R
rr1213
Guest
Sure, here’s one. Some, although not all, of the early church fathers believed that Mary sinned.
- Status
S
sterryfamily
Guest
I figured you’d come up with some. Can you provide specific references? Were these simply comments made as contributions to the discussion before a matter was settled and solemnly defined?
J
Jokerz
Guest
In 1950 the pope declared that Mary had been bodily received into heaven and required church members to believe it. It would be difficult to maintain that this doctrine met Vincent of Lerins’s standard of the catholic faith since there have obviously been many christians of all times and places that did not accept this idea.
Jokerz
S
sterryfamily
Guest
When a pope solemnly defines dogma it is never in opposition to constantly held belief. He doesn’t “invent” a new belief and force it upon the faithful. Doctrine may develop over time, but it never contradicts what was previously defined. The truth was always there, but not necessarily always evident. Usually, when a council or pope addresses an issue, it is in reaction to some new challenge to a belief that was considered to have always been held.
R
rr1213
Guest
See passage below:
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”).
In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259).
St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also “In Matt.”, hom. 4).
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
F
Flying_Bison
Guest
Your straying from the question. The question is can Protestants prove a link to Early Christian beliefs. Once again, no proof is available so in attempt to support one own beliefs the attack turns toward Catholicism not Proving protestant beliefs as being in line with historical Christianity.
The argument I think Catholics are wrong, so Protestants by default are right is incorrect.
A
artist3189
Guest
Very good point. They are private opinions, and thru the ages many theologians had opinions about things that were ‘unclear’. It is a shame though, that Luther had to ‘toss’ so much scripture that didn’t “suit” him into a appendix, only to have that completely tossed out later on by succeeding Prot’s. The fact that he rejected the Septuagint versions of Hebrew Scripture was a big mistake. He used his OWN authority, not Gods, to re-work the bible, throwing out what didn’t comply with his vision of Christian theology, got rid of text that he found ‘problematic’ with his new approach to Christian theology, and re-interpreted things that he felt supported the old Churches views that he disagreed with. This, to me, does not make for a solid foundation on which to build upon. Protestantism has survived in one form or another because every religion has it’s saints, people in love with Christ, the hard working faithful. How much they really look into these issues are another matter. There is no lineage with or through the Catholic Church, they broke that, fully, a long time ago.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Here is one John 3:16–21
I am a whosoever:thumbsup: that believes
John 4 : 13-14—I am under the category of everyone:thumbsup:
John 8: 12— I am a whoever.
I think you get my point:thumbsup:
J
Jokerz
Guest
I am not attacking the catholic faith. I am merely pointing out historical facts. It is a fact that during the time of Martin Luther and other reformers, the catholic church was corrupt. And many of the popes and cardinals etc were living like pagans and incorporating pagan rituals into the Roman Catholic faith, thus the reformation. And yes Protestants do have a link with ancient christians. He is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Jokerz
Jokerz
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Oh I found another
John 11:25–26 and verse 25–26(again Im a whoever and a servant)
John 11:25–26 and verse 25–26(again Im a whoever and a servant)
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Amen, sister!!!Here is one John 3:16–21
I am a whosoever:thumbsup: that believes
John 4 : 13-14—I am under the category of everyone:thumbsup:
John 8: 12— I am a whoever.
I think you get my point:thumbsup:
A
artist3189
Guest
You’re right, that is true, I’m not sure about the pagan ritual part, to which you refer, I’d like you to be more specific about that, but basically there were things that needed to change, BUT Luther’s idea was NOT the way to do it, he re-wrote Christianity to suit HIM. Better to re-form from the inside, as did St Francis and others. The Church constantly needed correction over the centuries, Luther wasn’t the first to do it, but he was the most damaging to Christianity as a whole. The reformation did have some positive impacts on the Church for sure, but in the end, I feel Luther led many down a crooked path. But to be sure, the true constant in all this is Christ and even if Protestant’s don’t necessarily have a hard historical link to early Christianity, they ‘certainly’, positively have a spiritual one, no one can deny that. That’s why all True Christians acknowledge the same ‘one baptism’.
F
Flying_Bison
Guest
The Catholic Church is not Pagan. You have no evidence and no serious historian would give this any thought. Protestant views are not those of the Early Church. Therefore their interpretation is a NEW “invention” not compatible with Christians who were taught by the Apostles.
Many Heretics Claim to be teaching in the name of Jesus but that doesn’t make them right.
Jehovahs witnesses, Arians, gnostics, Mormans etc. Are they the truth because the believe Jesus existed.
Why were they called Heretic because they claimed to believe in Jesus but taught beliefs contrary to historical Christian teachings.
F
Flying_Bison
Guest
NOT ONE PROTESTANT has shown a historical link to early Christianity. Ergo – Their beliefs are modern"misinterpretations" of Christianity because their views were not held by the Early Christians.
Whats their defense. The Catholic Church did bad stuff. This DOES NOT prove the validity of current Protestant view at all.
It simply gives Protestant a reason, to reject historical doctrine the contradicts their PERSONAL views of what christianity is supposed to be like.
Whats their defense. The Catholic Church did bad stuff. This DOES NOT prove the validity of current Protestant view at all.
It simply gives Protestant a reason, to reject historical doctrine the contradicts their PERSONAL views of what christianity is supposed to be like.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I think this is a very good point.
Many non-Catholic theologians have essentially blamed the more corrupt periods of Catholicism on Catholic doctrines instead of the Catholic people who were openly disregarding and/or abusing these Catholic doctrines.
In truth, I think a non-Catholic theologian would be hard-pressed to verify with any real accuracy exactly how Catholic doctrines have supposedly corrupted the Catholics who openly disregarded and/or abused them.
It simply doesn’t necessarilly follow that those who rebel against the practices of their own faith have been necessarilly corrupted by the practices that they themsleves have rebeled against.
Even in the Hebrew Scriptures there were numerous examples of the Israelites abusing their own beliefs. And yet they were still Israelites nonetheless-- and the beliefs that they abused certainly did not contribute to their own rebellion aginst these beliefs.
Saying that that those who rebel against the practices of their own faith have been necessarilly corrupted by the practices that they themsleves have rebeled against is like saying that modern day Catholics who openly rebel against the Magisterium’s teachings against abortion have been corrupted by the Magisterium’s teachings against abortion.
This simply makes no sense whatsoever. And yet this is almost exactly what is being claimed by these non-Catholic theologians against Catholic teachings.
Now, to be fair, I would concede one point toward non-Catholic theologians. Protestestants rebelling against Catholicism is really not what caused the Protestant Reformation to happen. More accurately, Catholics observing Catholics openly ignoring, rebelling and abusing their own Catholic faith is what resulted in the Protestant Reformation.
So, to the extent that various protestant rose up, I would not necessarilly blame the protestants on this one-- not directly anyway. Rather scandal within the Catholic Church resulted in schisms within the Catholc Church…and these schisms of rebellion are what, in my opinion, ultimately resulted in the rise of protestant thinking.
In other words, despite claims to the contrary, the various protestant churches didn’t succeed in reforming the Catholic Church. Likewise, however, despite claims to the contrary, the Catholic Church didn’t necessarilly succeed in retaining the unity of the Catholic faith either.
More to the point, the Catholic Church succeeded in causing divisions within herself precisely because we failed to display our Catholic heritage with integrity and kindness, out of love.
But sound Catholic doctrines did not cause people’s rebellion against Catholic teachings. Rebellion against Catholic doctrines from within the Catholic Church is what caused this-- and the protestant reformers have most certainly walked in the same paths of own rebellion against Catholic doctrines and essentially formed their own ‘churches’ in the process.
B
believers
Guest
Here’s why you won’t get an answer… Believers in Christ claim to be the children (seed) of Abraham (Rom 4:16) IN FAITH . We’re the Israel which will be saved. (Rom 11:26)
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
You can claim to be THE church all you want but that doesn’t change our faith in Jesus Christ. We are the seed of Abraham through the righteousness of faith which are heirs to the world. Our faith goes back as far as Abraham which is far older than your church. Glory to God. Amen.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
This is getting off topic!
otherwise…
otherwise…
Correction, the Catholic Church was not sinful. Specific Bishops and Priests were sinful. The few do not represent the whole.
F
Fredricks
Guest
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
Well … first of all, “the Catholic Church did bad stuff” isn’t what most Protestants I’ve known build their cases upon. Secondly, and more importantly, your argument contains a mighty weak “ergo.” One argument that’s fundamental among most Protestant churches is that a church’s validity does not stand or fall by the chronological unbrokenness of its “historical link” to the 1st-century church.
If I may offer an example: let’s say that Cletus Blow is the great-great-grandson of the great 19th-century theologian and philosopher Joseph Blow, and Cletus’s neighbor Watts Isphace is no kin whatsoever. However, Cletus is barely literate, thinks a “dialectic” is something that makes you urinate, and has appeared on four separate episodes of “Cops.” Watts, on the other hand, is a learned fellow who did his dissertation on Joseph Blow and is dedicated to furthering his ideas, when he’s not calling 911 to get a drunken, naked Cletus away from his picture window. In this scenario, Cletus has an indisputable “historical link” to his ancestor, while Watts can claim no such thing. In any meaningful sense, though, Watts is probably the better and truer heir to the elder Blow. Similarly, a Protestant might point out that even if every Catholic assertion about their unbroken link to the first centuries A.D. is true, being an institutional heir to the Apostles isn’t everything.
I’m not sure that I agree with the above, but use it to show that Catholics don’t quite have the slam-dunk here that some of the folks on this thread believe.
**Additional Disclaimer: I have devised the scenario in the preceding paragraphs for debating purposes. I freely admit that Catholics are generally fine upstanding folks, very few indeed of whom have ever appeared on “Cops,” and very few of whom hang around Protestants’ picture windows in an inebriated or unclothed state. Much.
**
F
Flying_Bison
Guest
This No one argues. The CC never said faith is unimportant to being a Cristian. To list these verses proves that faith is important and part of being Christian, so what?
The Catholic Church believes that all people baptized are Christians. That does not mean that their interpretations are correct or their teachings the fullness of Christianity.
This does not answer the question of whether modern Protestant interpretation of Scripture and the idea of what constitutes a Church are coherent with historical Christian beliefs.
You forget to that the People that Paul was talking to all had the same beliefs taught by the Early Church, which was visible and authoritative. This was their faith. He did not let all decide for themselves what constituted faith. Heck if this were the case, I could quote the OT testament and tell Christians to continue burning animals in holocaust. Hey its in the bible. What makes my interpretation wrong, I still believe in Jesus. He never said don’t have holocausts.
- Status