S
This question is for Protestants only. What do you have against Mary?
- Status
S
stewstew03
Guest
New protestant doctrine that suddenly appeared in the 16th century:
- The bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth.
- We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. (say wha’?)
- Baptism is merely symbolic (but a very important, albeit empty, symbol).
- Luther’s view of communion.
- Calvin’s view of communion.
- Zwingli’s view of communion.
- Believer’s baptism (infants need not apply).
- etc…
S
stewstew03
Guest
Since you practice “true” Christianity from the apostolic era, do your scriptures include the Gnostic Gospels, the Revelation of Peter, the Letters of Clement, or the Shepherd of Hermes? Bible-believing Christians read those scriptures up until the 4th/5th century.
S
stewstew03
Guest
You do realize that the consensus in the Church is that Mary did die (though formally her death is referred to as “the completion of her earthly life”).
The link you posted does not support your claim that “several of the Church Fathers gave homilies” on Mary’s death, but instead directs us to un-inspired texts akin to the Gnostic gospels. You’re not seriously claiming that the Palm narratives are authoritative, are you?
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
You are positing that the early “Christian Church” had these doctrines but then it became Catholic and they were supposedly lost. That is the great apostasy argument and it is a loser, and this is why.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
The girl in Mark 5:41 was dead for for less than one day. Does that mean she one-upped God Himself? Come on.
How can it be James’s sentence if he is just repeating what Peter said and everyone fell silent after Peter spoke?
That no one believed Protestant doctrines for 1500 years shows how inconsequential they are. Double standard.
That is called insulting the finished work of Christ. This is the same argument Protestants make against the Catholic Church regarding the Mass. But once again they apply a different standard.
P
PRmerger
Guest
No one is proposing that Christ’s divinity is derived from Mary, mpartyka.
The question is which belief enhances and highlights Christ’s divinity: the belief that Jesus’ mom was pure and holy, a fitting vessel for The Divine One, or the belief that Jesus’ mom was a depraved creature?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I would say all these things at the very least, existed in the early centuries as well, regardless of what heretic taught it. For instance, Irenaus said that the Eucharist, even after the prayer, consists of both earthly and heavenly substances. But Catholics believe it is only heavenly. And no, he was not just speaking about “appearances”. Tertullian beleived that only adults should be baptized. And this is a man who was catechized and actually speaks just like Hippolytus’s instructions for the baptized.
Believers baptism was the practice of the NT times as well as in the first 200 hundred years of the church. The texts of the NT all show baptisms of believing adults and children.
Are you saying there was no superstition in the Catholic Church throughout the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th century?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Protestants do not believe that sola scriptura is a belief handed down from the apostles.
They believe it is a circumstantial doctrine. In other words, the “Catholic” Church has gone so far into sin and secular power, what do we use to determine doctrine? Well, we cannot use apostolic succession because there have been way to many terminations of the other 11 lines and all we can really trace back is the succession of the bishops of Rome.
But hey, look at our Pope, he’s greedy and immoral. The Christians who wanted to be pure from the evil broke away. They may have been wrong about this. But the activity that was going on in the church was repugnant to Christ, and I believe that it is possible that God placed a judgement upon Rome until she repents.
This is why you do not read many amazing stories of saints and their effort to bring the mission of Christ to the world from many Catholics from the reformation period onward. Mother Teresa was a universalist, she was very outspoken about this and she was no help the people of calcutta if she actually told people that they were ok serving their gods.
They believe it is a circumstantial doctrine. In other words, the “Catholic” Church has gone so far into sin and secular power, what do we use to determine doctrine? Well, we cannot use apostolic succession because there have been way to many terminations of the other 11 lines and all we can really trace back is the succession of the bishops of Rome.
But hey, look at our Pope, he’s greedy and immoral. The Christians who wanted to be pure from the evil broke away. They may have been wrong about this. But the activity that was going on in the church was repugnant to Christ, and I believe that it is possible that God placed a judgement upon Rome until she repents.
This is why you do not read many amazing stories of saints and their effort to bring the mission of Christ to the world from many Catholics from the reformation period onward. Mother Teresa was a universalist, she was very outspoken about this and she was no help the people of calcutta if she actually told people that they were ok serving their gods.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
And there has to be some room for a teaching on justification by faith apart from works, for Paul teaches this in Romans 4. I think it is very clear that “works of the law” do not only refer to outward ceremonial Jewish works, and this is also admitted by many catholic apologists. And then they have to re-define faith to mean “faithful works” in order to maintain that Paul does not teach justification by faith alone.
And really this is just a straw man. Because the protestants actually taught more on the necessity of holiness and perseverance than did any of the Catholics. The theology of the puritans was an outflow of the doctrine of salvation posed in Calvin’s theology. They hard pressed the need for holiness in order to enter into heaven. They saw themselves as doing this out of a reaction to the easy-believism of the Catholic Church (just go through the sacraments and look good).
Therefore, if you read through the Fathers and notice they speak about the necessity of good works for eternal life, then you need to read the protestant theology of the puritans and you will see nothing different.
And really this is just a straw man. Because the protestants actually taught more on the necessity of holiness and perseverance than did any of the Catholics. The theology of the puritans was an outflow of the doctrine of salvation posed in Calvin’s theology. They hard pressed the need for holiness in order to enter into heaven. They saw themselves as doing this out of a reaction to the easy-believism of the Catholic Church (just go through the sacraments and look good).
Therefore, if you read through the Fathers and notice they speak about the necessity of good works for eternal life, then you need to read the protestant theology of the puritans and you will see nothing different.
S
stewstew03
Guest
It seems anyone who believes in the notion of “total depravity” (and science) would come to the conclusion that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Here’s the logic:
]God creates mothers with a natural inclination to love and nurture their children.
*]The doctrine of total depravity says that we are born into this world morally corrupt, unable to turn to Christ.
*]God created Mary to bring Christ into this world, and to love and nurture Him during His childhood.
*]Mary was not a morally corrupt mother who rejected her son, Jesus Christ.
*]Therefore, Mary was created without the stain of original sin.
It makes zero sense to claim that Mary was morally corrupt, or naturally disposed toward sin as a result of man’s Fall (i.e., inclined to reject God), while at the same time holding to the idea that Mary loved Christ at the moment He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in her womb.
*We know from science (and common sense) that mothers have a maternal instinct to love/care for their children.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
The doctrine of total depravity does not say that Mary could not have loved Jesus. Total depravity simply teaches that without the aid of God’s grace, not the normal grace of human life, but the special grace of God’s calling (which some catholics are allowed to believe) coming to make the first move upon the soul, that person cannot attain salvation by their own works of merit or effort.
The doctrine of partial depravity, or something less than total depravity, teaches that man on his own can attain salvation if he just really stringed out the sin of his life and worked with what good is in his heart
The doctrine of partial depravity, or something less than total depravity, teaches that man on his own can attain salvation if he just really stringed out the sin of his life and worked with what good is in his heart
P
PRmerger
Guest
I find it quite fitting for saints.
What was it that St. Teresa of Avila said? Something like, “God save us from sour-faced saints”.
Sometimes a bit of levity is a welcome relief in the CAFs discussions.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Firstly, Protestantism is a behemoth of beliefs, so it’s really in accurate to proclaim anything such as, “Protestants believe…”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Secondly, anyone who is a human creature has lost the original inheritance bequeathed to us through the fault of Adam and Eve. Unless God desires to preserve this human creature from this loss, due to His inscrutable will.
P
PRmerger
Guest
St. Peter says hi.
You do know that Peter was misinformed about lots of things.
And yet he wrote an infallible epistle. Twice. Right?
Oh, and St. Paul says hi, too.
And so does Moses.
And David.
And Sts. Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
and the inspired writer of Hebrews.
All men who were misinformed at some points in their lives.
All given the charism of infallibility when it came to proclaiming the Word of God.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
… are both predicated on the mistaken concept that a person is not justified by unmerited grace but rather by actions the sinner takes such as having a correct belief system or making a personal decision to follow Christ, etc. This approach is wrong as explained here.
That is why you can’t seem to get the Immaculate Conception. Mary was justified as a free and unmerited gift stemming from the future sacrifice of Calvary (as Enoch and Elijah were).
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
We were talking about Mary the Mother of Jesus and you said “Who is this Mary you speak of?” If what you wrote above is really what you meant by that then maybe you should have made it more clear, but from our perspective it looked an awful lot like you were mocking her, since you knew exactly who we were talking about.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
and the Protestants only know what the Scriptures are because of the history of the Church and the longevity of its organization.
Reminds me of a quote I once read (paraphrasing)
You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.
- Status