Protestants: What are the "Basics" that all Non-Catholic Christians agree on? And who determines what the "basics" are?

[PRmerger]

And this discussion was with myself and another poster. Why do you and so many here feel the need to “Pour it On” or pummel somebody who doesn’t share your views into the ground??

As you are new here to the CAFs, Omar, I will cut you some slack, but surely you are aware that this is called the Catholic Answers FORUMS, yes?

And the nature of a forum is that it’s a “public” means of discussion (public, as in all members who are part of the forum.) That means that anyone can post and anyone can respond.

If you intend to have a private discussion, PM is the venue to use.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Omar,

Remember it took 1800 plus years for the Church to finally define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and then a short time later, Mary’s Assumption into heaven…after a great witness of faith, teaching and witness of saints who continued to bear forth the path we must take as sinners through purgation, illumination, and then union with God…to Mary…who contrary to our way, was 100% faithful to God in her ‘yes’, and avoiding all sin…

for hers was a life of total union and followed her Son, in what exact way we do not know…into heaven as our Queen.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

That’s not the point. The point is, it is completely illogical, not to mention self-annihilating, for a human person to start a religion on the basis of not being another religion.

It had nothing to do with starting another religion. The Anglican church exists today to recognize what WAS the Early church and to twart what was not.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

As you are new here to the CAFs, Omar, I will cut you some slack, but surely you are aware that this is called the Catholic Answers FORUMS, yes?

And the nature of a forum is that it’s a “public” means of discussion (public, as in all members who are part of the forum.) That means that anyone can post and anyone can respond.

If you intend to have a private discussion, PM is the venue to use.

And when there is someone who disagrees, there are two, three or even several who jump in. Don’t tell me that this isn’t what happens PR, I’ve witnessed it and been a victim of it time and again already.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.
source

I said show me in Scripture, not quote Scripture and give me your editorial on what you think it means after you twist and turn. Come on, are you kidding me? Rev 12:1 for example, prove to me that this is surely Mary.

 

[pablope]

That’s an incorrect view of history. King Henry’s view of the Anglican church was nothing as it is today.

But Henry is the founder…right…would there be an Anglican Church today if not for the actions of King Henry?

 

[pablope]

I said show me in Scripture, not quote Scripture and give me your editorial on what you think it means after you twist and turn. Come on, are you kidding me? Rev 12:1 for example, prove to me that this is surely Mary.

:tsktsk::whacky:

If you had bothered to read them…you would have realized they are not the actual Scripture text…they are the explanations why the Chap and verse proves they are about Mary.

Rev 12…the CC has viewed that as Mary, way back…to the time of the Fathers.

How old is your view?Luther (need correction) may have believed it be Mary as well…so if you have a counter view…it is probably only from the 1700 or 1800 or so.

 

[Nicea325]

I said show me in Scripture, not quote Scripture and give me your editorial on what you think it means after you twist and turn. Come on, are you kidding me? Rev 12:1 for example, prove to me that this is surely Mary.

Twist and turn? I am curious why you have continued to evade my questions to you?

Show me in scripture where it mentions **a canon **and a one volume Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

And when there is someone who disagrees, there are two, three or even several who jump in.

Yes, that’s what happens in forums. That’s the nature of forums. And if you’re in a *Catholic *forum you’re going to get lots of, ummm, Catholics, to discuss with you. And if you’re proferring an opinion that’s contrary to Catholicism, well, then lots of Catholics are going to address your objections.

It’s curious that you were expecting a one-on-one dialogue when coming to a forum, which is, essentially, a place for “public” dialogue.

Don’t tell me that this isn’t what happens PR, I’ve witnessed it and been a victim of it time and again already.

Victimizing is not allowed here on the CAFs, Omar.

No one has made you a victim. That’s absurd.

Come and dialogue and pose your questions and answer our questions and we’ll get along quite nicely. That’s how the CAFs works.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, that’s what happens in forums. That’s the nature of forums. And if you’re in a *Catholic *forum you’re going to get lots of, ummm, Catholics, to discuss with you. And if you’re proferring an opinion that’s contrary to Catholicism, well, then lots of Catholics are going to address your objections.

It’s curious that you were expecting a one-on-one dialogue when coming to a forum, which is, essentially, a place for “public” dialogue.

Victimizing is not allowed here on the CAFs, Omar.

No one has made you a victim. That’s absurd.

Come and dialogue and pose your questions and answer our questions and we’ll get along quite nicely. That’s how the CAFs works.

That is what gets me at times by many who are not Catholic. They come here at CAF and then complain other Catholics jump into the conversation? Ahhhhh…well yeah,especially when arguments and statements are contrary to what the CC teaches.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It had nothing to do with starting another religion. The Anglican church exists today to recognize what WAS the Early church and to twart what was not.

What?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Omar Gatskill
It had nothing to do with starting another religion. The Anglican church exists today to recognize what WAS the Early church and to twart what was not.

Apparently you have never studied early church history and I can give my entire life savings away that it certainly WAS NOT the Anglican church founded centuries later.

 

[vsedriver]

It had nothing to do with starting another religion. The Anglican church exists today to recognize what WAS the Early church and to twart what was not.

There was no such thing as an Anglican Church before Henry decided it was in his best interest to hold absolute power in his own county. The church in England was Catholic under the authority of the Pope. Having to fear a Papal ordered uprising of his own people was the only thing keeping monarchs remotely in check.

Once Henry declared that the king was the head of the church and not the successor of Peter he could do whatever he liked without fear of excommunication. If the English were searching for the Early Church why didn’t they join the Eastern Orthodox? But it was never about a search for the early church. It was all about independence from the authority of Peter’s successor.

Henry plundered the wealth of the Catholic Church, destroying convents and monasteries that supported the poor by caring for the sick, and widows and orphans. Henry created centuries of poverty for the poor and shed the blood of his own people for political power.

Without unity with the successor of Peter the church in England has also split into a high church and a low church. I dare say, even King Henry would be shocked by the differences between the church of his time and what is acceptable in the Anglican church today.

 

[JustaServant]

It had nothing to do with starting another religion. The Anglican church exists today to recognize what WAS the Early church and to twart what was not.

The monkey is on your back to prove it.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

What?

The traditions which date back to the Early Church be preserved and those that had no place in the Church nor Scripture be discarded.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

The monkey is on your back to prove it.

What is there to prove?? Read the book Anglicanism by Stephen Neill or Future Ancient Worship by Webber.

 

[Omar_Gatskill]

There was no such thing as an Anglican Church before Henry decided it was in his best interest to hold absolute power in his own county. The church in England was Catholic under the authority of the Pope. Having to fear a Papal ordered uprising of his own people was the only thing keeping monarchs remotely in check.

Read the history. The Anglican church today is the Via Media (middle way) as it was shaped during the time of Queen Elizabeth. King Henry had nothing to do with the doctrine of Anglicans today. He is only used by Catholics today for political reasons.

Once Henry declared that the king was the head of the church and not the successor of Peter he could do whatever he liked without fear of excommunication. If the English were searching for the Early Church why didn’t they join the Eastern Orthodox? But it was never about a search for the early church. It was all about independence from the authority of Peter’s successor.

Your perspective of Anglicanism is laughable. And you folks have the nerve to say that Protestants are ignorant of other faiths?? High and Low church are worship styles, not seperate churches.

 

[JustaServant]

The monkey is on your back to prove it.

Guess I’m not going to get an answer.
Big surprise.

 

[Protector]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Gatskill
Not that I believe in Sola Scriptura, but I can’t think of anything that comes close to the Bible to being the very most complete standard on which we should all agree. After all, it was truly inspired by God.

CopticChristian;8833847]Which Bible?

How do you know it is inspired? The Bible does not say it is inspired.

Maybe it does infer it though CC,

"For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say. Luke 12:12 (D-R)

Also, please see 2 Peter 1:20 with commentary by Barnes (below)

Originally Posted by Omar Gatskill: “Not that I believe in Sola Scriptura,…”

I feel quite sure that even those who profess a belief in “Sola Scriptura” actually don’t rely solely on the Scriptures for answers to their day-to-day faith questions. If they did, then (as another poster has said) why would they need a pastor, or a minister. For as the Catholic D-R quotes,

“Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” 2 Peter 1:20 (Douay-Rheims Holy Bible)

And from Barnes Commentary,

“The more correct interpretation, as it seems to me, is that which supposes that the apostle teaches that the truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention; were not their own opinions, but were of higher origin, and were imparted by God;” (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

Protector.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe it does infer it though CC,

But, Protector, if something *says *it’s inspired, does that make it so?