Re: The Church?

[jean8]

The Catholic church contends to have it’s beginning with Peter.
If this were true why doesn’t the Bible have the doctrine of the teachings of the Church in the Bible.
The following are missing.
There is no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary, the assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary or the perpetual virgintity of Mary. Nowhere can we find in scripture Mary being the co-redeemer or the petitioning of saints in heaven. They do not possess the attributes of God, one of which is omnipresence. purgatory or the authority of church tradition. and indulgencies.
There is much more but this will suffice for now.

God bless,
jean8

 

[KathleenElsie]

Massive list of Roman Catholic False doctrines.

Do you think you can use another source to refute our Faith? The one above is tiresome and has been used tooooo many times. Personal observations can be discussed more intelligently then using attack sites IMHO.

 

[disciple68]

I’ll give you the simplest response I can. You wont find those areas in the Scripture because its not in there. At least not verbatim there are allusions. Such as to Peter being the head of the Church.
Your asking these questions from the view point of Sola Scriptura which the RC Church does not subscribe to. We have Sacred traditions as well. After all the Bible’s canon was not formalized until the 2nd Century if I remember my history correctly. So we kinda had to go from traditions passed on to us from the Apostles. Oh and by the way I have yet to hear a Protestant answer me where Sola Scriptura comes from. Its not in the Bible so I wonder how scripturally valid Sola scriptura is. Especially in light of the final chapter of John, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”. NIV

 

[Todd_Easton]

There is no mention of the papacy

That office which would later be called the papacy was prefigured in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22:15-24 in the office of the steward over the royal household of King Hezekiah. To him was entrusted the key of the royal household to open and shut and upon him, as a peg in a sure spot, would hang the whole household.

Jesus promised that office which would later be called the papacy in Matthew 16:18-19 in promising Peter the keys of the kingdom to bind and loosen and promising to make him the rock upon which He would build His Church.

Jesus instructs Peter on how he should exercise that office which would later be called the papacy in Luke 12:41-46, saying that as the steward set over His household he should give His household their food at the proper time until His return and not abuse his fellow servants or face His wrath.

Jesus prays for Peter in Luke 22:32 that he receive the grace necessary to exercise that office which would later be called the papacy, a faith that may not fail, so that he might strengthen his brothers.

The risen Jesus installs Peter in that office which would later be called the papacy in John 21:15-17 telling him to feed and tend his lambs and sheep.

Peter exercises that office which would later be called the papacy in the first 12 chapters of Acts (especially Acts 1:15, 2:14, 2:37-38, 5:29) as the leader and principal spokesman for the Apostles. Also noteworthy is Peter’s decisive role at the First Council of Jerusalem concerning the issue of circumcising Gentile converts as described in Acts 15.

Peter’s clear leadership role among the Apostles is also indicated by the fact that his name appears first on the list (and Judas Iscariot’s last) when the twelve Apostles are named in the Gospels and Acts (Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:17, Luke 6:14, Acts 1: 13).

Peter’s primacy among the Apostles is clear from Sacred Scripture. Since one man (Peter) held primacy among the leaders of the Church in its infancy, is it not reasonable to think that it was and is God’s plan that one man (the successor of Peter, the pope) should hold a similar primacy among the leaders of the Church throughout the ages?

 

[hinge]

The Catholic church contends to have it’s beginning with Peter.
If this were true why doesn’t the Bible have the doctrine of the teachings of the Church in the Bible.
The following are missing.
There is no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary, the assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary or the perpetual virgintity of Mary. Nowhere can we find in scripture Mary being the co-redeemer or the petitioning of saints in heaven. They do not possess the attributes of God, one of which is omnipresence. purgatory or the authority of church tradition. and indulgencies.
There is much more but this will suffice for now.

God bless,
jean8

I’m a long way from an authority on this, so take this for what it’s worth.

I think the answer to your question lies in the nature of Catholic tradition, something I have questions about myself. However, if you accept the Catholic view at all, it seems to me that you have to accept that tradition is part of the rule by which we live. Catholic tradition is, as I understand it, the view that God directs the development of thought within the church.

The doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, for example, cannot be simply deduced from scripture. They are explicitly claimed to be revelations, and hence beyond reason. They took time to develop, to be guided into place.

There’s a distinction to be made here though, it seems to me. Revelations are not, in my mind, of the same kind. It’s vital to me that the Incarnation is an inspired doctrine - which is to say, a revelation. On the other hand, for me things like the bodily assumption of Mary fall into the category of “ok, but so what?”.

So I guess all I really have to offer is that I think this is a good question, and I hope to see a good answer to it. Unfortunately I don’t have one…

Joe

 

[Pax]

A fellow CAF poster, named Steven G, in the early days of the forum wrote the following on the papacy:

This was put together by SteveG

Solo Ecclesia
When faced with the obvious unworkability of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, many Protestants appeal to the supposed subjectivity of the Catholic authority as a defense. The most common argument is to claim something along the lines of what James White does. He accuses the Catholic side of using what he calls ‘Sola Ecclesia’, and claims , ‘That to set forth the necessity of an Infallible Church to interpret a Revelation that can not be interpreted is simply to move our cries of subjectivity back a single step.’

While this argument ignores the fact that even if true it still doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura (at best it means that both Sola Scriptura and the Catholic position are false), it raises a valid question. Is the Catholic understanding subjective in the same way Sola Scriptura is? This question is in no way outrageous and deserves a response. We must see if an evidentiary case can indeed be made for the Catholic understanding of authority.

At the outset we have to admit that this claim (as with any claim) can not be proved absolutely. Any understanding of history is, by nature, to some extent subjective. Any religious belief by definition is held by faith. But unlike Sola Scriptura, which is self contradictory and illogical on it’s face, a case can be made for the Catholic understanding. While that case is not self-refuting, nor contradictory, each reader must still weigh the evidence and judge if it can stand or not.

Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.

The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

cont. on next post

 

[Linda_Marie]

The Catholic church contends to have it’s beginning with Peter.
If this were true why doesn’t the Bible have the doctrine of the teachings of the Church in the Bible.
The following are missing.
There is no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary, the assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary or the perpetual virgintity of Mary. Nowhere can we find in scripture Mary being the co-redeemer or the petitioning of saints in heaven. They do not possess the attributes of God, one of which is omnipresence. purgatory or the authority of church tradition. and indulgencies.
There is much more but this will suffice for now.

God bless,
jean8

One of the forum rules is to limit threads to one topic so as to have a more meaningful discussion. Otherwise, it becomes too confusing when one person replies to the Assumption of Mary while another discusses Purgatory.

A simple search will bring up quite a number of threads on all the topics which you have listed. Just go to the SEARCH option on the menu and type in the subject. I’m sure you will find much to interest you.

Peace

 

[Pax]

cont.from prior post

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.

As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.

Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

Who is the ‘YOU’
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.

Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.

In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.

Binding and Loosing
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.

For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to loose’ is to permit.

Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note whatever,' not whoever’ - shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms, meaning forbidding and permitting."3

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”

In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?

 

[Pax]

The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm)). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.

The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?

1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?

6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;

What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

Evidence 3
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.

Argument 1
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).

 

[Pax]

The presentation on the papacy by StevenG is not all that can be said on the subject but it gives you an idea of how sound and biblical the Catholic position is on this topic.

Catholic teaching on other subjects is also quite persuasive and the biblical underpinnings are considerably more extensive than most non-Catholic Christians realize.

Hopefully, this will be a start of a long and fruitful dialogue.

 

[Brian_Millar]

The Catholic church contends to have it’s beginning with Peter.
If this were true why doesn’t the Bible have the doctrine of the teachings of the Church in the Bible.
The following are missing.
There is no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary, the assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary or the perpetual virgintity of Mary. Nowhere can we find in scripture Mary being the co-redeemer or the petitioning of saints in heaven. They do not possess the attributes of God, one of which is omnipresence. purgatory or the authority of church tradition. and indulgencies.
There is much more but this will suffice for now.

God bless,
jean8

Stick around these boards, you’ll eventually see what you have been taught about us Catholics is clearly in the wrong in many cases. There has never, nor never will be a co-redeemer, there is only one Christ, only one sacrifice, only one redeemer, just as a prime example. Try attending mass sometime, you’ll see what I mean, it’s not as alien as you might think at all.

 

[jean8]

Massive list of Roman Catholic False doctrines.

Do you think you can use another source to refute our Faith? The one above is tiresome and has been used tooooo many times. Personal observations can be discussed more intelligently then using attack sites IMHO.

kathy,
If this subject has been dicussed before You should be able to respond and give your biblical point of view.
Im not attacking anyone. I’m discussing the RCC doctrine. If you have a different view, what is it?

God bless,.
jean8

 

[jean8]

I’ll give you the simplest response I can. You wont find those areas in the Scripture because its not in there. At least not verbatim there are allusions. Such as to Peter being the head of the Church.
Your asking these questions from the view point of Sola Scriptura which the RC Church does not subscribe to. We have Sacred traditions as well. After all the Bible’s canon was not formalized until the 2nd Century if I remember my history correctly. So we kinda had to go from traditions passed on to us from the Apostles. Oh and by the way I have yet to hear a Protestant answer me where Sola Scriptura comes from. Its not in the Bible so I wonder how scripturally valid Sola scriptura is. Especially in light of the final chapter of John, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”. NIV

yes, I’m aware that the RCC. does not like the Bible, the reason being, it doesn’t support sacred tradition which the Bible doesn’t support.
Sacred tradition is a wonderful way to add on to the Sacred Word of God. However, it has to be proved by scrpture. No wonder you have a problem with Sola Scriptura.
which is “Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age.”

God bless,
jean8

 

[patrick457]

The Catholic church contends to have it’s beginning with Peter.
If this were true why doesn’t the Bible have the doctrine of the teachings of the Church in the Bible.
The following are missing.
There is no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary, the assumption of Mary or the immaculate conception of Mary or the perpetual virgintity of Mary. Nowhere can we find in scripture Mary being the co-redeemer or the petitioning of saints in heaven. They do not possess the attributes of God, one of which is omnipresence. purgatory or the authority of church tradition. and indulgencies.
There is much more but this will suffice for now.

God bless,
jean8

Surely you don’t expect that we can find everything we need to know in the Bible, do you? I’ve been trying to look on my Bible for any position quantum physics or algebra or whether we should start on 0 when counting, but I can’t find any.

Now, to be serious:

-Obviously, we Catholics don’t believe that any Saints or even Mary (who were humans, by the way) possess omniscience, omnipotence or any other adjective that starts with ‘omni-’. I suggest you look into a reliable, Catholic source to find out what we truly believe. Relying on information which may be biased would be like trying to look up information about Jews from an Anti-Semitic site.

-As for Mary being ‘co-redeemer’, this only means that it was through Mary that God took flesh and thus, cooperated in the plan of redemption. God used the services of several human beings in order to bring this plan of His into fruition; because of their collaboration with God’s master plan, we call them ‘co-redeemers’ (though note, that we believe Jesus is the ONLY true Redeemer).

Paul wrote about Christians being ‘co-workers’ of God in 1 (3:6-9) and 2 Corinthians (5:18-20):

I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth. Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor. For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

…And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

However, the reason Mary was singled out among them is because she was the one who bore God in her womb, the one who breast-fed Him, gave Him food from the table to eat, supported Him in His childhood, teenage and early adult years.

Would God have required Mary to become human? No; God, in His Omnipotence, could have simply chosen to come down from Heaven and materialize as a fully-grown adult human somewhere. But God had decided to become human through normal means and thus, He chose Mary to carry Him in her uterus for nine months. Having God (literally) inside your womb is a special honor that no one on Earth had, or will ever have.

Early Protestants also recognized Mary’s special status; for example, Martin Luther, after he broke from Rome, once wrote thus:

“She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: ‘Here passes the woman who is raised FAR ABOVE all women, indeed above the WHOLE human race.’”

17th century French preacher Charles Drelincourt (representative of the 17th century Protestant Reformed/Calvinist tradition) also wrote:

“We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God.”

The idea that honoring Mary as special takes away from Jesus’ glory and tantamount to idolatry seems to be just a modern idea.

-As for petitioning of saints, it’s no different than asking your local church or your pastor to pray for a specific intention you have. So technically, we Catholics don’t pray ‘to’ the saints, we pray ‘to’ God ‘through’ the saints.

Paul himself asks for prayers from the recipients of his letters:

Col 4:3: At the same time, pray for us, too, that God may open a door to us for the word, to speak of the mystery of Christ, for which I am in prison.

Rom 15:30: I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judea, and that my ministry for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the holy ones, so that I may come to you with joy by the will of God and be refreshed together with you. The God of peace be with all of you. Amen.

This will suffice for now, I think. You can give more questions.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

“Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age.”

Book and verse where this can be found please.

And everyone here has been through this all before so to save time, save the verses which state that Scripture is valuable or profitable or usefull. I want to see the verse where Scripture claims to have the role that you are attributing to it.

God bless

 

[Brian_Millar]

Nothing is being added onto, or taken away as a Catholic from scripture, in fact, I can put it back towards the protestants doing just that themselves. …

The Baptists do not drink at all, in fact, for one to do so is declared a sin, yet Christ himself, Jeus did so, ever read about the last supper??? Why is it that this argument must be contained to just the Catholics? It has no foundation, it has no base, it clearly is only something that a few individusls with zero stance and credentials are displaying here on these boards entirely to disrupt it…

Satan be gone from this place, you have no home here at all, I address the reason for the dissention directly here, Catholics and Protestants should agree on this. We should unite on this matter, not let the dark one divide us, we are much, much more in harmony then any of us could imagine. We simply need to become more simplified in our stance…

I love the Lord My God with all of my heart, mind, soul and being, Christ has made the ultimate sacrifice to atone for our sins, and no matter what denomination, we stand united as one faith, one church and one belief, we are followers of Christ!!!

 

[Michael_Francis]

*Thread is off topic and is now closed.

Thread starts with the topic of the Church and devolves almost immediately into a discussion of the Bible and Sola Scriptura.

Please make your threads on one topic only (per the Forum Rules) and stay on that topic. Also as per Forum Rules thread titles should be accurate as to the topic of discussion.
MF*