Protestants and Mary

[benedictus2]

As I’ve said, as I read the Bible, James is predominant in Jerusalem and Paul is predominant in the Gentile world. Paul is also predominant in the writing of the NT. There seems to be no evidence that Peter is THE leader in the 1st century church. Sure God used him greatly and wonderfully, that’s NOT the issue. It’s your claim he is the first pope.

But the question we are addressing is not who headed the JerusalemChurch and who wrote more in the NT. Christ appointed Peter as Prime Shepherd (read Matthew 16 and John 21). The headship of Peter does not depend on how other’s perceived his office. It derives from Christ Himself. Peter is first pope because Christ CHOSE him to be so. The title pope is a name that only came letter to define his office, but the office has always been there since Christ’s CHOOSING of Peter.

Could you show from the Bible that Peter was the first bishop of

Rome?

Not everything that is true about the Church is contained in the Bible. That is why we have tradition

The president of the

US chose to be placed on the ballot and be in a place to be elected. Sorry to say your example seems to fall short.

Manner of election is not the point. The point is that “Pope” is merely a title. The office is the Bishop of Rome. We could all address him as the Bishop of Rome but Pope is an endearment as he is our earthly spiritual father.

In the same way that Mr President is only a title, the office is the President of America. Or is that so hard to understand?
{quote] Of course, it is impossible for God to lie. He’s not the problem; our ability (or unwillingness) to understand is the problem.
Aaaah, therefore if it is impossible for God to lie, then what he said about establishing a Church, preventing it from error, preventing the gates of hell from overtaking it is true. If that is true then the Church he established is still here to day.

Agreed. It’s known as the Body of Christ.

Agreed. And the Body of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Here’s where you loose me

.

Re-read it and maybe you will understand better.

Luther mangled the teaching of indulgences. Needed to be mangled. I’m sure we could find other things he mangled and they’d be necessary to be mangled.

Nope. Luther mangled the Bible. He even attempted to remove James but could not do so so what he did instead was call it the epistle of straw. And why is that? Because it does not support his theology. He muzzled the word of God because it went against his own thinking. He put Luther first before the word of God.

Remember, he didn’t want to leave the CC, he wanted wrong teachings to leave the CC.

There was nothing wrong with the Church teachings. That is the whole point. There was a lot wrong with how some behaved and practiced the faith, but with the teachings there was nothing wrong. But what he changed was the teaching. And that is why you have now the ever increasing number of denominations all with deficient teachings.
The Holy spirit unites. The devil divides.

 

[benedictus2]

Teaching of CC’s exclusivity.

The Catholic Church is not exclusive at all. If you should decide to join this very minute, the Church would be more than happy to receive you. Actually, we can’t wait for you to COME HOME :extrahappy::hug1:

Some of the teaching about Mary (immaculate conception).

But as has been shown in this thread, that is all Biblically supported.

Some of the teaching about Peter.

There is no teaching about Peter that is not supported by the Bible. Matthew 16, John 21 and other verses as well. At Pentecost Peter was the spokesperson. Pentecost by the way is the birthday of the Catholic Church.

Infant baptism. Reason for baptism.

I have seen your discussion regarding this above so it is very well supported as well. Also, this is the practice in the early Church.

Communion actually becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Extremly Biblical. John 6, Last Supper Narratives in the synoptic gospels. The early church has always believed this to be so. Even Luther did so. It was only the later denominations that did away with this belief. Which just goes to show, the further removed the denomination is from the Body of Christ, the more deficient the belief becomes.

True; but they are inconsistent with the Bible.

If they do not contradict the Bible they are not inconsistent with the Bible.

 

[Seraphim25]

If it is not us who is doing the good works but God in us, does it stand to reason that it is not us who is having the faith but God in us?

Well actually there is some error here. Both Mary and Zechariah questioned the angel. But it is quite interesting that the angel’s responses differed in each case.

Luke 1:18 -20 - Then Zechariah said to the angel,** “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years**.” And the angel said to him in reply, “I am Gabriel, who stand before God. I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news. But now you will be speechless and unable to talk until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled at their proper time.”

Luke 1:34-35 But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Mary’s Fiat came only after the angel has explained the “how can this be”.

Well yeah, but my point just meant that some way or another Zacharia came across as not believeing or doubting. They both posed a question but somehow Zacharia’s questions seemed that he was doubting and not believing. I don’t know why though

 

[Dokimas]

The Catholic Church is not exclusive at all. If you should decide to join this very minute, the Church would be more than happy to receive you. Actually, we can’t wait for you to COME HOME :extrahappy::hug1:

But as has been shown in this thread, that is all Biblically supported.

There is no teaching about Peter that is not supported by the Bible. Matthew 16, John 21 and other verses as well. At Pentecost Peter was the spokesperson. Pentecost by the way is the birthday of the Catholic Church.

I have seen your discussion regarding this above so it is very well supported as well. Also, this is the practice in the early Church.

Extremly Biblical. John 6, Last Supper Narratives in the synoptic gospels. The early church has always believed this to be so. Even Luther did so. It was only the later denominations that did away with this belief. Which just goes to show, the further removed the denomination is from the Body of Christ, the more deficient the belief becomes.

If they do not contradict the Bible they are not inconsistent with the Bible.

Thanks for your opinion. Of course it was expected.

 

[Dokimas]

The early church’s understanding of communion:

1 Corinthians 11:
20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.
21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.
23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.​

Sure could be understood metaphorically because the purpose for communion is two fold: remembrance of Jesus and proclaiming the Lord’s death.

 

[Dokimas]

The Catholic Church is not exclusive at all. If you should decide to join this very minute, the Church would be more than happy to receive you. Actually, we can’t wait for you to COME HOME

I probably used the wrong word. What I meant is the teaching that only the RCC has the correct teaching and is correct in all its teachings, inculding that it is the original church that Jesus established. Pretty exclusive if I understand the word ‘exclusive’!​

Interesting that so many religions are ‘exclusive’ like I described here: Mormons, JW’s, Muslims, etc. Red flags all around.

 

[Dokimas]

Benedictus: There was nothing wrong with the Church teachings. That is the whole point. There was a lot wrong with how some behaved and practiced the faith, but with the teachings there was nothing wrong. But what he changed was the teaching. And that is why you have now the ever increasing number of denominations all with deficient teachings.
The Holy spirit unites. The devil divides.

Unity doesn’t necessarily mean ‘from God’. Look at the unity in the abortion movement or the homosexual movement or the anti-Christian movement.​

Please don’t tell me that all in your church are perfectly united. Ted Kennedy, as many catholics, was pro abortion.

 

[benedictus2]

Tell me is it arrogance if one tries to use abstract thought and critical reasoning for certian beliefs that don’t seem to find support in Gods holy word? Or is it being prejudice about understanding both sides and still trying to fill in holes? No, both of these terms can not be placed on anybody. Not even Luther who yes I agree should not have left the church, but so did all of the people to escape the oppression of the church.

It is not just a matter of Luther leaving the Church. He created a false doctrine which led to a whole lot more false doctrines which caused the over growing splintering of the the prostetant churches. You can tell the tree by its fruit.

Hey you brought history up not me. the H20 I see your point but it is weak because there is concrete evidence that water is made up of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen. When dealing with spiritual matters that seem to disembark on Gods word it dosen’t become concrete any more but conjectures and theories. Whether good or bad I no not only God knows and knows my heart. Which is why a lot of people who were once Catholic are no longer Catholic because they felt something was out of place.

Here in again arrogance. Because they think they know more what the truth is than all those erudite and Holy men before them, the Saints, the Doctors and Fathers of the Church. As if all of a sudden they and they alone know what is true. That is what the protetant religion is all about. To which I think we can trace back modernism and individualism. I/Me/Myself the scourge of our culture today.

And you can’t just stereotype them and say well obviously it was them not the church either because we don’t necessarily know why they left.

There are only two reasons why people would leave the church: because they are undercatechized and because they have a moral issue against the church. I think the latter is quite common. Here again lies arrogance. They think they are the moral arbiters of truth rather than God.

But when I talk to some or when I hear of others talking to them the picture painted is somewhat clear. Some felt that after leaving the Catholic faith they found Jesus.

If they did not find Jesus in the Catholic church then they are terribly under catechized or else they wanted a Jesus that suited themselves. They wanted a convenient Jesus. One that say faith ALONE and OSAS.

I mean this is a profound statement considering it coming from Catholic own ranks. some have felt that the tradition and the redundancy of prayers got in the way and felt that it was merely words and not heart felt like Luke warm.

If you think the Rosary is a redudancy of prayers, if you think the liturgy is a redundancy of prayers then it just goes to show you know zilch about what the Rosary trulyis and what liturgy is.
Again, under catechized.

Then obviously again they knew zilch about what the doctrine of Mary is.
Again, under catechized.

In summation, it all boils down to ignorance. Easily remedied by a little bit more reading. In this age of google, there is no excuse.

 

[benedictus2]

Unity doesn’t necessarily mean ‘from God’. Look at the unity in the abortion movement or the homosexual movement or the anti-Christian movement.

Read John’s gospel and Jesus’s last discourses. :tsktsk:

Please don’t tell me that all in your church are perfectly united. Ted Kennedy, as many catholics, was pro abortion.

No, we have family squabbles and we have recalcitrant and stubborn and errant members. But they are still members. The teachings remain the same. Some refuse to follow the teaching and they can be excommunicated. It is still one Catholic Church. We do not have a Ted Kennedy catholic church as an offshoot. If that were to happen then Ted ceases to be a member of the catholic. He probably ought to have been excommunicated but that is just my opinion.

 

[Dokimas]

Benedictus: It is not just a matter of Luther leaving the Church. He created a false doctrine which led to a whole lot more false doctrines which caused the over growing splintering of the the prostetant churches. You can tell the tree by its fruit.

Have you read Luther’s 95 Theses? One word pops up over and over again that seems to anger him: ‘indulgences’ paid to the church.​

Didn’t Jesus say, ‘freely you have received; freely give.’ Jesus paid for our forgiveness and freely gave it to His church. Why has the church enacted payment for indulgences?​

According to Wikipedia: A few years later, in 1567, Pope Pius V cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.​

Looks like Pope Pius V learned something from Luther.​

BTW, does the CC charge for indulgences today?

 

[CWBetts]

Have you read Luther’s 95 Theses? One word pops up over and over again that seems to anger him: ‘indulgences’ paid to the church.​

Didn’t Jesus say, ‘freely you have received; freely give.’ Jesus paid for our forgiveness and freely gave it to His church. Why has the church enacted payment for indulgences?​

According to Wikipedia: A few years later, in 1567, Pope Pius V cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.​

Looks like Pope Pius V learned something from Luther.​

BTW, does the CC charge for indulgences today?

The Catholic Church NEVER “charged” for indulgences. The indulges Luther complained about were a localized abuse, and not problematic in the Church as a whole. Pope Pius V was wise enough to see that that the abuses had to be stopped. I would recommend that you read a book, instead of garnering all of your information from Wikipedia, of all places.

 

[Dokimas]

The Catholic Church NEVER “charged” for indulgences. The indulges Luther complained about were a localized abuse, and not problematic in the Church as a whole. Pope Pius V was wise enough to see that that the abuses had to be stopped. I would recommend that you read a book, instead of garnering all of your information from Wikipedia, of all places.

Is the following true?

In the sixteenth century Pope Leo X perverted the theology of indulgences to the greatest extent in history-turning a religious doctrine into no more than a money making scheme. Christian History Institute explains how after draining the Vatican treasury, Pope Leo X planned on continuing to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica yet lacked the necessary funds to do so12. It goes on to explain how Leo X sent the legendary Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to sell indulgences to fund his project. This particular set of indulgences state that even the sins that the buyer would later commit would be justified in the eyes of God:

.I restore you. to the innocence and purity which you possessed at baptism; so that when you die the gates of punishment shall be shut. and if you shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when you are at the point of death. hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t2w08indulgences.htm

 

[CWBetts]

Is the following true?

In the sixteenth century Pope Leo X perverted the theology of indulgences to the greatest extent in history-turning a religious doctrine into no more than a money making scheme. Christian History Institute explains how after draining the Vatican treasury, Pope Leo X planned on continuing to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica yet lacked the necessary funds to do so12. It goes on to explain how Leo X sent the legendary Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to sell indulgences to fund his project. This particular set of indulgences state that even the sins that the buyer would later commit would be justified in the eyes of God:

.I restore you. to the innocence and purity which you possessed at baptism; so that when you die the gates of punishment shall be shut. and if you shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when you are at the point of death. hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t2w08indulgences.htm

Absolutely not. Tetzel was acting outside of the instructions of the Church

 

[Dokimas]

Absolutely not. Tetzel was acting outside of the instructions of the Church

According to your understanding of histor, Pope Leo X was not involved? Tetzel was all on his own???

 

[CWBetts]

According to your understanding of histor, Pope Leo X was not involved? Tetzel was all on his own???

He was not involve. BUt that may be because I read my history from books with documentation to back o\up their claims and not “Billybob’s Anti-Catholic website”

 

[Dokimas]

He was not involve. BUt that may be because I read my history from books with documentation to back o\up their claims and not “Billybob’s Anti-Catholic website”

So you don’t think your church could have ‘candy coated’ history?

 

[Dokimas]

He was not involve. BUt that may be because I read my history from books with documentation to back o\up their claims and not “Billybob’s Anti-Catholic website”

The most important occurrence of Leo’s pontificate and that of gravest consequence to the Church was the Reformation, which began in 1517. We cannot enter into a minute account of this movement, the remote cause of which lay in the religious, political, and social conditions of Germany. It is certain, however, that the seeds of discontent amid which Luther threw his firebrand had been germinating for centuries. The immediate cause was bound up with the odious greed for money displayed by the Roman Curia, and shows how far short all efforts at reform had hitherto fallen. Albert of Brandenburg, already Archbishop of Magdeburg, received in addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter’s; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the “Indulgences for the Dead” became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above. He recognized neither the gravity of the situation nor the underlying causes of the revolt. Vigorous measures of reform might have proved an efficacious antidote, but the pope was deeply entangled in political affairs and allowed the imperial election to overshadow the revolt of Luther; moreover, he gave himself up unrestrainedly to his pleasures and failed to grasp fully the duties of his high office.

newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm
BTW, is this website anti-Catholic?

 

[Seraphim25]

So you don’t think your church could have ‘candy coated’ history?

I agree, that we must tread carefully when looking at history. On other threads when I posed the question about Galileo about observations in the night sky and how the church treated him harshly is a question that needs to be seriously taken.

Many who defends the church on the issue appeared to be biased soley on the Church’s interpretation and may not have consulted to outside sources. This is why I being a catholic myself don’t place trust in any institution. Heck I don’t even place trust in the scientific communities because more than half the time they themselves don’t know what they are talking about.

So I whole kindheartedly agree that one SHOULD examine ALL facts wether them being secular or religious documents.

Very well done!

P.s Sugar coating history by the way happens all the time. Consider Columbus or even the Conquistadors. Finally, the truth about these people are finially being revealed in our school systems were as before even when I was in school taught that Columbus founded America. No, he actually explored cuba and down and around the panama canal area. Many don’t find this truth out until College and they think the proffesor is making history up. But in reality it was intended to fabricate a lie to make Chris not be as bad as what he actually was

 

[Seraphim25]

No we do not hink Peter is the first pope because he started the Church in Rome. Peter is considered the first Pope only because He is the first prime bishop. He was the one appointed by Christ to be shepherd of His (Christ’s ) flock.

I am not quite sure where the “it has been shown” is because it has NOT been shown to be so.
Perhaps Paul was in Rome before Peter but Paul was not the Bishop of Rome. Peter was.

And our Church is the same church that Christ established upon Peter (that is why protestants are so dead set against recognizing Peter as prime bishop becuase it completely weakens their case once this truth is accepted).

No he did not take on the title of Pope. But Pope he was. All that pope means is papa, father. Because he is the shepherd that Christ chose to shepherd His (Christ’s), that is why he is called Pope.

One of the official titles of the the Pope is Servus Servorum Dei,- Servant of the Servants of God.

If the President of the United States should deem the title rather pompus and prefer to be called just Mr., it would not change the fact that he is the President of the United States becuase he holds that office.

Well not exactly. Our claim is that Christ established only one (uno, eine,une) church. Christ promised the gates of hell will not prevail against it and that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth. If we believe Christ was telling the truth and is capable of keeping His promise, then that church which He established 2000 years ago is still with us today. Only one church is able to claim that and provide historical support. That Church is the Catholic Church. There are no other candidates near enough.
Here is a link to the listing of the main Christian Churches and their founders.
http://www.whostartedyourchurch.com/

Okay, which one? As far as I know, it is the teaching of the protestant churches that can’t be supported without somehow mangling and chopping the word of God. And this is quite understandable because Luther started this kind of mangling. He had a preconceived theology and tried to make the Bible say what he wanted it to say so when it wouldn’t he decided to get rid of the books of the Bible that did not support his theology.

Okay, give me an example. Please deal in facts Dokimas.

Actually not. Some beliefs about Mary may be extra Biblical but this does not mean they contradict what is Biblical proclaimed about her.

Okay, but I could ague the fact that not even the Jewish Torah constructed any of those books that he removed from the canon. In fact The Torah obviously had the 5 books of Moses and a select few others. So who is adding and subtracting doctrines now if you want to get on a technical level?

 

[rchapm77]

I can appreciate your position, but there also isn’t enough evidence to the contrary.
Those who teach that Jesus indeed had uterine siblings MUST prove ot.

I have proven that (or rather, Scripture has) those named as his siblings were NOT uterine brothers and sisters - but instead kinsman, as the Bible teaches.

We also must establish - which we have - that ALL truth is not contained in Scripture - as Scripture itself teaches:
2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Tim. 2:2, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 1:12-14.

---

The Bible itself says that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth - not Scripture (1 Tim. 3:15).
You can argue that point all day long and still come to the same conclusion.

---

The Bible itself says that the CHURCH is the final authority - NOT the Bible.
Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23.
This can also be argued all day long, but in the end you still come to the same conclusion - in the *context *of Scripture.

Thank you for these scripture refrences they are helpful in understanding the reasoning behind the RCC believeing in scripture and tradition both being sources of infallable and essential truth, and that authority is held by the chruch (apostolic ministry, as I understood it from the scriptures you referenced), as opposed to the bible. But I have been taught all my life that scripture is the only source of both infallable and essential truth. Thats not to say I think there is no truth to be found outside of scripture. It is to say that I can not believe in the infallability of truth outside of scripture. Nor am I able to view it as essential because to do that would be to say that there are essential truths left outside the bible. That there would be truth essential to the faith outside the bible is unthinkable to me.

I think this is part of the reason why I and many other protestants are so reluctant to accept the dogmas about Mary as being infallable and esseintal.