Where to begin?

[jmcrae]

Other examples abound, but I think you should have a general idea of what I am getting at. Liguori attributes those things which are the sole domain of Christ to Mary, and for this, far from being censured, he is elevated as a Doctor of the Church and a Catholic publisher is named after him.

Far from it; all these things should be the domain of every Christian - not only Mary.

For, all of us are to receive crowns when we go to Heaven, are we not? Not only Mary.

And every evangelist should be a gate of entrance into the Heavenly kingdom for sinners, should they not? Not only Mary. But if you aren’t bringing sinners to Jesus (and thus, to Heaven), then what are you doing?

Mary sets the example that we should follow. We should be imitators of Mary in the same way that both she and we are to be imitators of Christ, since Mary is Christ’s most perfect imitator.

 

[jmcrae]

Is this Liguori apparition approved by the Church?

These quotes are alarming!

It’s only “alarming” because the language used is very poetic, and not the sort of thing we’re used to hearing.

If instead of saying that Mary is “the gate of Heaven” we say, “Mary teaches people about her Son, Jesus, and helps them get to Heaven,” then it would probably sound better - and it means exactly the same thing. Everybody who teaches other people about Jesus is a “gate of Heaven,” although no one is more adept than Mary at doing this work.

Everything that St. Alphonsus says about Mary is also true of every good Christian who goes out into the world with the intention of making Jesus known to others - there is nothing “god-like” about what she does.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Recently, many Protestant apologists have been attempting to discredit the deuterocanonical books of the Bible by claiming that it would not be possible for Luther to delete books from a canon that had not been finalized.

In a private email to me, Gary Michuta, author of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, wrote:

That explains that :tiphat:

Do you by any chance know why only 11 of the 15 books were ratified? Just curious.

 

[jmcrae]

You misunderstand what I am attempting to say. I do not mean Paul was teaching hearsay. Rather, it is hearsay that many (most? all?) of the teachings of the RCC were handed down from the apostles. If it is not recorded in the Bible and is simply “oral tradition,” then we have no way of confirming the claim. I would have to look at the portion of St. Justin’s Apologia that addresses the mass. I could readily accept that much of the mass is very similar to how it is performed today. I question, however, whether it was actually considered a “true sacrifice” by the apostles. This and other dogmas, such as the sacrament of confession which has been here discussed lately, are not set forth in the Bible as the RCC teaches. So my question is how we can trust that these dogmas are doctrines taught by the apostles and not innovations of the RCC.

Read the writings of the Early Fathers. In 110 AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch describes himself (as he is being carried away to the lions) as a kind of Eucharistic sacrifice. He says, “Let me be ground into Eucharistic bread between the teeth of the lions.”

How could he say this, if he didn’t understand the Eucharist as the Christian sacrifice?

Once again, sans the time machine we have no assurance whether all of these things were taught from the beginning.

We have a kind of time machine - we have the writings of the Church throughout the centuries, from the closing of the Scriptures (and even material that is contemporary with the New Testament writings) until now, with very few gaps. We know what they were thinking, because they wrote it down.

It is also very early on that the Diocese of Rome is described as “that pre-eminent Church” and given as the model of what every other Diocese should be doing, together with the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church, and the most important Bishop in Christendom; the only one with authority to tell other Bishops what to do.

 

[Solus_Christus]

The same way that they do today. Keep in mind, the Jews as a whole don’t have a set canon of Scripture - but each Synagogue has its own Scriptorium, which contains the books that that particular community reads during their Synagogue service (which is the equivalent of our Liturgy of the Word).

If they don’t have a canon, then what was Jamnia all about?

Not at all. Even if some members of his audience didn’t recognize some of His quotations as inspired Scripture, they would have still recognized the references. Most of his audience was working from the Book of Moses, which is only the first five books of what we consider to be the Old Testament. The writings of David and of Isaiah would have still been familiar to them, though.

Regardless of whether Jesus’ audience recognized the Tanakh as inspired, clearly Jesus did, as I have already pointed out. And that is of far more importance. Still, it seems highly unlikely they would have been unfamiliar with the writings of their most celebrated king, David. The book of Psalms is like the Jewish hymnal. I have no idea on what basis you are making these claims.

As someone else has pointed out, the first formal canon of Jewish Scripture was formed at Jamnia in 90 AD, specifically to exclude everything that explicitly supported Jesus as the Messiah.

Actually, they did NOT exclude everything that explicitly supported Jesus as Messiah. They disowned the Septuagint since it was being used by Christians to show how the OT points to Christ. Nevertheless, the canon they ratified (i.e. the Tanakh) includes Isaiah and Psalms, which still very clearly (whether the Jews admit it or not) point to Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

If they don’t have a canon, then what was Jamnia all about?

The canon created at Jamnia was only valid for the Jamnian community - they didn’t have any authority over anyone else. The Orthodox still to this day only use the Book of Moses (from Genesis to Deuteronomy).

Regardless of whether Jesus’ audience recognized the Tanakh as inspired, clearly Jesus did, as I have already pointed out. And that is of far more importance. Still, it seems highly unlikely they would have been unfamiliar with the writings of their most celebrated king, David. The book of Psalms is like the Jewish hymnal. I have no idea on what basis you are making these claims.

A hymnal is not a Bible, as you know.

Actually, they did NOT exclude everything that explicitly supported Jesus as Messiah. They disowned the Septuagint since it was being used by Christians to show how the OT points to Christ. Nevertheless, the canon they ratified (i.e. the Tanakh) includes Isaiah and Psalms, which still very clearly (whether the Jews admit it or not) point to Christ.

Only implicitly, though. You’d already have to know about Christ, before you could see Him in those passages. By contrast, the Book of Wisdom shows you exactly who you’re looking for.

 

[Windfish]

There was no council of Jamnia. That is a myth.

 

[jmcrae]

There was no council of Jamnia. That is a myth.

It wasn’t a Council; it was a rabbinical school.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could you, then, give us a complete list of all the “essentials” that EVERY Protestant would agree on? And, this is critical, where would that list be contained in the Bible? Chapter and verse if you please.

Disunity on Essentials
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exodus 34:14 “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:”

This would be the most direct injunction by God which is bypassed or nullified by the RCC’s promotion of the Cult of Mary. Other examples:

The Latin words are RCC concocted terms to differentiate between forms of worship. “Hyperdulia” is a special term reserved exclusively for what the RCC terms the “Cult of Mary.”

Please provide references to the official documents of the Catholic Church which tell me that I may or must worship Mary.

Thanks in advance.

Yes, I have heard of this extrapolation. John the Baptist pointed to Christ even more explicitly, however, yet the RCC is not advocating hyperdulia be given to him.

God bless him, but John played a smaller role in the economy of salvation than did Mary who, as the Mother of the King, is rightly known as the Queen of Heaven.

Your study of the Old Testament probably already revealed this to you, I’m sure.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am trying to work my way from older post to newer posts since I am so far behind, but Tomster is clamoring for a response, so I will oblige:

No, I am sure they would employ sophistry to exhonerate their position. The Bible, however, is unambiguous concerning this:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Does it please you or trouble you that the Catholic Church does not ordain women? I mean, at least we got this right…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, and also according to them, so we are both right about what they believe.

Are you saying that there is a Methodist “truth” concerning the baptism of infants and a “Baptist” truth for denying it?

I don’t think that’s what you’re saying, but I gotta ask!

 

[Randy_Carson]

That explains that :tiphat:

Do you by any chance know why only 11 of the 15 books were ratified? Just curious.

I do not. Would you like me to ask Mr. Michuta?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If they don’t have a canon, then what was Jamnia all about?

The “Council” of Jamnia
By Gary Michuta
handsonapologetics.com/deuterocanon.htm

Objection:* “At the end of the first century, the Jews gathered together at the Council at Jamnia (also known as Jabneh or Yabneh) to discuss the canon of Scripture. From this Council, the rabbis drew up an authoritative list of sacred books which is identical to the Jewish / Protestant canon.”*

Answer: Unfortunately, this short objection suffers from so many inaccuracies and overstatements that the best way to respond is to provide here a description of the real “council” of Jamnia.

After the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD, Rabban Jonathan ben Zakkai asked the Roman General Vespasian, who was well disposed to the Rabbi since it was known that he supported peace with the Romans, to spare the city of Jamnia and its rabbinical scholars.1 Permission was granted and the school set up in the “vineyards of Jamnia.”2 The problems that faced the new school were serious. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem made it impossible to continue the prescribed sacrifices required in the Old Testament. Judaism needed to make a radical change from a cultic (sacrifice and Temple centered) religion to a “religion of the Book.” This change, combined with the growth of Christianity (especially its use of the Jewish Greek Old Testament for evangelism) provided Judaism with the occasion to address the question of the canon of Scripture.3 The information that has come down to us about this canonical activity is fragmentary and certainly open to conjecture.

Note that our objector called this body the “Council of Jamnia”. Jamnia was not a council, in the sense of the Council of Trent or the Council of Nicaea, it was rather was an on-going rabbinical school. The idea of a “council” crept into everyone’s vocabulary via the writings of the famous Jewish historian H. Graetz who was the first to call Jamnia a “synode.”4 Christians interpreted Graetz’s synode to mean council. However, the word council implies quite a few features that Jamnia did not possess. For example, unlike a Christian council, there were no ballots cast, nor did this body promulgate formal decrees. Rather, Jamnia lasted for a number of years, and its significant opinions is persevered in piecemeal fashion in later Jewish writings. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what Jamnia had for Judaism as a whole. In some ways it acts much like the authoritative body of the Sanhedrin although it never took for itself that name.5 Therefore, it is inaccurate to speak about the council of Jamnia. It is more accurate description would be a rabbinical school.6

Jamnia never published or promulgated a list the list of books of the canon nor did it discuss the canon as a whole. Most of the debates surrounded the Book of Ecclesiastes and possibly the Song of Songs.7 Even so, there is no evidence that the decisions of this school were binding upon the Jewish popular at large.8 In fact, rabbinical disputes over the inspiration of certain books (e.g. the fringe books and Sirach) persisted throughout the first three Christian centuries. For this reason, the Protestant scholar F.F. Bruce wisely warns against stating that the assembly at Jamnia “laid down the limits” of the Old Testament canon.9

Like the two-canon theory, the Jamnia theory has fallen on hard times. As the Jewish scholar Sid Leiman concludes:

“The widespread view that the Council of Jamnia closed the biblical canon, or that it canonized any books at all, is not supported by the evidence and need no longer be seriously maintained.”10

If there were a candidate for an authoritative closing of the Old Testament canon in the first century AD, Jamnia would probably be it. However, there is no evidence that such a closing occurred this early in the life of this school.

1. See The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages, Gershom Bader ed., Translated by Solomon Katz, (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc.), 152-154 for various rabbinical accounts of Rabban Johnathan ben Zakkai’s escape from the siege of Jerusalem and his role in beginning the school at Jamnia.
2. There is some question as to whether the “vineyards of Jamnia” refer to the meeting place of the school (i.e. the met in a vineyard) or that the school of was organized like a vine with grapes. The school began under rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai (70 AD) until the time of the second Jewish Revolt under rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (132 AD). After the Second Revolt, the school of reconstituted at Usha.
3. W.O.E. Oesterley, An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha (London: SPCK, 1958), 122-123
4. A.C. Sundberg, "The Old Testament of the Early Church Revisited,” – Graetz may have borrowed this terminology from Jewish Philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s comment about the “concilium Pharisaeorum.”
5. Lieman, 121.
6. See ABD, 1.841.
7. Cox, 44; See M. Yadayim, 3:5.
8. cf. Encyclopedia Judaica (Coronet Books, reprint 1994) 6.1147.
9. Bruce, 34.
10. Lieman, 124. Also see ABD, 1.843 – the evidence for a closed canon prior to the end of the first Christian century is “at best weak and unconvincing.”

 

[fbl9]

snip…
In the case of the Cult of Mary, why shouldn’t God be jealous? He redeemed mankind at great personal expense, and now those actions are being attributed to someone else.

First off i thank you for taking your time to respond to my other post.
Never has any one atributed Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to Mary.
It is in knowing who Christ is that we know His mother.
Not one outside of the Catholic Church developed the doctrine of the Trinity, are you going to charge the Church of concocting another distinction?No because you happen to agree with this doctrine.

 

[Lampo]

No, I am sure they would employ sophistry to exhonerate their position. The Bible, however, is unambiguous concerning this:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12)

I’m sure they are aware of that passage. Their interpretation is different than yours. Which one of you is right?

Yes, I am sure they would.

So how do you know you are guided by the Holy Spirit and they are not? Are both of you led by the Holy Spirit but to completely different truths?

I am not sure what you mean by “take your differences,”…

How do you find out now the truth of a doctrine? Do you think the pillar and bullwark of truth would have it?

…but in the end there is a transcendent truth.

Just as there is in the now.

Throughout history there are those who will try to make that truth pliable, even while claiming divine assistance.

Like you for instance?

A Christian’s proper response ought to be to “examine the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11)

Why do you believe Acts 17:11?

and “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1)

And if you don’t agree with their interpretation, they must be wrong.

If, in rejecting the claims of those ordaining women I am proven wrong,…

Ordaining women is not the point. Authority is the point.

Though this may be a freightening prospect to some, it seems far better than blindly accepting whatever is dogmatically proclaimed by men.

The doctrine of the Trinity and the canon of scripture are dogmatically proclaimed by men. Do you accept those teachings? Why? How did men get those things right but failed in other things?

I provided above how God left us to interpret Scripture.

Could you be wrong?

The Holy Spirit is the real and final authority.

Correct. And the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth. (John 16:13)

Yes, and also according to them, so we are both right about what they believe.

If there is only one Holy Spirit which we all agree on, how can the Holy Spirit tell you one truth and them another? Are you saying the Holy Spirit is who is to blame to divide us?

They deny the historicity of the Bible (some deny just some of it while others deny most of it, all the way up to and including the incarnation).

Do you deny anything of the Bible? Why or why not? I venture to bet you do not because you believe it is the inspired word of God. If that’s the case, why do you believe it is the inspired word of God?

 

[Tomster]

Disunity on Essentials
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0312bt.asp

And there you have it Solus!

Thank you Randy!

 

[Tomster]

I am trying to work my way from older post to newer posts since I am so far behind, but Tomster is clamoring for a response, so I will oblige:

No, I am sure they would employ sophistry to exhonerate their position. The Bible, however, is unambiguous concerning this:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Yes, I am sure they would.

I am not sure what you mean by “take your differences,” but in the end there is a transcendent truth. Throughout history there are those who will try to make that truth pliable, even while claiming divine assistance. A Christian’s proper response ought to be to “examine the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11) and “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1) In the end, we will all give an account of ourselves to God. If, in rejecting the claims of those ordaining women I am proven wrong, then I entrust myself to God’s judgement. Though this may be a freightening prospect to some, it seems far better than blindly accepting whatever is dogmatically proclaimed by men. Furthermore, this prospect is much less disconcerting to the one who believe that there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1) and who are “persuaded that he is able to keep that which [they] have committed unto him against that day.” (2 Timothy 1:12)

I provided above how God left us to interpret Scripture. That there will always (this side of Heaven) be those who distort Scripture does not detract in the least bit from God’s truth. Those who distort God’s Word out of ignorance, well, that is between them and God. If they truly are yielded to His Spirit, then He will reveal to them their folly if it is His good pleasure.

The Holy Spirit is the real and final authority.

Yes, and also according to them, so we are both right about what they believe. They deny the historicity of the Bible (some deny just some of it while others deny most of it, all the way up to and including the incarnation).

Solus,

I am sure that that is the very best you can do considering that you are bound by the erroneous, man-made, fallible Protestant dogma called private judgment.

No one will deny that in our day there exists a vast multitude of sects, which are multiplying daily. No one will deny that this multiplying of creeds is a scandal. No one can deny that these divisions in the Christian family are traceable to the assumption of the right of private judgment. Every Protestant and even those with a superficial education imagines that he has received a call from heaven to inaugurate a new religion be they evangelicals, fundamentalists, Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, liberal, conservative, etc., ad nauseam.

Thus one body of Christians will prove from the Bible that there is one Person in God, while the rest will prove from the same source that a Trinity of Persons is a clear article of Divine Revelation. One will prove from the Bible that Jesus is not God. Others will appeal to the same text to attest His Divinity. One denomination will assert on the authority of Scripture that infant Baptism is not necessary for salvation, while others will hold that it is. Some Christians, with Bible in hand, will teach that there are no sacraments. Others will say that there are only two. Some will declare that the inspired word of God does not preach the eternity of punishments. Others will say that the Bible distinctly vindicates that dogma. And there are those, even in this day and time, who point out that after “searching the Scriptures”, the year and the day on which the world will come to an end.

Please, Solus, explain all of this to us.

Now, once again, give us a list of ALL the essentials EVERY non-Catholic Christian can agree on and give the chapters and verses from the Bible in which they are given.

And, while you are at it, please tell us where in the Bible does it say that an individual has the right to private interpretation of the very same Bible.

 

[Solus_Christus]

It’s only “alarming” because the language used is very poetic, and not the sort of thing we’re used to hearing.

This sounds like a blatant excuse to me. The so-called “artist” which placed a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it “art” can call it whatever he wants, but in the end it is grotesque. Likewise, words which attribute Christ’s glory to someone else can be called poetry, but in the end it too is grotesque.

If instead of saying that Mary is “the gate of Heaven” we say, “Mary teaches people about her Son, Jesus, and helps them get to Heaven,” then it would probably sound better - and it means exactly the same thing. Everybody who teaches other people about Jesus is a “gate of Heaven,” although no one is more adept than Mary at doing this work.

Everything that St. Alphonsus says about Mary is also true of every good Christian who goes out into the world with the intention of making Jesus known to others - there is nothing “god-like” about what she does.

You are being very disingenuous here. Would you dare (or even think) to say to a fellow Christian (even if he were a good Christian) “I am going to ‘praise thee in heaven’” or “all thy servants who call upon thee for aid in death are saved” or “thou art the refuge of the abandoned” or “thou art my only hope” or “all graces are dispensed by your hand alone”? Are these words true of every (or for that matter, any) good Christian?

 

[Tomster]

Solus,

I am sure that that is the very best you can do considering that you are bound by the erroneous, man-made, fallible Protestant dogma called private judgment.

No one will deny that in our day there exists a vast multitude of sects, which are multiplying daily. No one will deny that this multiplying of creeds is a scandal. No one can deny that these divisions in the Christian family are traceable to the assumption of the right of private judgment. Every Protestant and even those with a superficial education imagines that he has received a call from heaven to inaugurate a new religion be they evangelicals, fundamentalists, Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, liberal, conservative, etc., ad nauseam.

Thus one body of Christians will prove from the Bible that there is one Person in God, while the rest will prove from the same source that a Trinity of Persons is a clear article of Divine Revelation. One will prove from the Bible that Jesus is not God. Others will appeal to the same text to attest His Divinity. One denomination will assert on the authority of Scripture that infant Baptism is not necessary for salvation, while others will hold that it is. Some Christians, with Bible in hand, will teach that there are no sacraments. Others will say that there are only two. Some will declare that the inspired word of God does not preach the eternity of punishments. Others will say that the Bible distinctly vindicates that dogma. And there are those, even in this day and time, who point out that after “searching the Scriptures”, the year and the day on which the world will come to an end.

Please, Solus, explain all of this to us.

Now, once again, give us a list of ALL the essentials EVERY non-Catholic Christian can agree on and give the chapters and verses from the Bible in which they are given.

And, while you are at it, please tell us where in the Bible does it say that an individual has the right to private interpretation of the very same Bible.

Solus,

Chapter and verse please.