Scripture and Mary

[Old_Scholar]

Either you have a frighteningly short memory or you’re just not that bright. I choose to believe the former.
Scholar - YOU are the one who said:

I merely showed you that, historically, the early Church DID recognize these things.

Sorry but it’s taking me a little while to find the ECF writings, read them and get what I want out of them. Bear with me. I promised I could also prove by historical tradition that the early church fathers did not believe there was one bishop I(pope) in charge of the entire church, and I will.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman

If you read my post #267, I gave several Scriptures that unequivocally say that Christ gave equal power to all the apostles. In Matthew 16:18, Christ is speaking to Peter and to all the disciples. However in Matthew 18:18, Christ gives the same power to all the apostles as He gave Peter. Peter received nothing special.

In Matthew 16:18, Christ called Peter “petros” which means a small stone. Then He said He would build His church upon this rock petra] which means a large rock or cliff. Now in many other places Christ is called the rock and the foundation of the church. Peter calls Him that and even the early church fathers agreed that Christ is the rock, the foundation, and it was the faith of Peter that the church was built upon.

That’s why I said you wanted the verse to read a certain way, but it does not read that way.

Very shortly after Christ called Peter a rock, or stone, He also called him Satan because of Peter’s actions. Later as you know, Peter denied Christ three times. After the resurrection, Christ made Peter say three times that he loved Christ. That was to fulfill Jewish Law and to be sure Peter was relieved of his guilt.

Now the problem comes when one takes a simple verse like Matthew 16:18, which is superseded by Matthew 18:18, and then builds an entire religion on it when there are many other verses that plainly state that all the apostles were equal in stature and power. That is the strange part.

If a person really studies the Scriptures, he will find there is no mystery to such things. The real mystery and surprise will come on judgment day. Either I am right or you are!

Frankly I believe Christ when He said the only way to the Father is by Him. Man may invent other ways, but I will put my money on Christ every time.

Yours in Christ…

Scholar, Scholar - WHY do SOME Protestants bring up the Petros/Petra thing when it has been explained so many times? So many times, in fact, that more and more Protestant theologians agree with the Catholic Church’s position on the matter.
First of all, Jesus spoke in Aramaic - and the word used was “Kepha”. "You are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Kepha is a large massive rock.
It is sometimes translated as “Petros” because it would be silly to call him “Petra”, which is female.
"Satan" means “Adversary” - not the devil, although he is the ultimate adversary.
Seems to me that YOU are the one who wants the verse to mean something else.
Do some homework and come back for another round . . .

 

[elvisman]

Origen explains Peter and the Rock!

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold **in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;” but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this “with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord” they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “Thou art Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.” But what is the “it”? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs, cannot be found. **Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; **but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it. **

Let’s stop dodging the passages I’ve provided. What is your answer to this passage from my earlier post?

**Luke 22:31-32
"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith (singular) may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers." **

Oh, and by the way - here’s another little diddy from Origen on Peter:
"Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful." (Commentaries on John 5,3)

 

[Chellow]

Origen explains Peter and the Rock!

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall …

In due respect Origen is not a Church Father it is true that many of his writing is respected but not all, later in his life he went in to Heresy and condemned. Your better off quoting Mikey Mouse.

Doctors of the Church: New Advent

 

[jcrichton]

In due respect Origen is not a Church Father it is true that many of his writing is respected but not all, later in his life he went in to Heresy and condemned. Your better off quoting Mikey Mouse.

Doctors of the Church: New Advent

***Hi, Chellow!

Excellent note; too many times the source being used is that of an anti-Christian; sadly, as hollo-wood interprets spirituality so are people believing that everything is permissible and pertinent.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Old_Scholar]

In due respect Origen is not a Church Father it is true that many of his writing is respected but not all, later in his life he went in to Heresy and condemned. Your better off quoting Mikey Mouse.

Doctors of the Church: New Advent

So Roman Catholics only quote Origen when he is writing in their favor???

Actually Origen was a very distinguished church father. It’s just that he was in Alexandria and we all know they went with the Eastern Orthodox. That’s why the RCC doesn’t like him, except when he says something they like.

 

[elvisman]

Yoo-hoo, Old Scholar -
**Are you out there? **
Still waiting for responses to posts 273, 280 & 281.

 

[Chellow]

So Roman Catholics only quote Origen when he is writing in their favor???

Actually Origen was a very distinguished church father. It’s just that he was in Alexandria and we all know they went with the Eastern Orthodox. That’s why the RCC doesn’t like him, except when he says something they like.

Dear Old Scholar I don’t understand what joy you get in telling half truths it seems to me that your educated and somewhat informed. It does not do you any good in doing this for your soul to lie.

Points

1. 
   *]Their was no Eastern Orthodox. Church at the time of Origen only Catholic
   *]Origen may have been distinguished but he is not a Church father (New Advent Ref.)
   *]A councils that was held in Alexandria had pronounced a decree of banishment and condemnation to Origen, not the Roman rite Church. (New Advent Ref.)
   
   You probably knew all the above points, the question is why do you try to mislead. .

 

[jcrichton]

***Factor 1
Reason dictates that the text is there to demonstrate that Jesus was Begoten of the Father through the Power of the Holy Spirit; the statement is seeking to demonstrate Mary’s virginity not her sexual relations with Joseph.

this assumption widely agreed (im not debating it), she was a virgin a LEAST untill jesus was born. (this isn’t about if jesus was conceived by the holy spirit (he was) so don’t see what this has to do with it.)***

nor do i racall him directly implying that she was to remain virgin. (maybe he did and i forgot, do you know where he said?
**Hi, zmyr88!

…it is totally relevant; Scriptures are not highlighting Mary’s sexual life; they are emphasizing that Jesus is Begotten of Yahweh God, the Father.

Factor 2
Either Mary and Joseph waited till Jesus was in His teens to have these many additional children or they are the worse parents in the history of Israel–when Jesus was 12 they took Him to the Temple and forgot all about their many other children; imagine those poor kids away from their parents for months at a time… :tsktsk:

• i was not aware that they stayed with him, and left the children?, *

**is that possible (him to have children while jesus was in his teens) don’t remember the age of mary or joseph

My thought is that there is no mention of Jesus’ brothers and sisters when the family traveled from Nazareth to Bethehem and back (about 140 miles round-trip)–even when Jesus was left behind at the Temple. And it is my understanding that in the Jewish culture the married couple would have thier children early in the marriage–hence, the absence of the brothers and sisters of Jesus is quite notable.

Factor 3
Language: (though I am not a linguist) It seems to me that in Jesus’ culture all relatives, immidiate and removed, were called brothers; the most loyals of Yahweh’s servants requested that their children seeked a wife from among their own family/clan–hense they were to mary their sisters; was that a mandate to form incestuous relations?

true and incest was condemed, and if mary was sinless and (many claim joseph as well), would this happen?

No. My point here is that language is to bear a fact: those said to be brothers and sisters of Jesus are never said to be Mary’s or Joseph’s offsprings–they were of the clans of Mary and Joseph!

Factor 4
Jewish culture: While on the Cross Jesus awards Mary’s custody to John; this would necessitate Joseph’s death prior to His Crucifixion. Yet, it is inconceivable that after all of His Teachings Jesus would resort to exert revenge upon His brothers and sisters (since they did not believe in Him) by taking Mary away from them and making Mary the award of someone who is not related to Him by blood (remember, John the Baptist had already been killed). In one single action Jesus dissolved Mary’s relationship with His many brothers and sisters and imposed upon John and his family the responsibility of caring for His elderly widowed Mom. Quite a feat for a Man who professed to love your enemy!

*not sure i get it all, but if Joseph is dead, (your implying?) is he telling her to sever relationship with the brothers or to have Jesus [award] Mary’s custody to John and if not mistaken thats what was condered being married to someone, back then the man had custdoy or the woman *

or (at least i thought.)Jesus is about to die (the man, not God), His sole possession in the world is His Mom. In order for Him to bequeath His Mother to His disciple at His death Joseph, Mary’s benefactor, had to be dead. And if Mary would have had other children then Jesus would be acting in vegeance by terminating their right to care for their mother and passing that right to a non-blood relation.

Jesus is not marrying off His Mother; He is surrendering His responsibility to John, who promptly takes Mary under his protection: Woman there is your son! (St. John 19:26-30; compare with Apocalypse 12:17)

but then again , salvation would nonetheless be the same, (and wheter mary remained virgin or not, would have no effect on the steps to salvation.

I concur! I believe that the only reason why this is a topic of discussion is to find fault at the Teachings of the Church–if the Church could be wrong on one thing, then she might be wrong at other things… at least that is what is aspired.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Old_Scholar]

Dear Old Scholar I don’t understand what joy you get in telling half truths it seems to me that your educated and somewhat informed. It does not do you any good in doing this for your soul to lie.

Points

1. 
   *]Their was no Eastern Orthodox. Church at the time of Origen only Catholic
   *]Origen may have been distinguished but he is not a Church father (New Advent Ref.)
   *]A councils that was held in Alexandria had pronounced a decree of banishment and condemnation to Origen, not the Roman rite Church. (New Advent Ref.)
   
   You probably knew all the above points, the question is why do you try to mislead. .

1. 
   I see you don’t really know very much about Origen. Before Augustine, Origen was the most influential theologian in the church. He was of the Alexandrian Church long before the five churches got together. There always was the Eastern and Western Christian churches. I know you must know that. Even though he was falsly condemned, he* is *one of the early fathers of the church.

 

[elvisman]

Say, Old “Scholar”– Are you ever going to address my points/replies to your posts - or did you simply run because I stumped you?

You ran from my posts, 280 & 281 – namely:

Luke 22:31-32
"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you*** (plural)****** like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith (singular) may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers." ***

Oh, and by the way - here’s another little diddy from Origen on Peter:
"Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful." (Commentaries on John 5,3)

Scholar, Scholar - WHY do SOME Protestants bring up the Petros/Petra thing when it has been explained so many times? So many times, in fact, that more and more Protestant theologians agree with the Catholic Church’s position on the matter.
First of all, Jesus spoke in Aramaic - and the word used was “Kepha”. "You are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Kepha is a large massive rock.
It is sometimes translated as "Petros" because it would be silly to call him "Petra", which is female.
"Satan" means "Adversary" - not the devil, although he is the ultimate adversary.
Seems to me that YOU are the one who wants the verse to mean something else.
Do some homework and come back for another round . . .

"Hit & Run Apologetics" only weakens your position. Your attacks have been destroyed on this thread by many posters.
**I await your response . . .:coffeeread: **

 

[Newbie2]

So Roman Catholics only quote Origen when he is writing in their favor???

Actually Origen was a very distinguished church father. It’s just that he was in Alexandria and we all know they went with the Eastern Orthodox. That’s why the RCC doesn’t like him, except when he says something they like.

 

[Mike_Patrick]

What if Scripture was explicit concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary? How would that change Christianity according to Protestant theology? Would that lessen the role of Christ? Why are Protestants so up in arms concerning this teaching??

Protestants are “up in arms” because once an idea that may be false enters into the Church, problems are sure to follow. Many Protestants (and others) see the Catholic Church very often read into the text ideas that simply aren’t there. The Bible makes it clear that we are not to “add or take away” from the Word of God -and that includes the Church. Many Protestants believe that the true Church of God will follow His direction, and not add or take away from what He (God) has given us in His Word.

I find that the disagreements often center around where one’s faith resets. For Protestants, it’s the Bible; for Catholics, it’s the Church.

 

[elvisman]

Protestants are “up in arms” because once an idea that may be false enters into the Church, problems are sure to follow. Many Protestants (and others) see the Catholic Church very often read into the text ideas that simply aren’t there. The Bible makes it clear that we are not to “add or take away” from the Word of God -and that includes the Church. Many Protestants believe that the true Church of God will follow His direction, and not add or take away from what He (God) has given us in His Word.

I find that the disagreements often center around where one’s faith resets. For Protestants, it’s the Bible; for Catholics, it’s the Church.

Actually, the admonition regarding “adding or taking away” from the Word of God refers to the Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:18-19).
Sound like you’re reading something that isn’t there.
As for where a Protestant’s faith rests (i.e., the Bible), remember who compiled the Bible and wrote the New Teastament - The Catholic Church.
BUT, we recognize - as Scriptures tells us - that not ALL of God’s word is contained in the Bible (John 21:25).
As for where a Catholic’s faith rests (i.e., The Church), we recognize - from Scripture that Jesus and His Church CANNOT be separated. I’m sad for anyone who refuses to see this:
(Acts 9:4-5)
**He (Saul) fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” **
He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. "

---

 

[Mike_Patrick]

Actually, the admonition regarding “adding or taking away” from the Word of God refers to the Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:18-19).
Sound like you’re reading something that isn’t there.
As for where a Protestant’s faith rests (i.e., the Bible), remember who compiled the Bible and wrote the New Teastament - The Catholic Church.
BUT, we recognize - as Scriptures tells us - that not ALL of God’s word is contained in the Bible (John 21:25).
As for where a Catholic’s faith rests (i.e., The Church), we recognize - from Scripture that Jesus and His Church CANNOT be separated. I’m sad for anyone who refuses to see this:
(Acts 9:4-5)
**He (Saul) fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” **
He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. "

---

First - why does it matter where the words admonishing us to not add or take away appear? Is God not the same today, tomorrow, and forever? Why would it matter that words not be taken away or added in Revelation, but not in Genesis, or Hebrews, or Romans?

Second - the Roman Catholic Church (I assume this is the group you’re referring to) didn’t exist until some 180 years after the death of Christ. Christians and Christianity did exist during that time (known as “the way”), but that church didn’t resemble the Roman Catholic Church that we know today at all. While Constintine charged the Roman Church to collect and compile the books of the Bible, those books were already recorded in manuscripts that were written long before, and in the case of some of the books of the NT, written starting some 30 years after the death of Christ - long before the Roman Catholic Church was ever conceived. I think it’s a stretch to state that the Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible. God wrote the Bible, and the men who penned it were, for the most part- Jews, not Roman Catholics.

Third - how did you determine that not all of the Word of God is compiled in the Bible? Does the Bible indicate that it’s incomplete? Does the Catholic Church declare that the Bible is insufficient, or does this idea come from the American Catholic Church? - you might want to investigate. In order for you to know that the Bible does not contain the whole counsel of God, you would have to declare that you know everything, and I’m sure you’re not going to say that, are you? You might also say that it’s the Roman Catholic Church that gives you the idea that the Bible is incomplete, and that you need more. If that’s the case, then you would have to be saying that the Roman Catholic Church itself knows everything, and that you rely on it for your salvation - but this would go aganist what the Roman Catholic Church says about itself. Even the RCC doesn’t claim to know everything, and constantly decrees new revelation and dogma in light of new information.

Fourth - I agree that Jesus and His Church cannot be seperated; the problem is - who comprises the Church? You believe by faith that it’s the Catholic Church - but Protestants believe that those who comprise the Church Jesus started would be known by its fruits, not by self-declaration, and that Jesus’ Church is comprised of many individuals whom he has called, and of which you may not know of. Do you believe that all Catholics are going to heaven, or just those that really have a personal relationship with Christ? If you answer all Catholics, then you must include the likes of Hitler, because he was a declared Catholic in good standing up until his death. If you say no, that only Catholics that have a relationship with Christ will go to heaven, then you rest your faith on relationship, and that is not very Catholic. So, we can see that Jesus is not restricted to the Catholic Church, or by your rules or declarations. He is God, you aren’t.

There are Christians all over the world being persecuted for their faith - many of them not Catholics. I’m not sure what your last comment intends to convey.

 

[elvisman]

First - why does it matter where the words admonishing us to not add or take away appear? Is God not the same today, tomorrow, and forever? Why would it matter that words not be taken away or added in Revelation, but not in Genesis, or Hebrews, or Romans?.

First of all, the passage in Revelation IS referrring to Revelation alone. If it didn’t that would make (John 21:25) a giant contradiction. The Word of God is the Word of God and EVERY word Jesus uttered is the word of God.

Second - the Roman Catholic Church (I assume this is the group you’re referring to) didn’t exist until some 180 years after the death of Christ. Christians and Christianity did exist during that time (known as “the way”), but that church didn’t resemble the Roman Catholic Church that we know today at all. While Constintine charged the Roman Church to collect and compile the books of the Bible, those books were already recorded in manuscripts that were written long before, and in the case of some of the books of the NT, written starting some 30 years after the death of Christ - long before the Roman Catholic Church was ever conceived. I think it’s a stretch to state that the Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible. God wrote the Bible, and the men who penned it were, for the most part- Jews, not Roman Catholics.

This is the kind of unfounded lie that really irks Catholics.
Do you have any idea who Ignatius of Antioch was? Let me educate you.
He was a Father of the Church and actually KNEW the apostles. He was martyred aroun 107 A.D. - about 75 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. On his way to be fed to the lions, he wrote 7 letters. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote:
"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop."
180 years after the death of Christ, INDEED.

Third - how did you determine that not all of the Word of God is compiled in the Bible? Does the Bible indicate that it’s incomplete? Does the Catholic Church declare that the Bible is insufficient, or does this idea come from the American Catholic Church? - you might want to investigate. In order for you to know that the Bible does not contain the whole counsel of God, you would have to declare that you know everything, and I’m sure you’re not going to say that, are you? You might also say that it’s the Roman Catholic Church that gives you the idea that the Bible is incomplete, and that you need more. If that’s the case, then you would have to be saying that the Roman Catholic Church itself knows everything, and that you rely on it for your salvation - but this would go aganist what the Roman Catholic Church says about itself. Even the RCC doesn’t claim to know everything, and constantly decrees new revelation and dogma in light of new information.

Apparently, you failed to read (John 21:25).

Fourth - I agree that Jesus and His Church cannot be seperated; the problem is - who comprises the Church? Do you believe that all Catholics are going to heaven, or just those that really have a personal relationship with Christ? If you answer all Catholics, then you must include the likes of Hitler, because he was a declared Catholic in good standing up until his death. If you say no, that only Catholics that have a relationship with Christ will go to heaven, then you rest your faith on relationship, and that is not very Catholic. So, we can see that Jesus is not restricted to the Catholic Church, or by your rules or declarations. He is God, you aren’t.

Jesus built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18) - not thousands of quarreling factions (Protestantism).
As for Hitler - that is a lie. Provide documentation that he was in “good standing”. Hitler rejected the Church - AND God. He was, therefore, APOSTATE.
As for having a relationship with Jesus - we believe that it is essential to have one with him. Again - provide proof of these ridiculously ignorant and unfounded claims.

As I tolde your fellow anti-Catholic, Old “Scholar” - DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you go around spouting off uneducated myths.

 

[Mike_Patrick]

First of all, the passage in Revelation IS referrring to Revelation alone. If it didn’t that would make (John 21:25) a giant contradiction. The Word of God is the Word of God and EVERY word Jesus uttered is the word of God.

Check out Proverbs 30:5-6

"5 "Every word of God is flawless;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

6 Do not add to His words,
or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Also:

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

Also:

“Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32

Also:

“Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6

These passages do nothing to contradict John 21:25.

This is the kind of unfounded lie that really irks Catholics.
Do you have any idea who Ignatius of Antioch was? Let me educate you.

Interesting, but I prefer to follow God - not Ignatius of Antioch. You prove my earlier point - that many (not all) Catholics are more concerned with putting faith in the Church, than in the Word of God, which He so graciously and lovingly gave to us, and which He says He values much more than you seem to. I see no where in God’s Word where we are directed to follow, at the expense of the Word of God, the early Church fathers, or where we are to have “faith in faith.”

**2 Timothy states: **"“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

Why do I need to turn to Ignatius of Antioch? Why is it that the Catholic Church suggests that I do that? What is it that he can give me, that Jesus, or the Bible can’t?

You put stock in Ignatius as “a” father of the Church, I follow Jesus who was, and is THE Father of the Church. You put your faith in the Catholic Church; I turn to the Bible - because that is what Jesus did. Time and again we read: “For it is written”, or “Do you not know what the Scriptures say?”, or “You do not know the Scriptures.” Why do you turn to men for your understanding of God, and for your salvation?

Jesus built ONE Church (Matt. 16:18) - not thousands of quarreling factions (Protestantism).
As for Hitler - that is a lie. Provide documentation that he was in “good standing”. Hitler rejected the Church - AND God. He was, therefore, APOSTATE.

Really? And what Catholic “faction” do you belong to? Are you of the Maronite Rite? Byzantine Rite? Armenian Rite? East Syrian (Assyro-Chaldean) Rite? Perhaps you belong to the Coptic, Ethiopian, or even the West (Antiochene) Syrian Rite? Each of these “Rites” of the Catholic Church have fundemental lytergical differences that can be compared to the different denominations of the Protestant Churchs you seem to loathe.

Hitler may not have rejected the Catholic Church (it’s unclear), but history records that the Catholic Church never rejected Hitler. This should give any true Catholic pause. Neither the pope in Rome (who was leader of the Catholic Church all over the world at the time), nor the bishops as leaders of the church in Germany, ever denied Hitler himself (nor any of the many, many, other Roman Catholic leaders of the Third Reich) public access to the sacraments nor membership in the R.C. Why? Were they also “apostate”?

As for having a relationship with Jesus - we believe that it is essential to have one with him. Again - provide proof of these ridiculously ignorant and unfounded claims.

I never claimed anything about what your Church teaches on a relationship with Jesus Christ. I merely gave choices one has as a Catholic (or any other faith) as to how they deal with the person of Jesus. That’s between you and God, and I make no claim to know what that relationship might be.

As I tolde your fellow anti-Catholic, Old “Scholar” - DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you go around spouting off uneducated myths.

I’m not "anti-Catholic, but I am “pro-Scripture”. No offense, but you sound “Americanized” in your Catholic faith. You write snippets that sould like you have a loose grip on what your Church believes - typically American. I can suggest some good books on what your Church actually teaches, but most importantly, I would suggest you read your Bible. That’s the best homework anyone could do.

Yours in His grip - mike

 

[elvisman]

You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

This is speaking specifically of the Commandments.

Interesting, but I prefer to follow God - not Ignatius of Antioch. Why do I need to turn to Ignatius of Antioch? Why is it that the Catholic Church suggests that I do that? What is it that he can give me, that Jesus, or the Bible can’t?

I brought up Ignatius of Antioch only to prove wrong your false assertion that the Catholic Church didn’t exist until much later. It’s a good thing that I lumped you in with the other Anti-Catholic, Old “Scholar”. BOTH of you make false accusations, then, when proven wrong, you take my answers out of context - but HE usually runs away.

Really? And what Catholic “faction” do you belong to? Are you of the Maronite Rite? Byzantine Rite? Armenian Rite? East Syrian (Assyro-Chaldean) Rite? Perhaps you belong to the Coptic, Ethiopian, or even the West (Antiochene) Syrian Rite? Each of these “Rites” of the Catholic Church have fundemental lytergical differences that can be compared to the different denominations of the Protestant Churchs you seem to loathe.

These Rites are all in Communion with Rome – YOU’RE not. Besides, I don’t “loathe” anybody. I PRAY for spiritually prideful anti-Catholic such as yourself.

Hitler may not have rejected the Catholic Church (it’s unclear), but history records that the Catholic Church never rejected Hitler. This should give any true Catholic pause. Neither the pope in Rome (who was leader of the Catholic Church all over the world at the time), nor the bishops as leaders of the church in Germany, ever denied Hitler himself (nor any of the many, many, other Roman Catholic leaders of the Third Reich) public access to the sacraments nor membership in the R.C. Why? Were they also “apostate”?

It’s “unclear”?? Read your history, pal. Hitler rejected any notion of a Christian God – AND the Pope rejected HIM. As for your once-again ignorant remarks about the Church and the Third Reich, that’s been disproved, ad-nauseum, so I won’t waste my breath. Golda Meir herself said to the General Assembly of the United Nations: "During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with the victims."

I’m not "anti-Catholic, but I am “pro-Scripture”. No offense, but you sound “Americanized” in your Catholic faith. You write snippets that sould like you have a loose grip on what your Church believes - typically American. I can suggest some good books on what your Church actually teaches, but most importantly, I would suggest you read your Bible. That’s the best homework anyone could do.

You’re a CLASSIC anti-Catholic because you spew out unfounded and ridiculous venom against the Church and present it as fact.
**Suggest a book to me that shows me what my Church actually teaches. This should be entertaining. **

 

[Chellow]

So Roman Catholics only quote Origen when he is writing in their favor???

Actually Origen was a very distinguished church father. It’s just that he was in Alexandria and we all know they went with the Eastern Orthodox. That’s why the RCC doesn’t like him, except when he says something they like.

I see you don’t really know very much about Origen. Before Augustine, Origen was the most influential theologian in the church. He was of the Alexandrian Church long before the five churches got together. There always was the Eastern and Western Christian churches. I know you must know that. Even though he was falsly condemned, he* is *one of the early fathers of the church.

Read your own post you said Eastern Orthodox not Eastern Christian church.

**Forgive me **on Origen, your right according to what I found Origen is a Church Father. My was understanding that if one is condemned they are not Church Fathers, it seem I’m wrong, but that doesn’t mean all his writing are infallible.

ovrlnd.com/Universalism/Origen.html

newadvent.org/fathers/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

 

[Newbie2]

Third - how did you determine that not all of the Word of God is compiled in the Bible? Does the Bible indicate that it’s incomplete? Does the Catholic Church declare that the Bible is insufficient, or does this idea come from the American Catholic Church? - you might want to investigate. In order for you to know that the Bible does not contain the whole counsel of God, you would have to declare that you know everything, and I’m sure you’re not going to say that, are you?

Actually, one would have to find only one thing that the bible didn’t contain to refute the assertion that the Bible was “incomplete”. Please note that the bible doesn’t say anywhere that it’s complete…for that matter, the bible doesn’t even contain the word “bible”.

You might also say that it’s the Roman Catholic Church that gives you the idea that the Bible is incomplete, and that you need more. If that’s the case, then you would have to be saying that the Roman Catholic Church itself knows everything, and that you rely on it for your salvation - but this would go aganist what the Roman Catholic Church says about itself. Even the RCC doesn’t claim to know everything, and constantly decrees new revelation and dogma in light of new information.

Your argument is a non-sequitur.

Fourth - I agree that Jesus and His Church cannot be seperated; the problem is - who comprises the Church? You believe by faith that it’s the Catholic Church - but Protestants believe that those who comprise the Church Jesus started would be known by its fruits, not by self-declaration, and that Jesus’ Church is comprised of many individuals whom he has called, and of which you may not know of. Do you believe that all Catholics are going to heaven, or just those that really have a personal relationship with Christ? If you answer all Catholics, then you must include the likes of Hitler, because he was a declared Catholic in good standing up until his death. If you say no, that only Catholics that have a relationship with Christ will go to heaven, then you rest your faith on relationship, and that is not very Catholic. So, we can see that Jesus is not restricted to the Catholic Church, or by your rules or declarations. He is God, you aren’t.

Um…we Catholics have a relationship with Christ, too, you know. That relationship is VERY Catholic, thank you very much, but that relationship isn’t exclusive to Catholics (even though some may THINK so.) Nowhere in Catholic Doctrine do I know where it says that Jesus is exclusive to Catholics…unless you know different?

.