Split: Another Marian Debate

[JesusforMadrid]

And there are many on St. Mary as well, as I’ve already shown in my previous posts.

I’m not at all trying to say anything about Trent, or that all ECF must agree in order to have True Doctrine, I’m only showing how the ECF are in harmony with the Catholic Church of today, and not Protestants. Just like the Bible, you interpret the ECF the way you want, delude them to fit and please your own personal beliefs. I am NOT condeming Protestantism, I actually respect it (I used to be a Calvinist), and I am not saying the ECF were EXACTLY like the Catholic Church on all issues, I’m saying (and I think you truley know this too) that the ECF writtings are clearly “Catholic” AND “Orthodox” (Orthodox Church) in comparison to “Protestant.”

There are numerous Protestant Churches all over the world with preachers here and there preaching their doctrines. Yet NONE of them are ever mistaken for “Catholic” or “Orthodox.” They are clearly taken as Protestants.

When one reads Protestant doctrines for the very first time it’s easy to tell they’re “Protestant.” And when one reads the ECF for the very first time, it is strikingly clear that they sound, IN CONTEXT AS WELL, AS ALWAYS, Catholic/Orthodox.

To deny this is just plain illogical.

God bless you.

There is another thread on this very subject which I welcome you to join: Catholic but not Roman Catholic.

Have you read the Didache, I Clement, or the Epistle of Barnabas? The Early Church (1st century) was somewhat liturgical but far from the modern RC church: no popes, no Marian devotion, no transubstantiation, no infant baptism.

It seems, to me, more like a charismatic, Anglican church (The Didache: be sure that you give free housing to prophets!).

 

[JonathanKinsman]

There is another thread on this very subject which I welcome you to join: Catholic but not Roman Catholic. quote]

J4M: You keep with this silly misidentification: the thread is Eastern Catholic. Western Catholics are made up of many ‘rites.’ I told you this on another thread and you persist in this folly.

Look, we are Catholics here. Some identify with the Latin rite and call themselves Latin Rite Catholics or Roman Catholics or Tridentine Catholics. The See at Rome is the location of the earthly head of the Church: who was called the Bishop of Rome more often than not before that LONG run of Italian bishops and the affectionate term for ‘father’ or ‘poppa’ or ‘pope’ came into common (especially in anti-Catholic Elizabethan and Jacobean England/Scotland) scurrilous usage (remember ‘popery’ as a perjorative word?).

You won’t find ‘Roman Catholics’ anywhere prior to the Protestant revolt in the 1520s. If you want to engage honestly and with a charitable intent, then use the proper wording.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

There was no need for the reformation as it came down and if you go back and read the history of it you’d agree.

Sure there was. Even Catholics on here have admitted as much. They admitted that the Catholic Church was corrupt and they’ve said that they did reform. Were they wrong?

Try this book: How the Reformation Happened by Hilaire Belloc
Based on what actual research you have done?

Thanks for the link. I find it hilarious that you continually like to cast aspersions upon me and my “research”. I’ve been doing plenty of research on Catholicism since I’ve come on here yet you assume I never researched anything on the Reformation. Just because I think you are wrong NOW does not mean I have not done any research. Take a deep breath my friend…there was a serious need for the Reformation. It was God’s will.

Or…is this an opinion passed on to you by someone else? Your preacher? Some evangelist? A website?

No. I have read much about the Reformation, heck we covered it in a university history course. If I find the text book I’ll get back to you. It’s from a secular source instead of Scripture so you may find it acceptable. Last but not least, I could say it is “Tradition” that I have received and the moment you question it I can call you disrespectful. Touche.

Just because you believe it doesn’t make it so my friend. Anyone can be wrong. I was for over 34 years! :bible1:

**Oh I know. I believe it BECAUSE it is so. All together now…there was a serious need for the Reformation. Thank God for bringing it about. **

Pax tecum,

 

[The_Catholic]

There is another thread on this very subject which I welcome you to join: Catholic but not Roman Catholic.

Have you read the Didache, I Clement, or the Epistle of Barnabas? The Early Church (1st century) was somewhat liturgical but far from the modern RC church: no popes, no Marian devotion, no transubstantiation, no infant baptism.

It seems, to me, more like a charismatic, Anglican church (The Didache: be sure that you give free housing to prophets!).

I have plus I am in waiting for the entire writtings in full of the ECF up until 300A.D.

Again, I am not saying the early Church was identical to the modern church of today in all doctrines (the church was a seed and is has since grown, developed). And I am not so concerned about “Marian” doctrines neither (although there are somw writtings on her, few I admit, at least until my knowledge, but they’re there). I am interested with what the Church believed about the sacraments, salvation, apostolic succession, and as I’ve shown they were in harmony with the current teachings of the Catholic Church of today, as well as the Orthodox.

But it doesn’t at all matter what I say because other people, Protestants, will just interpret the ECF writtings however they want to fit their own beliefs. This seems like another game of “my Bible verse can beat up your Bible verse,” and now it’s "my ECF writtings can beat up your ECF writtings lol

Sounds silly but that’s what this is, an argument of circular reasoning and I am frankly tired of responding to these ridiculous claims (no pun intended).

Test someone I say. Someone who knows what Protestants teach, such as my old Church (christian Missionary Alliance) or a Calvinist or a Lutheren, along with what Catholicism teaches. And then read them the church Fathers and ask them who they think the ECF are in more in harmony with. I have done this test and guess what, the said the ECF appeared to be more like the “Catholic” Church of today.

 

[The_Catholic]

It’s very simple and that’s why Catholics are always quoting the ECF. Do you really think that all of these Catholic scholars ahave only read small portions of the ECF and never their entire writtings or the contexts? No way! Not at all! Catholics are well aware what the ECF taught and that is why they always quote their writtings. They quote them to show ant-catholics (not calling you that) that Catholicism doctrines are found among the early christians and did not just spring up latter on.

Wow, if you are denying the Holy Eucharist being found in the ECF writtings, then I feel you really have to go back to the ECF writtings and study them again, without a bias.

God bless you.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

It’s very simple and that’s why Catholics are always quoting the ECF. Do you really think that all of these Catholic scholars ahave only read small portions of the ECF and never their entire writtings or the contexts? No way! Not at all! Catholics are well aware what the ECF taught and that is why they always quote their writtings. They quote them to show ant-catholics (not calling you that) that Catholicism doctrines are found among the early christians and did not just spring up latter on.

Of course I think that Roman Catholic scholars read the ECFs. However, I also think, based on my understanding of RC authority, that they have little flexibility in denying former RC claims, aside from leaving the RC church, which some do (many Spanish Evangelical pastors, if not most, are former RC theologians and priests). There are some exceptions: The Chair of St. Peter, by Thomas Noble. Nobel is a RC who believes the papacy of today is not found in the early Christians. There may be other RC theologians that also dispute the RC church’s use of the ECFs to support current RC doctrine.

Wow, if you are denying the Holy Eucharist being found in the ECF writtings, then I feel you really have to go back to the ECF writtings and study them again, without a bias.

God bless you.

I hope this wasn’t directed to me. Instructions for the Eucharist are found throughout the 1st century documents, including detailed instructions in the Didache. The modern RC church does not follow these instructions exactly today, by the way.

I would deny that transubstantiation is well supported in the ECF. But real presence, yes. Here, by the way, I have been enlightened by reading the ECFs of the ante-Nicene period myself.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

 

[rr1213]

But it doesn’t at all matter what I say because other people, Protestants, will just interpret the ECF writtings however they want to fit their own beliefs. This seems like another game of “my Bible verse can beat up your Bible verse,” and now it’s "my ECF writtings can beat up your ECF writtings.

The problem is that it is a game that both sides play. If Protestants say to a Catholic “but that doctrine is unbiblical”, the Catholic will often respond with “but that is not how the ECFs saw it, read _______”. Then, if the Protestant comes back and says “hey, this is interesting…did you know that ECF ____ said _______ about _____, which seems to contradict the Catholic position”, the Catholic responds with “yes, of course, but that particular ECF was wrong on that particular issue…”. Around and around the mulberry bush…

Let’s admit it. Neither Protestant nor Catholic hold the ECFs to be authoritative. Therefore, their value is limited to the extent that their writings are persuasive and/or demonstrate historically what positions were believed by those particular writers at that time.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Let’s admit it. Neither Protestant nor Catholic hold the ECFs to be authoritative. Therefore, their value is limited to the extent that their writings are persuasive and/or demonstrate historically what positions were believed by those particular writers at that time.

Sorry, this I don’t quite understand. I intrepret Trent as saying that (i) Scripture and Tradition have equal standing in jusifying doctrine and (ii) the standard for tradition is that it must be supported by “unanimous consent” of the ECFs. So the ECFs are very authoritative for RC doctrine, insofar as there is “unanimous consent”. Is this incorrect?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Sorry, this I don’t quite understand. **I intrepret Trent as saying that (i) Scripture and Tradition have equal standing in jusifying doctrine and (ii) the standard for tradition is that it must be supported **by “unanimous consent” of the ECFs. So the ECFs are very authoritative for RC doctrine, insofar as there is “unanimous consent”. Is this incorrect?

**If this is what they believe then they are no better off than we are, who interpret something through Scripture Alone.

We’re supposed to reject that the Bible can claim itself to be the sole authority for faith and practice but accept a council of men when they say that they are another source on par with Scripture…because they say so? It’s not gonna happen in this fella’s case…Sola Scriptura is the order of the day**.

 

[rr1213]

Sorry, this I don’t quite understand. I intrepret Trent as saying that (i) Scripture and Tradition have equal standing in jusifying doctrine and (ii) the standard for tradition is that it must be supported by “unanimous consent” of the ECFs. So the ECFs are very authoritative for RC doctrine, insofar as there is “unanimous consent”. Is this incorrect?

I don’t know…perhaps for “unanimous consent” whatever that means. I do know that whenever you point out an ECF that has espoused an opinion that varies from Catholic doctrine that the Catholic response is simply “well, he’s wrong and doesn’t speak for the Church on this one”. So, just as Protestants are often selective in citing the ECFs, I think that Catholics do the same thing. I would suspect however that the ECFs generally support Catholic positions much more often than Protestant positions though.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I don’t know…perhaps for “unanimous consent” whatever that means. I do know that whenever you point out an ECF that has espoused an opinion that varies from Catholic doctrine that the Catholic response is simply “well, he’s wrong and doesn’t speak for the Church on this one”. So, just as Protestants are often selective in citing the ECFs, I think that Catholics do the same thing. I would suspect however that the ECFs generally support Catholic positions much more often than Protestant positions though.

I haven’t done the statistics, but then I don’t have to. There is an evolution in thought from the 1st century, which I would argue looks more like the Evangelical church today than the modern RC church, to Post Nicene period, where ECFs increasingly take positions that would be closer to the modern RC church.

The point is, for tradition to be a source of doctrine, there should, according to the Council of Trent, be “unanimous consent” amongst the fathers. The practice of Christians 300 years after Christ may have contained a number of errors. They excluded many errors by denouncing them as heresies. But how do we know they got them all. So when we cite the odd quote from Augustine, Tertulian, Ireneas or Clement that do not coincide with current RC doctrine, this is a serious problem for the RC church, not just that there are differences amongst the ECF but rather that they have based their doctrine on tradition and argued that there was “unanimous consent”, when in fact, there was not. Since many of the documents that we have that dispute modern RC doctrine have been rediscoved post Trent, this creates a problem for the RC church, especially concerning those Marian doctrines declared"infallible".

 

[RWMorris]

I see you are aware that we should not worship any creature, not even the blessed Mary.

Mary is not the saviour herself. Indeed she needed the Lord to save her, like every other human being since Adam and to the end of the world. She herself acknowledges God as “my saviour” (Luke 1:47).

I do call her blessed, She is forever to be called blessed.

I don’t pray to her, the Bible clearly teaches us that we should pray to God and that God alone knows our hearts (1 Kings 8:39)

I don’t ask for grace from her, he Bible teaches us that all grace comes from God (1 Peter 5:10)

I don’t call her " my life" and “our hope” the Bible teaches us that the Lord is our life and hope (Colossians 3:4; 1 Timothy 1:1)

She is not my mediator, the Bible says that there is one mediator, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5)

I will not trust her in my hour of death, Jesus the Good Shepherd is able to keep His sheep and bring them safely to glory (John 10:27,28)

Many Catholic attitudes owards Mary amounts to worship

1. they pray to he
2. neel before her image
3. trust in her for salvation
4. attribute to her titles and honours which belong to God alone

1. Catholics talk to Mary because we believe she still is alive and can hear us, and can pray for us just like the members of our Bible study group
2. Do you have pictures of your family at home? I bet you look at them sometimes. Same thing as what we do with the image of Mary…NOT worhsip her
3. We don’t trust in Mary for salvation. We trust in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit
4. Mary was the “ark of the Covenant” because she carried Jesus in her womb. “From hencedforth all generations shall call me blessed” means we do honor her, which doesn’t take anything away from God, but rather points TO God and Jesus.
   Hope this helps…

 

[hoosierdaddy]

RWMorris>>1. Catholics talk to Mary because we believe she still is alive and can hear us, and can pray for us just like the members of our Bible study group

How come Scripture doesn’t tell us to talk to Mary then? It does tell us to take our burdens to the Church but not to Mary. How come in the Lord’s Prayer (which is a model for prayer for us) there is no mention of Mary et al?

Also, Mary not being divine, how could she hear everyone’s prayers at the same time and go to God at the same time with all those requests? Why do we need Mary to do it anyways when the Lord Jesus Christ ever liveth to make intercession for His people as the Scriptures say? Why do we Catholics and Protestants fight over this issue when all we need to do is pray to the Father through the Spirit in the Son’s Name? It makes no sense to me. Why would Christ’s Church bypass Christ Himself???

 

[rr1213]

I haven’t done the statistics, but then I don’t have to. There is an evolution in thought from the 1st century, which I would argue looks more like the Evangelical church today than the modern RC church, to Post Nicene period, where ECFs increasingly take positions that would be closer to the modern RC church.

The point is, for tradition to be a source of doctrine, there should, according to the Council of Trent, be “unanimous consent” amongst the fathers. The practice of Christians 300 years after Christ may have contained a number of errors. They excluded many errors by denouncing them as heresies. But how do we know they got them all. So when we cite the odd quote from Augustine, Tertulian, Ireneas or Clement that do not coincide with current RC doctrine, this is a serious problem for the RC church, not just that there are differences amongst the ECF but rather that they have based their doctrine on tradition and argued that there was “unanimous consent”, when in fact, there was not. Since many of the documents that we have that dispute modern RC doctrine have been rediscoved post Trent, this creates a problem for the RC church, especially concerning those Marian doctrines declared"infallible".

Good point, but remember the Catholic Church claims the authority to determine what is applicable and binding Tradition. Sort of like the Supreme Court in the United States. We have a written Constitution, but the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means. “The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it does” and Holy Tradition means what the Catholic Church says it does. At least in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

 

[Redbandito]

**If this is what they believe then they are no better off than we are, who interpret something through Scripture Alone. **

We’re supposed to reject that the Bible can claim itself to be the sole authority for faith and practice but accept a council of men when they say that they are another source on par with Scripture…because they say so? It’s not gonna happen in this fella’s case…Sola Scriptura is the order of the day.

Do you accept the Council of Jerusalem’s findings as authoritative only because they are recorded in Acts?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Good point, but remember the Catholic Church claims the authority to determine what is applicable and binding Tradition. Sort of like the Supreme Court in the United States. We have a written Constitution, but the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means. “The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it does” and Holy Tradition means what the Catholic Church says it does. At least in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Yes, the Church of Rome can do what it pleases, but being inconsistent undercuts the credibility of that authority. The problem the modern RC church has is the following, I think:

1. The church claims infallible authority
2. The church claims authoritatively in Trent that the standard for accepting tradition qua scripture is that it must meet the test of “unanmimous consent” (which I think is a good test)
3. No tradition does not meet this test; there are ECFs who contradict each other on Marian dogmas, transubstantiation, the authority of the pope, the importance of tradition itself versus Sola Scriptura
4. The RC church nonetheless bases much of its doctrine on tradition. So it contradicts its own rigid standard of Trent for the acceptance of tradition.

An authority that sets rigourous standards for itself and then contradicts those standards undercuts its authority.

 

[Axion]

Yes, the Church of Rome can do what it pleases, but being inconsistent undercuts the credibility of that authority. The problem the modern RC church has is the following, I think:

1. The church claims infallible authority
2. The church claims authoritatively in Trent that the standard for accepting tradition qua scripture is that it must meet the test of “unanmimous consent” (which I think is a good test)
3. No tradition does not meet this test; there are ECFs who contradict each other on Marian dogmas, transubstantiation, the authority of the pope, the importance of tradition itself versus Sola Scriptura
4. The RC church nonetheless bases much of its doctrine on tradition. So it contradicts its own rigid standard of Trent for the acceptance of tradition.

An authority that sets rigourous standards for itself and then contradicts those standards undercuts its authority.

Not a good point.

No tradition - even the Trinity, or the divinity of Jesus - has ever had unanimous support. There have always been one or two people who have preached error.

Traditional teachings are based on what has always and everywhere been taught with the overwhelming consensus of the early Church.

If we threw out every teaching that someone at some time appears to have objected to, then we would be left with nothing

 

[Axion]

How come Scripture doesn’t tell us to talk to Mary then? It does tell us to take our burdens to the Church but not to Mary. How come in the Lord’s Prayer (which is a model for prayer for us) there is no mention of Mary et al?

Mary was still living on earth when the Lord’s Prayer was given to us. Hence there was no purpose in telling people to send prayers to her.

Also, Mary not being divine, how could she hear everyone’s prayers at the same time and go to God at the same time with all those requests?

And George Bush, not being divine, how can people all over the world hear him speak at the same time?

Is God able to do less than George Bush and NBC?

Why do we need Mary to do it anyways when the Lord Jesus Christ ever liveth to make intercession for His people as the Scriptures say? Why do we Catholics and Protestants fight over this issue when all we need to do is pray to the Father through the Spirit in the Son’s Name? It makes no sense to me. Why would Christ’s Church bypass Christ Himself???

Why does scripture ask us to pray for each other? Why do we ask others to pray for us - if we can only pray for ourselves to the Father?

 

[maurin]

WOW! Last I checked th Bible was about the Lord Jesus Christ and we should be wholeheartedly devoted to Him.

perpetual virginity Immaculate Conception, the Assumption to heaven, and the titles Queen of Heaven, mediatrix, our mother, our life, our hope and others are conspicuously absent from the Bible.

“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39).

Mary will always be blessed by every generation. However, we must not assign to her a role that God did not give her.

WOW! I can’t believe how comfortable you are announcing your ignorance of these doctrines that are firmly rooted in Scripture by mocking them!!!

Good for you!!!

“Do whatever He tells you.” (John 2:5b).

“Woman, behold your son!” (John 19:26c).

“Behold your mother!” (John 19:27).