Regardless, it is a different church than the original, would you agree? I just don’t see what authority Luther had to start a church that he saw more fit to his ideas. Not just him, but any other Protestant church founder.
Ok, that it kind of what I thought. But here is my question. If all Catholic doctrine is true, then why distinguish between doctrine and dogma? I would assume it is because the dogmas are more central to the faith than doctrine. From everything I have read, nothing suggests to me that the Assumption is central to the Christian faith. So as I am looking at Catholicism and trying to discern if it truly is what it claims to be, I look at the authority of the Pope to speak dogmatically ex cathedra. When I see him do so concerning the Assumption, it makes me doubt that he truly does have this authority. So there you have it. I don’t see a good reason for this to be a dogma, and the fact that has been made a dogma hinders me from embracing the Catholic Faith.
I didn’t mean to imply that I didn’t think truth mattered. But not all truth is saving truth, right? I had a hamburger for lunch, but believing that truth won’t set me free. To use a less extreme example, let us assume that it was self evident that the Assumption is truth. Will belief in the Assumption save me? What about belief that Jesus is Lord? What is the demarcation of saving truth versus non-saving truth? I would propose that not all doctrine is saving truth, and as such the Church need not be completely pure in such doctrine.
the author of John is the only disciple designated as the one Jesus loved …James is the only apostle singled out as the brother of the Lord….we could find unique titles or accolades about quite a number of folks in the Bible
and why not to the two I mentioned above?…after all, being disciples, they are Jesus’s true mother etc., but then again, every second I spend in devotion to any human is a second less that I have available to spend in devotion to Christ. Now Christ pointed out that caring for the poor counts as caring for him, but did he ever point out that praising someone else, counts as praising him?
really? I thought that the Greek first had to be translated into Latin utilizing an unfortunate choice of words. Then men had to read into that bad terminology that which wasn’t there. I understand that even modern Catholic bibles are getting rid of that “full of grace” terminology…and “sinless” isn’t used as a replacement b/c that idea simply isn’t in the text.
the folks that wrote scripture never claimed that Mary was sinless….never came close. The message is clear though and it is that all humans sin.
my Church claims no authority over the CC (two wrongs would not make a right) My Church seeks the truth and understands that there are better places to look for the truth than in the tradition of the CC.
Peter did…is Peter exempt and Christ not?
Ruth and Mary Magdalene are also our spiritual mothers…it does no honour to them to inflate their significance and to attribute things to them that they did not possess.
IMHO this is a terrible spin on reality…the Catholic beliefs about Mary (the stuff in addition to the virgin conception) wasn’t there at the start likely b/c there weren’t known b/c they never existed….If they are false as the evidence seems to indicate, then adding those beliefs to the original rule of faith is not a deeper understanding that improves the Church…it is the introduction of a false innovation.
what “deeper” understanding of any significance has modernized the CC?
everything that Mary had to do…
have you ever read a proper objective assessment of the alleged miracle? Look at how a pro-Marian site describes the claims. I would be delighted to have the cloak go through a full scientific investigation…I doubt that you would like the results.
We Lutherans confess our belief in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. It is, sadly, divided in its earthly expression but it continues to be one church worshiping the triune God. I suspect that in the Church Triumphant those earthly divisions cease to exist and all the saints who have gone before us are again one before the heavenly throne.
Well, that depends. If you stole a hamburger, and then lied about it, then yes, embracing the truth would set you free.
Reading the Nicene Creed should help.
So, Paul is trying to confuse his readers? It sounds like you’ve developed your own Personal Tradition here.
I can understand this statement a couple different ways. 1. You could be claiming that belief in the truth sets me free from belief in a non-truth. Not only does this seem to be a worthless tautology, it has absurd implications. All truth must be gathered in order to set us free from believing any non-truth, even the truth that has no true value for example my original hamburger story without extenuating circumstances. I don’t think this is what you meant since you changed my example, but it is good to be thorough.
What about the Nicene Creed helps? Are you saying that Nicene Creed represents the sum total of saving truth? I don’t think you are, but if you were, I would be excited since I say something similar as a Protestant.
It’s not so much that he was trying to confuse his readers, as there is natural ambiguity in language that is erased in high context situations. I believe Timothy understood perfectly what Paul was saying using only his natural conversational capabilities. In order to reach the level of certainty Timothy had, we must use other tools, including tradition, authority, etc. I am not trying to expose the ambiguity in the passage for ambiguity’s sake, but I am trying to understand better what is meant by it. It is a type of dialectic exploration which, as you probably know, was heavily favored by medieval theologians and philosophers.So, Paul is trying to confuse his readers? It sounds like you’ve developed your own Personal Tradition here.
I’ll tackle this one, maybe others can enlighten him on the rest.
Unfortunately you are incorrect about the Mass. The Mass is more scriptural than any Protestant service. Where is the scriptural bases for any person to found their own church?
You believe in God I assume. What I would ask is, do you trust in God? Belief and trust are two very different things, after all, Satan believes in God.
Whats gnostic christian?
You seem to be wanting to come back to the Protestant Tradition of essential versus non-essential Christian doctrine a la Hank Hanegraaff.
I’m not familiar with Hanegraaff; perhaps I’ll have to see what he argues. I’ll not deny that essential and non-essential is my default view of doctrine. It is how I was taught. That is why I’m belaboring this point so much.
she obeyed …so did the others. As you say, God could have found someone else if she didn’t work out (it wasn’t as if she had to be sinless)…her role was significant, not irreplaceable and it was limited
and that would be great as long as you didn’t attribute achievements or qualities to them that they did not possess
no matter how many times you make this claim, repetition won’t make it true.
No solid argument? There are an untold number of world renowned Protestant scholars that disagree with the claim that the CC is the one true Church. There are an untold number of world renowned Orthodox scholars that disagree with the claim that the CC is the one true Church. There are an untold number of world renowned Catholic scholars (you might label them cafeteria Catholics) that disagree with the claim that the CC is the one true Church. There are an untold number of world renowned non-Christian scholars that disagree with the claim that the CC of today is fairly said to be the same Church as the Jesus founded….heck, a lot of them wouldn’t agree that Jesus intended to found any Church. Your Catholic universities have a hard time finding enough historians and theologians who are prepared to teach history and theology the way that Rome wants it taught….and you claim that there is no solid argument to refute your claims? Tis time to wake up and smell some coffee.
no one claims that magic had anything to do with it…I wouldn’t claim that the book of Mormon magically appeared either.
First, the devotees of Mary hardly equate to the Church. Second, your question is ill considered. Why not ask what the Gnostics or the Arians would gain by their teachings?…they thought that what they were teaching was truth. I don’t propose that the devotees knew that they were teaching falsehoods…they had convinced themselves that their beliefs were correct.
and the bible clearly teaches that he is the exception to that rule…if you can’t see how that contrasts with the situation regarding the absence of any such teaching regarding Mary, then I can’t help you…nobody could.
see Acts 5…if God did it, then God is exempt, if Peter did it, then he is exempt,…and I hope you won’t argue that the Father did it, but the Son still isn’t exempt…the exemption is for the purpose of fulfilling God’s will….which brings us back to my point that teaching God’s truths is not bound by/subordinate to any commandment
…not different at all…it is about obedience to God…that was the message in those verses that I pointed out where Christ identified his true family and where he identified who was more blessed than his natural mother…Christ emphasized the spiritual family
are you kidding me? You think that transubstantiation was always held? Heck, a real somatic presence was not taught until the 4th century Antiochene school….a real bodily presence is yet another innovation introduced by the ECFs.