on the title of pope? Your church thinks Linus was the second pope in 76AD. Or was it Clement the First?

**It WAS Linus. Clement came after Cletus (also called Anacletus, who was after Linus). Do your homework and you’ll see that history backs this up.

As for the title of pope - you have to be kidding me. This is fairly common knowledge. It was a term of endearment, meaning “papa” or “father”. If you’re going to come to a Catholic forum to argue - at least come equipped.

Now - answer a question for ME:
Can you prove me wrong?

 

[elvisman]

elvisman;5699648:

Ahhh - so you’re one of thse who doesn’t

believe Peter was ever in Rome because it’s not explicitly mentioned in Scripture - althought it is mentioned implicitly (1 Pet. 5:13)?

QUOTE]​

Could you help me? Could you please show me where I said Peter wasn’t in Rome?
You didn’t - you implied it by saying that Paul started the Church in Rome alone.

Peter was also there starting the Church. 1 Pet. 5:13 implies this and the writings of the Early Fathers confirms it:

Dionysius of Corinth****
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter** A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

---

---

Irenaeus****
**Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 A.D. 189]). ******

---

Tertullian****
**Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

---

Eusebius****
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 A.D. 303]).**

---

Peter of Alexandria****
**Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (*Canonical Letter, *canon 9 A.D. 306]). **

 

[elvisman]

Hi elvisman
So are you saying that the Marian dogmas that have been developed in the Catholic church and that are being promoted today by the Catholic church…are part of the same traditions that the above verses are talking about, or is the “development” of dogmas to be considered separately from the original traditions that the Apostles taught?

**What I’m saying is that these things were taught by the Early Church from the earliest of times. **The anti-Catholic position on dogmas and doctrines is one of total misunderstanding - even a refusal to understand.
They say that these things were invented by the Church at certain points - sometimes hundreds of years later. This is either total ignorance or a matter of Spiritual Pride.

A dogma is decreed when something is challenged - usually by a heresy. this was the reason the Trinity was declared at Ephesus in 431. It was ALWAYS believed but needed to be officially declared because of the Nestorian Heresy that said Jesus wasn’t God.

It was at this same Council that Mary’s role as Theotokos (God-bearer) was declared to emphasize the fact that Jesus was indeed God.

The canon of the Bible was formed at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage at the beginning of the 4th century but the official final canon of Scripture wasn’t declared until Trent because of the Protestant heresies. It wasn’t necessary until then because it wasn’t being called into question until the early Reformers revolted against the Church and went into heresy.

 

[Radical]

What I’m saying is that these things were taught by the Early Church from the earliest of times.

and the proof you offer is the absolute silence of the historical record in the 100+ years following the death of Christ…and this silence is claimed to be proof b/c it means that no disagreement existed to create such a record. Hmm, is Mary’s perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her bodily assumption, her status as mediatrix, her status as co-redemptrix only written about today for the purposes of refuting some challenge? …or is it that Venerators just can’t help themselves and feel the need to write about how wonderous Mary was/is b/c that is how they perceive her? Hmm…I guess the first Christians just weren’t plagued with the need to venerate Mary in their writings like modern Venerators…They must have held to that ancient Catholic practice of venerating only when challenged. Well, I guess that might be possible Elvisman, but it sure doesn’t pass the smell test.

The anti-Catholic position on dogmas and doctrines is one of total misunderstanding - even a refusal to understand.
They say that these things were invented by the Church at certain points - sometimes hundreds of years later. This is either total ignorance or a matter of Spiritual Pride.

Well, it isn’t total ignorance b/c it is derived from assessing the historical record and noting the absence of those Marian doctines. The record is so clear that even a good number of Catholic historians and theologians recognize that doctrines were introduced hundreds of years after the fact. Hmmm…who should we believe? Elvisman claims that the CC can’t err b/c the bible (as interpreted by the CC says so) and we know that the CC’s interpretation in that regard must be right b/c (after all) the CC can’t err. Now as much as I like a good circle, I think I’ll stick with the scholarly assessment of the historical record and the plain meaning of scripture.

 

[elvisman]

and the proof you offer is the absolute silence of the historical record in the 100+ years following the death of Christ…and this silence is claimed to be proof b/c it means that no disagreement existed to create such a record. Hmm, is Mary’s perpetual virginity, her immaculate conception, her bodily assumption, her status as mediatrix, her status as co-redemptrix only written about today for the purposes of refuting some challenge? …or is it that Venerators just can’t help themselves and feel the need to write about how wonderous Mary was/is b/c that is how they perceive her? Hmm…I guess the first Christians just weren’t plagued with the need to venerate Mary in their writings like modern Venerators…They must have held to that ancient Catholic practice of venerating only when challenged. Well, I guess that might be possible Elvisman, but it sure doesn’t pass the smell test.

No - what doesn’t pass the smell test is the motive for the Early Church to have taught heresy and error - especially so soon after the Apostolic age. The early Christians included those in the first 600 years of the Church. Yes, the very same ones who wrote about these beliefes that you claim only sprouted up later.
**Sorry, pal - you still haven’t provided a motive for them to have taught such abominable lies OR for Jesus to have lied to the Apostles in Matt. 16:18.
Your problem isn’t just a disdain for the Catholic Church - it’s a frightening lack of faith in the promises of Jesus Christ.

Well, it isn’t total ignorance b/c it is derived from assessing the historical record and noting the absence of those Marian doctines. The record is so clear that even a good number of Catholic historians and theologians recognize that doctrines were introduced hundreds of years after the fact. Hmmm…who should we believe? Elvisman claims that the CC can’t err b/c the bible (as interpreted by the CC says so) and we know that the CC’s interpretation in that regard must be right b/c (after all) the CC can’t err. Now as much as I like a good circle, I think I’ll stick with the scholarly assessment of the historical record and the plain meaning of scripture.

No - like all Protestants - you’ll stick with the best excuse not to admit that the Catholic Church is correct.
Give me the names of a "good number of Catholic historians and theologians" that you are referring to. I eagerly await your response.

I know it pains you to accept the fact that the Catholic Church existed in the first Century and we can clearly see this from St. Ignatius’ writings - especially in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans. Yes, all of those nasty things like following the Bishops because of their Apostolic succession and believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. You even resort to pushing the Marian beliefs a few centuries down the road because the 2nd century is just too close for comfort.
The fact is, the Marian doctrines weren’t called into question so soon after the time of Christ and didn’t need to be defined - just like the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Canaus]

elvisman
A dogma is decreed when something is challenged - usually by a heresy. this was the reason the Trinity was declared at Ephesus in 431. It was ALWAYS believed but needed to be officially declared because of the Nestorian Heresy that said Jesus wasn’t God.

elvisman
You even resort to pushing the Marian beliefs a few centuries down the road because the 2nd century is just too close for comfort.
The fact is, the Marian doctrines weren’t called into question so soon after the time of Christ and didn’t need to be defined - just like the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

What heresies were there that necessitated the Catholic church to pronounce the rest of the Marian dogmas?

Originally Posted by elvisman

However, there is simply too much evidence pointing to the fact that Mary was considered “the Mother of all the living in Christ” - just as Eve was called “the Mother of all the living.”
Your arguments usually discount sacred Tradition as developmental errors when Scripture clearly proves you wrong (2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14).

Are you saying that the Catholic church’s “sacred Tradition” for the development of the Marian Dogmas, is the same tradition that the Apostles were referring too in the above scripture verses?

 

[CWBetts]

What heresies were there that necessitated the Catholic church to pronounce the rest of the Marian dogmas?

It is the Church that is defined as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” In other words, the Church has been given authority to define dogmas, and is protected from error. Your snide attitude in reference to Sacred Tradition is not welcome. You are hypocritical to criticize our Tradition, while you cling to certain aspects of Catholic Tradition. Feel free to attack it when you stop celebrating Christmas and Easter. Put your Bible away while you are at it, for the Scriptures are a product of Tradition (Councils of Carthage I &II, Hippo, and Rome). You should also stop going to church on Sunday, and instead gather on Saturday. Does your faith community have a pastor that wears a clerical collar or other vestments? Get rid of them, they originated as part of Catholic Tradition. Do you pass a collection plate? Where does it say to do that in the Scriptures? Do you have Scripture readings? Music? None of this is provided for in the Scriptures.

 

[elvisman]

What heresies were there that necessitated the Catholic church to pronounce the rest of the Marian dogmas?

**You ****didn’t **read my post – did you?
**I said that dogmas are decreed when some thing is challenged – usually by a heresy, ****not **always. Many times, questions surrounding the belief prompt an official decree.
*Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (2nd Marian Dogma) was Church belief since the beginning. It was written about by Irenaeus (Against Heresies) *****and was part of the Baptismal formula since before the 3rd Century. It was also written about by the 2nd century historian Hegesippus, who explained that Jesus’ brothers were the children of Clopas (John 19:25). **
By the 6th century, it was a dogmatic assertion.

Are you saying that the Catholic church’s “sacred Tradition” for the development of the Marian Dogmas, is the same tradition that the Apostles were referring too in the above scripture verses?

YUP**.**
The Apostles were telling the people to hold fast to the traditions they taught either by an oral statement OR a written letter and to imitate them in all they did.

**You must remember, my anti-Cathollic friend - If you’re a Protestant, you adhere to human precepts and the traditions of men that have NO God-given authority.

 

[Canaus]

**Originally Posted by Canaus
What heresies were there that necessitated the Catholic church to pronounce the rest of the Marian dogmas?
Are you saying that the Catholic church’s “sacred Tradition” for the development of the Marian Dogmas, is the same tradition that the Apostles were referring too in the above scripture verses?**

It is the Church that is defined as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” In other words, the Church has been given authority to define dogmas, and is protected from error. Your snide attitude in reference to Sacred Tradition is not welcome. You are hypocritical to criticize our Tradition, while you cling to certain aspects of Catholic Tradition. Feel free to attack it when you stop celebrating Christmas and Easter. Put your Bible away while you are at it, for the Scriptures are a product of Tradition (Councils of Carthage I &II, Hippo, and Rome). You should also stop going to church on Sunday, and instead gather on Saturday. Does your faith community have a pastor that wears a clerical collar or other vestments? Get rid of them, they originated as part of Catholic Tradition. Do you pass a collection plate? Where does it say to do that in the Scriptures? Do you have Scripture readings? Music? None of this is provided for in the Scriptures.

They are two simple questions.

Based on the contents of your above response - you are either unable or unwilling to answer them…which is fine…I certainly wouldn’t want you to break a blood vessel in your attempts at doing so.

I see elvisman has responded since your posting.

Be blessed CWBetts.

 

[Radical]

Give me the names of a "good number of Catholic historians and theologians" that you are referring to. I eagerly await your response.

Well, given the extremely confident manner in which you make declarations regarding history I would think you must be very well read and would know the names already …tell you what, I’ll make this fairly easy for you. I note you have made certain claims in this thread concerning tracing the Pope all the way back to Peter. Here is an article that examines (and quotes) what certain Catholic scholars think about your claim that Christ created in St. Peter the office of supreme pastor of the Church and that Peter, being the first Pope at Rome passed that office on to Linus etc… (I don’t agree with all of Dr Thiel’s views, but I think this article is good enough at showing that Catholic scholars and you differ substantially).

Now, please provide the names of modern Catholic scholars (published in the last 20 years) that support your position and a citation or two demonstrating their support (in each case).