SPLIT: From Fatima...Images & the Salvation of Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter newbie1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dbacks5439 said:
Without your help, i’m lost. Just like if i read the bible without Sacred Tradition. Wow, well what verse from the apostles (notice the verse says apostles, not just one) was the author of Jude refering to? He couldn’t, because it wasn’t written down. If it were, he’d have said so. So please, if you make the assertation that it’s in the gospel, you gotta back it up buddy. So again, please give book, chapter, and verse. Otherwise, you’ll have to accept that some teachings can be conveyed by word of mouth, and not by written word (bible) alone.
Click to expand...
Answer 2peter3:3
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Let’s get back on Onesiphorus? Paul prayed for His household. Do you know if Onesiphorus was alive at time, or was he dead?
Click to expand...
I don’t know but I would assume he was alive.
Manny how is this relevant to understanding the epistles on how to walk as a Christian. Would either answer effect my understanding of the Word and lead me down a path that does not serve God?
I don’t mind the question because it challenges me to search the bible but I don’t see how I would need sacred tradition in this instance to understand what is being said
Another thing I found was that Paul knew he was going to be executed shortly so maybe he figured he should pray for onesiphorus while he was still alive.
 
newbie1234 said:
I don’t know but I would assume he was alive.
Manny how is this relevant to understanding the epistles on how to walk as a Christian. Would either answer effect my understanding of the Word and lead me down a path that does not serve God?
I don’t mind the question because it challenges me to search the bible but I don’t see how I would need sacred tradition in this instance to understand what is being said
Click to expand...
Point is you can’t just open the Bible and know the correct meaning of a passage - either in terms of detail or in terms of general gist. Neither aspect of a lot of passages is clear. However, there is tradition about a lot of passages in light of which it makes a lot more sense.

For one example - Angel Gabriel visits Mary and tells her she is to have a child who will be the Son of God, but not when. Mary, an engaged and shortly-to-be-married woman, says ‘how can this be, since I am a virgin?’

Now why would a woman who was about to be married, and thus expecting in the normal course of things to lose her virginity and have children, say ‘how can this happen’? Everyone knows how babies are made.

It would make more sense for her to say ‘of course Joseph and I will have children - how is it that one of my and/or his children will be the Son of God?’

But TRADITION, passed on from the Apostles and preserved in the Protevangelion of James, tells us that Mary was in fact a consecrated Temple Virgin, who left the Temple at puberty, as all the Temple Virgins did for ritual cleanliness reasons, and that these virgins were given male ‘protectors’ (since they couldn’t live on their own as women) with whom they went through a form of marriage but without any physical consummation, in order to be able to keep their vows of virginity.

Now in light of that tradition that Mary was in fact vowed to lifelong virginity, her question to Gabriel makes perfect sense!
 
newbie1234 said:
I don’t know but I would assume he was alive.
Manny how is this relevant to understanding the epistles on how to walk as a Christian. Would either answer effect my understanding of the Word and lead me down a path that does not serve God?
I don’t mind the question because it challenges me to search the bible but I don’t see how I would need sacred tradition in this instance to understand what is being said
Click to expand...
This is what is done during Bible Studies. Sacred Tradition is there because Paul did told us to hold to traditions.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 2 Timothy 2:1-2

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Cor 11:1-2
**
Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book **(John 20:30)

The Tradition of the Catholic or Sacred Tradition is part of the unwritten word, or orally tradition. These traditions are preserved in the Catholic Church. They do not negate God. Together with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, they are by far the infallible Word of God.

I know you are unconvinced by my remarks, newbie. I doubt that you will convince me that Bible Alone is the sole authority. What I believe is summed up in the Nicene Creed.

You know what that is? You should, you were once a Catholic.

Well, it is late now and I must rest.

God bless you. 👍

Dominus Vobiscum.
 
LilyM said:
Point is you can’t just open the Bible and know the correct meaning of a passage - either in terms of detail or in terms of general gist. Neither aspect of a lot of passages is clear. However, there is tradition about a lot of passages in light of which it makes a lot more sense.

For one example - Angel Gabriel visits Mary and tells her she is to have a child who will be the Son of God, but not when. Mary, an engaged and shortly-to-be-married woman, says ‘how can this be, since I am a virgin?’

Now why would a woman who was about to be married, and thus expecting in the normal course of things to lose her virginity and have children, say ‘how can this happen’? Everyone knows how babies are made.

It would make more sense for her to say ‘of course Joseph and I will have children - how is it that one of my and/or his children will be the Son of God?’

But TRADITION, passed on from the Apostles and preserved in the Protevangelion of James, tells us that Mary was in fact a consecrated Temple Virgin, who left the Temple at puberty, as all the Temple Virgins did for ritual cleanliness reasons, and that these virgins were given male ‘protectors’ (since they couldn’t live on their own as women) with whom they went through a form of marriage but without any physical consummation, in order to be able to keep their vows of virginity.

Now in light of that tradition that Mary was in fact vowed to lifelong virginity, her question to Gabriel makes perfect sense!
Click to expand...
So not knowing she was a temple virgin I wouldn’t be able to understand the passage?
And my walk with God would somehow suffer?
 
Mannyfit75 said:
This is what is done during Bible Studies. Sacred Tradition is there because Paul did told us to hold to traditions.

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. 2 Timothy 2:1-2

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Cor 11:1-2

Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book (John 20:30)

The Tradition of the Catholic or Sacred Tradition is part of the unwritten word. These traditions are preserved in the Catholic Church. They do not negate God, Together with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, they are by far the infallible Word of God.

I know you are unconvinced by my remarks, newbie. I doubt that you will convince me that Bible Alone is the sole authority. What I believe is summed up in the Nicene Creed.

You know what that is? You should, you were once a Catholic.

Well, it is late now and I must rest.

God bless you. 👍

Dominus Vobiscum.
Click to expand...
You HAVE to be joking?
Aren’t you going to explain about onesiphorus through your tradition so you could enlighten me???
What does tradition say in this instance.
Come on man! don’t tell me you just wasted my time!
Please, let there be a point to this innane question.
 
newbie1234 said:
You HAVE to be joking?
Aren’t you going to explain about onesiphorus through your tradition so you could enlighten me???
What does tradition say in this instance.
Come on man! don’t tell me you just wasted my time!
Please, let there be a point to this innane question.
Click to expand...
what is it that you want to know?
 
newbie1234 said:
So not knowing she was a temple virgin I wouldn’t be able to understand the passage?
And my walk with God would somehow suffer?
Click to expand...
Well yes - if you want to know God you need to know him in the fullness of truth. Jesus IS the truth. He’s not just barely-adequate able-to-get-along understanding, he is TRUTH!!! And yes you need to understand all of Scripture. As John says, there’s a lot about Jesus life that ISN’T recorded in the Bible, so you’d better believe that what IS in there is ALL pretty darn significant and important.

And yes, that includes understanding Mary’s perpetual virginity 😛 which we Catholics understand and have made dogma 😃 It reflects her role in Christianity.

Point is if you’re wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity because you’ve ignored tradition then how can you be sure you’re right about ***anything ***else that’s contained in scripture? You’ve seen how many people and groups who call themselves Christian get it so seriously wrong on even the most basic fundamentals of the faith!

And yet their intentions and hearts are for the most part as pure and honest, and their faith as great, as yours.
 
water said:
what is it that you want to know?
Click to expand...
The question from manny begins at post 752
I gave answers in subsequent posts which you can read.
The whole point was that he was going to use tradition to answer this question. Especially if I got it wrong.
Well what is the answer from sacred tradition?
 
LilyM said:
Well yes - if you want to know God you need to know him in the fullness of truth. Jesus IS the truth. He’s not just barely-adequate able-to-get-along understanding, he is TRUTH!!! And yes you need to understand all of Scripture. As John says, there’s a lot about Jesus life that ISN’T recorded in the Bible, so you’d better believe that what IS in there is ALL pretty darn significant and important.

And yes, that includes understanding Mary’s perpetual virginity 😛 which we Catholics understand and have made dogma 😃 It reflects her role in Christianity.

Point is if you’re wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity because you’ve ignored tradition then how can you be sure you’re right about ***anything ***else that’s contained in scripture? You’ve seen how many people and groups who call themselves Christian get it so seriously wrong on even the most basic fundamentals of the faith!

And yet their intentions and hearts are for the most part as pure and honest, and their faith as great, as yours.
Click to expand...
We know Mary had children after Jesus. James was his brother. Let’s not get into an arguement I know the catholics don’t believe that. Just drop the perpetual virginity thing. I don’t want to address it . We differ.
 
newbie1234 said:
We know Mary had children after Jesus. James was his brother. Let’s not get into an arguement I know the catholics don’t believe that. Just drop the perpetual virginity thing. I don’t want to address it . We differ.
Click to expand...
Well differing means one of us doesn’t have the fullness of truth and is probably wrong about a whole bunch of Bible passages then. So it actually is vitally important to address it.

I would be willing to make a sizeable bet on the side of Apostolic Tradition (which even Luther believed in in regard to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) rather than your ‘knowledge’. Which is in fact based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word which in English is translated as ‘brother’.

I might ask, for example, why on earth Jesus gave Mary to John to look after for the rest of her life then, if James was Mary’s other son?
 
LilyM said:
Well differing means one of us doesn’t have the fullness of truth and is probably wrong about a whole bunch of Bible passages then. So it actually is vitally important to address it.

I would be willing to make a sizeable bet on the side of Apostolic Tradition (which even Luther believed in in regard to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) rather than your ‘knowledge’. Which is in fact based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word which in English is translated as ‘brother’.

I might ask, for example, why on earth Jesus gave Mary to John to look after for the rest of her life then, if James was Mary’s other son?
Click to expand...
Yep!

The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, all believed that Mary was the mother of God.

Mother of God

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them… Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, Vol. 7, page 572)

John Calvin: “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor…Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” (Calvini Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Vol. 45, page 348 and 335.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.” ( Zwingli Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. Comp., Vol.
6, I, page 639.)

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)
 
LilyM said:
Well differing means one of us doesn’t have the fullness of truth and is probably wrong about a whole bunch of Bible passages then. So it actually is vitally important to address it.

I would be willing to make a sizeable bet on the side of Apostolic Tradition (which even Luther believed in in regard to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) rather than your ‘knowledge’. Which is in fact based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word which in English is translated as ‘brother’.

I might ask, for example, why on earth Jesus gave Mary to John to look after for the rest of her life then, if James was Mary’s other son?
Click to expand...
Ok you got me there!
 
Church_Militant said:
Yep!

The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, all believed that Mary was the mother of God.

Mother of God

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them… Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, Vol. 7, page 572)

John Calvin: “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor…Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” (Calvini Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Vol. 45, page 348 and 335.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.” ( Zwingli Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. Comp., Vol.
6, I, page 639.)

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)
Click to expand...
ok you got me there!
 
newbie1234 said:
Ok you got me there!
Click to expand...
Tell you what, if you’re hoping to convince anyone, either here or anywhere else, as an evangelist then you’ve a heck of a long way to go.

You don’t appear to care very much about what the ineffably inspired Word of God ACTUALLY says let alone what it means - you just keep throwing out assertions of things that you ‘know’ (from where comes this wondrous ‘knowledge’, might I ask?) together with verses that don’t actually support them at all, in the hope that one of 'em will slip past us. Not likely!
 
newbie1234 said:
You HAVE to be joking?
Aren’t you going to explain about onesiphorus through your tradition so you could enlighten me???
What does tradition say in this instance.
Come on man! don’t tell me you just wasted my time!
Please, let there be a point to this innane question.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you my interpretation. Ok, newbie, I still got time to write to you so I will. Bear with me.

I believe Onesiphorus is dead that is why Paul is praying to God for his mercy. Though some might say that he isn’t dead. I do agree that Onesiphorus is a very devout Ephesian Christian, and perhaps one of Paul’s closest and dearest friend. When this epistle was written, it is likely that Onesiphorus was killed either by martyrdom.

Another Catholic have similiar interpretation but acknowledges the possibility that Onesiphorus is probably not dead.
Fr Frank Sofie:
In Paul’s second letter to Timothy we read in the introduction: “May the Lord grant that [Onesiphorus] will find mercy on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus. . . . Great Priscilla and Aquila and the household of Onesiphorus” (1Tm 1.18; 4.19). From the context, it seems certain that Onesiphorus is dead. (This is also the opinion of the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible; vol 3; p 603.) Paul praises his Christian friend, Onesiphorus, for his good work, but notice Paul does not presume immediate entrance into heaven for his dear friend. (Even if Onesiphorus is not dead, Paul still asks the Lord to be merciful.) Why be merciful, if all Christians go straight to heaven. We either have Paul praying for a dead person, or we have him interceding for him for mercy on his judgment day. In either case, purgatory alone can explain such thoughts of Paul. If there is no purgatory, then Christians go straight to heaven, which is the popular Protestant belief. If this is so, then Paul’s remarks are totally off base; it would be meaningless to ask mercy for Onesiphorus. Purgatory alone makes the passage coherent.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top