Protestants, who have been around awhile, question about the Virgin Mary

[rinnie]

That is my opinion now of Luther as well…if he would have stayed in, he would have helped reformed the Church and now we celebrating him as a saint.

Catherine of Siena spoke a great deal and with much force, especially on her book regarding the Church in her ‘Dialogues’.

I see Protestantism essentially as a broken, fractured faith…if only Luther had persevered in the Lord…

Is it true an angel of the Lord appeared to him exhorting him not to go through with what he did???

I don’t want to de-rail, but I couldn’t let this one go

I can’t understand what kind of reform you guys feel the Church needed, or needs. The RCC is the Church started by Christ and it is run by the Holy Spirit. It is Perfect. It needs no reform.

While I agree we have many Priests, Bishops, etc who needed to be reformed, that is human behavior not following the true word of God.

So I have to disagree with you, the Holy Spirit is doing just fine today leading the Church the same as it was in the day of Luther, and in our day also. Its people who need to be reformed not the Church.

Luther saw things that I agree were getting out of hand, but it was not the Church, it was the members who got out of hand.

But while Luther had a point in some members not acting as they should, we have that today and had it I am sure in the Apostles day time to time, The Apostles were not perfect either.

Luther did not ONLY want to stop indulgences that were not wrong, but being abused I agree, he had a problem with the teaching that came from the Holy Spirit. He took it upon himself to define scripture in his way, not the way of the Church. ANd that was wrong, and he was wrong, and no one has that right to reform a Church that was formed by Christ.

It did not work then, and it won’t today. God promised us the Advocate to lead us, and the H.S. does and will until the end of age, the way Jesus said. He won’t leave us orphans.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is my opinion now of Luther as well…if he would have stayed in, he would have helped reformed the Church and now we celebrating him as a saint.

Catherine of Siena spoke a great deal and with much force, especially on her book regarding the Church in her ‘Dialogues’.

I see Protestantism essentially as a broken, fractured faith…if only Luther had persevered in the Lord…

Is it true an angel of the Lord appeared to him exhorting him not to go through with what he did???

I agree especially in light of the monastic reforms of the period also, such as with St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross. Many factors to consider. Erasmus also and others within the church who opted to stay, which I mentioned on another thread.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Luther did not ONLY want to stop indulgences that were not wrong, but being abused I agree, he had a problem with the teaching that came from the Holy Spirit. He took it upon himself to define scripture in his way, not the way of the Church. ANd that was wrong, and he was wrong, and no one has that right to reform a Church that was formed by Christ.

It did not work then, and it won’t today. God promised us the Advocate to lead us, and the H.S. does and will until the end of age, the way Jesus said. He won’t leave us orphans.

Right he became over influenced once the ball started rolling. His monastic life was a troubled experience for him. While for example with St John he placed this his life in Gods hands and ultimately “escaped”. Luther became emotionally effected and hurt which resulted in anger. Leads me to believe he was bad candidate for monastic life from the start. Anger usually turns to hurt. So I would have to believe Luther had an issue here right along. And I believe it becomes apparent.

I don’t want to turn this into Luther either, he catchs to much already here as I see it. Right though when he reached the Bible only theory he was way over the line and started a avalanche which is yet to stop.

 

[david_ruiz]

David Ruiz, What is theologically accurate for you?

Would you disagree with the apostles themselves on teaching?

I do not believe my theology on Mary is any different from the apostles,oral or written ,nor different from any early church father 100 years after the church started

 

[david_ruiz]

I don’t want to de-rail, but I couldn’t let this one go

I can’t understand what kind of reform you guys feel the Church needed, or needs. The RCC is the Church started by Christ and it is run by the Holy Spirit. It is Perfect. It needs no reform.

While I agree we have many Priests, Bishops, etc who needed to be reformed, that is human behavior not following the true word of God.

So I have to disagree with you, the Holy Spirit is doing just fine today leading the Church the same as it was in the day of Luther, and in our day also. Its people who need to be reformed not the Church.

Luther saw things that I agree were getting out of hand, but it was not the Church, it was the members who got out of hand.

But while Luther had a point in some members not acting as they should, we have that today and had it I am sure in the Apostles day time to time, The Apostles were not perfect either.

Luther did not ONLY want to stop indulgences that were not wrong, but being abused I agree, he had a problem with the teaching that came from the Holy Spirit. He took it upon himself to define scripture in his way, not the way of the Church. ANd that was wrong, and he was wrong, and no one has that right to reform a Church that was formed by Christ.

Amen. As just like Genesis,what hath the Lord really said ? Though you rightfully give proper honor to the role of the Holy Spirit as our leader and ever present, not being left as orphans, many Catholics say that without a head bishop/pope we would be “orphans”. Certainly the Orthodox and Protestants feel “shepherded”, and though one can knock 20,000 Protestants denominations you can not sat that about Orthodoxy.

 

[Ubenedictus]

pablope;9439559:

I haven’t heard of Catherine. Hopefully I can look into her bio tonight.

yeah luther could have been a catholic reformer if he was reforming discipline, instead he wanted to reform dogma, for catholics reforming dogma may be called heresy.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I do not believe my theology on Mary is any different from the apostles,oral or written ,nor different from any early church father 100 years after the church started

forgive me for speculating, but it seems you hold the claim that say 'the early church was corrupted aftere 100AD.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Amen. As just like Genesis,what hath the Lord really said ? Though you rightfully give proper honor to the role of the Holy Spirit as our leader and ever present, not being left as orphans, many Catholics say that without a head bishop/pope we would be “orphans”. Certainly the Orthodox and Protestants feel “shepherded”, and though one can knock 20,000 Protestants denominations you can not sat that about Orthodoxy.

hmmm… I would be careful here because you are trying to add the orthodox into your mix, have you ever asked why the orthodox havent spilt into 30000 denominations? I think it is because they interprete scriptures in the light of tradition and they are guided by a validly ordained bishop a successor of the apostles who is able to excercise at least an ordinary magisterium and keep the church in line with tradition. On the other hand the protestants have formed a bible alone teaching+ individual interpretation+ tradition is a piece of ****+ no need of apostolic succession+ no sacramental priesthood at the end there is no center. Try asking the orthodox what it would be like without a bishop, the shepherd. He would give you a very interesting answer.
Ubenedictus
besides im sure the orthodox will tell you that the church stucture isnt complete without the primacy of rome.

 

[Patavium]

David,

Have you ever heard of the Patriarch?

I have never heard of the Head Pastor of the Protestant Church.

I wouldn’t put water and vinegar together. They don’t mix.

 

[pablope]

Amen. As just like Genesis,what hath the Lord really said ? Though you rightfully give proper honor to the role of the Holy Spirit as our leader and ever present, not being left as orphans, many Catholics say that without a head bishop/pope we would be “orphans”. Certainly the Orthodox and Protestants feel “shepherded”, and though one can knock 20,000 Protestants denominations you can not sat that about Orthodoxy.

The difference, David…is that the orthodox have maintained the basic Church structure from the Apostles…Bishop-priest/presbyter-deacon.

And they have not thrown out any of the beliefs of the first Christians…handed down by the Apostles.

Well, how many protestant denoms deny the bishops, deny the pope, deny anything of the original Christianity?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by david ruiz
I do not believe my theology on Mary is any different from the apostles,oral or written ,nor different from any early church father 100 years after the church started

Really? Care to show the Apostles theological perspective on Mary?

 

[Patavium]

I do not believe my theology on Mary is any different from the apostles,oral or written ,nor different from any early church father 100 years after the church started

Your beliefs contradict the Early Church beliefs. Didn’t you read my quotes of the Early Church Fathers on Virgin Mary?

 

[david_ruiz]

forgive me for speculating, but it seems you hold the claim that say 'the early church was corrupted aftere 100AD.
Ubenedictus

NO. I have only read forefathers up to that point ,so i only speak up to that point .Furthermore , I think the earliest Father quoted on this thread showing strong Marion doctrines is dated 160 AD and then one around 220 AD,I think .That is allIi mean.Have not read fathers after 130 AD systematically, so don’t want to speak for them. As far as “theological corruption” , that was the allegation from both sides on some Mary doctrine for centuries.This came from good Catholics , one to another.

 

[david_ruiz]

hmmm… I would be careful here because you are trying to add the orthodox into your mix, have you ever asked why the orthodox havent spilt into 30000 denominations? I think it is because they interprete scriptures in the light of tradition and they are guided by a validly ordained bishop a successor of the apostles who is able to excercise at least an ordinary magisterium and keep the church in line with tradition. On the other hand the protestants have formed a bible alone teaching+ individual interpretation+ tradition is a piece of ****+ no need of apostolic succession+ no sacramental priesthood at the end there is no center. Try asking the orthodox what it would be like without a bishop, the shepherd. He would give you a very interesting answer.
Ubenedictus
besides im sure the orthodox will tell you that the church stucture isnt complete without the primacy of rome.

Again, the statement was made that the Holy Spirit leads us ,we are not orphans .You said nothing of my statement that some make that we are not orphans because of head bishop/pope . Now you add we have tradition to guide us also. The Lord does discern just how much we really rely on Him and how much on other good things that may represent Him. Protestants have bishops ,deacons ,elders and for sure a “center”. They ,just like Orthodox have no pope ,but many(Pappa=bishop) .Are we not “Christians”, that is those who are in Christ, of Christ and by Christ .That is those whose lives have the risen Christ as their “Center”.

 

[david_ruiz]

Your beliefs contradict the Early Church beliefs. Didn’t you read my quotes of the Early Church Fathers on Virgin Mary?

Yes, I and many of us here did .Thank-you Forgive me but did you have a quote earlier than 160 AD ? Don’t recall you had any before 130 AD .

 

[david_ruiz]

Really? Care to show the Apostles theological perspective on Mary?

Well we have discussed some scriptures, and I acknowledge your evidence for IC.,just disagree to interpretation. Next is tradition and I find the first hundred years I have studied/read to be in line with the interpretations I am led to believe in. I understand your position that indeed the doctrines did surface, were defined later and that during the early "silent " time of the first hundred years must have been present, for how else could they have appeared later if they were not in the fomer.

 

[david_ruiz]

The difference, David…is that the orthodox have maintained the basic Church structure from the Apostles…Bishop-priest/presbyter-deacon.

 

[Patavium]

Yes, I and many of us here did .Thank-you Forgive me but did you have a quote earlier than 160 AD ? Don’t recall you had any before 130 AD .

The Protoevangelium of James is circa 120-150 AD

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book III c. 180 AD)

Here, St. Irenaeus uses “virginity” as a sign of sinlessness (i.e. Mary was sinless just as Eve was sinless before the Fall).

Are you going to change the parameters again, and say that it must be before 100 AD?

 

[rinnie]

Amen. As just like Genesis,what hath the Lord really said ? Though you rightfully give proper honor to the role of the Holy Spirit as our leader and ever present, not being left as orphans, many Catholics say that without a head bishop/pope we would be “orphans”. Certainly the Orthodox and Protestants feel “shepherded”, and though one can knock 20,000 Protestants denominations you can not sat that about Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox have Bishops to lead them also do they not? Apostolic Succession?

Tell me david what was the reason Jesus left the 12 Apostles if not to teach us. Why was Timothy told to stick to the teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church? What for then david? Is this not scripture.

How david do you feel about this scripture.

2 Peter When we TOLD you about the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ we were not slavishly repeating cleverly invented myths. NO we SEEN his majesty with our own eyes…

So we HAVE CONFIRMATION of the words of the prophets and you will be right to pay attention to it as a lamp for lighting a way through the dark, until the dawn comes and the morning star rises in your minds. At the same time WE MUST RECOGNISE that the INTERPRETATION of SCRIPTURAL prophecy is NEVER a matter for the INDIVIDUAL. No prophecy EVER CAME from HUMAN inititave. When people spoke for GOD it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.

As there were false prophets in past history of our people YOU TOO will have your FALSE TEACHERS.

Lets stop there david, FALSE TEACHERS, seems there that is proof that we need teachers. Some will be TRUE some will be FALSE.

Such SELF_WILLED people with no reverence are not afraid of offending against the glorious ones.

Lets go back david, where is this confirmation of the words of the prophets when there is no Sacred Tradition? How do you understand Sacred Scripture without putting it together with S.T?

The bible itself tells you ST and SS. Do you see the problem now david? What is not written is passed down by word of mouth. Just as the bible tells us.

Where is the word of mouth S.T.? You do not have it, so it must be false?

The bible says Children you are from God and have overcome them because he who is in you is greater then he who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore the world inspires what they say and listens to them.

WE ARE FROM GOD whoever recognises GOD listens to US. This is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood.

This tells you david, read it for yourself the Christian prophets RECOGNIZED evangelists and preachers with APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.

How can one have truth from the Holy Spirit to teach and preach in the name of Christ without Apostolic Authority? I ask you that. When Christ tells us this is how we can distinguish the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood. This is gospel truth david. Read it.

1 John 4

So tell me David, scripture itself tells us how to distinguish, its Apostolic Authority. How can you deny that? Where is Apostolic Authority in the protestant church’s?

 

[rinnie]

forgive me for speculating, but it seems you hold the claim that say 'the early church was corrupted aftere 100AD.
Ubenedictus

Funny how again he is in direct conflict with the words of God. Jesus said the gates of hades will not prevail, david says the gates of hades prevailed after 100A.D.