PROTESTANTS! Answer me this....

[Mannyfit75]

III. Mary is Ever-virgin
“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

 

[Mannyfit75]

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

“Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.’ John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

 

[Mannyfit75]

“[T]he Son of God…was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit…” Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374).

“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379).

“But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.” Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383).

“Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.” Ambrose, To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111 (A.D. 396).

“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,’ saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?’ and had not added, seeing I know not a man,’ certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).

 

[Mannyfit75]

IV. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

“It was fitting …that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory …should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346), (ante A.D. 733).

“St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” John of Damascene, PG (96:1) (A.D. 747-751).

“It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.” John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96,741), (ante A.D. 749).

“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself.” Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda (ante A.D. 795).

 

[justasking4]

These doctrines are Apostolic in origin and the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus upon his ascension into Heaven. I don’t believe that Jesus would lie to Peter that lead His Church into error.

What i think you are not taking into consideration is the warning of false teachers who will come into the church itself and decieve many. This is always a constant problem in any church.

The CC teaches a unified doctrine and sets of belief.

Isn’t true that on some teachings a catholic can embrace and others he doesn’t have to? For example, do you all catholics believe that Mary is the mediatrix of all graces?

Unlike the Protestant Churches which have a different menu of doctrines, and belief all their own due to their sola scriptura and sola fidi doctrine.

There are some core doctrines that all orthodox protestants do believe in common. Some would be:
1- Christ died for our sins and rose again
2- the scriptures are the Word of God
3- a person must put his faith in Christ to be saved.

The Protestant Church have inconsist belief and many of their belief contradict one another. There are some Protestant Churches who believe contraception is ok. While another is against it. There is another who support gay marriages, and ordained gay ministers. There are some the ordain women which is against Scripture.

That is true but its also true for many of the members of the catholic church. Many, including those in leadership believe there should be married priests for example.
Is it not also true that at one time protestants were considered heretics and now considered “separated brethren”?

The Catholic Church teachings are consistent. It is against contraception, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and other immoralities…

Many protestant churches also are.

There use to be a time when Protestants were against contraception, but that change in the late 1800 to 1900s. The Catholic Church have taught Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture for over 2,000 yrs. Protestantism has only been around since 1517…

Just because something has been around a long time doesn’t mean its always been right. There has also been a lot of different opinions in the catholic church on a number of issues. Take the apocrypha that is in the catholic bible. There was not a unamious agreement if it should be included or not. There are a number of example like this through history.

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=Mannyfit75;1755832]Oh really then. Let us take a look at the Early Church Fathers and their writings.

On Mary:

They were taught by the Apostles and read the Same OT text.

Below is not what i mean by exegesis. What i mean is that we study the various passages used in the scripture and study the passages used to support the doctrine and look at context, historical setting, grammar, word meanings etc. This will help us to determine if the doctrine is coming from the scripture itself or is the scripture being forced to say something that it was not intended to say.

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead.” Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).

“Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Just because something has been around a long time doesn’t mean its always been right. There has also been a lot of different opinions in the catholic church on a number of issues. Take the apocrypha that is in the catholic bible. There was not a unamious agreement if it should be included or not. There are a number of example like this through history.

You mean the deutrocanonical Scripture called the Septuguaint which was canonized by the Church in the Council of Rome, Council of Hippo, and Carthage?

the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

397 The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by …

AD787 The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, … The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

1442 AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.

1536 In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Martin Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

1546 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.

There was an agreement. The Magisterium of the Church finalized it in the Council of Trent which only reaffirm the other Councils. There is an agreement. The only disagreement made was Martin Luther who remove text from the Bible. He later change his mind because he was under the pressure of other Protestant leaders at the time…

 

[justasking4]

You mean the deutrocanonical Scripture called the Septuguaint which was canonized by the Church in the Council of Rome, Council of Hippo, and Carthage?

the Council of Hippo, which began “arguing it out.” Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

Is it not true that Jews rejected the apocrypha as inspired as did Meltio of Sardis, Origen, Athansius and Jerome who reluctantly added them?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Below is not what i mean by exegesis. What i mean is that we study the various passages used in the scripture and study the passages used to support the doctrine and look at context, historical setting, grammar, word meanings etc. This will help us to determine if the doctrine is coming from the scripture itself or is the scripture being forced to say something that it was not intended to say.

The way we Catholics intrepret the Bible is the way the author is trying to convey during the time it was written. Protestants have different intrepretation of the Bible. How do I know which Protestant Church is the correct one and one doesn’t believe in Infant baptism while some do?

Or if the Eucharist is Symbolic, or that Jesus is truly Present in the Blessed Sacraments. There are Protestants who believe in the real presence. I know some who in this these forum who believe in it.

At the same time, there are those who think it is symbolic. The Catholic Church affirms that Jesus’ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is in Eucharist.

With all these different sets of Protestants belief, it seem to me that the Holy Spirit is contradicting Himself. One Christian believe in infant baptism while another does not. The Holy Spirit does not contradict.

The Catholic Church teaches consistent belief of doctrine and dogma which was granted by Jesus to his Apostles, and their successors. God gave us an authoritive Church not Bible Alone as the sole role of faith…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is it not true that Jews rejected the apocrypha as inspired as did Meltio of Sardis, Origen, Athansius and Jerome who reluctantly added them?

Athasius and St. Jerome were Bishop but whole Church agreed and the Pope at the time issued a decreed. Once that was set Athasius and St. Jerome could not do anything.

The Jews rejected the Deutorcanonical Bible because they were Greek translation of the OT and they were not Christians.

Jews rejected Jesus. Do you want to use Scripture who rejected Jesus as their Messiah, or go with the Scripture used by the Christians since the First Century?

Jerome by the way believed that Mary did not have other children.

While Athanasius and Jerome had some sympathy toward the Jewish unwillingness to accept the Old Testament deuterocanonical books, both bowed to the authority of the Church, accepting her definitions of Scripture. By 450 today’s list of inspired books was almost universally accepted in the Western Church. Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44, and John 5:4, 8:1-11, while not in the earliest manuscripts, eventually would be accepted. Five hundred years later, Jewish scholars completed codification of their sacred writings with the production of the “Masoretic” text of Scripture. Between 800 and 925, the Jewish family Masorete added punctuation, vowels, and spacing to the Hebrew Scripture. The Masoretic version functionally replaced the original Hebrew text.

 

[justasking4]

The way we Catholics intrepret the Bible is the way the author is trying to convey during the time it was written.

So do protestants. The catholic church has tried to extapolate things from the scriptures that the scriptures do not teach. Purgatory, indulgences and Mary’s sinlessness to name a few. These doctrines cannot truly be said to be what the authors of scripture were trying to convey.

Protestants have different intrepretation of the Bible. How do I know which Protestant Church is the correct one and one doesn’t believe in Infant baptism while some do?

This is one of our major differences. Most protestants believe the Bible to be the inspired-inerrant Word of God as the catholic church does. Although Christ gave His church pastors and teachers, we don’t believe that men are incapable of error. There is no promise in scripture that is given to the church that it will not error. The scriptures warn that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many.

 

[justasking4]

Athasius and St. Jerome were Bishop but whole Church agreed and the Pope at the time issued a decreed. Once that was set Athasius and St. Jerome could not do anything.

Would you not agree that there was not unaminious agreement about them?

The Jews rejected the Deutorcanonical Bible because they were Greek translation of the OT and they were not Christians.

I can see you know your stuff and this helps me understand not only the catholic faith but history. thanks

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is one of our major differences. Most protestants believe the Bible to be the inspired-inerrant Word of God as the catholic church does. Although Christ gave His church pastors and teachers, we don’t believe that men are incapable of error. There is no promise in scripture that is given to the church that it will not error. The scriptures warn that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many.

The Catholic Church believe in the Fullness of Truth granted by us through Sacred Scripture and Scared Tradition. The tradition we held are commended by Jesus. When he said, “Go forth and preach the gospel.”

To preach means to orally speak the message of Jesus Christ. The Church cannot teach error. The Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church, and is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Jesus preserved from erroneous doctrines when he promised Peter, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Like 1 Tim 3:15, “The pillar and bulwark of the Truth is the Church.” It guards it and upons the Truth. The Truth we know is Jesus. Because Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

The Catholic Church is infallible when it comes to teaching “moral and faith” issues. I have pointed out to you and refute any misunderstand you have about Catholic belief and practices.

The doctrines and dogma the Catholic Church professed is apostolic in origin. Infant baptism is necessary for example because it takes away the original sin of Adam and Eve.

Let us look into infant baptism. It was common by our early Christian brothers and sisters practice this.

And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…" Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.” Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.” Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

“And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.” Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you want Scripture evidence that the Church is preserved from error. I’ll give it to you.

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul - Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

 

[Mannyfit75]

John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

1 Cor. 2:13 – Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths God gives them over time.

Eph. 4:13,15 – Paul indicates that attaining to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood is a process. We are to grow up in every way into Christ. Doctrine (which means “teaching”) develops as we understand God’s Revelation.

Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.

Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter’s evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter’s teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile’s salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying “Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!” The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter’s leadership in the Church.

Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.

Eph. 3:20 - God’s glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church’s leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ.

Eph. 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 - Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride.

Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So do protestants. The catholic church has tried to extapolate things from the scriptures that the scriptures do not teach. Purgatory, indulgences and Mary’s sinlessness to name a few. These doctrines cannot truly be said to be what the authors of scripture were trying to convey.

Purgatory is taught in the Scripture.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

Indulgence can be answered from Jimmy Akin’s tract.

Myths about Indulgence

catholic.com/library/myths_about_indulgences.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609fea3.asp

Mary’s sinless is also supported by Scripture. Here is a tract from Patrick Madrid on Mary from the Scripture point of view.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

Even though most of the Jewish leadership rejected Christ, they were still used by God by entrusting them with the oracles of God. We can see this in Romans 3:1-2 where it says: 1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The Jews who rejected the same Scripture the early Christian used took out verses that refer to a suffering Messiah. I would rather go with believing Christian than a Jew who denies Jesus as the Messiah.

The Jewish Council at Jamnia have no authority since it is Jesus Christ who established his Church through his Apostles and their successors. The Bible itself speaks that the Spirit of Truth will guide them, and Jesus keep his promise.

 

[mercygate]

Father Most said that the council of Trent finally decided the canon. If the canon had been infallibly declared Trent woudn’t have “finally” decided the issue. It would have “finally” been decided a millenium earlier.

The question of Trent and the infallibility of the canon is a bunch of unnecessary dust that we don’t need to get into fisticuffs over.

The canon affirmed at Trent is “infallible” by virtue of the declaration of an ecumenical council, not because the canon was in dispute or that it was not infallible before that time. The canon of Trent was the same canon agreed upon in the late 4th Century. The Church does not generally take the trouble to make declarations about what is not in dispute.

Until the Protestants rejected the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, nobody in the Church questioned whether they belonged in the Bible. Trent didn’t invent a new “infallible” canon, it just slammed the gavel down on that issue for good.

 

[mercygate]

This is one of our major differences. Most protestants believe the Bible to be the inspired-inerrant Word of God as the catholic church does. Although Christ gave His church pastors and teachers, we don’t believe that men are incapable of error. There is no promise in scripture that is given to the church that it will not error. The scriptures warn that false teachers will come into the church and decieve many.

Cathollics agree that men are capable of error. Catholics believe that the pope can hold beliefs that are in error. What the Church believes, because it is in Scripture, is that when the Church teaches, through the means entrusted to the Apostles and their descendents, that the Church will not err. Mt. 16:18-19 and the promise in John that Christ will send his Spirit to “guide you into all the Truth” applies always and foremost to those in communion with the Apostolic tradition. It is centered in communion with Peter and his successors as the Apostolic vicar who holds the “keys”.

Most Protestants do not recognize the Apostolic privilege arising from the fact that Jesus speaks these promises only to the 11. Most Protestants do not notice that the Great commission in Mt. 20:28 is given only to the eleven. The rest of us are “in the Spirit” and able to “teach” when we are in communion with the Apostles.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Good points. There have been and continue to be different opinions about what particular passages mean. Its also true in the catholic church. I suspect for example if you were to read 2-3 catholic commentaries on a particular passage of scripture you would not find 100% agreement.

There would be difference like interpreting the parables of the First and Second Reading, and the Gospel during Mass, but the message of the Gospel remains the same.

However, any Church document like Papal Encyclicals, Vatican II Documents, and other Magisterium document about a doctrine, or dogma is same. The Seven Sacrament are affirmed by the Holy See in the Vatican, as well as basic beliefs and practices.

A Catholic layman may disagree with contraception, but the Church Authority is always against it. Doctrine and dogma are unchanging but discipline within certain practices of the Church can change. If the Vatican wants to allow married men in the Latin Rite to become priest, it can happen.

The Church itself cannot change doctrines and dogmas. Women priesthood would never be acceptable because Jesus did not establish women priests. Nor will the Church allow gay marriages because the Church forbids it and does not recognized it.

i agree. There are catholics also who believe different things also. Some believe there should be married priests and some who don’t. There are some who believe in abortion and some who don’t.

I think I answered that remark from the post above.

i don’t look at that way. Its not that the HS is contradicting Himself its that men are fallible and that in some cases we don’t have all the facts we need to determine which it is. Infant baptism is one such case.

Scripture is pretty clear that infant baptism was a common practice during the Apostolic age. The Holy Spirit guides authoritive Holy men to the Truth.

Jesus made it pretty clear in the Scripture that he would be with them and they would not error in terms of moral and faith.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.