Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

[saveusfromhell]

Are you making a point here for Tradition or development?

both actually

And did you read what I’ve said in this thread about Tradition?

yes and your wrong as solar scripture does not take preccedent. if the bible is wrote in typology obviously we must take the lead from the jews way of discerning. which is 3 legged stool

I think it highly plausible that our human sin gets in the way of our understanding. The fact is that even those who claim that scripture and Tradition are equal sources of truth regarding the faith fail to agree - sincat least 1054.

it’s a 3 legged stool not 2. two leggs is always unbalanced, of course satan has spent much time trying to divide

40,000 denomintations from Luther is simply ludicrous. Very few western non-catholic communions have the roots in Lutheranism. All of them, however, to one degree or another, be it directly or indirectly, have their roots in the CC.

well yes i agree they all have their roots in the cc,

 

[saveusfromhell]

fair enough I apologize

 

[saveusfromhell]

lcms a church that created itself from one mans pride then calls itself catholic as though it has always been there. show me where it says peter i shall build my church on you and luther, like it or not the fruits of luther or thousands of churches, he lead the way.

 

[saveusfromhell]

luther didn’t even know what he believed himself

In the course of his life, Martin Luther made contradictory statements about Mary’s immaculate conception. For example, in 1532 Luther says that Mary was conceived in sin, in 1544 he says: ‘God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.’[19] Elsewhere, “All seed except Mary was vitiated [by original sin].”[20] When concentrating specifically on Mary herself as the Mother of God, Luther acknowledges God’s singular action in bringing her into the world, but in making general comments about the universality of human sinfulness, he includes her among all the rest of humanity.

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person."
google.ie/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Marian_theology&sa=U&ei=sCT2T_aoIYTd8gOIlKGBBw&ved=0CB0QFjAD&sig2=9Z2xjXEYy6wgiTHaDMzvfg&usg=AFQjCNGP5ZhLcgqNsEVp_T4WJmJzrSR-qw

 

[saveusfromhell]

Queen of Heaven
Throughout his lifetime, Luther believed that Mary was and referred to her as the “Queen of Heaven”, but he warned against people using the term too much.[22]
So God made BVM queen of heaven but don’t say it too often

 

[JonNC]

=Lochias;9488073] Only the RCC still has the same teachings that existed 2000+ years ago.That fact is in line with what Jesus promised us when he spoke to Peter. “Gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, yadda yadda. Proof’s in the pudding.

What evidence do you have of this? In fact, even speaking as a Lutheran, it seems Orthodoxy may have more closely maintained the teachings of the early Church.

As to your disagreements, there are of course a metric ton of threads and resources here on those, which I’m sure you’ve perused (or intend to). The things which you disagree with were practiced by the earliest leaders of the Church, and neither Jesus nor his Apostles later ever stopped anyone from practicing them. Given that Jesus was obviously ok with changing and correcting what needed to be changed, things like Purgatory and the like cause me no trouble at all…what’s good enough for Jesus is good enough for me.

Depends on how one defines Purgatory, as I’ve mentioned in the past here at CAF. Simply because you say something like this about Purgatory doesn’t mean it is historically so.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=saveusfromhell;9488219]both actually

yes and your wrong as solar scripture does not take preccedent. if the bible is wrote in typology obviously we must take the lead from the jews way of discerning. which is 3 legged stool

The Jews did not discern Christ as the Messiah. I’m not sure you want to use this as support for Tradition/Scripture.

it’s a 3 legged stool not 2. two leggs is always unbalanced, of course satan has spent much time trying to divide

No doubt.

Jon

 

[saveusfromhell]

The Jews did not discern Christ as the Messiah. I’m not sure you want to use this as support for Tradition/Scripture.

Jon

jon again its 3 not 2, orthodox may be 2
no the jews used 1 of these, the pharises alone to decide Jesus was not the messiah. had they been brave enough to have gone with all 3 who knows what would have happened.

a pope could declare excathedra that Jesus ws not divine and it would mean nothing except he was wrong

 

[Lochias]

What evidence do you have of this? In fact, even speaking as a Lutheran, it seems Orthodoxy may have more closely maintained the teachings of the early Church.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it%E2%80%99s-the-true-church

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm

Those might help clarify the positions for you a bit. The Orthodox church started in schism over disagreements concerning Papal authority; from there, other national churches have sprung, subject in various degrees to civil authority. Having broken from the authority of the office of the Pope, which Jesus instituted to help guide the Church in her mission on earth, means that, at the very least, the Orthodox churches have ceased to keep at least one very important part of early Church teachings and structure.

Depends on how one defines Purgatory, as I’ve mentioned in the past here at CAF. Simply because you say something like this about Purgatory doesn’t mean it is historically so.

I’m not the one saying it…history is. Purgatory itself is, at its heart, an extension of both God’s mercy and His justice. To do away with Purgatory is to limit the capabilities of God’s mercy and justice down to human terms.

 

[JonNC]

=Lochias;9488828]catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-do-we-know-it%E2%80%99s-the-true-church

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura2a.htm

Those might help clarify the positions for you a bit.

Yes, from a Catholic POV. The CC having a POV is fine and good, but frankly I need more than her say-so about the issue.

The Orthodox church started in schism over disagreements concerning Papal authority; from there, other national churches have sprung, subject in various degrees to civil authority. Having broken from the authority of the office of the Pope, which Jesus instituted to help guide the Church in her mission on earth, means that, at the very least, the Orthodox churches have ceased to keep at least one very important part of early Church teachings and structure.

This assumes two things: 1) that they broke from Rome, and not the other way around, and 2) that the authority of the pope is what the CC claims it is. When I read Nicea, I see canon 6 saying that the Bishop of Rome’s authority is equal is jurisdiction to the Bishop of Alexandria’s in his. So, Tradition and early Church teaching and structure are a central issue here.

And this is a central issue for me.

I’m not the one saying it…history is. Purgatory itself is, at its heart, an extension of both God’s mercy and His justice. To do away with Purgatory is to limit the capabilities of God’s mercy and justice down to human terms.

Purgation is itself an extension of God’s mercy and justice. If one can say this happens at the moment of death, no additional place/state necessary, then I can believe Purgatory.

But the issue is which Tradition do I believe,since Tradition does not agree?

Jon
EDIT: BTW, I honor and respect your faith in the matter, and your approach here. thanks.

 

[JonNC]

jon again its 3 not 2, orthodox may be 2
no the jews used 1 of these, the pharises alone to decide Jesus was not the messiah. had they been brave enough to have gone with all 3 who knows what would have happened.

a pope could declare excathedra that Jesus ws not divine and it would mean nothing except he was wrong

This is not my understanding of ex cathedra. If a pope declares something via infallibility ex cathedra, it has to be correct, by definition. My understanding is that if a pope made this declaration, it would not, could not be ex cathedra, in addition to being wrong. If your claim is that a pope can make a claim ex cathedra and be wrong, then the very idea of infallibility ex cathedra would be false.

I’m hope a Catholic will correct me if I misunderstand.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Queen of Heaven
Throughout his lifetime, Luther believed that Mary was and referred to her as the “Queen of Heaven”, but he warned against people using the term too much.[22]
So God made BVM queen of heaven but don’t say it too often

Luther’s point here, ISTM, reflects a Christocentric viewpoint. The Blessed Virgin is Queen of Heaven, but Christ is the Savior. She is Queen of Heaven for Christ’s sake, not hers. So, spend the majority of your time focusing on Christ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

luther didn’t even know what he believed himself

In the course of his life, Martin Luther made contradictory statements about Mary’s immaculate conception. For example, in 1532 Luther says that Mary was conceived in sin, in 1544 he says: ‘God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus.’[19] Elsewhere, “All seed except Mary was vitiated [by original sin].”[20] When concentrating specifically on Mary herself as the Mother of God, Luther acknowledges God’s singular action in bringing her into the world, but in making general comments about the universality of human sinfulness, he includes her among all the rest of humanity.

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person."
google.ie/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Marian_theology&sa=U&ei=sCT2T_aoIYTd8gOIlKGBBw&ved=0CB0QFjAD&sig2=9Z2xjXEYy6wgiTHaDMzvfg&usg=AFQjCNGP5ZhLcgqNsEVp_T4WJmJzrSR-qw

Not inconsistent at all. We would all agree that her sinlessness is a miracle, an act of God for His purpose of salvation. It is quite possible, as scripture is not explicit, that this miracle could have taken place at the visitation of the Angel, when he spoke the greeting to her. I have no particular problem with the IC, but as a Lutheran I can consider other possibilities, since the IC is not an article of faith.

Jon

 

[Lochias]

Yes, from a Catholic POV. The CC having a POV is fine and good, but frankly I need more than her say-so about the issue.

If it’s Catholic doctrine and Catholic tradition that you’re having a problem with, you should look more closely at the Catholic POV. One of the things I love about the RCC (and I’m not saying it’s exclusive to her) is that she doesn’t hide a thing. Doctrines and traditions can be followed back openly through history, and insofar as my own seeking has gone, I’ve yet to find anything that would prove the RCC wrong.

This assumes two things: 1) that they broke from Rome, and not the other way around, and 2) that the authority of the pope is what the CC claims it is. When I read Nicea, I see canon 6 saying that the Bishop of Rome’s authority is equal is jurisdiction to the Bishop of Alexandria’s in his. So, Tradition and early Church teaching and structure are a central issue here.

And this is a central issue for me.

I believe the central issue is less with Tradition and early Church teaching than it is with which translations of Nicea that a particular individual chooses to go with. This link might explain more (it’s a Catholic source, but still draws upon history and translation and logic to make its point): philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

Again, in my studies, I have not found anything suitable to derail the RCC’s argument, historically or otherwise.

Purgation is itself an extension of God’s mercy and justice. If one can say this happens at the moment of death, no additional place/state necessary, then I can believe Purgatory.

But the issue is which Tradition do I believe,since Tradition does not agree?

Of course Tradition agrees. Even Jewish tradition agrees, and Jesus was, if anything, a good Jew. He was very clear in condemning those practices which needed to go, but he never said a word against the Jewish customs of praying for the dead.

Honestly, it sounds more to me like you’re hung up over the semantics of Purgatory more than anything else. It certainly happens at the moment of death, if needed; it simply seems as though you have issues with it happening within any sort of time frame beyond “instantaneous”. Am I correct? If so, why?

Jon
EDIT: BTW, I honor and respect your faith in the matter, and your approach here. thanks.

You are most welcome. I enjoy talking with you, and it’s always good to see you pop up in one of the threads here.

 

[JonNC]

=Lochias;9490177]If it’s Catholic doctrine and Catholic tradition that you’re having a problem with, you should look more closely at the Catholic POV. One of the things I love about the RCC (and I’m not saying it’s exclusive to her) is that she doesn’t hide a thing. Doctrines and traditions can be followed back openly through history, and insofar as my own seeking has gone, I’ve yet to find anything that would prove the RCC wrong.

Not exactly, since I cannot at this point seeing myself joining an Orthodox Church for the same reasons. IOW, the question remains for me which is true?

I believe the central issue is less with Tradition and early Church teaching than it is with which translations of Nicea that a particular individual chooses to go with. This link might explain more (it’s a Catholic source, but still draws upon history and translation and logic to make its point): philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

I’ll check it out.

Again, in my studies, I have not found anything suitable to derail the RCC’s argument, historically or otherwise.

Have you studied Orthodox views on the issue?
The Lutheran view is expressed in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. It does have some polemics whichI don’t believe apply today, but the basic issues are there.

Of course Tradition agrees. Even Jewish tradition agrees, and Jesus was, if anything, a good Jew. He was very clear in condemning those practices which needed to go, but he never said a word against the Jewish customs of praying for the dead.

What I meant was that Orthodox Tradition and Catholic Tradition disagree on a range of issues, and both claim that they are the one true Church.

Honestly, it sounds more to me like you’re hung up over the semantics of Purgatory more than anything else. It certainly happens at the moment of death, if needed; it simply seems as though you have issues with it happening within any sort of time frame beyond “instantaneous”. Am I correct? If so, why?

Yes. I think this, along with the abuses surrounding Purgatory that existed at the time, was the major objections of the Lutheran reformers, as well, if one reads the confessions about it.

Jon

 

[saveusfromhell]

This is not my understanding of ex cathedra. If a pope declares something via infallibility ex cathedra, it has to be correct, by definition. My understanding is that if a pope made this declaration, it would not, could not be ex cathedra, in addition to being wrong. If your claim is that a pope can make a claim ex cathedra and be wrong, then the very idea of infallibility ex cathedra would be false.

I’m hope a Catholic will correct me if I misunderstand.
Jon

okay i’ll correct myself a pope can** claim** to be speaking excathedra but can’t be unless all conditions are met. i did see the error in what my post was implying but it was too late to chang
maybe now you can address the rest of that post.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Not inconsistent at all. We would all agree that her sinlessness is a miracle, an act of God for His purpose of salvation. It is quite possible, as scripture is not explicit, that this miracle could have taken place at the visitation of the Angel, when he spoke the greeting to her. I have no particular problem with the IC, but as a Lutheran I can consider other possibilities, since the IC is not an article of faith.

Jon

it’s not inconssitent to contradict yourself
any way take it up with wikki its their info on the luther, i supplied the link.

 

[Lochias]

Not exactly, since I cannot at this point seeing myself joining an Orthodox Church for the same reasons. IOW, the question remains for me which is true?

Ah, I see. Well, I’ll be praying for you in this regard, when and if you decide to make a choice.

I’ll check it out.

Jolly good.

Have you studied Orthodox views on the issue?
The Lutheran view is expressed in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. It does have some polemics which I don’t believe apply today, but the basic issues are there.

I have studied the Orthodox views on the matter, yes. I’ll look into the Treatise, as my knowledge of the Lutheran view is a little more shaky.

What I meant was that Orthodox Tradition and Catholic Tradition disagree on a range of issues, and both claim that they are the one true Church.

Ah. Well, all I can offer is the history and logic that lead toward the RCC, at least for me. Those conclusions came, for me, before I began to dive into the deeper reaches of my Faith, for what that’s worth. I “studied myself” deeper in, as some folks say on here.

Yes. I think this, along with the abuses surrounding Purgatory that existed at the time, was the major objections of the Lutheran reformers, as well, if one reads the confessions about it.

I’ll take a look at the confessions, and see what they have to say.

 

[saveusfromhell]

Luther’s point here, ISTM, reflects a Christocentric viewpoint. The Blessed Virgin is Queen of Heaven, but Christ is the Savior. She is Queen of Heaven for Christ’s sake, not hers. So, spend the majority of your time focusing on Christ.

Jon

with the greatest repect what makes you think i would listen to your advice on how to pray.
i have plenty of GOOD litreature on how to pray from the one true church

 

[JonNC]

=Lochias;9490289] Ah, I see. Well, I’ll be praying for you in this regard, when and if you decide to make a choice.

Thanks. As you can see, mine is not a polemic against the CC.

BTW, a couple of years ago the USCCB and Lutherans authored this dialogue statement, in part about Purgatory. It is loooong, but very interesting.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/dialogue-with-others/ecumenical/lutheran/hope-eternal-life.cfm
Jon