Sola Scriptura

[hlgomez]

No need to shout. Please show me where I made such a “demand”.

Brian

Brian,

Calm down, you might have a heart attack.(just kidding) I was not shouting, I just made the letters BOLD so you would SEE it right away. It’s hard when we’re getting old, we easily forget .

Here’s what you “demanded” from me from post #62:

You claimed all RC teachings came from the Apostles. I simply asked for proof. *If you have none, just admit it. *

Brian

Now, let’s focus on the nature of the Eucharist. I have proofs that the doctrine of the CC regarding the nature of the Eucharist comes from the apostles, and that many early fathers agree BUT Protestants contradict–BIG TIME. First, share to us your doctrine about the Eucharist if it agrees with the Bible and the early fathers. Show me quotes from the Bible and the fathers (if you may please).

Pio

 

[p90]

Catholic4aReasn:

It’s quite a leap from a relatively few flowery, poetic prayers to a claim that when the average Catholic “prays to” Mary he is not asking her to pray for him.

The point in contention was,

Any “Prayers” to Mary or the Saints are simply requests for thier prayers in heaven.

That was refuted by Brian’s reference and my quoting the leaders of your denomination. You’re changing the argument.

~Matt

 

[Pax]

Brian,

Reading all of the posts you and others have written reveals one thing rather clearly. You have set a standard of proof that cannot be satisfied. You blow off all biblical evidence and statements by the Church Fathers that support Church teaching, but you readily accept any statement that you believe in some way denies Catholic teaching.

The consensus you seem to demand of the Church Fathers is unreasonable. You should read about the major heresies that existed in Christendom. The Arian heresy was particularly powerful and was long lived. By your standards a modern day Arian could quote early Arian fathers and would thereby disprove the Church’s condemnation.

It’s important to understand that the Church Fathers would sometimes have differing views. However, when the dust settled and the Church made a decision the case was closed. Until the 1500’s there was but one Church and the proclamations by that Church were held by Christians everywhere. That is simple historical fact. I’ve even heard atheist history teachers say the same thing. This part is not rocket science, and no amount of contorted logic can refute it.

The Protestant revolt and its divisive outcomes is not progress. The Catholic Church has the Holy Eucharist and I am saddened by the fact that Christians everywhere do not share in this the most holy and generous gift of God.

I’m sorry if I offended you with my remarks concerning what I perceive in you personally when it comes to the Church. Your rejection of virtually every point made in this thread is indicative of something. The two thousand year old Church established by Christ cannot have all of these things wrong. You’ve been given ample evidence but you are adamant in your refusal to give even the slightest inch.

The biblical evidence has been substantial yet you will not accept it. You not only have an argument with the Catholic Church, but you have an argument with scripture.

 

[fulloftruth]

“…Queen of the world … I worship thee, great Queen, and give thee thanks for the many favors thou hast bestowed on me in the past … **most of all do I thank thee for having saved me from hell **… I promise ever in the future to serve thee… In thee I put all my trust, all my hope of salvation… And since thou hast so much power with God, deliver me from all temptations, or at least obtain for me the grace ever to overcome them…” (Prayer of St. Alphonse Liguori: 3 yrs indulgence, Raccolta, 342) With Mary to Jesus, by Fr. Theodore Zaremba. O.F.M. (Franciscan Printery, 1954) Nihil Obstat, M. Grajewski, OFM; Imprimi Potest, Fr. T. Kalinowski, OFM; Nihil Obstat, JA Schulien, STD; Imprimatur, A.G. Meyer, Archiepiscopus Milwaukiensis, Aug 16, 1954

Brian, you are being unreasonable. First of all you did not qoute any official Church document hear, just Saints quotes which can be overstated and mislead, not that I think they are, other than the words worship and saved. SecondI would like to ask you what moral teaching that the Church promulgates do you disagree with, find unbiblical, or contradictory to the Christian faith. Are there any other Christian churches that are holding to such truths completely. How could a mere man-run church be so successful for 2000 years at holding to such truths in the face of such secular forces. I think any honest person who can come to the argument without Bias or anger could be conviced from mere secular historical evidence, of the Churches Divine protection and origen. Where is the faith you use to trust that your bible is truly scripture, and why can you not apply it to the church. Is it because of the evil, sinful men, that have infiltrated the Churches hierarchy over the centuries. That should not cause you any distress, seeing how sinful men have always been used by God to carry his message, infact the more sinful the man the greater the conversion. Most of your arguments are splitting the atom and non-salvation related. The Catholic Church teaches the neccesity of Baptism, the complete salvation of mankind by Christ through grace, from faith working in love. It teaches the sacramental nature of marriage and the sanctity of life and the mans seed. It also teaches the Seven Gifts of the Spirit. They are: wisdom, understanding, knowledge, counsel, fortitude, piety and fear of the Lord. Sounds to me like there is more to agree on tahn dis-agree

 

[ddingler]

I am no theologian and must admit that much of this thread has my head spinning. What I do know is that it is very logical to me that Christ would leave behind one Church with the authority to interpret and carry on his message. Call me simple, but I believe that it is Satan’s greatest triumph that we have succeeded in confusing the message 25,000 times (or how ever many there are). Many churches with many fundamental differences cannot all be right. Does it not stand to reason that Christ would leave us a Church with an infallible head who could lead us all to him?

 

[p90]

fulloftruth:

Brian, you are being unreasonable. First of all you did not qoute any official Church document hear, just Saints quotes which can be overstated and mislead, not that I think they are, other than the words worship and saved.

The original contention was:

Any “Prayers” to Mary or the Saints are simply requests for thier prayers in heaven.

Brian posted material in response to this contention. How is your response to Brian’s material relevant? It isn’t necessary to quote official church documents to refute the idea that all prayers to Mary are requests for prayer.

~Matt

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

It looks to me like the pray gives Mary honor, not worship as given to God. There are three words that translate to worship that mean different levels of honor. They are dulia, hyper-dulia, and latria. Dulia is honor given to a particular saint, or a relic or something of the sort. It’s just simple reverence to something or someone holy because of it’s association with God. Hyper-dulia is a special kind of veneration that we give to Mary because of her involvement with salvation history. With her fiat , or consent, she became the mother of the lord. She raised him and took care of him, and walked with him along the via dolorosa (way of sorrow), to the point of the cross, where her heart was broken to see her son suffer and die. She has a dignity no other saint can claim to have because she gave birth to God incarnate. Finally, latria, is adoration or true worship, and is ONLY given to God. When they use the term “worship” in that prayer, it meant honor, though the word was being used in an older sense, the sense of honor given to anyone of importance, not the the newer sense which is widely known as honor ONLY given to God. The prayer acknowledges that she has interceded for him in the past, and gives her thanks for her intercession for his salvation. One can be sure of salvation only at a present moment, though one CAN’T be sure that they will be in a state of grace at the end of their life. He’s thanking her for her intercession for him to be in a state of grace now rather than from a certain point on to eternity . .

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

(CONT.)

Mary always, ALWAYS tells us to do as Jesus tells us, just as she told the servants at the wedding feast at Cana. Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, and others, Mary has asked that people pray for the conversion of sinners, and asked that we do as Christ tells us by living by the gospels. She’s reminding us as our mother to do what our father in heaven tells us to do. She’s admonishing obedience of Christ. When we do what Mary wants us to do, which is to serve God, we’re doing what God wants us to do, case closed. When we put our trust in Mary, we’re putting our trust in her intercession , not anything of her own power. It is only by the grace of God that anyone can pray for anyone else, even us on Earth. Mary, just like any other saint, or any other person on Earth even, has power with God, power through God, power in God, to pray for someone else. Prayer is referred to as a weapon many times, by Catholics and Protestants. We use prayer as a weapon against the enemy. When we speak of the power Mary or any other saint has with God, we’re speaking of their prayer. James said to the church “the prayer of the righteous man accomplishes much.” We on Earth are sinners. Those in heaven aren’t sinners because if they were, they wouldn’t be in heaven, since nothing unclean can enter heaven. They are much more righteous than we are, so we ask for their prayers. When we ask someone in heaven to obtain something for us, we’re asking them to pray that God do something for us, or give us grace for something. We’re not asking them to do something of their own power, or the word “obtain” would make no sense, because if they did something of their own power, from whom should they need to “obtain” something from? From God with their prayers, that’s who they’re obtaining things from for us. Asking Mary to deliver us from temptation WITH HER PRAYER, NOT HER OWN POWER, SINCE SHE HAS NO POWER OF HER OWN, is not wrong in any way. We’d pray for someone to not fall into temptation, and we’d pray for someone to not fall into temptation if they asked us to pray for that petition. Praying for grace goes the same way.

After going through this prayer and interpreting what it means, I’ve come to the conclusion that you interpreted this prayer the way a protestant would interpret it, with protestant theology, not the way a Catholic would, with Catholic theology. Using protestant meanings for certain words threw you way off, and if the protestant meanings of those words were used for the words in that prayer, it WOULD in fact be idolotry, or praying to someone in heaven as one would pray to God. However, we’re first of all, NOT praying to someoe in heaven as we would pray to God. We’re asking for their continued prayer FOR certain petition, NOT for them to do something of their own power. You’ve got this prayer all wrong

 

[fulloftruth]

In response to p90, I must say you are wrong. The contention must be made by official church teaching or there is no argument to have. Anyone in any specific church can go off a tangent in there belief, but in order to claim that the church is not the true church you must use official church teaching, as I am sure Brian would agree. To attach a teaching to the church that she wishes not to teach, nor ever has taught, and then claim that it proves where she has gone wrong is foolish. It doesn’t matter who made that statement, unless it was a Pope speaking Ex-cathedra,then its not official church teaching and cannot be used against the church.

Again this argument is getting old.:banghead: Brian. I would move to where it is warm because where your going, speaking against the Body of Christ and doing it with full knowledge, it is going to be dark and cold. Me, I prefer the consuming fire of love that is God, and the very painful pergatory.Faith is a gift, one that I thank God for and wish you had, but you don’t. Remember the sincerity of your decent from truth means nothing, the Jehovahs Witnesses are quite sincere, wrong but sincere. I would ask God for guidance before you lead anyone astray.

I just thought of something. If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority. If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it

Sola Scriptura cannot be proven from Scripture therefore it is an un believable and unworkable rule of faith. Without an infallable interpreter. Scripture can and has lead to Kaos, sincere but substantial kaos:whacky: , without any one entity to say to the sincere believer, “that is heresy and this is truth.” I don’t believe God is that cruel. I would like to know what moral teaching of the CC Brian does not agree with or thinks is anti Biblical

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

No, I made no such claim. I didn’t specify Paul or the church at Thessolonica. I’m not sure why you’ve raised that particular issue.

I think you may misunderstand what the Church is referring to when she speaks of “Tradition”. Generally speaking “Tradition” is the full deposit of faith, everything that has been revealed by God to be true. Therefore, strictly speaking, what is in scripture is itself part of Tradition. You seem to be under the impression that some teachings are scripture while some other, completely separate teachings are Tradition. Perhaps that’s why we’re not getting very far in this conversation.

Both views you describe are acceptable for and supported by faithful Catholics.

The fist view is called “material sufficiency” and the second (which you accuse me of focusing on) is called “partim partim” and was the near unanimous view of Catholic theologians for 200 years following Trent. So my “mistake” is based on historical teachings and accepted views of the Catholic Church.

You didn’t ask for evidence from the church of Thessalonica.

I think I did.

Scripture doesn’t claim to be the only thing that is God breathed. That is a claim that you are personally making for it. Nor does scripture claim for itself any particular level that is reserved for it alone. God’s word, whether oral or written, is on the same level.

You are (unintentionally I’m sure) misrepresenting what I said. Scripture states that Scripture is God-breathed. Do you agree? Scripture claim the same status for anything else that is available for Christians today. Do you agree?

It has nothing to do with any new revelation but rather with teaching authority.

Okay. Then as far as I can tell there is no evidence that there was an infallible succession of hierarchal teaching authority mentioned in Scripture. During “normal” times where there is no oral or written revelation, the only “infallible” access to God’s Word and God’s Truth was God’s enScripturated Word.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

God has ALWAYS provided his people with someone who could speak authoritatively for Him. There has NEVER been a time when God’s people were expected to rely on Scripture alone.

Please show evidence of this for say…the four hundred or so years before Christ.

With each individual deciding for himself what it does and does not mean. This is where sola Scriptura falls apart. Sola Scripturists would have us believe that God gave us an infallible book with no way of knowing, infallibley, what it means.

Does each individual Catholic decide for himself what the Catholic Church teaches?

If you can’t be infallibley certain what it means what good is an infallible book?

Are you infallible? Isn’t every decision or interpretation you make filtered through your fallible brain? You can claim that the Catholic Church infallibly interprets Scripture but how do you infallibly interpret Catholic teachings?

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

I’m pretty sure we were talking about the common person and not old, poetic prayers. Wasn’t this about “Catholics”, as a whole, praying to Mary? That’s what I was referring to anyway.

Were there flowery, poetic prayers written in days of old? Sure. I’m pretty sure that’s not what one means when one speaks of “Catholics” praying to Mary.

In Christ,
Nancy

Why don’t you address what St. Ligoursi wrote? He is a Catholic Saint. What he wrote, the words faithful Catholics can recite for 3 yrs indulgence is not simply asking Mary to pray for him/them.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

**Scripture says Scripture is God-breathed. It doesn’t say this about anything else that still exists today.

Brian**undefined

So if we are to use your theory that Scripture is inspired because it says it is then :

1. Do you believe that the Koran and Book of Mormon are inspired because both of those Books say they are inspired. Is that how we know what scripture is?

You obviously haven’t paid much attention to anything else I wrote.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

hlgomez:

Brian,

Calm down, you might have a heart attack.(just kidding) I was not shouting, I just made the letters BOLD so you would SEE it right away. It’s hard when we’re getting old, we easily forget .

Here’s what you “demanded” from me from post #62:

Now, let’s focus on the nature of the Eucharist. I have proofs that the doctrine of the CC regarding the nature of the Eucharist comes from the apostles, and that many early fathers agree BUT Protestants contradict–BIG TIME. First, share to us your doctrine about the Eucharist if it agrees with the Bible and the early fathers. Show me quotes from the Bible and the fathers (if you may please).

Pio

You claimed all RC teachings came from the Apostles. I simply asked for proof. If you have none, just admit it.

What I was asking for was proof that “all RC teachings” came from the Apostles. Not for a single Catholic teaching.

Brian

 

[p90]

fulloftruth:

In response to p90, I must say you are wrong. The contention must be made by official church teaching or there is no argument to have.

Then why am I wrong? I didn’t make the original contention. Brian didn’t either.

~Matt

 

[brianberean]

After going through this prayer and interpreting what it means, I’ve come to the conclusion that you interpreted this prayer the way a protestant would interpret it, with protestant theology, not the way a Catholic would, with Catholic theology. Using protestant meanings for certain words threw you way off, and if the protestant meanings of those words were used for the words in that prayer, it WOULD in fact be idolotry, or praying to someone in heaven as one would pray to God. However, we’re first of all, NOT praying to someoe in heaven as we would pray to God. We’re asking for their continued prayer FOR certain petition, NOT for them to do something of their own power. You’ve got this prayer all wrong

I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a person who understands what words mean in context would interpret it. I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a Christian who beleives all worship belongs to God alone. I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a Christian who understands that Jesus Christs saves us from hell, that we are commanded to serve Christ not Mary, that in Christ we are to put all our trust, hope and salvation. I interpret this prayer with the Lord’s prayer in mind where, from the lips of our Savior, we learned to ask God to help us resist temptation.

Brian

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

brianberean:

I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a person who understands what words mean in context would interpret it. I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a Christian who beleives all worship belongs to God alone. I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a Christian who understands that Jesus Christs saves us from hell, that we are commanded to serve Christ not Mary, that in Christ we are to put all our trust, hope and salvation. I interpret this prayer with the Lord’s prayer in mind where, from the lips of our Savior, we learned to ask God to help us resist temptation.

Brian

I’ve interpreted the prayer the same way. You just have anti-Catholic bias towards it. You’re not interpreting it the right way, you’re interpreting it the way someone who doesn’t understand Catholic theology would. Protestant theology is all together screwy. Of course it wouldn’t make sense with the prayer. The only reason it makes no sense to you is because you’re trying to make humble request into idolotry. It would be idolotry if you interpreted it the way you did: without any. It makes perfect sense to me that you came here trying to knock the Catholic faith without first understanding what it is and what we teach and believe. You take what we do teach and believe and with animosity towards the church, use absolute trash to try and refute us, not even knowing what you’re talking about. Besides, SINCE WHEN WAS A SIMPLE PRAYER SOMEONE WROTE THE DEPOSTIT OF FAITH? I’VE NEVER EVEN SAID, MUCH LESS SEEN THAT PRAYER BEFORE AND YOU’RE ACTING LIKE WE BELIEVE IT LIKE WE BELIEVE OUR FAITH. That prayer doesn’t count as some sort of doctrine that we believe that you’re trying to refute. Besides, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT PRAYER ANYWAY?

 

[Pax]

brianberean:

I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a person who understands what words mean in context would interpret it. I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a Christian who beleives all worship belongs to God alone. I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a Christian who understands that Jesus Christs saves us from hell, that we are commanded to serve Christ not Mary, that in Christ we are to put all our trust, hope and salvation. I interpret this prayer with the Lord’s prayer in mind where, from the lips of our Savior, we learned to ask God to help us resist temptation.

Brian

Sorry Brian, but you have done something here that is not what you claim. To know what Ligouri is really saying you have to read all of Ligouri. His statements and prayers about about God, Jesus, and the Eucharist place his devotion to Mary in its proper context. You have not placed this in its context, but have instead misunderstood the stylistic piety employed by this Saint that was common to his time.

I’ve notice that you and others also fail to see scripture as a high context set of writings. You’ve employed similar tactics with the ECF’s. If you do not place these things in the larger context that helps explain them, you do not get a plain reading of what they mean. Instead you get a plain meaning that is in your own context and means something to you that is different from that intended by the author. If you believe that Ligouri places Mary on the same level of Jesus or that she provided the atoning sacrifice for mankind, then you are either ignorant of Ligouri or you are deliberately mischaracterizing him.

 

[Pax]

brianberean:

I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a person who understands what words mean in context would interpret it. I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a Christian who beleives all worship belongs to God alone. I’ve interpreted this prayer the way a Christian who understands that Jesus Christs saves us from hell, that we are commanded to serve Christ not Mary, that in Christ we are to put all our trust, hope and salvation. I interpret this prayer with the Lord’s prayer in mind where, from the lips of our Savior, we learned to ask God to help us resist temptation.

Brian

Sorry Brian, but you have done something here that is not what you claim. To know what Ligouri is really saying you have to read all of Ligouri. His statements and prayers about about God, Jesus, and the Eucharist place his devotion to Mary in its proper context. You have not placed this in its context, but have instead misunderstood the stylistic piety employed by this Saint that was common to his time.

I’ve notice that you and others also fail to see scripture as a high context set of writings. You’ve employed similar tactics with the ECF’s. If you do not place these things in the larger context that helps explain them, you do not get a plain reading of what they mean. Instead you get a plain meaning that is in your own context and means something to you that is different from that intended by the author. If you believe that Ligouri places Mary on the same level of Jesus or that she provided the atoning sacrifice for mankind, then you are either ignorant of Ligouri or you are deliberately mischaracterizing him. This could be explained more fully and with numerous examples but I don’t think it’s necessary.
Just read the writings of the Saint you quoted and take it from there.

 

[brianberean]

Pax:

Sorry Brian, but you have done something here that is not what you claim. To know what Ligouri is really saying you have to read all of Ligouri. His statements and prayers about about God, Jesus, and the Eucharist place his devotion to Mary in its proper context. You have not placed this in its context, but have instead misunderstood the stylistic piety employed by this Saint that was common to his time.

Pax,

I posted the text from St. Ligoursi in response to this claim by a Catholic:

Any “Prayers” to Mary or the Saints are simply requests for thier prayers in heaven.

Is Ligoursi’s prayer simply a request for Mary’s prayers in heaven?

Brian