Trouble with anti-Catholic book/website

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mason1971
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How does any of this change the fact we know nothing of her death nor of her assumption?
Know nothing? Depends upon your point of view, doesn’t it.
Because he says he does not deny the event.
Have you read the entirety of that section from Epiphanius?
 
cfrancis;4238826]Know nothing? Depends upon your point of view, doesn’t it.
Because he says he does not deny the event.
Just becasue he does not deny it does it mean it happened. Its up to the one who says it did to give the evidence for it instead of just asserting it so.
Have you read the entirety of that section from Epiphanius?
No. Would it change anything about this?
 
I see we have a different view about the resurrections. Boy that would take awhile to unpack. They cannot find his bones because no one knows where he is buried.
Regardless, scripture teaches that people can appear after their death; without being assumed.
I don’t know if Scripture specifically says this, but I don’t object to this idea - yes, I imagine they can certainly appear, although I am not remembering off the top of my head any specific examples of them doing so, other than Moses, and as I mentioned previously, I am unclear about his situation, whether he was assumed into Heaven, or not. 🤷

What they cannot do is be the Ark of the Covenant. Mary, though, is the Ark of the Covenant (Rev. 11:19), which means that she has a bodily, physical presence in Heaven - and it is this that she cannot do, without having been assumed into Heaven.

As to her being pregnant, Heaven exists in Eternity, which means that she can pick and choose on her timeline where she wants to be, physically, and if she wants to go back to the time when she was bearing Jesus in her womb, she could certainly do that - and then she would appear pregnant, of course!
 
You are a dispentionalist suppossedly but when you talk, it seems that you are not.First of all if the dragon is the devil,then the child is Jesus,then the woman is MAry.I thought that dispensationalists took everything literal.Anyway where is Trinity in the bible but I bet that you still believe in the doctrine.Thant does not proove me wrong.
There is not one word that says she was assumed. You have a pregnant woman standing on a moon with a crown. If you think Mary was assumed pregnant, you could have a point. But you do not.
 
You are a dispentionalist suppossedly but when you talk, it seems that you are not.First of all if the dragon is the devil,then the child is Jesus,then the woman is MAry.I thought that dispensationalists took everything literal.Anyway where is Trinity in the bible but I bet that you still believe in the doctrine.Thant does not proove me wrong.
I do not use the term. We have been down this route a hundred times. I get quizzed and am declared orthodox in my belief but knock yourself out.
No that is not accurate about dispensationalists
 
Kelly supports my point when he writes “It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books”. These books were not universally accepted until Trent made its decision.
I guess you could say that the hypostatic union of Christ was not “universally accepted” until the council of Nicea, either, but that will not make it true. There always have been, and always will be, those who reject part of the Truth. The Arians rejected the divine nature of Christ, just as the JW’s do today. Their refusal to accept it does not make it less true. The reformers taking books out of the canon does not make them any less part of it in the first place. 🤷
There were also many who did not accept them either. John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado rejected the DC’s as Scripture. What this shows is that these books were in dispute.
And the vast majority of the Bishops had defected from Apostolic TEaching, and fell into Arian heresy. As you are fond of saying, a lot of people believing error, even for a long time, does not make the error into truth.
 
**]**Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition **/“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come?” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

“Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles.” Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’” Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

“[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.” Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

"**
 
This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362).

“It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness of the two Testaments.” Ephraem, Against Heresies (ante A.D. 373).

“Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use.” Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).

“For they [heretics] do not teach as the church does; their message does no accord with the truth.” Epiphanius, Panarion, 47 (A.D. 377).

eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion… And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

“Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth.” Ambrose, Commentary of Psalm 118,19 (A.D. 388).

“They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church’s tradition. They preach only ‘the dogmas of the Church’” John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction (A.D. 389).

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things.” Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2 (A.D. 397).

" ‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

“My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the faith of the Catholic Church.” Jerome, To Minervius & Alexander, Epistle 119 (A.D. 406).

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church.” Augustine, On the Trinity, 4,6:10 (A.D. 416).

“But it will be said, If the words, the sentiments, the promises of Scripture, are appealed to by the Devil and his disciples, of whom some are false apostles, some false prophets and false teachers, and all without exception heretics, what are Catholics and the sons of Mother Church to do? How are they to distinguish truth from falsehood in the sacred Scriptures? They must be very careful to pursue that course which, in the beginning of this Commonitory, we said that holy and learned men had commended to us, that is to say, they must interpret the sacred Canon according to the traditions of the Universal Church and in keeping with the rules of Catholic doctrine, in which Catholic and Universal Church, moreover, they must follow universality, antiquity, consent.” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Antinquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 70 (A.D. 434).

“[H]old fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God.” Cyril of Alexandria, Festal Letters, Homily 8 (A.D. 442).
 
Did anyone in the early centuries believe that the Scriptures alone were inspired-inerrant?
You mean, between when Moses wrote the Torah and the Chronicles? Probably. IT is often said that “there was no prophet in the land”.
By the 4th century these books were accepted as Scripture. This was not the case with the DC’s and for good reason.
Well, you seem fond of saying this, as it somehow justifies the Reformers taking books out. However, you will not be able to find an abbreviated Bible prior to the Reformation,and the reason for this is that all bibles published were done so under Church supervision (it was illegal to do it any other way). The Church considered them inspired Scripture, and made that clear at Trent, after the Reformers tried to justify taking them out.
 
Just becasue he does not deny it does it mean it happened. Its up to the one who says it did to give the evidence for it instead of just asserting it so.

No. Would it change anything about this?
No, it is not up to me or the Catholic Church to give evidence,unless you are equally willing to provide evidence for your side, which you have not done.
My point was, if you read al of that section, not just the parts that site wanted you to read, Epiphanius states he doesn’t know, and that neither supports your position that is didn’t happen nor mine that it did. (aside: as the parts edited from your original post reveal, Epiphanius did hold the Catholic belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity, which is why the site from which you copied the material did not include the edited parts!)
 
Jan Hus-you guys killed him as you recall. He lived in 1400.
Peter Waldo-you did not kill him. But some of his students. He lived around 1200.
A couple of heretics… OK, so…? In the nature of the human there have always been dissenters of one sort or another…nothing new. I thought maybe you had something with “substance”…:confused:
 
I have the scripture. You have the scripture. So a Catholic wants to convince me that there are traditions or teachings not recorded in the Bible. This is a true story. 4 years ago now. Brand new believer. So I read the Ante Nicene Fathers. And I find–nothing. All over the place actually on most issues. Did I find the Assumption? Nope.
Did I find the Immaculate Conception? Certainly not.
Were you reading it with your eyes closed? :confused:

The words “Immaculate Conception” might not be there in literal, but what do you think they meant by “The new Eve,” or “the knot undone”? 🤷
\
 
A couple of heretics… OK, so…? In the nature of the human there have always been dissenters of one sort or another…nothing new. I thought maybe you had something with “substance”…:confused:
Not to jump in too much–but heretics or not–human beings. People killed for their religious beliefs. Did we ever apologize for the killing of heretics? I do not know. I am asking:(
 
Not to jump in too much–but heretics or not–human beings. People killed for their religious beliefs. Did we ever apologize for the killing of heretics? I do not know. I am asking:(
I found this about Jan Hus specifically:
In 1999 John Paul II “expressed deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus, and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people.

Yet the truth which sets us free from error is also the truth which sets us free for love; and it is Christian love which has been the horizon of what your Commission has sought to do. Your work means that a figure like Jan Hus, who has been such a point of contention in the past, has now become a subject of dialogue, of comparison and shared investigation.”
in this thread.

“The Church” didn’t really have much to do with the actual burning of heretics. It was more of a political thing - the religion of your sovereign was the religion of the country. Their thinking was that if you dissented from certain religious beliefs that your sovereign held, what other kinds of traitorous thoughts might you have? Better to nip that in the bud before the throne gets overtaken… make sense?
 
Not to jump in too much–but heretics or not–human beings. People killed for their religious beliefs. Did we ever apologize for the killing of heretics? I do not know. I am asking:(
That question I cannot answer honestly… But on the other hand, I wonder if the antecedents of the “Reformers” have ever apologized for killing Catholics for their religious beliefs? And the answer to that question I do not know either…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top