J
Justy90
Guest
What is Infallibility? Is it oral or written tradition?
- Status
J
Justy90
Guest
The Great Schism. 1054AD
J
Justy90
Guest
THAT talk isn’t cheap!
F
fbl9
Guest
St.Peter earlier also said that scripture which came form the Holy Spirit was yet to be fulfilled regarding Judas Acts 1: 16…Perhaps the reason you can’t accept this is because to do so would show that St. peter had some pull within the group.Are you saying that the Holy Spirit did not lead to the decsion of which two to put forth? And the Holy Spirit had no part in which of the two was choosen.
B
Bob4BVM
Guest
Hi Jon , thought I might find you in this one !
Hope all is well with you.
You a justified in your indignation.
We RC’s cannot be lumping all non-Catholics together in this matter.
True that some Protestants ma y not honor the BVM as we do, but many DO, and some even more than some of the Catholics I know !!!
+Peace of Christ to you,
Bob
B
Bob4BVM
Guest
However, she was chosen out from among all of us. She was not better than we are. She was a sinner.
Have you ever looked at the Scriptures telling us how Jesus interacted with Mary? At least twice her, speaking to her, called her woman not mother (or mom). Once when He was brought news that His mothers and brothers had come to see Him, He responded saying, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Dokimas-
Be careful here !
It was alot more than twice that Jesus Called Mary ‘woman’.
Eve is also referred to as ‘woman’.
I both cases it is a reference of great honor, as the mother of all the living.
If you are meaning that Jesus would EVER refer to His mother in ANYTHING but a respectful, loving way, then you are implying that Jesus would violate the Ten Commandments, which He would NEVER do.
Note that the last time he referred to Mary as ‘woman’ was just before dying on the cross-among the last 10 words He spoke beofre dying, so I’d guess He thought that what His Last Act was about to be was pretty important :
(from John 19
v25- Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.
v26-When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
v27-Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
In doing this Jesus established Mary’s motherhood for all of Gods children, for all time.
As for your claim that Mary was a sinner, never mind, I canot even bring myself to comment on that right now. Just consider that the Precious Blood of your Savior flowed thru HER heart for 9 months…
+Peace,
Bob
C
CWBetts
Guest
Did anybody ever think about this: Yes Mary was the Mother of God, but she was also created by God. If given the chance, who would not make their mother perfect?
P
prochrist1
Guest
sorry friend i respect your decision thats fine however we disagree there, since there has never been any prove of this unless you see it from a RC prospective
J
Justy90
Guest
What???
P
prochrist1
Guest
What are you opinions on mary being part of the trinity ? does she get included as well?
E
elvisman
Guest
That talk is about as cheap as it comes.The Great Schism. 1054AD
THAT talk isn’t cheap!
I proved that the Bible itself was written Tradition. YOU told me that it was from the so-called “Early church” and not the Catholic Church who "split away forming its own agenda including elevating the seat of Peter."
**Ummm . . . do you have ANY clue about history? **
First of all, I don’t know of ONE, single, solitary Protestant theologian who agrees with you that the Catholic Church was born in 1054 AD. MOST of them will tell lyou that it was in the 3rd century - and they’d be wrong - but at least they know that it was MUCH earlier than you claim.
Secondly, the Bible was compiled and ratified at the Councils of Carthage (397 AD) and Hippo (393 AD). That means that the Catholic Church ratified what YOU claim to be to sole infallible authority- the Bible.
Thirdly - as for elevating the seat of Peter AFTER 1054 - you lose again.
Here are a few quotes from the Early Catholic Church Fathers about the seat of Peter’s and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome - WELL BEFORE the Great Schism, when the Eastern Orthodox broke away from the Catholic Church:
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 A.D. 110]).
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 A.D. 252]).
If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 A.D. 251]).
Optatus
**In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
E
elvisman
Guest
**That’s just it. It doesn’t matter if YOU disagree. It doesn’t matter *which *prospective you view it from.
As long as you hold the Scriptures to be the sole inerrant authority - you have to accept that they, themselves are part of Tradition. I already proved this to you with the quotes from Scripture (****2 Thess. 2:15, **1 Cor. 11:2)
**PLUS the fact that 1 Tim. 3:15 says that the CHURCH is “the pillar and foundation of truth” - not the Scriptures. The New Testament was born from the Church - not the Church from the New Testament.
.
C
CWBetts
Guest
No Catholic would elevate a created being (Mary) on par with the Trinity. Calling Mary the “Mother of God” is 100% Scriptural:
And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Really can’t argue with that.
J
Justy90
Guest
I didn’t say that the Roman Catholic church was born in 1054AD, I said that this is when it split from the true Early Church. You would know that if you took the time to read instead of drumming up your next attack on me. The seat of Peter was First among Equals until Rome decided to elevate it. The split was on, you changed, Constantinople didn’t.
A
Agripa
Guest
I think I will NOT do that - I prefer to pick up on the current thread - not ones four days old.
And I will state some insightful opinions regardless.
B
Bob4BVM
Guest
CW,
You hit the nail on the head !
If these folks had any idea how well-connected Mary is, and how much she loves them, they would recoil in shame at their talk.
I am not saying that I understand her connection to the Trinity, but I know it to be fact.
Her love for us (ALL of us, not just Christians, but every person God has created) is just amazing.
+Peace,
Bob
B
Bengoshi
Guest
The comparison to the ark of the covenant, although plausible, has no scriptural support. In a way. using your own comaprison, since Jesus is the contradistinction of the OT, his humbling of himself is also in contrast to that of the OT pactice of “adoration” of the ark of the covenant.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
So you’re saying that Jesus is not enough? Wow, what a low regard you have for Jesus! Through Jesus’ death on the cross, God has given us direct access to Him. That is why when Jesus died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies was ripped from top to bottom. It is to symbolize God’s accessibility to us. We don’t need priests to be able to go to God, unlike in the OT.
This is merely speculative.Ah, but if you look a bit deeper, it is easy to see He is talking to all of His children. Jesus always did that.
Protestants do not consider any document other than Sacred Scripture to be authoritative, infallible and inerrant. They may only have persuasive effect. They may be inspired, yes, but only to a limited degree, unlike the Bible.
The CAtholic dogmas of immaculate conception, assumption, perpetual virginity, and Mother Mary being the Queen of heaven, are generally rejected by Protestants because they all have no CLEAR and EXPRESS biblical basis.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Half-brothers are still brothers. There is no need to specify. I have half-brothers too and I do not need to refer to them as half-brothers. Brothers would suffice. The answer is that we may not really know for sure. Anyway, would Mary having other children with Joseph decrease her dignity in any way? It certainly will not! Also, see Matt. 1:25a, which says: “But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son.”
So it is possible that they had sexual relations after Jesus was born. I am not saying this this as a certainty, but that we should be open to the POSSIBILITY.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Jesus is sufficient, but Mary adds a whole new depth. We hafe been adopted into God’s family. Jesus, is truly our eldest brother. Goad the Father is, well the Father. To complete the family imagery, and it is a family motif (hence the use of the word “covenant”) we need a mother. That would be Mary. The Queen of Heaven is EXPRESSLY in Scripture. In Revelation chapter 12, we have a WOMAN in HEAVEN wearing a CROWN. She is referred to as Mother of the Church. (Look at John 19:26-27). But there is another point. Something you are overlooking. Something that should make you rethink your theology. Nowhere in Scripture does it clearly and expressly say that Scripture is our only authority. In fact, it can’t even be inferred. But there are lots of places that give authority to the Church, and to the Pope. Something else, but you should really know this. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it even say what books are supposed to be included! The Canon wasn’t dictated by Jesus! In fact, the Canon wasn’t decided until almost 400 years after Jesus died. This really puts you in a pickle I’m sorry. Oh I guess I should tell you about the Trinity too. That word can’t be found in Scripture. In fact the doctrine of the Trinity is based partly on Apostolic teaching. I really didn’t mean to make your theology completely unravel like this.
- Status