Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[Dalphon]

Mary is the Gate through whom Jesus entered the world. She gave Him his human nature and his human body, with her DNA, in her womb.

Jesus is our Gate, to go to Heaven. But if Jesus had not entered the world through Mary, then He could not have become the means of our salvation.

And if Mary’s parents had not given birth to Mary we would not have Jesus. If Mary’s grandparents did not give birth to Mary’s parents we would not have Jesus. We could take this all the way back to Adam and Eve.

 

[Dalphon]

Could you answer me this, please, Dalphon: do you think prayer chains are unnecessary? All the people in your church need to do is go to God directly with their petitions?

There are people in my church who pray for people but when the whole church is gathered together for worship everyone prays to God. I have also attended masses and Catholic prayer meetings and felt the presence of the Holy Spirit when people are asking the saints to intercede. I believe that if Mary, the angels and the saints are interceding for people with no faith, then they have to be interceding for christians who don’t acknowledge their role as intercessors.That’s grace.

 

[guanophore]

The angel appeared to Mary. She wasn’t praying to the angel.

I think you are just suffering from a semantics problem here. In this context, “pray” just means to have a conversation. Mary asks questions of the angel. In the same way, we ask our angels for help and protection, and we ask our brothers and sisters in the Lord who have gone before us in the faith for their prayers. It is not worship, it is a simple request for an intercession.

 

[guanophore]

This is an example of what NOT to do. Saul consulted a medium because God stopped talking to him.

I am not justifying his actions, or recommending them. We are in agreement that this is an example of what not to do. However, God used this event to manifest His continued power through His prophet, even after Samuel had left this life.

And he said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, “Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul.” 13 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid; but what do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a divine being coming up out of the earth.” 14 He said to her, “What is his form?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe.” And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.

  15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” And Saul answered, “I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do.” 16 Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has departed from you and has become your adversary? 17 “The LORD has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David. 18 “As you did not obey the LORD and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the LORD has done this thing to you this day.

I suspect that the medium was shocked to see Samuel, because she may have been a charlatan.

But even if not, Samuel appeared, by the grace of God. He knows what events are going on in the earth. He knows what will happen the next day. Samuel continues to speak the truth of God to Saul. This conversation is what Catholics would consider “praying” to a saint.

Yes and satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.

What has one thing got to do with the other? Are you afraid to pray to the saints because you don’t believe you can tell the difference?

You keep referring to those who sleep in Christ as “dead”, but all are alive unto Him.

They live forevermore but I don’t pray to them.

So far as I know, there is no requirement that you do so. It may be considered rude to give your brothers and sisters in Christ the “silent treatment” but if you really believe you cannot tell the difference between a saint and a devil, it is probably safer.

Yes but not in the new testament.

The word “catholic” is first applied to the Church in Acts 9:31, and within 50 years is was in common use, as we can see by the Letters of Ignatius.

Apparently you are very much like me, in that you got very poor catechesis as a Catholic, and you have been misled by the doctrines of man.

 

[guanophore]

There’s nothing wrong with talking to the mailman either but he only delivers the message. If you just put it in the mailbox and don’t ever see him, he will take it and deliver the message because that’s his job.

It is a little puzzling why you seem to resist recognizing these Holy beings as persons. Do you never express gratitude or appreciation to a person when they do their job?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation? Hebrews 1:14

Why keep yourself so distant from such faithful and holy ministers, that are here to help you obtain salvation?

You are taking arguments from other people and applying them to me. I don’t believe praying to a saint is an act of worship. I don’t think it’s wrong for Catholics to pray to saints. It’s just not something I do because for me it’s not necessary. I believe I can pray to God.

Do you think that talking to other people close to God interferes with your relationship with God?

Do you think that Catholics communicating with Holy Persons somehow excludes praying to God?

 

[Dalphon]

Why keep yourself so distant from such faithful and holy ministers, that are here to help you obtain salvation?

Do you think that talking to other people close to God interferes with your relationship with God?

As the song says “He’s more than enough for me.”

 

[guanophore]

Actually he wrote something like this , " I AM IN COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF WHICH"  of course in Greek I believe which are all capitals . I am just saying i believe proper english translation would not have a capital c as you have placed it. it could easily read, "**I am in communion with the catholic church of which..**.." Yes I read it.

It certainly doesn’t show.

yes he espoused a universal church , one that he saw in many different cities as he traveled to Rome supposedly.

Are you saying that you do not accept the historicity of the documents, or the situation in which they were written?

Different cities, different countries, different cultures, yet believers united in similar faith, hence universal. Here is preferred translation by Lightfoot , " 8:2 Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the** universal Church.**" earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

Do you prefer this translation because it does not use the word so formally?

And what about the rest of the statement? The Apostles ordained bishops to succeed them, and the Church founded by Christ was centered around the bishop as the shepherd of the flock, appointed by Christ.

it is only universal to Catholics, as Lutheranism or JW to themselves. That is, all around the world you will find close likeness of each in its own  kind .

We see it this way now, but in the early Church, there was only ONE Church, and it was the same everywhere. Those who rejected the doctrine or authority appointed by Christ were considered heretics.

 You may say you are universal in that perhaps you are in a slight majority (vs Orthodox and P's etc).

No, it has nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with the universaility of the faith. The consistency of doctrine. Even if it was just a handful of people in each city (which is likely) they all share the same faith.

Some could argue that you are not universal because of the Orthodox and P’s and a few others being somewhat “apart” from you .

There are definite wounds to unity, but these are apples and oranges. The fact that the faith is the same everywhere does not change because certain people fall away from the one faith.

Another words, how can you be universal if a few of your major belief’s are not held by almost half of Christendom.

Because the One Faith is not defined by those who depart from it. Look at the letter in context. There were very few Christians comparatively. They were scattered throughout the empire,but they were not large in number. Their faith was all the same, though they lived in a primarily Pagan society.

Later many heresies emerged and at times it seemed that the majority of the Church had fallen into them.The universal faith prevailed, though smaller in numbers.

By strict definition there can be said to exist a universal church that consists between all believers who have a shared set of beliefs. I understand that this definition is denied by Trent and even Vat 2, which stress only one church (Catholic) though we are all under her umbrella.

Not at all denied. The CC teaches that all who are validly baptized are members of His One Body. The difference is, as you rightly point out, the “shared set of beliefs”. The reason we are imperfectly joined is because we are not all holding to the One Faith preached by the Apostles. To the degree that any have departed from it, unity is wounded.

 

[guanophore]

Was it part of Roman culture to also write on their graves words to their gods that may assist the departed ? Did they not have gods for every occasion and even day of the week/year ? Not totally sure,Anyways,

Even if they did, it would be immaterial. Chistians were expected to leave the world, the culture, and everything in it that was not of God in Christ. The Church would not tolerate pagan rituals contaminating the faith. The first generation of Christians were all Jews!

The Jews believed, as Jesus confirmed through His Transfiguration, that those who have departed this world are alive and well in the next, know what is happening here, and are able to communicate with us about it. All these things happen only through the grace of God.

are the departed living omnipresent and or omniscient ? Did not ancient cultures believe that of some of their venerated heroes had some of these god like qualities in the beyond ?

No, Omnipresence are and omniscience are qualities of divinity, not humanity. Just like those here on earth, they can only know what God reveals.

An example is in the book of Acts, where Peter confronts Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit. God revealed to Peter what had happened and he confronted them about it. In the same way, God revealed to Samuel what would happen to Saul the next day, and he confronted him about it.

 

[guanophore]

As the song says “He’s more than enough for me.”

Just me and Jesus?

Nobody else.

Just us.

 

[PRmerger]

There are people in my church who pray for people but when the whole church is gathered together for worship everyone prays to God.

So do you tell these people that their prayers are unnecessary, because the requester just should go to God?

If someone says to you, “Would you please pray for my mom who is having surgery tomorrow?” do you say: “You don’t need me to go between you and God” and “You should pray to God directly”??

I have also attended masses and Catholic prayer meetings and felt the presence of the Holy Spirit when people are asking the saints to intercede. I believe that if Mary, the angels and the saints are interceding for people with no faith, then they have to be interceding for christians who don’t acknowledge their role as intercessors.That’s grace.

Yes. Indeed. Mary is your mother whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

[PRmerger]

. In other words, she did not make the phone call.

So is your objection really about who* initiates* the conversation with the Holy Ones of God?

If God sends them, then we are permitted to converse with them? But otherwise it is forbidden to initiate the prayer?

 

[benhur]

postcount=180"]post 180

That was not the point I was making.The point was if he believed in sola Scriptura in a formal sufficiency sense, a statement like his wouldn’t make sense.“one cannot view his theological system in terms of apostolic succession versus Scripture. The dichotomy between apostolic succession and Scripture cannot be found in the early church and likely reflects the later Catholic-Protestant controversy”. orthodoxbridge.com/response-to-robin-phillips-questions-about-st-irenaeus-and-apostolic-succession/ The article does go on to say SS is put to a thoughtful pause by Iraneus.

]…did not say:Apostolic Tradition is preserved by the Scriptures and the Scriptures only

Apostolic tradition is both their oral and written word so of course he would not have said that.

St. Irenaeus said Apostolic Tradition is preserved “by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches”.

yes he wrote that but in hindsight, even this safeguard is conditional, that it is not totally formally sufficient . Same boat as Scripture. Proof of that is in the Orthodox. I would say Iraneus leaned heavily on scripture (part of tradition of the apostles) to combat heresy. Many reformers agree with iraneus and desire to be like the apostles and their writings, even to be like some of their first successors. Don’t think Iraneus said the church is a magisterium that can not err. As the heretics interpreted scripture wrongly (as what is said about protestants) they also believed in unwritten teachings (what we say Catholics do ). While focus can be laid on “succession”, let us not lose the reason why, to be genuinely apostolic to the oral and written word of the apostles.

 

[PRmerger]

.they also believed in unwritten teachings (what we say Catholics do ).

Would that also include the belief, unwritten, that you have professed that Scripture is sufficient?

 

[guanophore]

There was a universal church at the beginning as there is now. Was she always centered in Rome ?

The Church founded by Christ is centered on Jesus Christ, the cornerstone. He grafted Peter into Himself, and made the foundation of the Apostles and prophets. The Church was always centered around the Apostles, and after that, their successors, the Bishops.

The CC is centered in Rome because that is where Peter and Paul labored to build up the church before they were martyred.

   Don't think so. Yes but did Rome become the center for Christianity by design or default ?

Of course I believe it was God’s design for both of these Holy Apostles to labor there together in the last years of their lives.

 Was it true spiritual inheritance or just that Rome, secular, political Rome was the center of the western world ?

I think that both things are true. God waited for just such a time to enter into human history. The conditions that caused the gospel to be spread had never existed like that before, or since (until modern times). It was He who made sure that Peter and Paul ended up there together, and by virtue of their labors, secure the doctrine of the faith in that city in such a way that it would be the model for everyone in the universal Church.

That is my argument for the reason the Corinthians may have appealed to Rome's church when difficulty arose, not because of Peter's chair(design), but because of defaulted influence of being "Roman", where all roads lead to.

That is actually the best argument AGAINST such an action. The last place the Church founded by Christ would turn would be their greatest enemy.

  Again, universal within its own kind but apart from others, so a limited universality.

There were no “others”, Ben.

P's also have their own universality after it's own kind. For instance they are universal in not being in communion with Rome structurally. But again, Lutherans are universal as are Anglicans and others etc. again in their own kind, a limited universality.

Yes, this is true. All Protestants are defined by which parts, and how much of the Apostolic Faith preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit in th CC they reject.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur.

You stated:

The dichotomy between apostolic succession and Scripture cannot be found in the early church

I am not asserting a “dichotomy”. I am asserting a UNITY.

The official teachings of the Church come from Oral Tradition AND Written Tradition and flow from the SAME Divine wellspring. This teaching handed down to the world 2000 years ago is preserved by the Magisterium.

You also said:

yes he wrote that but in hindsight, even this safeguard is conditional, that it is not totally formally sufficient. Same boat as Scripture.

The above you said was about St. Irenaeus’ quote that Apostolic Tradition . . . .

QUOTE:
"is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches”.

Then you also said (parenthetical addition and bold mine):

that it (Apostolic Succession) is not totally formally sufficient. Same boat as Scripture.

I thought it was interesting you would tacitly admit that Scripture in some sense is not sufficient. If you are saying Scripture is not formally sufficient you and I agree!

Incidentally. I am not saying the Magisterium (which is preserved through Apostolic Succession) and Sacred Scripture ALONE are sufficient either.

You would need to add Divinely protected oral Tradition too.

Below from Vatican II (Dei Verbum Chapter II) with bold and ul mine . . .

VATICAN II 9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Alluding to the Church in the 100’s A.D. at the time of St. Irenaeus, you also said (bold and ul mine):

Apostolic tradition is both their oral and written word so of course he would not have said that.

Well Apostolic tradition is STILL to this day (in 2014) both the oral and written word.

And this preservation of teaching is just what you’d expect to be taught from the Church Jesus founded (even 2000 years later).

In the apostolic preaching. . .

CCC 76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

CCC 77a "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. . . .

In Summary . . . .

The Catholic Church and the Deposit of Faith (oral and written Tradition)
*** Written Tradition (the Bible) - Check

**
*** Oral Tradition - Check
**
*** Deposit of Faith safeguarded by the Magisterium or “the teaching authority of the Church” passed down via Apostolic Succession for 2000 years - Check

**

 

[guanophore]

My point is obfuscated by your superfluous suggestion. Of course they came from, and renounced their paganism, yet we are filled with traditions that incorporate the two. That is, a particular pagan tradition shell may remain but the contents and context is Christianized. Think of Christmas trees and easter eggs and other traditions.

There is a big difference between the renunciation of Paganism and “incorporating” the two. Yes, it is possible to give Christian baptism to a custom like using Christmas trees, But baptism totally washes away sins, both personal and original, and in the same way, human customs must be completely washed of any anti-Christian meaning. It is not possible to “incorporate the two” to the extent that ANY pagan elements that contradict the Christian world view are retained.

Therefore if ancient Romans wrote prayers on the graves, if this practice is inconsistent with Christianity it would have been forbidden. You hit the nail on the head with this statement; “a particular pagan tradition shell may remain but the contents and context is Christianized”. For example, Scripture does not give us a date for the birth of Christ, so the Church chose to celebrate it on Dec. 25th. This is on or near the winter solstice, at which time the birthday of the Egyptian god Horus was celebrated. This is also the time of birth of Mithra(Itu in Hindu) was celebrated. Baptizing Pagan holidays gave Christians an alternative to the social pressure to participate in Pagan rituals and focused the attention of believers on Christ.

An attempt to retain any Pagan meaning to such a custom would be considered idolatry.

Sure, but do the departed saints have a special ear for our prayers ? How do they seem to have same attributes of seeing and hearing as the Godhead ?

The departed saints are connected to us in Spirit (we are members one of another) and God can (and does) grant them divine favors and abilities, just as He has done for them in this life. Just as Peter and the other Apostles could say “In the name of Jesus Christ, rise and walk”, God can enable the saints in heaven to know and do whatever He wills.

This is how it was that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus and had conversation with Him. It only means that they are partakers of the divine nature.

I mean some folks seem to "talk’ to the departed as though they would to the ever present ever hearing, ever seeing Paraclete.

Yes. We cannot know what may be revealed to them, what they might know, but we know that it is possible for God to do all things. When Saul went in search of a medium to contact the prophet Samuel, he did not know what Samuel would say, or if it would even work, ,but he desperately wanted to be back in God’s grace so he went with an open mind and heart.

Well Jesus hears all things, just not sure Mary has that Godly attribute.

Right. And human beings do not need to have Godly attributes by nature to experience the divine nature. For example, after the Apostle Philip baptized the Eunuch, he was “caught up by the Spiirt of the Lord…and found himself in Azotus” about 50 miles away. No one would say that Philip had some Godlike ability to translate himself from place to place, but that he was moved by God. Catholics believe that this ability of human beings to participate in the Acts of God does not cease just because they depart this life.

 

[guanophore]

Luke 1:26 During Elizabeth’s sixth month of pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin. She was engaged to marry a man named Joseph from the family of David. Her name was Mary.

Mary was not seeking communication with an angel. God sent the angel. In other words, she did not make the phone call. The angel stopped by because God sent him. The same is true with Joseph. Joseph did not initiate communication with the angel. It was sent to him in a dream. He was sleeping. He was not praying to anyone.

We don’t have the details on this, so we do not know. What we do know is that Mary and Joseph were devout and prayerful people (as were Elizabeth and Zachariah) who were constantly at their prayers. We don’t know what Joseph was praying before he fell alsep, but we can be certain that he was earnestly seeking guidance. For all we know, Mary was standing at her window seeking God’s guidance when the angel appeared.

And if Mary’s parents had not given birth to Mary we would not have Jesus. If Mary’s grandparents did not give birth to Mary’s parents we would not have Jesus. We could take this all the way back to Adam and Eve.

One of the best arguments against abortion, we think,. We cannot know what God has in store for a soul, and cutting short the life of a child in the womb thwarts that plan.

Jesus is our only way to heaven, as there is no other name by which we may be saved. Mary’s womb is the gate through which He entered humanity She is the gate of heaven because she is the gate of Christ.

There are people in my church who pray for people but when the whole church is gathered together for worship everyone prays to God.

Every gathering of believers has the potential for a more powerful prayer because our faith is increased by contact with others that share it.

I have also attended masses and Catholic prayer meetings and felt the presence of the Holy Spirit when people are asking the saints to intercede. I believe that if Mary, the angels and the saints are interceding for people with no faith, then they have to be interceding for christians who don't acknowledge their role as intercessors.That's grace.

Yes, and one of our constant prayers includes those who have not that faith.

I think most of it boils down to rejection of the Apostolic teachings that were lost during the reformation. Many Protestants continue to use the ancient Christian creeds but the meaning of the words has been lost. When ancient Christians expressed faith in "the communion of saints, they espoused the faith of the Apostles that one can communicate with those who have preceded us in faith.

 

[Dalphon]

So is your objection really about who* initiates* the conversation with the Holy Ones of God?

If God sends them, then we are permitted to converse with them? But otherwise it is forbidden to initiate the prayer?

Mary, Joseph and others had conversations with angels who were sent to them with a specific message to fulfill a plan of God. That does not mean we should all be talking to angels. It means that if God sends one to you, then take it from there. You can’t use these examples as a lesson in speaking to angels and make it the norm. That would be “focusing our attention on the angel.”

 

[Dalphon]

So do you tell these people that their prayers are unnecessary, because the requester just should go to God?

If someone says to you, “Would you please pray for my mom who is having surgery tomorrow?” do you say: “You don’t need me to go between you and God” and “You should pray to God directly”??

The bible says “pray for one another.” That’s what the apostles taught. We don’t see them teaching “pray to the saints and angels.” As I said before, after the resurrection of Jesus heaven was opened up to those who had died for their faith under the old covenant. The apostles never prayed to the Jewish saints such as Moses, Noah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah etc.

 

[PRmerger]

Mary, Joseph and others had conversations with angels who were sent to them with a specific message to fulfill a plan of God. That does not mean we should all be talking to angels. It means that if God sends one to you, then take it from there. You can’t use these examples as a lesson in speaking to angels and make it the norm. That would be “focusing our attention on the angel.”

And yet you have no Bible verse to support this?

Why do you get to profess things not found in the Bible, yet object to Catholicism doing this (allegedly)?