SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[mercygate]

No doubt the next step here in the general Protestant rebellion will be to panic and start calling themselves “Catholics” and declare it “hijacked”.

James

They already do. Lutherans will claim to be “the real catholics.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Welcome back Manny. I hope you have been able to settle down from the anger you were experiencing earlier.

My question is, don’t Catholics have to rely on private interpretation a lot?

Catholics do rely on private interpretation so as long it does not conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. A Catholic an interpret Scripture, and does encourage Catholics to read. But if you read Scripture in a vacuum, you can misinterpret the passage out of context.

Even if the Magisterium is infallible, the individual bishops and priests are not. If you listen to a priest or bishop do you not need to determine that what they are saying is in accordance with the Magisterium.

A Catholic would have to look for proper documentation concerning a teaching of the Catholic Church. There are many issues that the Church has already defined. So if a priests and bishops say something contrary to the Magisterium, he is in error. There have been bishops and priests who taught heresy and the Church condemned such belief as heresy.

There is always a defined issue that the Church has addressed such as abortion, contraception, etc.

That would involve you interpretting what the Magisterium has said and then interpretting what the priest has told you to determine whether it conforms to the Church’s teaching. For example, if you have a question of whether something is a mortal sin. The Church has set out criteria for what is a mortal sin. But you must interpret that to determine whether your act qualifies or not. You can ask a priest, who may be more knowledgeable, but it would still be his interpretation. I use this as an example because I see so much discussion here about whether such and such is a mortal sin or a sin at all.

The Church has already determine what constitutes a mortal sin. It requires three conditions, grave matter, full consent of the will, and full acknowledgement. If the sin lacks one or two, it is not mortal sin.

Carl, the main issue that it has be in agreement with the Magisterium definition. If what the priest interpretation is contrary, he is in error and has to be corrected.

 

[justasking4]

Here are a few of the early church believers:
The Early Church Fathers on The Assumption

Pseudo – Melito
(The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem
(Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian
(The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours
Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias
(Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600]).

Modestus of Jerusalem
(Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae [ante A.D. 634]).

Germanus of Constantinople
Sermon I [A.D. 683]).

John Damascene
Dormition of Mary [A.D. 697])

Gregorian Sacramentary
Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante A.D. 795]).

It’s all pre-protestant rebellion. Let me guess though - this is not going to be early enough right?

James

This is what a Roman Catholic writer says about the assumption of Mary:
Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’
This should cause any catholic to stop and think about this. It was unknown for centuries and no one knows exactly what happened.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3226216]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
You do realize that you are speculating that she was “assumed by the Power of her Divine Son”. There is no evidence in Scripture for this claim.
guanophore
No, JA4. To recieve the Sacred Traditions handed down to us through the Apostolic Succession is far from a speculation. It is receiving with reverence the Divine Deposit of faith.

Here is the historical basis for her assumption. Its from a couple catholic writers who writes the following:

Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it.
But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

These are the facts that all catholics have to deal with. There is no eyewitness accounts of her death or assumption.

---

 

[mercygate]

The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’
This should cause any catholic to stop and think about this. It was unknown for centuries and no one knows exactly what happened.

Again the date is highly suggestive. It corresponds to the date of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. I’m a broken record. These doctrines ALL rely on the definitions concerning the Person of Jesus Christ. They are developed out of deep consideration and contemplation in the heart of the Church. These teachings do not contradict Scripture but stand to affirm the Person of Jesus Christ and the Communion of Saints. All the Marian Dogmas stand in relation to Christ and the Creeds.

 

[jmcrae]

Mary’s grave is empty, and no one has ever even claimed to have her body or any of her relics. Contrast this to St. Peter (who apparently had several skulls and hundreds of fingers, if you count up all the relics) plus the fact that they also seem to be intact in his grave - who died three years before Mary was assumed into Heaven.

The only reason I can think that nobody would ever even pretend to have Mary’s relics is that they already knew that Mary’s body was not on earth.

 

[justasking4]

Mary’s grave is empty, and no one has ever even claimed to have her body or any of her relics. Contrast this to St. Peter (who apparently had several skulls and hundreds of fingers, if you count up all the relics) plus the fact that they also seem to be intact in his grave - who died three years before Mary was assumed into Heaven.

The only reason I can think that nobody would ever even pretend to have Mary’s relics is that they already knew that Mary’s body was not on earth.

Since no one knows what happened we can speculate all we want. It could also be that some decided to keep her grave site secret so that people would not make a shrine out it. Could also be that some would dig up her body thinking it had some special powers. Who knows?

What is troubling is that the catholic church has made a major dogma of belief for all catholics to believe in which it has a non existant Scriptural and historical basis. This has to be troubling to a lot of catholics.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;3228585]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’
This should cause any catholic to stop and think about this. It was unknown for centuries and no one knows exactly what happened.
mercygate
Again the date is highly suggestive. It corresponds to the date of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. I’m a broken record. These doctrines ALL rely on the definitions concerning the Person of Jesus Christ. They are developed out of deep consideration and contemplation in the heart of the Church. These teachings do not contradict Scripture but stand to affirm the Person of Jesus Christ and the Communion of Saints. All the Marian Dogmas stand in relation to Christ and the Creeds.

Are you saying that the historical evidence for her assumption is not important?

You can claim “All the Marian Dogmas stand in relation to Christ and the Creeds” but you cannot claim that are all grounded in the Scriptures or history either.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Why would there be?

Heaven was not open until after the resurrection!
where do you think all the saints went?

what about the souls that were reunited to their bodies?

Could you give us the Scripture that says heaven was opened?

 

[jmcrae]

Since no one knows what happened we can speculate all we want. It could also be that some decided to keep her grave site secret so that people would not make a shrine out it. Could also be that some would dig up her body thinking it had some special powers. Who knows?

If they did, why didn’t they advertise its location the same way they advertise the miraculous waters at Lourdes (which apparently were touched by Mary when she visited St. Bernadette, thus giving them miraculous healing powers.)

What is troubling is that the catholic church has made a major dogma of belief for all catholics to believe in which it has a non existant Scriptural and historical basis. This has to be troubling to a lot of catholics.

The knowledge of Mary’s assumption into Heaven has been passed down by word of mouth. It was believed early enough that the same people who pretended to have relics of St. Peter did not pretend to have relics of Mary. Her grave, which you can visit, is empty. Nobody anywhere is now or has ever in the past been trying to make money off her remains. (Unlike just about every other Saint in Christendom.)

 

[Old_Scholar]

Sorry OS, but you can’t deflect this persistence to private interpretation and self pedigree away from yourself by baiting anyone into an argument against a different institution.

Once again you elect to ignore that the scriptures themselves command an obedience to tradition. You only argue from a scriptural basis when it permits your own private interpretation.

You also ducked my question. What personal pedigree do you offer that can stand up against the Catholic Church’s Teaching, Traditions and Authority? Don’t you think that you hold yourself to a double standard by thinking you can teach the teachers (who came 2000 year before you) without you having any evidence of personal authority nor pedigree?

James

I’m not trying to bait you into an argument about another organization. I am simply showing you that there are other organizations just as yours who do not follow Scripture, but deviate from it when they please, just as the RCC does.

Are you really not aware that the early church fathers claimed that if tradition could not be substantiated by Scripture, it was a false tradition? Don’t you ever read anything except what you are told to read?

As far as my pedigree, I am merely a Lay Theologian who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God and anything that deviates from the Scriptures is false teaching. That’s what Christ told us!

 

[Teflon93]

There has been no “slight of hand” in my posts and I have news for you, you are too are fallible.

It still comes down to “By what authority?” though, doesn’t it?

I am fallible, and beyond being fallible, am in fact in error from time to time.

Fortunately, my fallibility and my errors do not damn myself or others as I have an infallible guide on matters of salvation in the Bride of Christ. Christ promised to abide with her, and Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not avail over her, even as he appointed Peter over her to feed his sheep. Christ was no liar.

As such, whenever I happen to make a statement or forward an argument which is contradicted by the Catholic Church, you can rest assured it is the Bride of Christ who is correct and I who am in error. Indeed, my brothers and sisters don’t hesitate to let me know when this is the case, that I may be corrected as Christ bid them do.

The tragedy of Protestantism is that our Protestant brothers and sisters have no such comfort. They have eschewed the Bride of Christ and the authority of Christ through her. None of the replacements for her prove sufficient. Theology by subtraction never satisfies.

The Catholic does not need to be infallible because the Church is. We simply need to be obedient.

The Protestant must be infallible or be hellbound. That is the price of the “liberty” brought by the “Reformers”.

There is a parallel to this in comparing the pagan to the monotheist. The pagan thinks he is free because he is not bound to worship any god. He is in fact enslaved to all gods, for he dare not anger any. The monotheist is truly free, having but one god and therefore only one master to please.

 

[Teflon93]

As far as my pedigree, I am merely a Lay Theologian who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God and anything that deviates from the Scriptures is false teaching. That’s what Christ told us!

Which Scriptures was Christ referring to?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I’m not trying to bait you into an argument about another organization. I am simply showing you that there are other organizations just as yours who do not follow Scripture, but deviate from it when they please, just as the RCC does.

Are you claiming that the Catholic Church doesn’t follow the Scripture? What a completely false misconception you have.

Are you really not aware that the early church fathers claimed that if tradition could not be substantiated by Scripture, it was a false tradition? Don’t you ever read anything except what you are told to read?

Jesus established One Church with authority. He didn’t established a Church based on Bible Alone. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura did not exist in the Early Church.

 

[geraldffff]

I am new here and while I am Catholic, I am not as eloquent as most of the members here are. Thank you all for your sharing and patience.

I almost lost my faith when I was in college and was therefore “wanting to find myself.” I could say that for some reason, I almost lost my faith in the Catholic Church and even in God, Himself.

But I found out that the more doubts I tried to resolve, the more questions I wanted answered, the more they brought me back to the Church.

This discussion is one fine example of it. In my continuing search for answers, I have again found a lot here.

And I am sorry to disagree with OS. Many of your questions which in fact I shared with you have actually been answered in this thread - I wonder how many more are in other threads and fora are there just waiting for us to discover.

Based on your posts, however, and I may be wrong - I do not think you would ever find the answers you are looking for from our brothers here because you already have your own.

God bless us all.

Welcome kapitangkiko it is great to see another true seeker. Saying the Rosary daily is a great way to keep oneself focused on Scripture, tradition and Jesus’s mothers continuing part in the story of our salvation.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Welcome back Manny. I hope you have been able to settle down from the anger you were experiencing earlier.

My question is, don’t Catholics have to rely on private interpretaion a lot? Even if the Magisterium is infallible, the individual bishops and priests are not. If you listen to a priest or bishop do you not need to determine that what they are saying is in accordance with the Magisterium. That would involve you interpretting what the Magisterium has said and then interpretting what the priest has told you to determine whether it conforms to the Church’s teaching. For example, if you have a question of whether something is a mortal sin. The Church has set out criteria for what is a mortal sin. But you must interpret that to determine whether your act qualifies or not. You can ask a priest, who may be more knowledgeable, but it would still be his interpretation. I use this as an example because I see so much discussion here about whether such and such is a mortal sin or a sin at all.

All our priests and clergy are trained through the same one authority using the same approved doctrine and cannon. There is always the risk of somone getting by and forgetting some aspect of the teaching or not stepping up to the new and deeper insights that come out from time to time. But trust me - the laity would jump all over a priest who stared saying something that did not sound like cannon. Such would usually talk to the priest in private about it or call the bishop or another parish priest to get a 2nd opinion. That would initiate corrective action or clarification of the concern. It’s more often the case that the laity are out of sync with official teaching though.

By the way, if somone is asking if something is a mortal sin - chances are it is or that its at least a venial sin. If their own conscience is bothering them that much - we pretty much know that God is trying to tell them something. But in confession we don’t say “here are my mortal sins and here are my venial sins”. We confess all our sins together mortal and venial and usually know which are grave by our catechism training (required for confirmation). This is why its important to confess all sins and rely on God working through His priests to loose these sins. God forgives both unconditionally if one is sincere in asking for forgiveness and really means to repent and change their behavior.

So we never have to rely on private interpretation since we are infused with a lot of education as part of our traditional Catholic upbringing and formal training.

James

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m not trying to bait you into an argument about another organization. I am simply showing you that there are other organizations just as yours who do not follow Scripture, but deviate from it when they please, just as the RCC does.

This is wrong. The Catholic Church does not depart from scripture as you have alleged. There are scriptural principles behind every aspect of the Catholic doctrine and frankly I think it is n-Cs like yourself that deviate from the Word of God. Beginning with the grossly unscriptural fundamental error of Sola Scriptura and building a doctrinal house of cards that is scattered by every new wind of doctrine that some dude with a Bible in a room can come up with. Benny Hinn and the whole name it and claim it "prosperity gospel " wouldn’t even exist if not for SS.

Moreover, it is my studied opinion that n-cs do in fact preach a different and deficient gospel so far as salvation is concerned. I outline that in my blog article (based upon posts here at CAF) called Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

Are you really not aware that the early church fathers claimed that if tradition could not be substantiated by Scripture, it was a false tradition? Don’t you ever read anything except what you are told to read?

Cite sources please. Anything can be asserted out of context.

But let’s turn your own question back on you. With regard to communion (The Eucharist). “Are you really not aware that the early church fathers claimed that” the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, just as St. Paul teaches in 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:23-30? “Don’t you ever read anything except what you are told to read?”

As far as my pedigree, I am merely a Lay Theologian who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God and anything that deviates from the Scriptures is false teaching. That’s what Christ told us!

This is a complete dodge. You know full well that the man was asking what church you attend. Why not be honest and more forthcoming than this.? What do you have to hide?

“Lay theologian”? What makes you a theologian? Do you have degrees or certification, or are you actually just a self proclaimed “theologian” because you feel you have studied enough.

anything that deviates from the Scriptures is false teaching. That’s what Christ told us!

Really? Cite chapter and verse please where Our Lord specifically teaches that. I’ll be interested to see your response.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Since no one knows what happened we can speculate all we want. It could also be that some decided to keep her grave site secret so that people would not make a shrine out it. Could also be that some would dig up her body thinking it had some special powers. Who knows?

What is troubling is that the catholic church has made a major dogma of belief for all catholics to believe in which it has a non existant Scriptural and historical basis. This has to be troubling to a lot of catholics.

Truthfully, in all my years I have not met ONE single Catholic that is concerned in the least about the assumption of Mary being a taught truth. We just don’t need physical evidence since it all fits perfectly with what we know to be true.

James

 

[Teflon93]

We also have recourse to correcting wayward Catholic priests and bishops.

I will never forget the footage of JPII stepping off a plane in Nicaragua and taking a Sandinista bishop to task right there on the red carpet for disobeying the Church.

You simply won’t see that in Protestantism.

Who will take Creflo Dollar or Kenneth Copeland or Joel Osteen to task for their “prosperity gospel” Ponzi schemes? I don’t see Billy Graham or Jefferts-Schori or anybody marching over to tell them to knock it off.

So if this Baptist pastor says the Bible forbids dancing and this Pentecostal pastor says Jesus turned water into grape juice instead of wine and this Word of Faither says God distributes blessings in direct proportion to the money you give him, well, who’s to say they’re wrong?

Relativism and Protestantism march hand-in-hand.

 

[Old_Scholar]

The Council of Trent contradicted the usual Roman Catholic practice of the early church. The early church held to Sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from the Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.

Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, Barnabas and others taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. ** In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture.** Their writings continually show and quote the spirit of the Old and the New Testament. Justin Martyr and Athenagoras also reflected this same belief in their writings. There is no appeal in any of the writings to the authority of tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

Irenaeus and Tertullian give us the first concept of Apostolic Tradition, which means the word, **although first given orally, was then written down so that it could be proven with the written Scriptures. ** They both gave the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. Their writings show that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.

Tradition was simply the teaching of Scripture. Irenaeus stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures since that day had become the pillar and ground of the Chursh’s faith. This is his exact statement:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." Vol 1 Irenaeus “against Heresies” 3.1.1

Tertullian said that Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content.

Irenaeus said that the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought. When Irenaeus wanted to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turned to Scripture, because there the teaching of the apostles is objectively assessable. There can be no proof without Scripture.

It was taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis.

Cyril of Jerusalem also held to Sola Scriptura.

He stated in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching that could not be validated from Scripture, it was to be rejected.

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17

There were many other early church fathers who believed as these I have listed. It was the common practice of the church in those days. It was much later when the church started drifting away from Scripture.

This was the early Catholic Church. It was and still is the same Church I belong to. The Reformers tried to get it back on track in the 15th and 16th century but the Roman influence was so great, it ended up with a great split. There are certainly remnants of the original church out there however, still believing the truth and teaching the Scriptures, nothing more.