Question for protestants from a protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter april_hosen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
CatherineofA:
. I was making a comment about my observation of who belongs to which group.
QUOTE]
I’m sorry I got so upset…I think what we all trying to say is that you sounded as if you were saying all Catholics are like that just because they’re Catholic. And that’s wrong. You can’t gerneralize based on a few individuals. In my experience, the Catholics I know are the most kind, considerate, gentle, caring, faithful people I’ve ever met. And on that matter, my Protestant friends are exactly the same way. Of course I’ve met a few from both sides who don’t live exemplory lives, but everyone is human regardless of their faith, and everyone will make those mistakes, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Jew, it makes no difference. If all the Catholics you know are like that, you can’t know very many FAITHFUL Catholics.
sorry, back to the thread:)
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
I am giving you examples out of my OWN experiences. I have known of priests who drink and smoke until fully intoxicated and out of hand. I have seen church members who attend mass every Sunday and be the root of gossip and peer pressure at work. I have also seen Protestants do this. When comparing the two, I don’t see any difference between the two with Catholics being better. What I have seen are a few born again Christians who practive what THEY preach. I have seen that in action many times.
If my own experiences hurt your religious ego, that is the way it is.
Catherine, you are giving us quite a taste of your Protestant Christianity!! Thank goodness I know some loving Protestants, because you are doing nothing positive for your fellow Protestants as far as I can tell. But that’s just MY experience!
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
I am not necessarily saying that Catholics are worse than Protestants. I am saying that I don’t see any high pecentages in conduct that make them any better. Saying this, I have personally known born again Christians who have wonderful behavior and live what they preach. I have seen that. I am not saying that there are not Catholics who are good in conduct. I have not personally seen any. - At Mass today the topic was this “Jesus came for the sinners not the righteous.” Your observation tells more about you than about the people you have “observed”.

As far as the mass on EWTN, I am comparing it to one minister who is truly inspiring and interesting. Dr. Charles Stanley of In Touch Ministries at First Baptist Church of the Atlanta, Georgia area. www.intouch.org - **I’ll take the original. 2,000 years strong and growing. **

I have a problem with Mary’s immaculate conception and virgin birth because that puts her without sin. Christ came to save her too. She was a human being. - Jesus was not in a body tainted by sin for 9 months.
 
“Your observation tells me more about you than about the ‘people’ you have observed”

Your point is?

“I’ll take the original 2,000 years strong and growing.”

Well, there seems to be some debate out as not all historians see early Christianity as equal to early Catholicism. See John A. McGuckin for one. Internationally renowned historian and consultant on early church history. Early Christianity would not be debatable if it were a sure thing like who authored the Declaration of Independence.

“Jesus was not in a body tainted by sin for nine months.”

He was because he spent the next few decades outside of her body mingling in a sinful world. Being in Mary’s body was just geography. Jesus was without sin where ever he was.
 
40.png
Walburga:
Catherine, you are giving us quite a taste of your Protestant Christianity!! Thank goodness I know some loving Protestants, because you are doing nothing positive for your fellow Protestants as far as I can tell. But that’s just MY experience!
Your point is? It seems off topic from what I said.
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
Adam and Eve were humans born without sin, and one of the parallels with them is Jesus and Mary are the new Adam. What about the the prophets who came before Christ? Are they not saved? They didn’t have a “consious acceptance” of Christ. Adam and Eve didn’t accept Christ and they were, again, without sin. Not everyone has sinned. Think of aborted babies or other infants who died before the age of reason. To be able to sin, you have to be able to reason and know its wrong. Remember, also, that no being is worthy to carry Christ in her womb. The best that could happen is make the tabernacle that Christ is going to live in for nine months sin and taint free. Remember, OUR LORD is going to live in this place for almost a year. It only makes sense that its sin-free.
You cannot compare pre-Christ people of God and dead infants with a person who is in a Christ centered era. The first group is not in the era of a savior and the second group does not have the ability to make a conscience decision about their faith. Mary llived in the era of Christ and she was able to make a conscience decision. Her body was just geography. Christ could live in her sinful body just as he lived ina sinful world in sinful homes everyday.
 
CatherineofA said:
“Your observation tells me more about you than about the ‘people’ you have observed”

Your point is? - **The rest of us are discussing theology. **

“I’ll take the original 2,000 years strong and growing.”

Well, there seems to be some debate out as not all historians see early Christianity as equal to early Catholicism. See John A. McGuckin for one. Internationally renowned historian and consultant on early church history. Early Christianity would not be debatable if it were a sure thing like who authored the Declaration of Independence. - Fr. John A. McGuckin the Orthodox priest? The Orthodox have valid apostolic succession just as we do. The Orthodox and Catholic were one Church until 1054 so we share a common history to that point. The Catholic Church has the successor to Peter, however. It is an unbroken line from Peter to Benedict XVI:
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
I don’t know what this sentence means “not all historians see early Christianity as equal to early Catholicism.” Can you explain this statement from St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (2nd century A.D.) who was martyred on his way to Rome, “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch is one of Christianity’s earliest “Church Fathers”.

Ignatius of Antioch was auditor to the apostles. Was he describing Catholicism or Protestantism in his letters?

Contents of the letters
It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said (“The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius”, in “Historical Sketches”, I, London, 1890) that “the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles”. Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God(Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church(Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase “Catholic Church”, used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); **the primacy of the See of Rome **(Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters’ of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.
 
The difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is dramatic. You are using your own reasoning and opinion to reach a theological conclusion. The end result is your opinion.

I am giving you the tradition (meaning belief of the Church but not required) of the early Christian Church which was made dogma in the 19th century (required). The idea of the Immaculate Conception is as old as the Church.

Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her “spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider the deep pit analogy. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

**The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner! **

But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. **When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it. **

**Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. **

CatherineofA said,“You cannot compare pre-Christ people of God and dead infants with a person who is in a Christ centered era.” -Mary was conceived before Christ.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
 
Hey April,

I almost forgot, John 20:21-23. Confession established by Christ Himself. One of the first things He did as the Risen Lord! But alas, another thread;)

God Bless,
Maria
 
40.png
Eden:
Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
What “bible-only” Christians fail to realize is that Paul was not speaking individualistically in 3:23, but generalistically towards two groups of people; those who believe that righteousness comes through works of the law and those who believe that righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ. It doesn’t make any difference; both groups (all) have sinned and are deprived the glory of God.

3:9 *"…for we have already brought the charge against Jews and Greeks alike that they are all under the domination of sin…" * Collective, not individually.

3:24 Paul goes on to state how justification is through faith in Jesus Christ and how he came for not only the Jews but for the Gentiles also. He will justify both through faith.

To take 3:23 in a strictly individualistic context…would be taking it out of context.
 
[/quote said:
Eden] I don’t understand why Protestants don’t mind that their Bible came about because the Catholic Church decided which were “inspired” books.Surely you know from my posts here that I don’t buy that. There is a sovereign God who has the power to speak into existence all that we see; Paul tells us that it is in Him that we live, and move, and are (Acts 17:28). I am certain that just as Christ was slain from before the foundation of the world, and that just as God chose for Himself a people for salvation before the foundation of the world, that He had decided what the canon of the Scripture would be before the foundation of the world. God decided what the inspired books would be. God is in total control of all things (Is 46:10; Eph 1:11). Peter tells us quite plainly that scripture/prophecy had its genesis in the human will; it comes about by the will of God, not the will of men. So too the canon.

As far as the convert’s words, she read and did not think. The early churches had the letters and manuscripts. To say that Bible didn’t exist is silly. There is more manuscript evidence for the Christian Bible than for any other historical stories and claims. I believe the number to be in excess of 24,000 extant copies. As far as them being copies, have some faith in God to maintain the words He wants recorded. The prophets, the Lord, and the apostles did (Is 40:8; Mt. 5:18; 1 Pet 1:25).

Bill
 
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
There is no logical parallel between the words 'This is MY body" and ‘I am the vine’ or 'I am the door. For the images of the vine and door can havem of their very nature, a symbolic sense. Christ is like a vine because of all the sap of my spiritual life comes from him. He is like a door since I go to heaven through Him. But a piece of bread is in no way like His flesh.
If you want to look at any of those statements logically, you will have problems; that is why they are called a metaphor—a this represents that. As the vine represents Christ’s life giving power, so a door represents that faith in Him provides entrance into the kingdom, so the bread represents His body. The grammatical construction of all three examples you have given is the same—metaphor.

(continued below)
 
sonseeker (and others)…

you’re changing topics! change threads!

RyanL
 
(continued from post #172)
40.png
FuzzyBunny116:
As John A. O’ Brien put it, "the prhase ‘to eat my flesh and drink the blood’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today
If this is indeed what Mr. O’Brien said, then you should avoid reading him anymore. The goal of understanding the Scriptures is not what a figure of speech or a word means TODAY. The meaning that must be obtained is what it meant ***WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN ***and within the context of the culture of the writer(s). I have never Mr. O’Brien’s argument anywhere. Is Mr. O’Brien Catholic?

However, he is on the right track.

The language of the Matthew and John passages is a figure of speech, known as an idiom, or in the greek—idiwma—an idiom is a peculiar usage of words or phrases.

(definition of Peculiar: Belonging solely to, particular, singular, strange, belonging to one person, thing, class or people).

The word, then, is used in three significations:
  1. The language peculiar to the vulgar, as opposed to what is classical, or proper language.
  2. The language peculiar to one nation or tribe, as opposed to other languages or dialects.
  3. The language peculiar to any particular author or speaker.
It is the second of those significations (language peculiar to one nation or tribe) that it becomes important to us as a figure or speech.

Why is that?

Because the writers of the testaments were, with the exception of Luke, Hebrews, they employed the use Hebrew idioms in their speech.

With respect to the Jn 6 passage:

“To eat or drink’’—As the Hebrews used the nouns eat and drink of knowledge (by Metonymy), so they naturally used the verbs eating and drinking to denote the operation of the mind in receiving, understanding, and applying doctrine or instruction of any kind, as we speak of “digesting’’ what is said, or of “inwardly digesting’’ it.

Thus with Jn 51: I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever

The idiomatic meaning: just as the body lives temporally by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

So with v 53: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves

The idiomatic meaning: except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life, you have no life in you. (This is spiritual feeding, as seen in Eze 3:1-3, 10 below).

(cf. Jer 15:16; Eze 3:1-3 for idioms of eating for knowledge).

Jeremiah 15:16
16 Your words were found and I ate them*, And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; For I have been called by Your name, O Lord God of hosts.*

Ezekiel 3:1-3, 10
1 Then He said to me, “Son of man*, eat what you find; eat this scroll**, and go, speak to the house of Israel.”*
2 So I opened my mouth, and He fed me this scroll.
3 He said to me, “Son of man, feed your stomach and fill your body with this scroll which I am giving you.” Then I ate it, and it was sweet as honey in my mouth.

10 Moreover, He said to me, “Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I will speak to you and listen closely.

I have no comment on the Eucharistic miracles.

Bill
 
40.png
sonseeker:
If you want to look at any of those statements logically, you will have problems; that is why they are called a metaphor—a this represents that. As the vine represents Christ’s life giving power, so a door represents that faith in Him provides entrance into the kingdom, so the bread represents His body. The grammatical construction of all three examples you have given is the same—metaphor.

(continued below)
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

The entire site above is dedicated to the Real Presence.
 
40.png
RyanL:
sonseeker (and others)…

you’re changing topics! change threads!

RyanL
Read the thread. I’m following what has been thrown at me.
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
It still insinuates that she is without sin. She cannot be without sin if she is human. In addition, Christ could not have saved her in advance withour her own conscious acceptance of Christ’s salvation and her need to have her sins forgiven…
I guess this implies there are limits to what God can do?

Love,

Jorge 🙂
 
40.png
badebop:
What “bible-only” Christians fail to realize is that Paul was not speaking individualistically in 3:23, but generalistically towards two groups of people; those who believe that righteousness comes through works of the law and those who believe that righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ. It doesn’t make any difference; both groups (all) have sinned and are deprived the glory of God.
No; he means all, everyone in total. He reiterates it in Gal 3:22:

22 *But the Scripture has shut up EVERYONE under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top