Split: Another Marian Debate

[Iowa_Mike]

As is clear from Catholic teachings…Catholics worship Jesus and honor Mary…period.

Iowa Mike

 

[JesusforMadrid]

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

If it is not a good point, it is not a good point for Rome. Because “unanimous consent” is the standard of the Council of Trent. If you don’t believe in their standard, you don’t adhere to the authority of Rome.

That is a problem for the RC churhc

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Well done, but not so fast.

For space reasons, I shall simply refer you to another website. Fortunately, I don’t have to show all the Church Fathers agreed at all times with the Evangelical position. According to Trent, I just have to show that some did. Trent said the burdon of proof is on the RC church to show that they are in substantial agreement, as I am sure you know./

 

[JonathanKinsman]

If it is not a good point, it is not a good point for Rome. Because “unanimous consent” is the standard of the Council of Trent.

If you don’t believe in their standard, you don’t adhere to the authority of Rome.

That is a problem for the RC churhc

1. “Because ‘unanimous consent’ is the standard of the Council of Trent.”

J4M, This CONTRADICTS your prior statement on “Trent.”

Which way is it? Unanimous or “show that some did?”

Again: NO SOURCE given, no link provided.

You are being dishonest here, J4M.

This is not “a problem for the RC church,” this is YOUR problem, friend.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

1. “Because ‘unanimous consent’ is the standard of the Council of Trent.”

J4M, This CONTRADICTS your prior statement on “Trent.”

Which way is it? Unanimous or “show that some did?”

Again: NO SOURCE given, no link provided.

You are being dishonest here, J4M.

This is not “a problem for the RC church,” this is YOUR problem, friend.

“J4M”. That is cute. I like it.

Carefull who you call dishonest. I was being cheritable in saying “substantial agreement”. The fact is, yes, “unanimous consent” is the standard of Trent.

You can, of course, look these things up (sorry, I am getting tired of posting this): From the 4th session:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to…the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

“Unanimous consent” is the post Trent standard. No dishonesty here.

Blessings to you.

 

[Redbandito]

If it is not a good point, it is not a good point for Rome. Because “unanimous consent” is the standard of the Council of Trent. If you don’t believe in their standard, you don’t adhere to the authority of Rome.

That is a problem for the RC churhc

Not really. Simply put, whether people dissented going in to Trent is irrelevant. What they did post-Trent is what matters. When the Church speaks from her Christ-given authority, we fall in line. There are numerous examples of this throughout history.

 

[Redbandito]

“J4M”. That is cute. I like it.

Carefull who you call dishonest. I was being cheritable in saying “substantial agreement”. The fact is, yes, “unanimous consent” is the standard of Trent.

You can, of course, look these things up (sorry, I am getting tired of posting this): From the 4th session:

You made the claim. You provide the link. He has every right to question you until you can cite your claim. It is not our responsibility to do your research.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Not really. Simply put, whether people dissented going in to Trent is irrelevant. What they did post-Trent is what matters. When the Church speaks from her Christ-given authority, we fall in line. There are numerous examples of this throughout history.

This begs the question, since Trent is the Roman church’s decision.

I will start another thread on this someday, because I really don’t understand how modern RCs can reconcile this standard of Trent with the writings of the ECFs.

Blessings to you.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

“J4M”. That is cute. I like it.

Carefull who you call dishonest. I was being cheritable in saying “substantial agreement”. The fact is, yes, “unanimous consent” is the standard of Trent.

You can, of course, look these things up (sorry, I am getting tired of posting this): From the 4th session:

“Unanimous consent” is the post Trent standard. No dishonesty here.

Blessings to you.

J4M, this is easier to type. Thanks for the reference. It is hard hunting you down to give an answer (proof is all my posts asking you these things). I did not see this posted earlier (the reference), if it was then I apologize for the mistake and the hounding.

What is missing in the ellipses? That is very interesting,

Pax Christi

From a Catholic

 

[JonathanKinsman]

J4M (or should I say my Evangelical-friend-who-sleeps-with-the-other-side):

Your Trent misunderstanding is explained on the other thread where you and I discussed it in greater length.

Go see.

Pax Christi

 

[JesusforMadrid]

J4M (or should I say my Evangelical-friend-who-sleeps-with-the-other-side):

Your Trent misunderstanding is explained on the other thread where you and I discussed it in greater length.

Go see.

Pax Christi

OK lets go see. This should be very interesting.

 

[maurin]

If it is not a good point, it is not a good point for Rome. Because “unanimous consent” is the standard of the Council of Trent. If you don’t believe in their standard, you don’t adhere to the authority of Rome.

That is a problem for the RC churhc

No, you’ve got that incorrect: it is not a problem for the Church. It is a problem for you, obviously, though.

By the way, using “Roman” the way you do can be construed as, well, let me charitable: uncharitable. The proper name of the Church is the Catholic Church, or simply, the Church.

If you don’t mind…

 

[The_Catholic]

I would suspect however that the ECFs generally support Catholic positions much more often than Protestant positions though.

Exactly, thank you for being honest.

I do not care what Trent said (I mean no disrespect). Nor do I care about trying to defend every single position upon the ECF in harmony with the Catholic Church (I have my own understanding on this anyway, but that applies to a different time). I am only pointing out that the magority of early christians and the ECF are much more in line and harmony with the current Catholic/Orthodox Churches of today.

I do find it silly though for many Protestants to say "how can you hold “tradition” as high as the Bible? "Tradition is just a silly council of “men!” One can say the same exact thing about the Bible, such as atheists say all the time. That it is just a “book” written by men. But while it IS THE BOOK, men did in fact write it, though inspired by God. But it wasn’t a Book that just descended out of the Heavens in God’s Hands.

You can quote the Bible and show that it is the inspired word of God, but that does not “prove” it is (Though I believe it is). Likewise you can quote verses that prove there is a Sacred Tradition among God’s people, His Church, that He also brings forth His Truth through.

My point is it is ridiculous to say “We stand upon the Bible alone, not silly councils.” The “Bible alone” has caused so many splits that I believe it truley saddens the Heart of God.

God bless you

 

[The_Catholic]

I apologize for my last few paragraphs on my last post, I didn’t mean to get off topic. Lol, people say I have ADD, because I tend to jump all over the place from one thing to another, hehe

I like you J4M, you seem knowledgable and sincere. I have been following all of your posts and understand your frustrations and I can relate. God bless you man.

 

[Pete99]

Many folks on this forum have done a great job defending Church teaching on Mary, but I thought I would throw my own two cents in as well.

In regards to Mary and her position in the Church, I would suggest studying what role the “queen mother” played in the old testament from David on. Study this in light of the knowledge that Christ is the new and everlasting king. Also, you might try studying what the Bible has to say about the ark of the covenant in the old testament (especially what was “in” it), and then see what the new testament has to say about mary and her child Jesus who is referred to as 1. the word of God, 2. The Bread of LIfe and 3. A priest forever according to the order Melchizadek. Next, you might compare and contrast Eve to Mary, do this while keeping in mind that Mary is called “Most Blessed among women” (In other words, more than Eve who was also a woman created without original sin). If you are still interested after that, I would suggest looking at Bible verses (old t and new t) where God/Jesus uses the term “woman” when addressing someone. Pay particular attention to Genesis 3:15, John 2:4 and Revelation 12.
I think you will be astounded at how “Catholic” the Bible really is and how “Biblical” the teachings about Mary are.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Hoosier-

First, congratulations on getting the quote function figured out! :clapping: Now, you’ve just got to chill on those fonts! :yup:

Second, the Catholic Church needed some reform, but that is not what Luther and Calvin did. Reformers work from the inside. They simply rejected Church authority and doctrine and set up their own man-made system without the benefit of the infallibility Christ provided by the Holy Spirit. The fruit of that is evident enough.

However, the need for some reformation does not give them (or you) the right to rebel against God-given authority. Consider please:

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

“If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?”

Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.

Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position. That is sobering stuff.

If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them.

Of course, sin and corruption in Church leadership should never be condoned but neither should they surprise us. The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Jesus clearly taught that sin would be present in the Church, but He also taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**The burdon of proof in on Roman Catholics **to show that there was general agreement amongst the Early Church Fathers regarding these and other ideosyncratic Roman Catholic beliefs that are supported entirely or substantially by “oral tradition”. The Council l of Trent ruled that there had to be substantial unanimity in the Church Fathers for a dogma that has arisen through tradition to be accepted. Since there is not unanimity amongst the Fathers regarding many of the current extra biblical Marian beliefs, by its own standards established at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church should jettison these, as the Protestant churches have.

In the twenty-five sessions of Trent, the term “unanimous consent” appears five times. Of those, two refer directly to the bishops present at the synod who voted unanimously to accept decrees—not to the ECF. The ancient fathers are referred to thrice: in session 7 about the Bible, in session 14, on confession being a sacrament, and in session 23, on ordination of priests being a sacrament. Where in the body of the conciliar documents does it state that our Sacred Tradition must be derived from a “unanimous consent” of the ECF?

And even if it is there, do friend realize what “unanimous consent” entails? Here’s a good article on the subject:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ198.HTM

 

[rr1213]

And even if it is there, do friend realize what “unanimous consent” entails? Here’s a good article on the subject:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ198.HTM

Oh no. Is this going to be one of those Catholic definitional things where “unanimous” doesn’t mean “unanimous”, sort of like “all have sinned” doesn’t mean “all have sinned”.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Oh no. Is this going to be one of those Catholic definitional things where “unanimous” doesn’t mean “unanimous”, sort of like “all have sinned” doesn’t mean “all have sinned”.

I don’t know where Randy is going with his post, but to me (a Catholic) and I am sure to you and others on this thread, “unanimous” means “unanimous.”

It is important to remember that the Fourth Session of Trent was concerned with scriptural interpretation when that phrase was used. It had NOTHING to do with Mary and the two dogmatic beliefs of Catholics (the IC and the Assumption).

I was hoping for some discussion, somewhere, by an Anglican or Episcopalian on the founding of their denomination: the nationalistic urge to divorce and sire a male heir (or was it to bed a younger woman?)

The Lord works in mysterious ways: did you know that “Episcopal” is an anagram for Pepsi Cola?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Randy>>
Randy>>Thanks, but I think I got the quote right by accident because that was the font someone else used. Mine just turned out like theirs.

I do hear what you’re saying about the Catholic church needing reform but Luther et al not doing it the right way. I feel that they were chased out though. If they left on their own, they probably shouldn’t have.

Actually the need for reformation does give us the right to rebel my friend. See church authority is to be subject to the Scriptures that God gave us. When they go against it, reject it, claim equal authority as it, or teach false doctrines, it is our responsibility to first, approach the leaders with two or more witnesses and discuss it. If they will not listen and continue on, then we do have to come out from them. Church leaders have authority to teach but they are to be servants; not to lord their leadership over the others.

THE IMPACT OF SIN ON CHURCH AUTHORITY

“If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?”

Yes, it does invalidate a leader’s position if he fails to maintain the high standard of personal holiness and faithfulness to the Word of God. This is what Paul feared when he talked about being disqualified. It wasn’t from heaven, but from his ministry.

Judas was selected because someone had to betray Jesus. It was all in the perfect will and predetermined plan of God. Apart from this, Judas would have never been chosen.

Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)

I’m not sure on the Moses’ seat issue though. I’ll have to look into that. I have a feeling it was different being an OT thing.

Of course, sin and corruption in Church leadership should never be condoned but neither should they surprise us. The Church is not a paradise for saints who are already perfected but a hospital for the spiritually sick who are being healed.

Exactly. But this doesn’t excuse leaders. They are held to a higher standard. There is no room for moral failure in the pulpit.

The odd sin is not what I’m talking about. Unrepentant sin is what I’m getting at. We all sin but a church leader should not be engaging in sin repeatedly and not repenting. He also should not be teaching false doctrine. Teaching false doctrine disqualifies one from their position. We owe our allegiance to God and to His Word; not to any leader. I will respect a church leader and submit to him as long as he is not teaching false doctrine. I cannot submit to someone who teaches that I have to pray a rosary or go through purgatory before I get to heaven. As much respect as I had for John Paul 2 (he seemed like a wonderful man) I could not accept his “authority” over me. I have to be a Protestant. But I’m still a Christian.