The Mass v. Protestant Services

[mepatri]

Quote:
The Odes of Solomon

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr

“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

And it goes on and on…with no hint that they thought Mary “sinless”. A virgin yes, but sinless? - No. Please break it down a little more and show me the “sinless” part.

 

[mepatri]

Tradition and what it is meant to accomplish is most certainly spoken of in the Bible.

Where?

But, just for argument’s sake, do you believe in the Trinity? That particular word is not in the Bible.

---

Little Mary

Yes, I believe in the Trinity, and yes, the word Trinity is not in the Bible. Come to think of it, the word “Bible” is not in the Bible. What’s your point?

 

[Mannyfit75]

And it goes on and on…with no hint that they thought Mary “sinless”. A virgin yes, but sinless? - No. Please break it down a little more and show me the “sinless” part.

I already responded to this

forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2040550&postcount=110

Read that. Must I repeat myself. You seek the Catholic Understanding, I gave you a Catholic Answer. I expect you to understand it but not believe it.

I believe it because I believe Mary is the type of Ark since she became a living tabernacle of the Word of God, Jesus when she said, “Be it Done Unto Me According to Your Word”

 

[mepatri]

All of have sin does not necessary all have sinned. Does it mean that Elijah who was assumed into heaven body and soul sinful? In heaven nothing impure can enter it. How about infants, who don’t know have committed sin in them? To grasp the Immaculate Conception of Mary, you must look in the Scripture.

You should look at Scripture yourself. Your statement above betrays your lack of knowledge of God’s word. You may understand the Catholic faith, but you don’t seem to know what God has to say about Mary’s sinful state, and Elijah’s sinful state, and the sinful state of you and I.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

This would include Mary - from conception onward. There’s a big difference between God bestowing grace on someone to cover their sin, and someone being “sinless”. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. Being “sinless” does not require grace, since that person has no sin for grace to cover. Do you see your lack of logic? The very fact that Mary required grace, and that she was “full of grace”, betrays her sinful state.

Mary did called God her savior because it was through God’s power that she was preserved from the stains of original sins and have never commited any actual sin. Mary also said, "My soul magnify my Lord’s."The Greek Kecharitomene means "the one who have been saved."In the Latin Vulgate, it is worded gratia plenta.

I appreciate your analysis of the Greek text. Even so, there is nothing in your example that speaks to Mary being sinless. You’re reading something into the text that is simply not there.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

It sounds like the difference between you and I is that you believe that you need the Pople to first intrepret for you, and then tell you what it says (Scripture), where as I believe that God wrote Scripture for all of us, not just the Pope, and that we all have the ability to discern truth. If you don’t - then how would you protect yourself against possible attacks from the Church?

mepatri, you’ve hit the nail on the head with this comment. Unfortunately I’m not certain that you realize the ramifications of your comment. If “we all have the ability to discern truth,” then why are there so many diverging viewpoints? If we were discussing whether, say, Jesus wore a white robe or a purple robe, I could understand diverging opinions, it is not an essential matter. But Catholics disagree with Protestants about essential matters, just as within Protestantism, Calvinists often disagree with Arminians, Episcopals often disagree with Pentecostals, the Church of Christ disagrees with just about everyone, etc. And again, they disagree about ESSENTIAL matters. The only way that this can happen under your viewpoint is if (1) 100% of multiple entire denominations lack sufficient sincerity to discern the truth of God such that they could be said to be ignoring the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, (2) even the Holy Spirit isn’t powerful enough to give a single sincere member of these denominations the discernment they need, or (3) the Holy Spirit’s role is not and never was to give 100% of the Christian population direct, specific, and individually-tailored discernment of the truth. Is there some other possibility I’ve overlooked? Or is it that (3) is the only viable option?

An example: If you take two individuals, say, Luther and Zwingli, and you note that they probably had roughly equal intellectual gifts, equal fervor, equal love for God, equal desire to discern the truth of God’s Word, basicallly equal everything. Yet on the issue of the Eucharist, they virtually came to fisticuffs! The anecdotes I’ve heard, FWIW, were that Luther spent the entire Marburg Colloquy pointing tempermentally at Jesus’s words and repeating emphatically “This IS my body!” Zwingli, with equal temperament, maintained that he just couldn’t see the Lord’s Supper as anything other than a memorial meal. My question to you is this: How, precisely, did the Holy Spirit enable both Luther AND Zwingli to understand the truth? In an objective sense, one of them was absolutely no-bones-about-it dead wrong, the other one was at least partially correct. Since the Holy Spirit gave each of them the ability to see the truth, and each sought that truth with all their heart and desires, how precisely did that work in that instance?

By the way, Catholics do believe that they can have a self-interpretation, and that it may indeed be led/enabled by the Holy Spirit. But if their self-interpretation conflicts with an infallible pronouncement, then and only then do Catholics pull back from their interpretation. This is as it should be, since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead “you” [speaking to the apostles, the pillars of the Church] into all truth. The Church has the Holy Spirit which, despite the evil acts of some members of the clergy all the way up to the Pope, will step in as necessary to accomplish the singular objective of preventing the Church from teaching error.

 

[jmcrae]

If you can show this to be objectively true, either by way of verifiable historical record, or by Scripture, I’d love to see it. I think the only evidence you have is that it’s claimed by the Catholic Church to be true - hence the circular argument you can’t get past. Please, really - if you have evidence of this (not just becasue the Pope says so), I’d love to see it.

Begin with the writings of St. Justin Martyr, which you will find in The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens, and follow the footnotes from there to several other historical documents that support St. Justin’s claims.

There are also many other interesting historical documents in The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens, which will lead you to understand a great deal more about how Christ gave the Sacraments to the Apostles, and how they passed on the wholeTradition of the faith to their successors - including the Mass of the Early Church, which St. Justin describes in quite a lot of detail.

In the early days, people went to the Synagogue to hear the Liturgy of the Word on Saturdays, and then on the following Sunday, they would gather for the Eucharist in a convenient place - quite often, someone’s home.

By the time of St. Justin, the two parts of the Mass had come together, since after 90 AD, Christians were no longer welcome at the Synagogue. So, they began to do the Liturgy of the Word right before the Liturgy of the Eucharist. But, obviously, they didn’t have a Bible yet, so, as St. Justin describes, they would read from the “scrolls of Moses,” and then from the “memoirs of the Apostles” before beginning the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which hasn’t changed since at least his time - we are talking here about the mid 100s AD.

 

[jmcrae]

And it goes on and on…with no hint that they thought Mary “sinless”. A virgin yes, but sinless? - No. Please break it down a little more and show me the “sinless” part.

All of these are showing Mary to be “the second Eve.”

Ask yourself, “Why Eve?”

After all, there were many exemplary Old Testament women who foreshadowed the deeds and virtues of Mary.

If Mary was born into Original Sin, then she was the second Sarah (who, though in sin, bore the child of the promise); not the second Eve (who was born without sin).

Yet, St. Irenaeus tells us, “Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Which means that both Mary and Eve started off on equal footing. (Eve was without sin at the beginning; this we know for a fact, because sin did not enter the world until Eve opened the way for it to do so, which was after she was born. In order for Mary to be equal with Eve at the time before this happened, she, too, has to be without sin - otherwise, they are not equal.)

 

[mepatri]

mepatri, you’ve hit the nail on the head with this comment. Unfortunately I’m not certain that you realize the ramifications of your comment. If “we all have the ability to discern truth,” then why are there so many diverging viewpoints?

Just because we all have the ability (through the Holy Spirt) to decern truth, doesn’t mean we can’t be fooled and deceived. The only dependable source of truth is the Scriptures. We know this because they have demonstrated it to be so.

Catholics disagree with Protestants about essential matters, just as within Protestantism, Calvinists often disagree with Arminians, Episcopals often disagree with Pentecostals, the Church of Christ disagrees with just about everyone, etc. And again, they disagree about ESSENTIAL matters.

True - after all, people disagreed with Jesus, but that didn’t change the truth of what he was saying. You speak as if just because the truth is put in front of your face, you’ll recognize it. This is not the case. After all, the Jews had the truth crucified - remember? However, God tells us that if we seek Him with all our heart, mind, and soul, we will find him. Do you seek Him? How do you know He is not speaking to you now, but you are resisting Him? After all, you did take the time to argue these points - you must be feeling a stirring in your heart. If you choose to turn away - it’s your choice; but God has placed the truth in front of you.

An example: If you take two individuals, say, Luther and Zwingli, and you note that they probably had roughly equal intellectual gifts, equal fervor, equal love for God, equal desire to discern the truth of God’s Word, basicallly equal everything. Yet on the issue of the Eucharist, they virtually came to fisticuffs!

True; but where you miss the point is that the truth is not always decerned with the intellect. Truth is just as often seen by the heart. There are other reasons why a person might not see the truth. Take what they call a “cradle Catholic”; a person that has been raised in the Catholic faith from birth. That person often develops a nearly unshakeable faith in the Catholic Church. It is nearly impossible to get that person to see the truth of the Scriptures over their Catholic worldview. Another example would be the Jews of Jesus’ day. Many of them would not come to the truth claims of Jesus, in favor of their worldview, even though they were “learned men”, and well schooled in the scriptures - intellectuals if you will. This is why I stress Scripture, and it’s often elegant and simple way of communicating truth. When it says “there is no one good” - it means “there is no one good” - not even Mary. When it rebukes for favoring tradition over the word of God, it does so for a very good reason.

By the way, Catholics do believe that they can have a self-interpretation, and that it may indeed be led/enabled by the Holy Spirit. But if their self-interpretation conflicts with an infallible pronouncement, then and only then do Catholics pull back from their interpretation. This is as it should be, since Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead “you” [speaking to the apostles, the pillars of the Church] into all truth.

Are you so sure Jesus was speaking only to the apostles when He told them of the Holy Spirit? Why would He withold the Holy Spirit from anyone but the apostles and their successors? It is clear from Scripture that the Holy Spirit guides us all into truth - your assumption that He was speaking only to the apostles is just that - an asumption.

The Church has the Holy Spirit which, despite the evil acts of some members of the clergy all the way up to the Pope, will step in as necessary to accomplish the singular objective of preventing the Church from teaching error.

The Church is comprised of its members. As such, when its members go astray - they must be removed (James). In the case of the Catholic Church, the reprehensible acts of a few are cause for great concern. However, it is not so much those actions that are troubling (since Jesus stated that tares would grow amonst the wheat), but the response of the Church hierarchy that is of most importance. We could go into details about how the Catholic Church policed itself by committee, sheltered the Bishops, and worked hard to surpress those that were hurt for years to protect itself, but I think you know all that. The fact that the church laity must “pull back from their interpretation” as you put it in these matters is sad. I feel for those that will one day appear before God and give an accounting as to why they “pulled back” when they saw evil in their ranks - and continued to turn their spirtual lives over to others.

Sorry if I’m offending you here - but sometimes there’s no other way to say something, than to come right out and say it. I wouldn’t be doing you any favors by pulling punches.

 

[mepatri]

Begin with the writings of St. Justin Martyr, which you will find in The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens, and follow the footnotes from there to several other historical documents that support St. Justin’s claims.

There are also many other interesting historical documents in The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens, which will lead you to understand a great deal more about how Christ gave the Sacraments to the Apostles, and how they passed on the wholeTradition of the faith to their successors - including the Mass of the Early Church, which St. Justin describes in quite a lot of detail.

In the early days, people went to the Synagogue to hear the Liturgy of the Word on Saturdays, and then on the following Sunday, they would gather for the Eucharist in a convenient place - quite often, someone’s home.

The opinions of the early church fathers of of little import, when it is your personal salvation that is at stake. The Bible points this out here:

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Phil. 2

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7

Matthew seems to be saying that we’d better watch out. Just because we think we have a relationship with God, doesn’t mean we do. You and I both have to be careful here.

I would say begin with the writings of God in the Bible. The writings of the early church fathers are interesting, but how much more so are the Scriptures themselves.

 

[Mannyfit75]

mepatri:

You should look at Scripture yourself. Your statement above betrays your lack of knowledge of God’s word. You may understand the Catholic faith, but you don’t seem to know what God has to say about Mary’s sinful state, and Elijah’s sinful state, and the sinful state of you and I.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

This would include Mary - from conception onward. There’s a big difference between God bestowing grace on someone to cover their sin, and someone being “sinless”. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. Being “sinless” does not require grace, since that person has no sin for grace to cover. Do you see your lack of logic? The very fact that Mary required grace, and that she was “full of grace”, betrays her sinful state.

I do know a lot about God’s word. How can you claim that I don’t know God, when I told you that I believe Jesus founded a Church and built it Upon Peter, and the Apostles, and the Apostles handed it down to their sucessors. I don’t think it is wise of you to judge me on my knowledge of God.

No I see your lack of logic or try to understand the Catholic interpretation concerning these doctrines is to no avail. You are a Protestant and in the Protestant doctrine, all doctrine to be consider true must be contained in the Bible.

I am a cradle Catholic. I was not well catechized during my teen years and didn’t really take an active role in my faith. I have a reversion to my faith over a year ago, I was ask about my faith about why Catholics believe that they do. I done my research. I read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and conversion stories.

I also look at the two pillars of Protestantism of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidi to see if those beliefs are taught by the Apostle and their successors. After reviewing all the historical Christian Church I find its doctrine to be Catholic not Protestant. Protestant did not came about until 1517 by Martin Luther, and other Reformers.

What convinced me about Catholicism is that three Early Church Fathers, St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Clement of Rome were taught by the Apostles.

St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius were disciples of St. John, and St. Ignatius was ordained bishop by Peter. St. Clement of Rome who personally knew St. Peter and was ordained by St. Peter. These men and others like them believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, which the Catholic Church confesses.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Catholic Church affirms the Immaculate Conception based on the writings of the ECF. They did not made this up. Yes, it was not until 1854 that the Church official declared it infallible.

Here are some quotes of the ECF.

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

 

[Eileen_T]

Getting back to the Mass… Actually I find it interesting that Mepatri has de-railed this Thread. Is it because he finds the Scriptural evidence supports the Mass and is afraid to admit it?

For those who have forgotten what this thread is supposed to be about…

The Mass is so Biblical in its origins. Almost every part of the liturgical worship has its roots in Sacred Scripture. soladeiverbum.com/Mass.pdf

How do Protestant services compare biblically?

The opinions of the early church fathers of of little import, when it is your personal salvation that is at stake. The Bible points this out here:

Matthew seems to be saying that we’d better watch out. Just because we think we have a relationship with God, doesn’t mean we do. You and I both have to be careful here.

I would say begin with the writings of God in the Bible. The writings of the early church fathers are interesting, but how much more so are the Scriptures themselves.

The writings of the Early Church Fathers are of more importance than you are willing to give them credit for. They CONFIRM Scripture.

John 6:

So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.* For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. ***He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.

Then, Paul wrote to the Corinthians

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (10:14-17)

And again in Chapter 11: *"…For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.* Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (vv. 23-31).

The ECF confirm the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I appreciate your analysis of the Greek text. Even so, there is nothing in your example that speaks to Mary being sinless. You’re reading something into the text that is simply not there.

I also gave you the Latin Vulgate which is the Official Western Church Bible which used the word “gratia plena” which means “full of grace”

Second, if you were going to declare that Mary actually committed sin, where is that in the Bible?We find that Mary in the Bible had not committed any sin period. Since in the Bible, we see in Luke that Mary accepted God’s Will to be the Mother of the Messiah, and that she kept God’s Word, and even told the servants at Cana “Do whatever he tells you” when they had no more wine.

Through and through, we see Mary being obedient to God. Even Jesus said, "Blessed is she who hears the word of God and keeps it.”

Mary is preserved by sin not by her own power but God’s grace. She herself could not save herself that is why she called God, “My Savior.”

Mary had to be sinless because she is to become the Mother of God, Jesus, who is Both God and Man. In the OT, when Moses encounter God, God told him, “remove your scandal” because the ground he is on is Holy.

Second, the Ark of the Covenant which contains the Word of God, the tablets of the Commandments, Aaron’s Rod, is made of wood and painted in pure gold. No one can approached the Ark but High priests.

The Jews revere the Ark. Since Mary is the type of Ark, and that she was to carry Word of God made flesh in her womb, she too must Be Holy and Pure.

If she was sinful, that would mean Satan has conquer the woman prophecized in Genesis 3:15 who’s seed will crush the serpent’s seed. That would be wrong since the woman’s seed is prophecized to crush the head of the serpent. This seed is Jesus.

There is a fallacy in claiming that Mary is sinful. It would mean that Satan has power over Mary. I don’t think God would allow His Son to be conceived from a disobedient woman.

I believe Mary is Immaculate because of Jesus Christ. If Jesus was just a mere Man, perhaps your logic that Mary is sinful would make sense.

But we both acknowledge that Jesus is Both God and Man therefore God had to preserved Mary. I don’t buy in your fallible doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I don’t believe in it. I respect you belief but I don’t believe your fallible doctrines.

I believe in the Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church. The Bride of Christ has taught this for over 2,000 yrs.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

Just because we all have the ability (through the Holy Spirt) to decern truth, doesn’t mean we can’t be fooled and deceived. The only dependable source of truth is the Scriptures. We know this because they have demonstrated it to be so.

.

So how do we avoid being fooled and deceived? I would presume that you’d say that we must ask the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, correct? I presume that you believe that you know the truth precisely because you have asked the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth and you confidently believe that He has done just that. Again, am I correct? If so, then to conclude that this has a 100% success rate starts with the presumption that Christians who disagree with you are distinct because they have NEVER endeavored with all of their might to put aside their preconceptions and earnestly sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If we can earnestly and sincerely ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and yet not receive it, then how can you have any confidence that you in particular were actually led by the Holy Spirit to an accurate understanding of the truth, and that you have not been fooled or deceived?

God tells us that if we seek Him with all our heart, mind, and soul, we will find him.

.

This seems to suggest that you do, in fact, believe that all we must do is earnestly seek Him and His truth, and we will receive it. In which case we must return to the question above: What about people who have done precisely that but disagree with you on the very essentials of Christianity? How can you be certain that they’re not correct and that you are?

True; but where you miss the point is that the truth is not always decerned with the intellect. Truth is just as often seen by the heart. There are other reasons why a person might not see the truth. Take what they call a “cradle Catholic”; a person that has been raised in the Catholic faith from birth. That person often develops a nearly unshakeable faith in the Catholic Church. It is nearly impossible to get that person to see the truth of the Scriptures over their Catholic worldview. Another example would be the Jews of Jesus’ day. Many of them would not come to the truth claims of Jesus, in favor of their worldview, even though they were “learned men”, and well schooled in the scriptures - intellectuals if you will. This is why I stress Scripture, and it’s often elegant and simple way of communicating truth. When it says “there is no one good” - it means “there is no one good” - not even Mary. When it rebukes for favoring tradition over the word of God, it does so for a very good reason.

.

Thank goodness you are a Protestant, since Protestants don’t have a worldview that could influence their view of Scriptures. They rely on the “often elegant and simple way of communicating truth.” My favorite example of this simple way of communicating truth is the Protestant defense of the Eucharist. When Jesus says “this is my body” - it means “this is my body,” and when Jesus says “my flesh is real food” - it means “my flesh is real food.” Oh wait, Protestants DO have a worldview and Protestants DO try to dance around Jesus’s painfully clear statements.

Are you so sure Jesus was speaking only to the apostles when He told them of the Holy Spirit? Why would He withold the Holy Spirit from anyone but the apostles and their successors? It is clear from Scripture that the Holy Spirit guides us all into truth - your assumption that He was speaking only to the apostles is just that - an asumption.

.

It may be an assumption, but it is the only assumption textually permitted. Jesus only speaks of the Holy Spirit speaking to “you” when addressing his disciples before his betrayal. He says that the Spirit would lead them into all truth. He wasn’t speaking to an assembled throng of spectators, but his disciples alone. Beyond this collection of verses in the 14th - 16th chapters of John, I don’t think that there is a single solitary verse anywhere in the NT where Jesus or an apostle promises that the Holy Spirit will lead a person into all (or indeed, any) truth. If I am incorrect, please show me this verse.

 

[Montgomeryatty]

The Church is comprised of its members. As such, when its members go astray - they must be removed (James). In the case of the Catholic Church, the reprehensible acts of a few are cause for great concern. However, it is not so much those actions that are troubling (since Jesus stated that tares would grow amonst the wheat), but the response of the Church hierarchy that is of most importance. We could go into details about how the Catholic Church policed itself by committee, sheltered the Bishops, and worked hard to surpress those that were hurt for years to protect itself, but I think you know all that. The fact that the church laity must “pull back from their interpretation” as you put it in these matters is sad.

This is your most incomprehensible statement yet. Do you have the foggiest notion what the Church teaches? Strike that, clearly you do not. The Church DOES NOT TEACH that its priests should/may commit reprehensible acts. Period. Does the Church claim that its authority/divine origin somehow enables its members, or even its upper eschelon of clergy, to completely avoid sin? For someone who was pushing “all have sinned” in the last post, this would be a rather ironic position. To explain what has likely been explained to you innumerable times now, including in my last post, the Church ONLY teaches that the Pope has the gift of infallibility because the Holy Spirit essentially acts as a roadblock to TEACHING doctrinal error. That is it. The Church scandal, blemish as it is to the Church’s image, does not in the least undermine the Church’s claim to have an infallible TEACHING authority. Get it right or don’t waste your time and everyone else’s.

 

[jmcrae]

Just because we all have the ability (through the Holy Spirt) to decern truth, doesn’t mean we can’t be fooled and deceived. The only dependable source of truth is the Scriptures. We know this because they have demonstrated it to be so.

Then what good is the Holy Spirit? Why did Jesus even bother to send Him to us at Pentecost?

Are you so sure Jesus was speaking only to the apostles when He told them of the Holy Spirit?

Well, that’s what it says in the text of the Scriptures. Why wouldn’t we believe what it says in the Scriptures?

Why would He withold the Holy Spirit from anyone but the apostles and their successors?

He doesn’t. He gives the Holy Spirit to all who follow His Church.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please stay on the topic of this thread which was:

The Catholic Mass has its foundation in scriptures. How do protestant services have their foundation in scriptures?

 

[hosemonkey]

Please stay on the topic of this thread which was:

The Catholic Mass has its foundation in scriptures. How do protestant services have their foundation in scriptures?

The Mass is totally scriptural, and is the most sublime form of worship that can be offered to God. Perhaps Protestants are not given the Grace to see this Truth. One can only pray that their eyes will be opened. I suppose those who are invincibly ignorant will not be held to account, but those who hear and understand and do not accept out of malice or prejudice are surely in deep trouble. The doctrine of Extra Ecclesius, Nulla Salus still remains in force.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Mass is totally scriptural, and is the most sublime form of worship that can be offered to God. Perhaps Protestants are not given the Grace to see this Truth. One can only pray that their eyes will be opened. I suppose those who are invincibly ignorant will not be held to account, but those who hear and understand and do not accept out of malice or prejudice are surely in deep trouble. The doctrine of Extra Ecclesius, Nulla Salus still remains in force.

It is. There is also a similarity between the Catholic Mass and the Book of Revelation.

 

[mepatri]

I do know a lot about God’s word. How can you claim that I don’t know God, when I told you that I believe Jesus founded a Church and built it Upon Peter, and the Apostles, and the Apostles handed it down to their sucessors. I don’t think it is wise of you to judge me on my knowledge of God.

With all due respect, this is the age old Catholic, Protestant debate. We won’t solve it here. I feel the truth is that the Church Christ founded is not exclusively Catholic. I’m not judging you. I have no idea what you’re relatioship is with God. I do know that it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have a healthy relationship with anyone, including God, if you don’t know their character. God’s character - the very essence of who He is, is revealed to us in His word. I think that is where He is found, and that is where we can develop a relationship with Him - not by rituals or made up dogmas, or having faith in faith. To me, that is Catholicism.