As with everything in the Church, everything is based on tradition and can be traced back to Jewish practises, as our Mass is the fulfilment of the Jewish sacrifice. The depth and beauty of the Catholic Faith is just awesome, and the reasons for practises are right and True, just need to use the correct tools to unearth them.
Our Lady HAS to be set apart as the Mother of God.By that mere fact alone has she earned her rightful place. Everything takes time, even as a born and bred Catholic!
God Bless you on your Journey of Discovery.

A lot of the Old Testament typology is not exclusively about Christ, but includes His mother. St. Romanos the Melodist wrote an Akathist that Orthodox Christians sing on Fridays in Great Lent that is right with such imagery. It may help this friend of your correspondent appreciate the Theotokos. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Akathist#Relating_to_the_Theotokos

My Dear Brother in Christ.  When Scott Hahn was on his journey to the Catholic Church, he made a profound statement: If the Catholic Church is so right about the 99% of their teaching, I’ll trust them for the 1% and learn about it later.  And that he did; and so he did!  My suggestion is to do the same.  Take the leap of faith for the 1%.  Mary is your loving mother who will bring you face to face with her Son in ways you never thought possible.  You’ll be glorifying God every moment of the day.  God bless!

My understanding about the “lavishness” of the papacy—the robes, the housing, the cathedrals and all the art, etc.—is that the vast majority of those material goods are donated, not paid for by the faithful nor “earned” as some sort of salary.  I have heard some argue that the Church should sell off all its riches and give the proceeds to the poor.  However, if not for the Church, where would the poor be able to access such wonderful treasures?  These items do not “belong” to the pope, they “belong” to the entire Church—to all of humanity—and give us all the opportunity to experience some of the most beautiful materials in all of history.

I think you unknowingly hit the nail on the head with “It’s like teetotalers fretting that Catholics have “too much” wine at Mass”, but then moved on without noticing what you said.

From the modern Protestant perspective, it’s not that Catholics honor Mary (or the saints) too much. It’s that they shouldn’t be honored at all, at least in a religious sense. You see this reinforced the the silly Protestant objection to “calling no man father”. In modern Protestantism, we’re all the same and we’re all depraved so we should not cast pearls of praise before swine like us. Mixed in all of this is the Pharisaic idea of surrounding a law by a wide margin so you have no chance of breaking it. So you spitting on the Sabbath is considered work if it falls on the ground (you’re irrigating your lawn!) but not if it falls on a rock. So even appearing to give any glory to God to anything created by God is considered to be offensive.

Of course, there are answers to all these objections, but it is far more complicated than Catholics understand is possible, and I don’t even think many Protestants are completely aware of their base assumptions since they are surrounded by communities that simply do not talk about much less question the base assumptions.

The answer to all you doubts in entering the Catholic Church is in praying the Rosary. Learn to pray it. Persevere in praying it and Our Blessed Mother will help to remove those doubts from your mind. It’s that simple. Brother Robert was correct in saying, “Mary is your loving mother who will bring you face to face with her Son in ways you never thought possible.  You’ll be glorifying God every moment of the day.” Peace and Blessings in you journey.

Someone (Maybe Dorothy Day?) once said that all that lavishness was the great equalizer.  It didn’t matter if you were poor, orphaned, black, white, a leper…no matter who you were, what circumstances you came from, when you walked into a Catholic Church, you were experiencing what it felt to be a “King”.  Even a pauper could experience great art, music, etc.  In the “world” the pauper is a nobody, lower than everyone else, but in a Catholic Church he is just like everyone else and he gets to be surrounded by all the wealth of beauty that others experience every day.

Dear Brother in Christ, these are all good suggestions, and you should heed them.  I like that suggestion of Scott Hahn’s—if you trust the Church to be right 99% of the time, then take that leap of faith with the other 1%, always praying that you will come to understand.  I especially second those suggestions by Deacon Bourgeois about the Rosary.  As a Catholic, I had to re-learn to pray it after being away from the Church for some time.  Mary is indeed the greatest of God’s creatures, which is why she comes before all the other saints.  But further to the point, when we pray the Rosary, we learn to see and love Christ through the faith and love of the one person who is in perfect Communion with Him at all times:  Mary, His own mother.  Catholics do indeed pray “straight to Jesus,” too, but in no way does any other prayer to any saint get in the way of doing so.  Since the prayers of Mary and all of the saints point beyond themselves, we pray through them, and so they actually teach us to pray to Christ better.  Furthermore, you might recall the Beatitudes:  “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”  Think of how much clarity the Immaculate Heart of Mary sees God, therefore.  Furthermore, I can say that Dorothy Day and others (like RMMT and mk) who echo her sentiment about the riches that belong not to the Pope or priests, but to the Church, I have spent much time scrimping and saving while living as a graduate student, wherein (especially lately), attending Mass in a church that cares about reverence toward the sacred has made me feel (and indeed remember), that I truly do have everything I need.  I am reminded through all of that of the deep richness and fullness of the gifts that Christ, through His Church, wants to give me.  For the Church to sell all of that and “give the money to the poor” would, in the words of Dorothy Day, relegate the poor to a dull, flat, and lifeless gray, for the poor, like us all, need to be cared for in terms of the spirit, and not just in terms of material needs.  We do not live by bread alone, after all.

Do have you accepted the Churches teachings on praying to the saints? If so, then perhaps you should ask Mary. Try, everyonce in a while when you feel yourself doubting Catholicism because of this (or feeling the need to leap in dispite of this) just pray “Mary, mother of my Savior. Help me to honnor you as Jesus wants me to honor you, so that I may be close to you and your Son.” Or some other harmless but honest varriation.

“The way to God is through His Mother” It can’t get any more simple than that.God wants us all to be like children. You are complicating it. Keep it simple, and pray the rosary. May God Bless you on your journey and may His dear Mother help you.

Hi Mark,
This last supper on a weekly or monthly schedule, is a problem if You consider Christs words at the last supper: “With great desire I have desired to eat this passover with you”. Why is it the most mentioned date in the Bible, Passover, is nearly ignored by the church, Catholic, or Protestant?
Jesus Himself answers the Mary question:Matthew 12:46…
“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”...
This is not a ringing endorsement of Mary veneration! If we consider Luke 2:48, when Jesus was 12, it almost sounds as if Mary had forgotten who Jesus really was:..“And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.”, or John 2:3 “And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.” Um maybe there is a translation problem here, but how many would say to their mother: “Woman what have I to do with thee”?

I highly recommend the reading of the Mystical City of God by the Venerable Mary of Agreda.  After reading this, there will be no question as to why the Church honors Mary.  It is hailed by many Popes and Bishops.

Theophile, “woman” was not spoken then in the sense that it is now.  Men address a woman as “woman,” when they are speaking down to her, but it wasn’t so then.  And Jesus went on to DO exactly what Mary asked him, even though his hour had not yet come.  Why leave that important point out of your explanation?

It is true that In her humanity, it’s quite possible, and probable given Luke 2:48 that Mary didn’t understand Christ’s leaving them to teach in the temple.  Such a case doesn’t make any less of her exalted position as the Mother of God.

“Whosoever shall do the will of my Father in Heaven” - who has done that as well as his Mother herself, the handmaid of the Lord?  I see this quote as not rejecting his Mother, but holding her up all the more.

The Catholic Church does not ignore the passover.  Are you familiar with the Easter Liturgy?  The passover is fulfilled in Christ’s death and Resurrection, and every part of the first passover is but a foreshadowing of Christ, the Lamb of God.  In that sense, we continue to celebrate the passover, every week, as every Sunday is a celebration of Christ’s Resurrection.

If you believe in the Incarnation (that Jesus Christ was truly human), then it is certain that Jesuse viewed his mother in the way all humans view their mothers.  He loved her.  As an infant and small child, she was the first (and most important) example of human love and security for Him.  He called her “Mommy”, and thought she was the most beautiful woman in the world.  I think that is the root of Marian devotion and intercession.  We know from our human experience that He loves her in a special way.  Ask, and she’ll get results!

A couple of points that may be additionally persuasive if contemplated.

Mary was the most promximal material cause of Jesus’ body, the same body of the ‘body, blood, soul and divinity’ we adore in the Eucharist. This is not a small deal.

Next, isn’t there something pretty deeply significant in the tradition - affirmed by all the Church - that Mary was there
1) at Jesus’ Incarnation (enabled - cooperated with by her ‘Yes’)
2) carrying Jesus in the first Eucharistic procession (to Elizabeth)
3) at Jesus’ birth
4) when Jesus was being scourged and crucified
5) especially when Jesus had died, she held in her hands the sacrifice, before he was lain in the tomb

Finally, are we supposed to think that Mary was given to John, and vice versa, by Jesus on the Cross, as a once-and-done thing. It was not symbolizing anything other than Jesus taking care of his mother?

So, yes, anyone is right to look at mariolatry askance: Mary is not the fourth person of the Trinity. But, is it not curious that Mary is a Daughter to the Father, Mother to the Son, and Spouse of the Holy Spirit in a pretty unique relational way? It is not substantial, certainly nothing there was predicated on Mary - but Mary’s participation, reflection on Mary’s relationships, etc, all these things tell us a great deal about ourselves, humanity, and God’s relation to His church: both in opposition to Eve, as well as understanding her as a Second Eve, as Christ is a second Adam. Mariology tells us so much about the Trinity, her Son, and ourselves, that we really would be hard pressed to say too much about Mary, no matter how much we wrote and spoke about her.

Your questions are same ones asked by most Protestants and are very natural for someone not of a Catholic background.  Don’t worry, if you are like most converts or even fallen away Catholic biblical reverts, the answers will come in time, and at some point later you may ask yourself: “Why did I ever worry about that so much.”  I think the answer is that because the Church is from God, not everything about it is easy to understand, especially at first, just as the Jews could not fathom Christ saying he was from the Father and could forgive sins, give us his body and blood to eat and drink and rise from the dead.  It was just totally different from what they expected and, to many, seemed to contradict what they previously had believed.  Ultimately, an act of faith in God is necessary.

I know quite a few life long Catholics who have trouble understanding a thing or two,and that is okay!  Accepting and understanding are two different things.  Receiving Jesus in Holy Communion will help increase understanding immensely!  There is nothing to lose, and only everything to gain.  God bless you in your earnest and wonderful search for Him.  Come to his table and receive Jesus, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.

As a convert (raised Baptist)I did not struggle much with honoring Mary as Mother of God or in asking her intercession or that of the saints.

People at my church were always asking others to pray for them and there was a part of the service dedicated to prayer needs of the congregation. If we ask prayers of each other in this fallen worlds (as per scripture) who better to ask for prayers than those who have “finished the race and won the crown”.

Also, in my family, if you wanted something, ask mom and if she said yes she will get dad to say yes. That was “kid 101). Now in retrospect, she would only say yes or ask dad on things that were right and fitting.

Regarding the vestments and dress etc, it made a lot more sense when I read Leviticus and Deuteronomy about the sacrifices, worship and vestments required of the Israelite priests and reflected on other scriptures (Ezekiel, Revelation)which have sections dealing with visions of heaven. Being mindful that the Old Testament foreshadows the New Testament, God demanded very ornate, exact and very liturgical worship of the Israelites even in the desert. The visions of heavenly worship are not of the saints sitting around God like a campfire.

Somewhere, it’s written that God’s ways are not our ways.  So it’s troubling to me to put too much human interpretion onto the ways of God.  The Bereans in the New Testament searched the Scriptures, proving what they were being told was true.  I think we should do that too.  “Trust me” does not seem wise, when it comes to matters of our faith.  I want to see why I do what I do, or what I’m told to do may dishonor God.

I miss the old Mass - post Vatican II liturgy.  Although I still go to Mass each weekend, the new words to the Liturgy of the Eucharist seem to me like they are intended for those not already in the Body of Christ, but that want to be, so it alienates me.  But the good news is at least Catholics still have Holy Communion, and at the parishes I attend, the whole Mass is reverent, and worships God.  It’s not just some singing and a message from the pastor.

I’ve gone back to saying “Holy Communion”, not “Eucharist”.  In John 6 and at the Last Supper, we so clearly see the Lord’s Supper.  Many non-denominational churches have Communion only 3 times a year, or once a month.  Too little.  It’s not how we are directed in Acts of the Apostles.
At least, Catholics & conservative Anglicans, Lutherans, seem to be more on target, in terms of Holy Communion.

Jackie - it’s too bad that you feel alienated by the “new” words.  Perhaps you haven’t heard, but the changes were made in order to have a correct translation of the Latin.  That is, the Mass before was not correctly translated.  I don’t think those words are more intended for those not already in the Body of Christ.
Also, it doesn’t matter what any of us WANTS to call the Eucharist.  It is Eucharist.  It is Holy Communion.  It is the Body of Christ.  We can do our own thinking and still submit to the Church’s authority, which she rightly has, given by Our Lord.  The Church has deemed it good and proper to call the Blessed Sacrament “Eucharist.”
Anglicans and Lutherans may be more on target in terms of Holy Communion than other Protestants, but they certainly don’t have what the Catholic Church has, sadly.

@WSquared:  While Scott Hahn may have some good things to say, why must he (and other Protestant converts) be immediately hailed and virtually deified for their conversion?  Some of their opinions are debatable in light of what the gospel says.  In a recent edition of the monthly publication “The Magnificat” Hahn makes reference to salvation not resting upon grace but by the requirement of works.  While Hahn may be sincere, please be discerning about worshiping at his altar merely because he came in the door from Protestantism.  Too many Catholics are doing this.

I was at a Knights of Columbus meeting all weekend.  One of the speakers brought this specific topic, at least with respect to Mary, up.  He had been speaking to a bunch of evangelicals when the Holy Spirit led him to change his speech:

Quoting the Gospel According to Luke, he started with “Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with You”.  Then, he said, let’s move a little later in the chapter to the words of Elizabeth, Mary’s Cousin:  “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb”.  We all know who the fruit of her womb was “Jesus”.  Now move on to the Transfiguration.  I submit that Moses and Elijah were far more alive, and active in prayer, on that day with Jesus than they ever were when they had material bodies.  So how much more alive is Mary, as Queen of Heaven, seated with her son?  I admit I’m a sinner, and so I pray “Holy Mary, Mother of God, Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death”.

He said somebody came up to him after the talk and said that he should make that into a prayer.  He didn’t have the heart to tell them it already was.

@New.
Can we do anything without being accused of idolatry?  No one is deifying Dr. Hahn, but he is a brilliant man.  He has written books worth reading and quoting.

@Jackie- have you been to a NO Mass in the last year?  The words have changed, the translation for the better, I think.  Maybe not all the way some of us would like, but certainly an improvement and an attempt towards being more true to the Latin while keeping the English.

I think we should reiterate GK’s point by saying: Shouldn’t our church’s and liturgical garb be fancier than our daily garb? Isn’t it more edifying to be in a beautiful place, where every picture and even window draws your mind toward heavenly things? Modern Protestants have beautiful homes and dreary churches, and sadly so do many modern Catholics. Priests wear very drab day-to-day clothing. It is the mass in which the priests dress beautifully, as it should be! Most modern humans wear their nice clothes to the office and on date night, not mass. While we have bigger fish to fry with societal woes, an argument can be made about the folly of this.

Ah the treasures of the Vatican! What many people do not know many of the ‘treasures’ of the Vatic are property of the Italian people and the Pope is the care keeper of these treasures.

Here are a few thoughts about Our Lady (a title that reflects honor as in chivalry, not worship or adoration due to God alone): 

1) Mary is the one human person discipled by Christ for 33 years, or 30 more than the 3 granted to the disciples. We are told that she “pondered these things in her heart”, a recurring phrase reflecting her contemplative nature. That she is present in the Upper Room is very significant; could she have been a stabilizing influence to help those present pray the first Novena?
2) Consider Gabriel’s greeting: a) “Hail Mary!” This is a royal greeting; no one else in Scripture is accorded this level of respect by an angelic visitor. Note also that St Luke says she was troubled by this greeting and what it might mean. Unlike any others in Scripture she does not express fear and awe at the angel himself but rather at a greeting that contrasts sharply with her humble station. b) “... full of grace!” This phrase is literally pregnant with meaning, including part of the reason why the Church teaches that in virtue of the merits of Christ, she was free from Original Sin (the Immaculate Conception). Read the papal encyclicals; you will be astonished at their penetrating clarity.
3) This will become easier when you begin to notice that there is a tendency in Protestantism to think in zero-sum either/or terms rather than both/and (bigger pie). This distinction lies below a number of doctrinal conflicts which will melt away once you work through this. In the case of Our Lady, honor given her does not somehow detract from that given to Christ; it increases it. See Patrick Madrid’s “Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine” for an explanation that is as lucid as its title.
4) Consider Mary’s last recorded words on John 2: “Do whatever He tells you.” Mary never receives honor or glory on her own account, but always points to Christ. All generations call her blessed because of what God did for her, not because she was impressed with herself.
5) Actually Mary has over 2,200 titles, of which the most challenging to accept may be Mediatrix of All Graces. The way I look at it (which unlike the above, is a strictly personal perspective) is that if Our Blessed Lord wants to make her His almoner, that’s His business.

I could go on, but I will close with this: in my personal experience, prayer to Jesus through Mary has been effective. Like trying unfamiliar foods, it’s an acquired taste that repays the effort for a lifetime.

@ Ted - Yes, I go to Mass every Sunday.  I thought the Novos Ordo name was the name for the old, pre-Vatican II Mass whose words I prefer.  I loved that Mass.  It reminded me of worship in Heaven, and we, here on earth, were joining in with them. 

But the words of the new Liturgy of the Eucharist (the Consecration prayers read by the priest, most particularly), are to me, what alienates me.  Instead of joining in with the liturgy in Heaven, and worshipping, it’s more like we’re begging to be saved.  We’re still all standing at Calvary, and our salvation is in question.  I look up, when the priest is reading those new words, and think, “Huh?” 

Even our new, “Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof…” indicates to me we do not have the Holy Spirit residing within us.  To me, it’s different from the older phrase, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but just say the word and my soul shall be healed.”  We all sin, having asked God for mercy, we’re back in a right relationship with Him, upon that request.  But we have the Holy Spirit in us.

So I don’t say the “I am not worthy for you to come under my roof…” phrase.  It’s from the centurian before he was saved.  He was an outcast then.  The verbiage sounds to me like those of us at Mass are still be
outcasts, instead of just there to worship, to keep in Communion with God.

Another thing I remembered reading is it is God, the Father, that is the “Most High”.  Jesus, the Son, is the “Son of the Most High”.  But when I asked about that, it was glossed over by people in my local parish.
Their attitude was like it was six of one, half dozen of another; no big deal to call Jesus the “Most High”.  When we sing the Gloria, I now add the line, “Son of the Most High” - and I can do it in harmony with what the rest of the choir and congregation are singing.  It’s accurate. 

Maybe it’s just my personality, but I like to be specific.  I want to honor God properly, and to honor God, we need to know Him, calling Him, by His proper Name.

@Pilgrim - I think Holy Communion is really called “The Lord’s Supper”. Eucharist is Greek, I believe, and the word would have come later. 

All of what I wrote may be a tad off subject.  Perhaps only I feel this way about our new Mass.  But the principle is the same, in that I don’t just “trust” that all is hunky dorey.  It’s written that we must worship God in Spirit and in Truth.  We all need to know what that means.

Finally - with the people on this blog that are discussing Mary, I’ve always wondered why Jesus said of John the Baptist, “No one born of woman was greater than he…”  The Baptist would be an Old Testament saint, as would the Blessed Mother.

Why did Jesus say no one (born of woman) was greater than John the Baptist?  Mary was born of a woman, about 15 years before John.  Why didn’t Jesus say Mary was the greatest, and end the division that separates Rome from non-Catholic Christians?

I don’t have a whole lot to add, but in reading the comments above I kept thinking, “Wow.  I can’t believe that no one is calling anyone names or shouting at anyone.  It’s remarkable.”  Thank you for that. And to the original questioner, I would say that it’s good to ask questions, but also submit to where the Holy Spirit is leading you.  He will give you whatever you need to get there, if you keep your mind open to Him.  God bless you.

@Jackie- Novus Ordo is the Post Vatican II Mass.  We experienced the revision in 1973 and the new revision of it this year.

EF is the Old Latin Mass, which was first translated into local languages in 1962.  It’s much different.

The latest revision of the translation of the Eucharistic prayers is closer to the Novus Ordo as it is written in Latin and as it is in the Bible.  For instance, we repeat the Centurion’s words from the Gospel of Matthew almost exactly:  Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be saved (we’re praying for our souls instead of for our daughters, but the point is the same- faith in Christ’s ability to work miracles).

It was the older version that was highly inaccurate, and didn’t seem to come from the Gospel story about the dying girl and Christ.

As long as we are a part of the Church militant, however, we ARE outcasts- we’re still in this Vale of Tears, we haven’t actually joined in the Church triumphant yet.  We aren’t Once Saved Always Saved Protestants, we’re “Working out our salvation in fear and trembling” Catholics.

As for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- in the Latin they’re all co-equals, all Most High, the Three-in-One Trinity of God.

I think you’ve got some fundamentalist influence in how you are reading scripture- and not knowing the Latin and being catechized properly on the changes, of course you’re confused.

Mary was a great difficulty for me, as well. Ultimately, it had to be my faith in the Church that gave me the faith to believe all the Church proposes for our belief.  One book that helped, however, was “Mary for Evangelicals” by Tim Perry.  (I’m not sure why it’s listed at $24 on Amazon.)  There may be other books out there that look at Mary from a Biblical perspective, making allowances for Catholic (and Orthodox) beliefs about Mary.  Another good book, though, is “The Early Papacy” by Adrian Fortescue.  While not about Mary, the important point is faith in the Church.  (The words are important, “I believe in the Catholic Church…”)  Our faith in the Church is a faith that she (the Church) will not lead us astray.  If the Church tells me that I may pray to Mary for her intercession, that Mary delights to hear my prayers and then bring my prayers to her Son, I believe the Church and I delight with Mary in the love she has for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Loved reading all these comments; at 70 I am enjoying being a Catholic than I have throughout my whole life. I wear this pin that says “Roman Catholic and proud”. I get lots of disdainful looks as you can imagine, but who cares! I am chortling away to myself: such poetic justice, we are hated so much and lied about, but we know that ’ Our Redeemer Lives’ Christus Vincet, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat.

Gloria Schotten.

@Ted Seeber’s comments:  “We aren’t Once Saved Always Saved Protestants, we’re “Working out our salvation in fear and trembling” Catholics.

Ted, you don’t speak for every Catholic.  Your fixation on one line of Scripture while ignoring several others which help in the total explanation is commonplace among fellow Catholics.  This text is often misused to instill fear into people, warning them that it means that they can lose salvation. What does it mean to work out our salvation with fear and trembling? Paul can hardly be encouraging believers to live in a continuous condition of nervousness and anxiety. That would contradict his many other exhortations to peace of mind, courage, and confidence in the God who authors our salvation. The Greek word translated “fear” in this context can equally mean “reverence” or “respect.” Paul uses the same phrase in (2 Corinthians 7:15) where he refers to Titus as being encouraged by the Corinthians’ reception of him “with fear and trembling,” that is, with great humility and respect for his position as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul himself came to the Corinthian church in “weakness and fear, and with much trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3), mindful of the great and awesome nature of the work in which he was engaged.

The sense in which we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling is twofold. First, the Greek verb rendered “work out” means “to continually work to bring something to completion or fruition.” We do this by actively pursuing obedience in the process of sanctification, which Paul explains further in the next chapter of Philippians. He describes himself as “straining” and “pressing on” toward the goal of Christlikeness (Philippians 3:13-14). The “trembling” he experiences is the attitude Christians are to have in pursuing this goal—a healthy fear of offending God through disobedience and an awe and respect for His majesty and holiness. “Trembling” can also refer to a shaking due to weakness, but this is a weakness of higher purpose, one which brings us to a state of dependency on God. Obedience and submission to the God we revere and respect is our “reasonable service” (Romans 12:1-2) and brings great joy. Psalm 2:11 sums it up perfectly: “Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.” We work out our salvation by going to the very source of our salvation—the Word of God—wherein we renew our hearts and minds (Romans 12:1-2), coming into His presence with a spirit of reverence and awe.

My family of 10 joined the Catholic Church exactly one year ago.  I was raised Baptist but ended up Evangelical and I can understand Mark Shea’s friend who struggles with certain teachings of the church.  What I cannot understand is how the combox turns into a debate over various ways of celebrating the mass. The man writing in has been to one or two masses. I’m thankful that I was surrounded by Catholic friends and fellow homeschoolers who answered my questions with knowlegde and insight.  It was years of struggle and study—and it was excruciatingly painful in many ways.  That’s how I knew I was on the right track.  When people told me to pray to Mary or pray the Rosary, since I doubted, I can honestly say I never did.  I did try to model Mary’s life in my own in order to preserve my marriage and convert my children.  To Mark’s friend I would say that Christ will lead you in all truth and He can use any method necessary—even Mary.  Before I was Catholic I LOVED Adoration.  Time before the Eucharist just worshipping and listening and waiting for where He would lead me.  We should all be praying for you and encouraging you in your journey.  It’s so worth it!!

New Observer: Perhaps you didn’t mean to say what you said. It can certainly must be affirmed that one ‘can lose salvation’.

There’s plenty of biblical evidence, but Canon 23 of the Council of Trent is definitive:“If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.”

Also look at Canon 24. Actually, look at the whole section, it seems to give the Catholic faith on the subject, unless I am missing a subtlety to your argument.

On a gloss, Ted seems to have the right balance here, but perhaps I didn’t read his text that closely and skipped an objectionable part.

(Sorry, that should be “Canons Concerning Justification”, Session IV of the Council of Trent, mea culpa)

New Observer, who said that I “worship at the altar of Scott Hahn”?  You are being presumptuous.  I agree with that one statement of his, and it is indeed true:  if you don’t understand something, contemplate it and humbly pray about it, and the rest will come in time.  It really does.  Those who have said that this understanding comes through study, prayer and frequent and worthy reception of the Eucharist are spot on.  And as for your comments re Ted Seeber, what in his original comments necessarily conflicts with what you are describing?

Then there is scripture, too, you know…where Jesus says to Peter, “Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

– John 21:18

The office dresses Peter, not personal whim. As to Mary, a very easy answer: She carried God within her womb and birthed him for the salvation of all mankind. Of course she is greater than any other human! :-)

As a fairly recent convert from Evangelicalism myself, I totally understand the difficulties with Mary.  One day on my journey into the Church I was so frustrated with the whole thing - pretty sure God was calling me to the Church, yet still stuck on Mary - and I just prayed a short, simple, somewhat desperate prayer.  I asked, “Jesus, what am I to do with your Mother?!!”  Before the words were even completely formed in my mind I felt Him answer, “Love her.”  A peace washed over me, and truly that was it for me. I’m not saying that I have never stumbled over some things I’ve read about Mary, or some devotion that I really have to think and pray over before my heart can fully comprehend it, but whenever I stumble like that I can go back and remember that Jesus wants me to love His Mother, and I can ask for clarity.

So, my suggestion is to do just that.  Ask the Lord how He wants you to to see the Blessed Mother.  Ask Him what relationship He wants you to have with her, if any.  He will show you - maybe not as instantaneously as my experience, but in His good timing.  God bless!

It must be sad to be Motherless…

@New Observer, I wasn’t prooftexting.  Or at least, not in the sense that protestants and fundamentalists do. 

It is the constant teaching of the Roman Catholic Church over the past 2000 years that salvation CAN be lost.  That is the purpose of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Eucharist- the Eucharist to forgive our venal sins, Reconciliation for the mortal ones.  It is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that if you die in mortal sin, not even a plenary indulgence can save you.

If you die in venal sin, you’re still in danger, but that’s what purgatory is for- to purge you of your sin.

To teach that salvation cannot be lost is a heresy.  No heretic can rightly be called a Catholic.

Not everybody who is Catholic, will go to Heaven.  Hell has many who were Catholic in this life.  And not all on their way to Heaven are Catholic.  But we can be sure of ONE thing- everybody in the Church Triumphant is now Catholic, even if they converted on their death bed and spent 10,000 years in purgatory first.  And everybody in purgatory, their salvation is assured, even if it takes them billions of years to be purged of their sin to get there.

Myself, I want a head start in the race- and that’s what the sacraments give you- the grace of a head start in the race.  No guarantees that you’ll finish, but at least you’re in the race and not running the other direction.

Attention:

This is not a conversation about the liturgy.  This is a conversation about about a prospective convert’s difficulties with Mary and the Pope. Please take the liturgy discussion to email.

Thank you.

From the very beginning of my conversion I didn’t have a problem with Mary, the saints, the Pope, the true presence, repetitive prayers, crucifixes, beautiful vestments or churches, the sacrament of reconciliation, works of charity, being open to life, or any other wonderful thing.  I wasn’t even fazed by scandal.  I DID have a problem with suffering, or the Catholic embrace of it. Suffering is anathema to the modern way of thinking.  You’d think the un-prosperity gospel would be more of a tough sell, but maybe it’s just me.  Even after 8 years I still struggle.  Even after I’ve suffered, and seen the redemptive power of it, and felt very, very close to the Lord because of it, I still catch myself thinking, “God forbid it Lord, this shall never happen!”  I can see why the Lord called Peter Satan for saying this, because every time I think something similar, I’m being willful. I do not trust God with my happiness. More to the point, I do not trust AT ALL. My “sticking point” with the faith is a big red flag which points to my deepest spiritual wounds. I’m not sure what the Mary issue, or the vestments issue would be telling someone, but surely they mean something.  Instead of being stumbling blocks, these could be the things that heal you.

New Observer- have you gone past the Gospels to read the Epistle of James?  I suggest you do, to put grace, faith, and works in proper perspective.

Now, to drag it back on topic a bit- no one is more full of Grace and Works than our Mother Mary!  We would do well to say Yes as she did, to works.

Like an observant Jew, Jesus honored his father and mother.  We want to emulate Jesus so we honor her too.

To reflect further on Our Lady:

Parents experience vicariously the sufferings of their children, particularly when they are the result of injustice. However, our capacity for this empathy is limited by our own distractions & concupiscence as well as that of the child. In the case of Our Lady of Sorrows, not only did she not have any hindrance of her own, she was absolutely certain (as no one else could) of His innocence (no mitigating factors like “but what did you do to provoke your brother?”). Simply put, no one ever sufferred more, or with greater injustice, than Our Blessed Lord. It follows then, that no parent ever suffered more than Our Lady. St Luke recounts Simeon’s prophecy precisely because it proved to be spot on.

What is the significance of this? For me, this tells me that in Mary we have a Mother who is fully capable of empathizing with our pain and is accessable to us in a unique way. It also reminds us that if Jesus did not spare His own Mother this bitter Cross, neither will he spare us, and that for our own good. However, as she accepted her sorrows when she gave her consent, so must we do also as the Apostle Paul admonishes us in Col 1:24.

I believe the differece between the way teh angle Gariel handles the doubt of Zacharias and that of Mary is also telling:

“18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

20 And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.”

Above he takes umbrage that his word as “Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God” is not believed.

“34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

With Mary he merely answers her question. It seems ranks of proximity to God are in play. Zacharias though a priest, who can enter into the holy of holies, dare not question Gabriel, who stands before the throne of God, but Mary, who will hold the Most High within her own womb, is permitted to do so.

To me, as a recent convert to Catholicism, the real question is whether these perceived problems in church practice or teaching are sufficient reason to not be in communion with the church of Rome. Are these issues significant enough to justify division in the Body of Christ? Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that your friend is right and that Catholics do in fact overemphasize Mary and that all the ceremony and regalia associated with the Pope needs to be toned down. Can I therefore stand before Jesus on the last day and argue that I had no choice but to perpetuate schism in the Church?

I had my own issues with regard to Catholicism to deal with (mainly with Catholic liturgical practices rather than Mary or the Pope). I don’t think that every aspect of modern Catholicism is precisely the way that Jesus would want it to be. The Church is always in need of reform. But at the end of the day I realized that none of my concerns could justify remaining outside of the Church. My concerns may be misplaced or, even if they are not, where does Jesus want me to be? On the outside pointing the finger and criticizing? Or on the inside playing whatever small part I can to build up the Kingdom? So this Easter I was baptized, confirmed, and received the Eucharist for the first time.

I think Irenaeus summed it up quite nicely way back in the second century:

“He [God] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it, men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.”

Sue in Japan, I love your short and earnest prayer: “Lord, what am I to do with your mother?”!  That’s one of the best things I’ve read all morning, and I have to say that I am chuckling and grinning over my morning coffee.  Of course, our Lord’s answer is even better:  “love her.”  God bless you! :D

When I converted to the Catholic Church, I shared some of the same doubts as your Protestant Friend, but the wonderful priest giving me instruction gave me the answers many of the contributors have given here. They satisfied me enough to make that leap of faith, despite some lingering doubts. Since becoming Catholic I have discovered that there is so much depth to the Catholic Faith that I could never have learned it all before converting. There are so many jewels in the faith, I have found, just waiting to be discovered as I journey along. I wouldn’t have found them if I had never begun the journey, despite some doubts. I am continually amazed by each “find” and usually each jewel that I “find” is there right when I need it.

I hope any Protestant who is thinking about converting to the RCC would think long and hard about what they are about to lose. The Marian doctrines are some of the most unbiblical doctrines ever created by man.

Erik- what Marian Doctrine do you find unbiblical?  Most of the ones I’m aware of come from the first chapter Gospel of Luke- like the Rosary- or from the Book of Acts.

hi Ted,
I don’t understand how the RCC claims she was sinless when the bible says otherwise. I haven’t seen any verses that say she never sinned. Have you?

You misunderstood the doctrine Erik.  The doctrine isn’t that she was sinless.  It’s that she was conceived without sin and “full of grace”, forgiven of her sins, like any other Saint.  This was proclaimed by the Angel Gabriel in Luke Chapter 1 “Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is With You.  Blessed are you among Women, and Blessed is the Fruit of your Womb, Jesus.”

Why would Christ forgive YOUR sins and not the sins of His Mother?  In fact, given the fourth commandment, would Christ have been the perfect sinless Lamb of God if he didn’t even bother to honor his own mother?

ALL Marian doctrine flows from scripture.  And it all points to the power of Christ.

Luke 1:46-47—-And Mary said:  “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”  I don’t understand.  Why would Mary declare *her* need of a Savior if she had no sin? 

“Why would Mary declare *her* need of a Savior if she had no sin?”

Because without her Savior, her Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, she wouldn’t have been forgiven and she would have had sin.  That He choose to protect her from the effects of her sinful choices from birth, that she might be a perfect vessel to bring Him into the world, does not lessen her need for a Savior.

Ted, you said “she wouldn’t have been forgiven.”  Thus, she was forgiven because she had sin? —and was then protected from further sin?

Ted,
Where in Scripture does it say that “He choose to protect her from the effects of her sinful choices from birth..”? This sounds great but where does it say in Scripture this kind of thing?

New Observer:  It’s a little more complex than that because God isn’t limited by time like us mortals- even time running in the same direction we think.  But yes.  If it wasn’t for God saving Mary, she would have sinned.  If it wasn’t for a miracle at her conception, she would not have been preserved from Original Sin.  It is ALL God, none of this is due to Mary.

Erik- it’s the meaning of the words of Gabriel- Hail Mary Full of Grace.  How could she be full of grace if she hadn’t been preserved from the effects of her sin?  Better yet- without the Sacrament of Reconciliation, what makes you think Christ has forgiven you, if he didn’t even forgive his mother?

OK.  It’s the focus on the term “full”—-of grace.  We all have received God’s grace but not been *filled* with grace like Mary.  I’m not sure how anyone can measure “grace” per se.  But is this what you mean?

Ted,
Full of grace is not the best translation of this verse. Highly favored one (NAB) gets closer to what the angel is meaning. I can understand Mary being highly favored by God because it would be through her that the conception of Jesus would occur and she would raise Him but I don’t see why this would in any way requires Mary to have been without sin her entire life. Even the idea she was somehow kept from sinning is also problematic. For one it would violate her freewill and the consequences of her actions. God didn’t spare His own son from the possibility of sinning when He allowed Him to be tempted by satan so why should we think Mary was spared?

Erik, that is where the 4th commandment and the difference between being TEMPTED to sin and sin comes into play.

Christ was tempted, but he did not sin.  He was protected from sin.  If he did not offer that same protection to his mother, he would have sinned against her.  Mary had a moment of temptation- it would have been easier to say NO when Gabreil came; and that would have been a great sin indeed.  But out of her free will she said YES- and with that Yes, became sinless.

Ted,
Jesus was not protected from sinning but was tempted in all things. Hebrews 4:15 bears this out where it is written—“For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.” The Lord Jesus had to take on the full temptation of sin and its power if He was to save the world.
As for Mary becoming sinless because she said yes is not supported by any text of the Bible.

Erik, Hebrews 4:15 claims that Jesus was TEMPTED, yes, but DID NOT SIN- thus he was protected from sin.  Likewise, Mary was tempted: but if she had not been protected from sin then Christ would have brokrn the 4th commandment, and Hebrews 4:15 would be false.  So therefore, Hebrews 4:15 requires that Mary be as sinlesss as Christ- by Christ’s power.

I do not expect to convince you of this interpretation, but you must see that by this interpretation the doctorine IS scriptureally based.

Erik,

It gets a little complicated but if you think of the Old Testament as a foreshadowing of the New, then you begin to see patterns.  Things are foretold, not just in prophecy, but in acts also.  We see the Passover and then we see the Crucifixion…a lamb and then THE LAMB.  We see Adam who sinned and fell bringing down all of humanity with him, and then we see Jesus who fell 3 times but got up and brought all of humanity with Him.  We see Abraham willing to sacrifice his only son, with Isaac himself carrying the very wood on which he would be sacrificed, then we see God the Father sacrifice His only Son who also carried His own wood.  These are called types.

We see types of Mary also.  First in Eve.  The first woman who brought mankind to it’s knees, and death into the world.  Then Mary, who carried Jesus, bringing us to our knees once again.  He brought LIFE back into the world.  And we see the Ark of the Covenant.  A box, adorned in gold and guarded by Angels…carrying the manna that came from heaven, the rod of Jesse and the 10 commandments.  Along comes Mary, and in her womb she too carries the Manna/Bread from heaven, Our Lord who would one day remain present with us in the form of Supernatural Bread which Catholics call the Eucharist.  And she carried a King.  The King of Heaven. And she carried the WORD.  Not the “words”, but the WORD Himself.

Mary is the New Eve, just as Jesus was the New Adam and they brought us the New Covenant.  Mary through her Amen, and Jesus through His Sacrifice.

Mary was born without Original Sin because as the New Eve she had to be pure and spotless just as Eve was before she sinned.  Mary was saved by and through Jesus just as every Human Being before her and after her.  God’s Mercy is not limited by time and space.  All the Old Testament people of God were also saved by Jesus’ death. They too are in heaven.  Even tho in our world they were born before Jesus was.  But Mercy stretches across time and Jesus’ power saves all men no matter what place in time they lived. 

It is the invisible being made visible through the physical.  The invisible God made visible through Mary.  The invisible God made visible through the Eucharist, the participation in the perpetual sacrifice begun 2,000 years ago.

It helps to remember that we Catholics believe that everything in Scripture is TRUE, but not everything that is TRUE is in Scripture.  There is a difference.  It’s the difference between worshiping the words and worshiping THE WORD.

I think a lot of Protestants believe in an angry, petty God who is eager to condemn those who honor the Mother of Jesus and ask her to pray for them, an angry God who stands ready to interpret this as idolatry. But think about it- God the Father loved her enough to make her the Mother of His Son - is he idolatrous then??? Gimme a break.
Mariaphobia: the eagerness to interpret the honor and veneration of Mary as idolatry.
As for the papacy, there have been good and bad popes, and even the present Pope Benedict XVI has said there have been some bad popes. The idea is that they preserve basic teachings on faith and morals. If the pope declared something contrary to what has always been taught, then it goes against papal infallibility because it contradicts it.
Popaphobia is also rooted in a pride and a conceit that one wishes to be his own “pope,” believing oneself to be wiser than the church fathers, ecumenical councils, and wishing to “reinvent the wheel.”

Ted, you said that Jesus was tempted to sin—but was protected from sin.  I don’t accept that rationale at all.  Jesus required no protection from sin.  As God incarnate, He had power OVER sin by Himself (alone).  He experienced what corporeal man experiences in temptation but required no outside “protection” to resist.  He merely quoted Himself to Satan:  “It is written, . . . “

mk,
Where is it written that Mary had to be “pure and spotless just as Eve was before she sinned”? or that she “was saved by and through Jesus just as every Human Being before her and after her”? If these things are true then why didn’t any of the authors of the NT come even close to claiming this for her?
It was not necessary for her to be sinless to bring Christ into the world. It was necessary that the Lord Jesus be sinless if He was to die for the sins of the world. That is why Jesus did not have a human father involved in His conception because sin comes into mankind through Adam and not Eve. See Romans 5:12

God is not made visible through Mary. Rather God is made visible through the Lord Jesus alone. John 1:18, 14:7-11.

Erik: The fact that you are asking your questions in a repectful, inquiring way is a good sign of grace working and that you may be open to the answers, which while initially quite startling have a tremendous inner cohesion and vitality that your Protestant background would likely not lead you to expect. Many books have been written about the Marian doctrines, one of which, Scott Hahn’s “Hail Holy Queen” mentioned above is an excellent example. If you will look at my first post above, point 3 may be particularly relevant. Here are a few other brief points for your consideration:

A) Jesus is Mary’s Savior, just like the rest of us. The difference is that God, not limited by time or space, applied the merits of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice to Mary retroactively, at the time of her conception. How else could she have been hailed by Gabriel as FULL of grace, which could only be true if there were no stain of original or actual sin?
B) St Augustine said “The New Testament is bidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New”. One important way this is true is typology. For example Isaac presges Jesus: “God will provide the sacrifice”, the full meaning of which could not be known until Calvary. Just speculation, but I would suggest this point was made in the course of the greatest Scripture study the world will ever know, on the road to Emmaus. In typology, the NT realization is always greater than the OT foreshadowing. Consider these 2 types of Mary: 1) Eve - born sinless & 2) Ark of the Covenant - many parallels.

These are a just a couple of details in a much bigger picture than can fit in a blog comment. I suggest you watch the Journey Home on EWTN or YouTube. Literally hundreds of Protestant clergy have devoted thousands of agonizing hours of study, prayer & reflection wrestling with these issues, which are anything but trivial.  Since Jesus is the Truth, the Way & the Life, your search for truth must inevitably lead to Him. This is “the pearl of great price”, so expect resistance, hard work, & & struggle to win your prize. Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman gave fair warning, “To go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.” God bless!

David,
You assert that “A) Jesus is Mary’s Savior, just like the rest of us. The difference is that God, not limited by time or space, applied the merits of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice to Mary retroactively, at the time of her conception. How else could she have been hailed by Gabriel as FULL of grace, which could only be true if there were no stain of original or actual sin?”
It’s one thing to say this but another to show that the Scripture teaches this. I can’t think of one place in the entire corpus of Scripture where anything like this is taught. Keep in mind that all that we know of Mary is found only in the NT. This means that if anyone knew Mary well and what God did for her,  it will be found here. Those who knew her never make these kinds of claims about her.
Actually I would counter Cardinal Newman claim about history with-to go deep into Scripture is to cease to be Roman Catholic. The reason is that when one exegetes the Scriptures they will not come up with this doctrine.

The trouble with that, Erik, is that nobody interpreted the Bible YOUR way until after the rebellion against Christ’s Church.  The real question to me is if you believe Luke and the Archangel or not.  If Mary is full of grace, then your exegesis is pure bunk- and those who have studied the Bible for 2000 years are correct.  If Mary is not full of grace then the scripture itself is a lie.  Which do you believe?

Ted,
If you have a Greek lexicon of the NT and look up Luke 1:28. What you will find is that this phrase says nothing about being without sin. Did you know that there were church fathers who said Mary sinned?
I believe what the Scriptures teach and they don’t teach that Mary was without sin.

Ted, please do not let the discourse become hostile.  For myself, I believe Mary was absolutely *full* of grace.  Still, I cannot come to an understanding that she needed to be sinless to conceive the Messiah.  That sounds like invented theology.  Prophesy says nothing more than the virgin shall be with child.  There must be something dealing with the understanding of being FULL versus being filled with grace.  No doubt you, Erik and myself have been filled with God’s grace in our lives or we would not even be talking about this.  I think you are saying Mary was filled completely with no further need of God’s grace.  Is that it?

For those wishing a good exposition on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception please go read the following link.  It is thorough and will do a better job of explaining the details that are being left out with the back and forth that is going on in this thread:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/mary-without-sin-scripture-and-tradition/

In the peace of Christ.

The doctrine is the Mary was conceived without sin and preserved from all sin both original and actual.  In other words, Jesus saved her from sin, not by pulling her out of the pit after she fell into it, but by preventing her from ever falling into the pit in the first place.  So Jesus is, indeed her Savior.  But the kind of salvation she has recieved is unique in that it is a complete gift of salvation.

Erik,

As I pointed out, we are working from different premises.  You believe that ALL Truth is written in Scripture, while we believe that all of Scripture is Truth.  There is no where in Scripture where your claim is made, which makes your premise dubious at best.  How can ALL Truth be in Scripture when THAT very Truth is missing?  See?

Some early Church Fathers believed a lot of things that were wrong.  What matters is what the Holy Spirit led them to accept as Truth in the end.  Much, much, much discussion was held before things were accepted as Doctrine, just as we are discussing now.  If at some future point you were to accept that Mary was conceived and remained without sin, someone could point to these comments and say “See, Erik didn’t believe that Mary was sinless, therefore Mary wasn’t sinless”.  A thing is not made True by how many people believe it.  If it’s true, it’s true.

If you are truly interested in understanding fully how the Church came to understand this doctrine, there are oodles of sources (some of which have already been mentioned)where you can gain a greater understanding.

I notice that you have not complained about the Isaac/Jesus connection.  Yet nowhere is that explicitly stated either.  But who would doubt that Issac/Abraham were a foreshadowing of Jesus/God the Father?  Reasonable people can draw conclusions that are not implicitly stated. 

Erik, I am frustrated,, not hostile.  Grace to me is God working a miracle in our lives that enables us to stop sinning.  How can our lady then be full of grace, unless she was saved from sin?

Secondly, this only points towards the miracle of grace.  What forces it is Christ’s own sinlessness.  If he had not done this for his mother, then He would have sinned- breaking the commandment to honor our mother.

I am not asking you to believe at this point, only to admit that MAYBE the doctorine did come from scripture.

Mk,
I did not claim that ALL Truth is written in Scripture. What I am showing is that the Marian doctrines are not grounded in Scripture and in fact deny core teachings of Scripture such as the doctrine of the fall. This is issue. These doctrines are not biblical nor apostolic and cannot be true. If they are true, the Scripture has lied.

I agree that just because something is believed to be true by many people for a long time does not mean it’s true or made true. If a doctrine is true it will have biblical support all the way through its components. Take the Lord Jesus as being without sin. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and because of this He did not inherit the sin of Adam in His nature. He also did not sin during His entire life even though He was tempted far beyond any other human being. There are many many passages of Scripture that point to His sinlessness. You do not have any thing like this in regards to the claim Mary was without sin or even that Jesus prevented her from sinning. There is nothing in Scripture to support this claim about her.

I have no problem in seeing the Isaac/Jesus connection. This is what prophecy is all about. Prophecy is about the Lord Jesus and His coming and what He would do. This can be seen in a number of places in the Old Testament. What we don’t see in the Old Testament prophecies is that the mother of the Messiah would be sinless, prayed to or queen of heaven. No writer of the NT draws from the OT to show that Mary was to be sinless, prayed to or made queen of heaven. 

Ted,
  Ephesians 1 lays out for us in great detail what the grace of God looks like in the life of the believer. We literally have the resources of Christ Himself in us and available to us and yet in this great chapter there is no mention that we are kept from sin or cannot sin. Stephen in Acts 6:8 is said to be “full of grace and power” and yet we should not think he never sinned or was kept from sin.
The reason all believers (including Mary) sin is because the world in still in a state of falleness, Satan still has authority to tempt and our flesh is still fallen and bent towards sin. See Romans 7:14-25. These conditions have been present since the beginning and will not change until the Lord Jesus comes again to make all things new.

@mk:  No argument has been proferred that ALL truth is only found in Scripture.  The truth of science, mathematics and thermo-dynamics is not found in Scripture.  The Truth of the Lord, however, can be found at the source—His word.  **This is what He has revealed to man** so this is what we “know” and accept as truth about Himself revealed down through the ages.  Your reference to the church fathers should be restricted to only that of the Apostolic age and not applied also to men living centuries or a millenium later.  Men of that age are not considered church fathers.  By your standard, John Paul II will also be so identified 500 years from now.  Yes, reasonable people can draw conclusions which are not implicit but no convincing argument has been laid re the virgin needing to be sinless nor of any mandate for her need to be a perpetual virgin.  Mary’s virginity fulfills the prophesy requirement concerning Messiah but has no bearing on the virgin’s post-birth of Messiah.

@Mark Shea:  Thanks for your comment from last night.  I am not clear re your reference to “complete” gift of salvation.  For myself, salvation is complete in and of itself.  Can you explain more?  Thank you.

Ben Douglass has a good answer to the question of how Stephen being “full of grace” is distinct from Mary being full of grace. Behold: http://www.pugiofidei.com/questions.htm#28

New Observer, (and Erik)

If you look you will see that I capitalized Truth, signifying that I am not talking about science but about Spiritual Truth.  And it has been insinuated that if it is not in Scripture it is incredible. 

The claim was just made that the teachings on Mary are not even Scripturally sound and that is simply not so.  Many here have shown that there is a connection between Mary and Eve, Mary and the Ark of the Covenant, Mary as Queen and more.  The connection between Abraham and Isaac is no clearer than the connection between Mary and the Ark.  Neither is stated explicitly and yet the connection between Isaac and Abraham is accepted.

As for the Church Fathers, I have no idea what standard you are talking about.  The entire Church, from it’s beginning, has believed these things about Mary and they can be seen in the earliest writings.  What John Paul II has to do with it, I have no idea.

New Observer,

Is Justin Martyr good enough?

Justin Martyr

“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Once again, we are starting from different premises.  Catholics believe that Baptism literally takes away the stain of Original Sin.  Thus every baptized Catholic does not have that stain.  We also believe that God’s Grace can keep us from sinning.  A “State of Grace”.  Why is it so hard to believe that God removed the stain of Original Sin from Mary before her conception?  Did He not know you before He formed you?  And why is it so hard to believe that she accepted all of the Graces offered to her and was then able to refrain from sinning?  Isn’t that what we are all called to do?  Be baptized, cleansed, born again and then remain in a State of Grace?

Enough Grace to keep us ALL sinless is offered every moment.  Whether or not we accept it is the key.  Mary accepted it.  Fully.  She said “YES”.  And she meant it. 

Do you believe that only those born after Christ’s death and Resurrection are allowed into heaven?  Is Moses in hell?  Abraham?  If not, how did they get to heaven since they died before Christ was born?

Mk,
It is not true that the NT thought that Mary was sinless or that all the fathers believed she was sinless. This has not been the universal consensus of the church.  Take
“Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220):

Thus some men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best there is something bad. For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.

ANF: Vol. III, A Treatise on the Soul, Chapter 41.

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379):

When thou hast blessed the Lord out of Scripture according to thy power, and hast sent up thy praise to Him, then begin to humble thyself and say, ‘I am not worthy, O Lord, to speak before Thee, because I am a sinner.’ Even though thou knowest nothing evil of thyself, thou must speak so; for none is without sin, but God only.

Ambrose (c. 339-97):

No Conception is without iniquity, since there are no parents who have not fallen.

So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshipped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.”

NPNF2: Vol. X, On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 18, §133.

Augusitine:
“Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without filtering or failure. One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins. “Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left.” For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one’s sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. “God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,” even He who alone is without sin, and is able to blot out our sins; “but the ways on the left hand are perverse,” in friendship with sins.

NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 57 [XXXV].”

PS- how is “Spiritual Truth” different from any other kind of “Truth”? If something is true scientifically or “spiritually” it still must conform to reality.

Why do Catholics speculate so much about Mary? Claims are made about her that sounds so reasonable and taken as facts and yet when we look at the only source on her (the NT) none of these claims are supported. I don’t get it.

Erik- I missed this earlier, and I think it’s the source of my frustration with this entire topic:
“yet when we look at the only source on her (the NT)”

The New Testament is NOT our only source on Mary.  We also have a huge number of tales of her from the middle east; she did, after all, live with the Apostle John for many years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But I would not consider such sources “unbiblical”, despite being outside the Canon of Scripture, any more than I’d consider a Televangelist to be “unbiblical” merely because he’s preaching over a TV Set or the Internet.

You have to consider what the Fathers were speaking to when you quote them.  Here they are not speaking of Mary, they are speaking of Christ.  On His own merit, yes, there is only One who was born without sin.  But ALL of us are born again, are we not?  Why can I have the stain of Original sin removed from me, but not the Mother of God? Look again at what Tertullian says…Only God can forgive sin.  That’s all we are saying.  God forgave Mary’s sins before she was conceived.  But it was still HIS forgiveness that rendered her sinless.

As for your quote by Tertullian.  I am no expert on the Church Fathers but I do know that some of them struggled with certain issues.  This is why the teachings of the Church Fathers are not considered Divinely Inspired.  BUT, they are a good indication of what was believed at the time.  MANY Church Fathers spoke of Mary’s Immaculateness. 

Here is a link to some of them…

http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2011/12/church-fathers-on-immaculate-conception.html

And you never answered where Moses and Abraham are.

As to Truth…Spiritual Truth is Divine Truth.  You cannot prove Spiritual Truth empirically.  Faith must come into it.  Many people do not believe there even IS such a thing as Spiritual Truth.  They don’t believe in Divine Law, Natural Law, Objective Good or Objective Evil.  They do not believe in any truths than cannot be proven empirically.  As Christians we do not agree.  We believe some Truths have been divinely revealed.  When you capitalize Truth you are generally speaking of metaphysical Truths.

And here is one more question for you Erik…

Were Adam and Eve human?  Was Adam a Man?  Was Eve a Woman?

Were they created without sin?

And just for fun, if you take Tertullian literally, as Protestants are wont to do with Scripture, he says that no MAN is without sin.  Mary was a woman…lol.

Mk,
Just because we can speculate what God can do does not mean He did it. That is what you and the others are saying. To demonstrate that God did do something like keeping Mary from sin is going to take a lot more than mere speculations. All that we know of Mary is found only in the NT and not in later gnostic apocrypha works that were written centuries later and not by eyewitnesses.

In regards to Truth, it does not matter if someone is aware of it or disagrees with it. Truth is something that stands on its own. Even if people do not believe in hell for example, does not mean it does not exist. We believe in hell because Jesus taught there was such a condition-place. We believe this just like we believe 99% of what we believe to be true based on authority. Jesus is the ultimate authority because He is God in the flesh and there is no higher authority than that.

In regards to those who “do not believe in any truths than cannot be proven empirically” are also relying on some kind of authority. Be it themselves or someone else who is telling them what to believe. Their problem is that their authorities are not all knowing and have been shown countless times to be incorrect.

Scripture does not specifically say where Moses and Abraham are. I believe they are in heaven because they both had faith in God and His promises. Moses as you know appeared with Elijah on Mount Transfiguration and Abraham is mention in one of the parables on the afterlife.

Adam and Eve were directly created by God in a sinless condition. They were not conceived in another human being. Doesn’t your church teach they evolved from other creatures?

The reason Mary is said to be without original sin is that Christ would have received it from her upon his conception and birth. Her being without sin would place her not on the level of God but near the level of the angels. Or are we to say that the angels are sinful?
A few things for critics of the Immaculate Conception to consider…

It doesn’t matter whether they were conceived or created.  Your objection was that ALL are sinful except Christ.  But there are at least two who were created sinless.  Conceived, created…there is no real difference.  At some point, both Adam and Eve who were both human were also sinless.

As I have pointed out a number of times now, Mary is sinless ONLY through Grace…just as each one of us becomes sinless at the moment of our baptism.  When an infant is baptized, he becomes completely sinless.  Until he reaches the age of reason he remains so. 

Your other objections have been addressed by others.  Mary is not only spoken of in the New Testament…she is pointed to in the old a number of times.  I wish you would answer my questions.  Where are Moses and Abraham right now?  Why do you accept the type of Abraham and Isaac but not the type of Mary?

But you are right when you say: In regards to Truth, it does not matter if someone is aware of it or disagrees with it. Truth is something that stands on its own.

This is exactly correct.  Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin whether you believe it or not.  Hell exists whether you believe it or not.  So does purgatory. You stand on Scripture alone which is not something taught in Scripture.  I stand on the three legged stool of Scripture, The Church and Tradition.  Which IS taught, explicitly, in Scripture.  Scripture, The Church and Tradition all say that Mary is the New Eve, the New Ark of the Covenant and Full of Grace (Someone has already explained the specific Greek word used and that it differs from other uses).  Now, do I take your interpretation or do I accept the interpretation given to me by the Authority that Christ entrusted the “Truth” with?  I think I’ll go with the three legged stool.

Tony,
If it was necessary for Christ to be without sin because Mary needed to be without sin, then that would mean her parents would also have to be without sin. Otherwise they would pass their sin on to her. Then we would have to say her grandparents had to be without sin. Hopefully you can see how absurd this is.

BTW- some angels were sinful. Luficer-Satan was one of the most beautiful creations of God and yet he sinned.
Ezekiel 28:12-19

If you are serious about learning the OT/NT connections you can go here:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm

and scroll down to the graph that lays it out clearly.  Tho, so far, I don’t think you’ve looked at a single link that has been given to you.

Tony:  Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was declared by Rome in the 1850’s not in the Apostolic age nor by church doctors at the millenium.  The doctrine of her uncorrupted body (Assumption) was not declared until 60 years ago.

Both of those doctrines, however, were proposed by Jerome when he was translating the scriptures into Latin- they were then studied for more than 1,400 years by men a lot smarter than we are, and found to be *within* orthodox Christian teaching.

What can we do in comboboxes to compare with THAT?

Church Tradition, as GK Chesterton said, is the democracy of the dead- and there are a heck of a lot more people in the Church Triumphant than there are in the Church Militant.

MK,
I did answer your question on Abraham and Moses. You claim Mary is mentioned in the OT. The problem is that she is not said to be sinless. You keep asserting she was “conceived without the stain of Original Sin” and yet there is not one verse that comes even close to saying this. You are reading RC doctrine back into the Scripture.
The Marian doctrines is an excellent example of Scripture and tradition contradicting each other. Both cannot be right. This is what Catholics have an impossible task of trying to prove the Marian doctrines from Scripture. When we look at the details of Mary’s life as its found in the Scripture we find it does not fit what the RCC is saying about her. 
OT types do not prove a thing to be true. Rather they are pointers to the reality. Jesus is the archetype. It is He in whom the OT points to. Its not Mary. 

Ps- When a baptized infant is 5 years old and tells a lie, is that a sin? Did she do something wrong?

New Observer,

You have a misunderstanding of what “declared” means when it comes to these infallible statements.  They were believed from the beginning.  They were declared as infallible statements later.  Good heavens, Jesus wasn’t “DECLARED” fully God and fully Human until centuries after His death.  Yet it was believed from the beginning. It was declared to settle once and for all disagreements, but it was believed long before it was declared.

Erik,

Then I missed your answer.  Perhaps you could repeat it?  Where are Moses and Abraham now?  If they are in heaven, how did they get there?

You misuse the word contradict.  Scripture does not say that she was NOT conceived without Original Sin, so it can hardly contradict Tradition.  As I have stated, it is explicit in Scripture that the Authority on Faith is the Church.  It is explicit that we are to accept Tradition.  It is explicit that not everything is in Scripture.  It is explicit. 

It is implicit that Mary is the New Eve.  It is implicit that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.  The vessel.  Therefore it is not a great leap to say that if Mary is the New Eve, she should start out as Eve did.  If she was the New Ark and carried our Lord then she should be as perfect as it was.  It is implicit that Isaac was a type of Jesus.

Our Church is one based on Faith AND Reason.  Not Sola Scriptura.  We use reason to conclude what we do. 

Yes it was wrong.  No it was not a sin.  There are specific criteria for someone to be culpable of committing a sin.  With the exception of very few, most 5 year olds are incapable of truly sinning.

And you still have not told me why you believe if a thing is not in Scripture then it cannot be true, when that belief itself, is not in Scripture.

Mary would have received her state of grace as that of the angels from God the Father, who obviously, was also Jesus’ Father. Jesus’ very inner being and divinity comes from the Father, not from the Virgn Mary. Mary’s sinlessness preserved Christ from being tainted with original sin, which is handed down to all human beings, in the incarnation. I hope Protestants don’t believe that we Catholics believe that, because we don’t.

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were not officially “declared” but were long-existing theology and traditions from the very earliest centuries of the church, and were finally formally incorporated in recent centuries. Unfortunately, many things Protestants scratch their heads at in Catholicism are oral tradition rather than written tradition, and thus easy to dismiss.

PS to clarify I mean that I hope Protestants don’t believe that we teach or believe that Christ’s very divinity originated with the Virgin Mary instead of God the Father.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-friend-of-mine-who-is-a-protestant-finding-himself-strongly-drawn-to-the#ixzz1uQ2Q0oUI

Ahhh…I see your answer about Moses and Abraham.  But why then, did Jesus need to die if Moses and Abraham were saved by their Faith and not Jesus death and Resurrection?  If they didn’t need Jesus to die for them, then why do we?  And I thought only those who are perfect can stand before God.  Were Moses and Abraham perfect?

MK,
Jesus needed to die for the sins of the world if God was going to save the world. God’s justice demanded that sin be punished and that punishment would be everlasting. Only by God taking on humanity in Himself and becoming sin for us could He reconcile the world to Himself. What Moses and Abraham saw in the distant future was realized in the death and resurrection of Christ. Even though they did not know the specifics of what and how God would forgive their sins, their faith in these promises is what saved them. Jesus died for all those who would put their faith in Him. Just as Moses and Abraham were saved by looking to the future by faith, we are saved by looking to the fulfillment of what Christ did in the past by faith.
The only way we can stand in the presence of God is not based on your own merits but on the merits of Christ. Our sins are imputed to Christ and His life is imputed to us. See 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 4:25

Erik,

Yet another place that we differ.  They were saved not by their Faith but by Christs sacrifice…retroactively.  No man is saved by his own merit.  What you are saying is that because of something they did, believed, they saved themselves.  But that is not true.  They were saved by Jesus’ sacrifice just as you and I are.  He did not take away our punishment, He conquered Death.  They live because He died.  We will live because He died.  Mary was saved in anticipation, they were saved retroactively and we are saved presently. 

And don’t even get me started on imputation versus infusion.  Once again our premises are different, but this blog post is about Mary and not justification.  So we’ll just have to stay away from those topics or Mark will see that we do!  :)  I will just say that because you do not believe in infusion, you cannot possibly grasp what we are saying about Mary.  And trust me, to explain it would involve purgatory and we ain’t goin’ there either.  Well, we are, but not in this conversation.

The bottom line is that it always comes down to our premises.  Yours are completely different than ours, so it stands to reason that our conclusions would be different also.  We do not understand Grace, Salvation, Faith…and many other words the same way.  You believe we are saved by Faith alone and we believe the same, except for us Faith means a whole different thing than for you.  Saying that Abraham was saved by his Faith is to totally dismiss Jesus’ sacrifice.  Faith played a role to be sure, but it was Supernatural Grace that saved him…and it saved him retroactively, just as that same Grace saved Mary at her conception.  We do not believe that her stain was covered up, or that Jesus stands in front of her blocking her from God’ view or that God stamps us with a seal of approval.  We believe that through Grace we are changed…our very nature is changed…transformed.  This is what is meant by born again.  Mary’s nature was changed at her conception.  Through Grace.  Her sin was removed and she was left spotless.  That’s what baptism does and it is the normal way of attaining this spotlessness.  But it is the Grace, not the water that changes us.  And being FULL of Grace, Mary was changed in a unique way.

mk:  Parsing words to get over on Erik is a poor strategy.  You know good and well Catholics and Christians alike fully agree that no one is saved by his/her own merit but, moreover, only by the shed blood of Christ on Calvary.  Please avoid the verbal gymnastics.  Galations 3:6 says:  “Abraham trusted (believed) God and it was credited to him as righteousness.”  Everyone knows this righteousness could not be applied to his salvation until Calvary had taken place.

Mk,
I never claimed that they saved themselves but it was their faith in God and His promises that looked to its fulfillment in Christ. See Hebrews 11 how those in the OT believed in the promises of God.
As for what I believe it is found in the expression: faith alone in Christ alone. It is in Him alone that salvation is gained.
God’s grace does change people but it does not make them sinless.
You are right. We do have fundamental differences that can never be overcome so long as you trust in your church. It always comes down to this with a Roman Catholic. If the church teaches something different than the Scripture, it is the church that must be obeyed and not the Scripture.

[You are right. We do have fundamental differences that can never be overcome so long as you trust in your church. It always comes down to this with a Roman Catholic.]

Yes… after 2000 years… some things just NEVER change!

Erik, New Observer I believe it is a great grace that you & your correspondents continue to be engaged in this discussion in such a charitable and courteous way. The very perceptive comments offerred by so many people lead to a few observations:
1) These Catholics love Jesus & the Church so much they are eager to share with you. These posts have not been critical; rather they are an invitation to explore deeper, and find the fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus.
2) There are profound differences between the Catholic & Protestant perspective or worldview. This is not intended to be a criticism, at all. Rather, I believe Catholics, at least those engaged in this discussion, tend to be more aware of this fact than Protestants, simply because they have been down this road either as converts (or reverts) or in responding to challenges raised in this sort of discussion. Put another way, simply in order to survive, Catholics typically learn more about Protestantism than Protestants do about Catholicism. What little Protestants know about the Catholic Church generally comes by way of comments from others or even the pulpit that reflect a woeful ignorance if not an outright animus.

Erik: To answer the specific points you raised:
1) There is a great deal of biblical foundation for the Marian doctrines, but not as explicitly as you are demanding. However, the wider context of the issue is your underlying premise of Sola Scriptura, which was a novelty introduced at the time of the Protestant Reformation, & can be shown to be unbiblical, unhistorical, & unworkable.
2) John Henry Newman was an Anglican priest of considerable influence & reputation who became a leader of the Oxford Movement, which was an attempt to revive and reform the practice of the Anglican faith beginning in 1833. Newman was a tremendous author, preacher, & theologian whose writings comprise some 74 volumes, some of which are still in print. He did extensive research on the writings of the early Church Fathers, particularly the Greek Fathers, which became the basis of his Essay on the Development of Doctrine. In the course of his research he literally wrote himself into the Church, into which he was received in 1845. After a year of study in Rome he was ordained as a Catholic priest and founded an Oratory of St Phillip Neri at Birmingham. In 1864 he was attacked in print by an Anglican cleric, to which he responded with his classic spiritual autobiography, Apologia Pro Vita Sua. This book has had enormous influence on conversions in England & elsewhere ever since, as it eloquently describes his spiritual journey with great sensitivity & candor. I’ve read it profitably & recommend it highly. The last thing Newman wanted to do was convert, but the truth he found was too compelling to resist.

So the reason I mentioned Newman is that he started from a similar point as yourself, and arrived at his conclusion after diligent and penetrating research. Some of what Newman had to discover has already been given to you in the remarkable posts in this thread. Let me suggest the following:
1) It seems readily apparent that the Holy Spirit is at work in your heart & mind. You are on the threshhold of wonderful
discoveries, so long as you persevere in charity.
2) Please reread the posts, which contain some really good content deserving of your further consideration. Were I you, I would print these out or copy them into Word and so organize the questions & their answers.
3) As the Deacon suggested, pray the Rosary in which we meditate on the Gospel. You will be astonished if you try it.
4) The scope of your inquiry is much broader than it would first appear, so these answers are just the tip of the tip of an iceberg of available information. A few resources you might check out:
Catechism of the Catholic Church (available at your public library), CatholicAnswers.com; CatholicExchange.com, EWTN.com; WordOnFire.org; NewAdvent.com; SalvationHistory.com, CatholicConvert.com; PatrickMadrid.com; Catholicity.com; BibleChristianSociety.com; & many others.

God bless!

Erik,

If the Church ever taught anything that was contrary to Scripture, I’d be the first one to leave.

And we most certainly are made sinless.  That is what Baptism does.  No where in Scripture does it say that our sins are covered over or that we are imputed goodness.  It does say we are born again through water and Spirit.  If anyone believes what is contrary to Scripture it is Protestants…and the contradiction is explicit, not implicit.  We are NOT saved by Faith alone.  Verbatim.  Yet you’re entire Faith is based around this very contradiction.
 

I have spent days now showing you how Scripture and Tradition both back up the Immaculateness of Mary. Most of your arguments have been based on refuting this by saying it is not in Scripture and yet you have still not shown to me where in Scripture it tells you that Scripture alone is Scriptural.  Your other argument seems to be that because it is not explicitly IN Scripture it must be contradicting Scripture. 

New Observer,

Erik’s original answer did not say that they were saved through Jesus’ sacrifice, and that was my whole point.  That they were save by His death/resurrection retroactively and that if it could happen to them it could happen to Mary.

The difference between how you see salvation and how we see it is basically the difference between “doing” and “receiving”.  Ironically, you would say that Catholics believe they work their way into heaven.  But it seems to me that it is Protestants who think that salvation rests on the saved and not the savior.  You say that to be saved you must believe.  You must perform an action.  You must “do” something.  We don’t see it that way.  We are saved because we receive salvation.  Like Mary, salvation is something that is “done unto us”, not something that we do.  We simply accept it.  Altar calls, in my opinion, are all about what you do.  Infant baptism is done in the Catholic Church because we have nothing to do with.  An infant is changed from the outside.  This is a fundamental difference between our views.  Mary was changed from the outside.  She was Baptized in anticipation of her Son’s sacrifice.  Her words say it all.  She doesn’t “I’ll do it!”  She says “Let it be done unto me, according to thy word”...  This may seem insignificant, but it the crux, I believe, in the difference between the way we each understand salvation.

***I apologize for all those typos…it is after all 5:30 in the morning!  ;)

MK,
  Whether I believe in Scripture alone is scriptural is not what this topic is about. What I have shown is that there is no mention, no hint of Mary’s conception nor any statements in Scripture that she was kept from sin or did not sin. We do know from Scripture that there were only 3 people who were not created-conceived in sin. Adam and Eve were not because they were a special and direct creation of God. They had no human parents. The Lord Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary. He had no human father.  He also was said not to have sinned. Now, the only One who would have known Mary was conceived without sin would have been the Lord Jesus and He says nothing about it. In fact in the gospels where He has a chance to teach about her supposed sinlessness and devotion to her He says nothing but points people to Himself and the Scripture. See Matthew 12:46-50.
We also don’t see Mary making any statements about her own sinlessness nor do those who knew her such as the disciples-apostles. They don’t elevate her to any special status in their letters. In fact they don’t mention her except Paul. Paul mentions Mary not by name but by the term “woman” in Galatians 4:4.  We also don’t have any record of her being baptized. If she was, it would have been when she was an adult and not an infant. It would also mean that her parents were not baptized since they lived before baptism was instituted. Mary would have been raised in an environment prior to baptism.
As for statements by church fathers, who is to say that they speak for the entire church at the time?
What you believe about Mary was not believed by the church for hundreds of years.
I’d like to discuss salvation with you but as you wrote “Once again our premises are different, but this blog post is about Mary and not justification. So we’ll just have to stay away from those topics or Mark will see that we do!  :)”

Erik:
“Whether I believe in Scripture alone is scriptural is not what this topic is about. “

And yet it goes directly to the heart of your complaint that Doctorines about Mary and the Pope are “unbiblical”- for you are using that term in a VERY different way than a Scripture + Tradition Catholic would

David,
Thank you for the source material references and for your respectful comments.  No doubt at least some aspect of the writings and literature you suggest will cast more depth and explanation on the understanding you mention.

mk,
There is a danger of casting blanket application over all Protestant and Evangelical thought just as when some Christians think all Catholics worship statues.  Essential Evangelical thought concerning salvation does not require any “doing” by the individual (as you suggest) since it has already been “done” by Christ alone.  Salvation is a free gift so there is no merit in any works by the believer.  If one’s performance were the issue, there is no security in that.  The gift, nevertheless, must be received just as Jesus said “I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in ...”  We must open the door.  No follower of Christ can quantify the measure of works or giving needed—so the “doing” (as a performance requirement) is false.  One would never know if you did (or gave financially) enough.  Any works are in gratitude of salvation and reflect the Christian mandate to be salt and light in a dark and unbeliving world.  Philippians 2:12 is typically used, however, by Catholics in rebuttal to Christians that works are a necessity.

This text is often misused to instill fear into people, warning them that it means that they can lose salvation. What does it mean to work out our salvation with fear and trembling? Paul can hardly be encouraging believers to live in a continuous condition of nervousness and anxiety. That would contradict his many other exhortations to peace of mind, courage, and confidence in the God who authors our salvation. The Greek word translated “fear” in this context can equally mean “reverence” or “respect.” Paul uses the same phrase in (2 Corinthians 7:15) where he refers to Titus as being encouraged by the Corinthians’ reception of him “with fear and trembling,” that is, with great humility and respect for his position as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul himself came to the Corinthian church in “weakness and fear, and with much trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3), mindful of the great and awesome nature of the work in which he was engaged. 

The sense in which we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling is twofold. First, the Greek verb rendered “work out” means “to continually work to bring something to completion or fruition.” We do this by actively pursuing obedience in the process of sanctification, which Paul explains further in the next chapter of Philippians. He describes himself as “straining” and “pressing on” toward the goal of Christlikeness (Philippians 3:13-14). The “trembling” he experiences is the attitude Christians are to have in pursuing this goal —a healthy fear of offending God through disobedience and an awe and respect for His majesty and holiness. “Trembling” can also refer to a shaking due to weakness, but this is a weakness of higher purpose, one which brings us to a state of dependency on God. Obedience and submission to the God we revere and respect is our “reasonable service” (Romans 12:1-2) and brings great joy.

Paul tells us in James 2 “Faith without works is dead.”  This is a true statement in that the Holy Spirit will convict the believer to perform works for the Kingdom.  Whatever the believer does, though, is not personally meritorious and no credit is acquired by him.  A death bed conversion or coming to faith in Christ by an invalid, he or she may not have any time or ability to perform “good works” or be salt and light yet their faith alone in Christ results in the salvation of that individual.

New Observer- from where does this healthy fear of disobedience to God and to the Holy Spirit come from, if salvation cannot be lost?  That’s the problem I have with Once Saved Always Saved folks; disobeying God seems to be the natural result of an absolute assurance of salvation, de facto if not de jure.

Ted Seeber:  Hebrews 11:1 provides for your security.

“Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

That’s called moral assurance- and while we can have that, absolute assurance is something quite different.  Absolute assurance is saying to God “By my faith in Jesus Christ I am saved REGARDLESS of what I do”, not “I am sure that God will give me what I hope for, because I am certain that He exists and He is Faithful and because what I hope most for is that His Will not Mine be done”.  You can’t read a single verse out of context- in this case you also need the Lord’s Prayer to understand.

Or to put it a more vulgar way I came up with to shock evangelicals 20 years ago while I was going to college:

The Lord’s Prayer, if prayed honestly, means that if my Lord and God Jesus Christ decides, for my own good, to send me to Hell then I shall willingly obey, go there, and preach to the damned.

I am sure in my hope that whether damned or saved, God has his best wishes for me in his heart.

New Observer,

You say: There is a danger of casting blanket application over all Protestant and Evangelical thought just as when some Christians think all Catholics worship statues.

The difference of course is that NO Catholic anywhere does or ever has worshiped a statue, while many if not most protestants do profess (not my assumption, but profess) that they do adhere to Sola Scriptura…certainly our friend Erik does.  And it goes straight to the heart of the matter.  His sole reason for contending Mary’s Immaculate Conception is that it is not in Scripture.

He has just repeated that fact.  Actually, he has repeated it a number of times even though he has been offered numerous Scripture passages to back it up.  We have posted many, many links showing how Scripture lays it out, then posted links to the Church Fathers belief in it.  I could post many more but it appears to be a waste of time as they are not being read.  The choice is to post more links, rinse and repeat what has already been said six ways to Sunday, copy and paste the material or let it go.  I’m debating on which route I’m going to take.  I can’t see that it will make much difference as nothing that is being said is being read or understood.

While you can disagree with what we say, it helps if you first know what we’re saying.

Case in point.  I have just gotten a response on how it was impossible for Mary to have been baptized.  Yet, I very carefully, numerous times, said that it was Baptism per se, but a Baptism of Anticipation.  She was saved through her son before Baptism, but by the same grace as Baptism.  Erik’s response?  She couldn’t have been baptized because there was no baptism and then her parents would have had to have been baptized also. 

Once saved always saved, Sola Scriptura and Faith alone are not like Catholics worshiping statues.  That is a myth while what I have stated is a fact.  Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural, Faith alone is contrary to Scripture and Once Saved always Saved is so obviously against Scripture it is not even worth debating.

If you compare the Scriptural passages about the Ark to the Scriptural Passages about Mary, if you really understand the Greek word used for “GRACE” in Luke, if you accept that Jesus is the new Adam, if you understand Baptism and Salvation properly, if you read the history of the Churches teaching on Mary FROM THE BEGINNING, then it is clear that this is what Jesus meant, what the Church has always taught and what we believe now.  Just saying it can’t be so over and over doesn’t make it not so.

We do not pull Scripture passages out of context and read them in a literal sense.  All of Scripture must be read together.  Beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation Mary is portrayed as above all other creatures and was given to us as a Gift from the Cross.  Catholics accept that.  We accept that the vessel that carried God Himself had to be as pure as it was in the Old Testament.  We accept that God can save people after they die and before they are born.  God can do anything.

Ted Seeber:  It is naive to suggest Hebrews 11:1 entitles the believer to sin to your heart’s delight.  No child of God would do so.  You will not find the apostle Paul taking that position.

New Observer- and yet, that’s exactly what the Once Saved Always Saved folks think- that being saved protects them from sinning and that nothing they do can lose that salvation.  Thus my contention that OSAS folks are NOT children of God, because I do NOT find Paul taking that position.

The salutation of the Angel Gabriel is different from the usual angelic greeting. It indicates that Mary was exceptionally “highly favored with grace” (Greek: charitoo, used twice in the New Testament, in Lk 1:28 for Mary - before Christ’s redemption; and Eph 1:6 for Christ’s grace to us - after Christ’s redemption).

Ted Seeber:  Some may “think” they are protected from sinning, but they are wrong and nothing biblically supports that idea.  I sin everyday.  I am sure you do as well.

On the practical side, if original sin is inherited through our parents, and Jesus took on our human nature in all things except sin, then Mary had to be free of original sin.

FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0774.html

“Some may “think” they are protected from sinning, but they are wrong and nothing biblically supports that idea.  I sin everyday.  I am sure you do as well.”

And when we sin, we are in danger of losing our salvation- thus the need for the frequent use of the Sacrament of the Eucharist (in which we take Christ’s body and blood into ourselves to cleanse us of venal sin) and the Sacrament of Reconciliation (in which we talk through our mortal sins with the priest and he brings us the healing of Christ’s forgiveness).  Otherwise we would LOSE OUR SALVATION- totally disproving Once Saved Always Saved and the presumptuous idea that we can’t lose our salvation.

Christ instituted these Sacraments for a reason- Protestants ignore them at their own peril because of the foolish notion of Once Saved Always Saved.  Sin can be overcome- with the help of Christ.

Since Scripture is the starting point for all doctrines that are biblical and apostolic can any Catholic show me where this “Baptism of Anticipation” is mentioned anywhere in Scripture? Anywhere where baptism is used in this way?
The church from the beginning did not teach these Marian doctrines. We know this because it is impossible to show from Scripture (the beginning) that the church believed these things. Not even in the early centuries do we see these doctrines. It was not until many centuries later that the RCC formulated and promoted these doctrines.
Now if I’m wrong, can any Catholic show from the 1st 4 centuries where any council or pope taught that Mary was kept from sin and was conceived without the curse of Adam?

Ted Seeber:  The value of the sacraments should not be ignored.  People that I know do indeed value them highly.  Your explanation, though, is quite troubling in that Calvary is not mentioned.  The penalty of sin is death.  Jesus paid your penalty on the cross for all your sins.  As a believer, you are made righteous in the Father’s eyes.  Not because Ted is righteous, but because the blood of Jesus has been applied to you as one who believes.  We still confess and repent of our sin, but as one who believes, His shed blood has already delivered you from Hell.  Your priest confirms this at Catholic Mass during the Consecration of the Eucharist.  He cites from Mathew 26:  “This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting convenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”  The many are only those who believe.

New Observer:  From my experience, most believers in OSAS both ignore Christ’s Eucharist (which includes Calvary- go read the new translation of the Third Roman Missal) AND the need to confess or repent of sin at all.  They believe Christ died for their sins and *there’s no need to stop sinning or repent* because, as you put it “Christ did it all for me, there’s nothing for me to do”.

Erik- how can scripture be the starting point for Apostolic Tradition when the Canon of Scripture wasn’t even canonized until the 4th century?

Ted,
I have discussed the Sacrament of the Eucharist with a number of Roman Catholics and I have never heard them say that by taking it you have your venial sins forgiven. Is this official church teaching?

What would be the point in God sending you to hell to preach the gospel since they are damned and beyond redemption?

Ted,
The apostolic writings were inspired-inerrant the moment an apostle or one closely associated with an apostle wrote. It was not officially recognized as Scripture until the 4th century. The church did not make thee writings inspired-inerrant but only recognized them as such. Agreed?

Ted Seeber:  You and I must have a different experience with Christian people we have met.  If the Lord Jesus has delivered you from sin into newness of life from a totally lost condition, is this how you would be grateful?  Christ did accomplish the work of your salvation, but your part going forward is to now be comformed in the image and likeness of His Son.

Ted,
Any Christian who claims that they don’t “need to confess or repent of sin at all.  They believe Christ died for their sins and *there’s no need to stop sinning or repent* because, as you put it “Christ did it all for me, there’s nothing for me to do”.. do not understand the Scripture and actually deny it. Romans 6 and I John 1:9 would apply here.

Erik,

First you’d have to show me where in Scripture it says that Scripture is the starting point for all Doctrines that are Biblical and Apostolic. Given that there was no New Testament for the first three hundred years after Christ died, what were the Apostles using for their source????  Could it have been oral TRADITION?

Mk,
The apostles had the OT and the oral teachings of Jesus until they were written down. In their era the oral teachings would have had the same authority as the written Scripture of the OT. Since all that we have of the apostles is found only in the written NT Scripture this is the only apostolic authority we have. Even though Jesus and His apostles said and taught other things we don’t know what they were since no written document has survived.
The NT is the only teachings we have from the apostles, this means that we are limited by what is biblical and apostolic to the NT.
The NT has existed since the time of the apostles. It is their writings. The church did not wait for 300 years before there was a NT. All that the church of the 4th century did was to officially recognize these writings as apostolic and Scripture.
Is there an official list of the Traditions of the RCC?

Now if I’m wrong, can any Catholic show from the 1st 4 centuries where any council or pope taught that Mary was kept from sin and was conceived without the curse of Adam?

Hippolytus (235 AD) “He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption.”

Origen (244 AD) “This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one”

But it’s not Erik.  It’s not the only things that were written by the Apostles and not the only thing written by early Christians and not the only thing written by historians and not the only thing written by those who knew Jesus.  What it is is the books that the Church, The Catholic Church, believed to be inspired and inerrant put together after three hundred years.  Many other books were not included but this doesn’t mean they are useless or worthless.  It simply means that they were purely human and not divinely inspired.

All that the church of the 4th century did was to officially recognize these writings as apostolic and Scripture.

And all that the Church did in the 18 hundreds was officially recognize the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which had been around since the beginning. 

And no, there wasn’t Scripture as we know it.  There were lots and lots of letters and Gospels and writings.  What makes Scripture, Scripture is that the Catholic Church, after years of discernment, proclaimed that these and only these letters/books were worthy of being called inspired by God. 

Erik,

I don’t know what you mean by a “list” of Traditions.  There is no “rule” book per se, but the Catechism is a great source for all the things the Catholic Church teaches and why.  You can access it online.  Type into the search engine any topic that you are curious about and add the words Catholic Catechism and it will usually pop up.  There are also great sources (we’ve given you links to many of them) to learn more, and more and more.

Asking if there is a list of Traditions is sort of like asking someone to teach you everything there is to know about quantum physics on a blog.

I hate when these conversations digress into contests of who is right and who is wrong.  It must never be about that (and I am as guilty as anyone of falling into it).  It must always be about discerning the Truth no matter where that is found.  Which I why I said, and meant, that if the Catholic Church ever taught anything that contradicted Scripture I would leave her in a heartbeat.  She may teach things that are not explicit in Scripture but she teaches nothing that is a contradiction.

Another great thing to read is the Didache.  The early teachings of the apostles…what you would call apocrypha.  Apocrypha is not false, it’s just not inerrant and inspired.  But it is still a record of the what Apostles and their early followers did and believed. 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

Erik,

Here is a WEALTH of Early Christian Writings that did not make it into Scripture but are considered part of our Tradition nonetheless. 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

Mk,
All that you showing me with quotes from Hippolytus (235 AD) and Origen (244 AD) is what they thought. Why should we accept their statements as representative of the official teaching of the entire church at the time? What will help your case is if you can show what a council proclaimed in the 1st 4 centuries about this.
What we do see at this early date is not good exegesis by them. There statements are not grounded in the exegesis of Scripture.

Wow, you read fast!  You read all of those links already???  lol

What I am showing you is that this is what was accepted as understood and believed by the Church.  Just as you say that the Scriptures existed even before they were officially gathered and declared Canon, I am saying that these things were believed from the beginning even tho they were not declared until later.  Just like the doctrine of the Trinity.  Or the fact that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine.  Yes, there were those who played devil’s advocate.  This is a good thing.  It took a long time to understand (heck, we’re STILL learning) all that was revealed to us by Our Lord.  It’s not like He died and everyone slapped their foreheads and said I UDERSTAND IT ALL.  Years, of discussion and discernment, disagreements and dissent…but in the end you see a consistent set of beliefs that changed little over the last 2,000 years.

Heck Origen had some funny ideas himself.  But what that quote shows you is that He believed what the Church believed about Mary.

Erik:  You need to read original sources,  Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is “given up for us,” and the blood we drink “shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins.” For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:

For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the death of the Lord. If we proclaim the Lord’s death, we proclaim the forgiveness of sins. If, as often as his blood is poured out, it is poured for the forgiveness of sins, I should always receive it, so that it may always forgive my sins. Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.

Erik- the question in my hypothetical isn’t why God would send me to hell; the question is am I obedient enough to go.

“The apostolic writings were inspired-inerrant the moment an apostle or one closely associated with an apostle wrote. It was not officially recognized as Scripture until the 4th century. The church did not make thee writings inspired-inerrant but only recognized them as such. Agreed?”

Agreed, but then why would you expect any other doctrine to be recognized as inspired-inerrant before the 4th century?

Here is an awesome quote by St. Augustine.  Don’t get much better than Augustine!

“Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin—after all, how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin—to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?” (St. Augustine, De natura et gratia PL 44:267, from Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 15)

New Observer:  I have such different experiences than you with so-called “Christians” in America that I make it a point to call myself Catholic.  Not that Catholics aren’t “Christian” in the simplest sense of the word, but in the most complex sense of the word, almost 40% of “Christians” simply aren’t followers of Christ.

And that is due ENTIRELY to silly doctrines like Once Saved Always Saved and Sola Scriptura.  Most Christians I know aren’t even grateful enough to Christ to pay his mother the respect that even St. Luke paid her, let alone make an effort to stop sinning themselves.  Instead they merely shop for a church that ignores their favorite sins.

“Since all that we have of the apostles is found only in the written NT Scripture “

No it isn’t.  Where do you get that idea from?

Teb Seeber:  How charitable is it of you to call me a “so-called” Christian?  What does that mean?  I have made no such remark concerning Catholicism.  You further allege that 40% of Christians are not followers of Christ Jesus.  What percentage of people identifying themselves as Catholic are not Catholic?

New Observer, I thought you could read.  I called other OSAS Christians I have had dealings with in the past “so-called” Christians, not you.  You’ve yet to show me any behavior one way or the other.  But believe me, my relatives who are not Catholic have shown me how Seventh Day Adventists, Vineyard Evangelicals, Baptists, Methodists, and other assorted Protestants act when taught Once Saved Always Saved, and I am NOT impressed with the results.

“You further allege that 40% of Christians are not followers of Christ Jesus.  What percentage of people identifying themselves as Catholic are not Catholic?”

In America?  Pretty much the majority of people born between 1965 and 1985.  There is a reason why the 2nd largest, and fastest growing denomination in America is “ex Catholic”.  Bad Catechisis right after Vatican II and a rejection of Apostolic Authority when Humanae Vitae came out were the main causes.

Anybody who claims “all you need is Jesus” is not in communion with Rome, no matter what else they do.

New Observer,

Touche’

For the record the Catholic Church views you as every bit as “Christian” as we are.  If you are Baptized, you are Christian.  The difference, the real difference, is that we have what is called the “Fullness of Faith”.  We believe what has been handed down by the Apostles, undiluted.  The 7 sacraments…Tradition…The Magesterium.  Without meaning to insult you it’s like we drive a Cadillac with all the perks and you drive an old Chevy with roll down windows.  But we’re both going in the right direction and headed to the same destination. 

You are no less “Saved”, no less a follower, no less a Christian.  But you are missing out on a lot of the gifts that Jesus left with us.

Ted Seeber:  Your comment “I should always receive it, (Eucharist) so that it may always forgive my sins.  Because I always sin, I should always have a remedy.”  You are saying the church teaches the act of receiving Holy Communion (it)—always forgives your sins?  Ted, that would be a necessary “work” on your part.  Earlier it was stated that Protestants must “do something”—a work, and that Catholics don’t do anything.  Do you not require the Sacrament of Penance rather than the Eurcharist to forgive your sins? 

New Observer, read the Catechism to find out what the Church teaches.  Would be great if you converted to the Church that Christ founded on the Rock of Peter’s faith, but I am no preacher.  And I do not expect you to be converted by anything I say.  I can only explain my understanding.

Having said that- a sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, of inward grace.  Who are you to disobey?

This has been an interesting blog.  There has been a clear discussion and thoughtful comments.  I have a question regarding the quote today from Hippolytus (235 AD) who is quoted as saying: “He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption.”

Why is the “tabernacle” thought to be Mary?  When I first read the quote, I thought the “tabernacle” was Jesus’ own Body.  If it were Mary, why didn’t he just say so?  Why tabernacle?  Why make it an object (like a body) if it were a person, especially another person.  We are “Temples” of the Holy Spirit.  Paul wrote of our bodies as “Tents”.  But the terms are personal, about ourselves.  Our own bodies.  Not someone elses.

Point Two-
Regarding Origen (244 AD) quoted as saying: “This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one…”

Mary was a virgin.  No one disputes that.  She was untouched, and had never been with a man (thus, immaculate) prior to her conception of Jesus.  But I don’t see how it matters if she was sinless.  Jesus’ extended family sinned.  Joseph must have sinned.  Jesus was around sin.  He just did not sin Himself, because Jesus did not have a sin nature.  He had a 100% divine nature, though 100% man too.

Mary was a virgin.  She was a good wife, a good mother to Jesus, a good child of God.  Mary is the ideal role model for us all.  The beauty of it is she was human, and she “pondered” and “hid things in her heart”, meaning she had to learn to trust God the Father too, as do we all.  We can identify with Mary.

I do not think it takes any respect away from her memory, or her legacy as Jesus’ mother, to put her role in Jesus’ life into its proper perspective.  I don’t understand the continual new and improved building that goes on in our Church.  Why spend so much time on Mary and on dead Catholics, trying to give them accolade after accolade, post death?

Why can’t we focus on Jesus, Who is alive!  Why can’t we be learning more about Him, and the Holy Spirit (Who, it seems, only Catholic Charismatics know well, these days), and about what God the Father wants from us?  It is God the Father that answers prayer.  Give your prayer to Mary, to Michael the Archangel, or to the saint of the day, or your great aunt or uncle that was known to be “holy”, and we are expecting them to give it to God the Father anyway.  So why not cut to the chase?  Eliminate all the middlemen and women, Mary included.

Give Mary a rest.  Poor thing.  And Mother’s Day is on Sunday.  A billion Catholics world-wide are tugging at Mary’s hem, giving her new and improved titles and roles.  Enough already.  Let’s get along with non-Catholic Christians.  Let’s find a way.

I want to know more about God, Our Father in Heaven, and about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and so do our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters in Christ.  How about it?

New Observer,

The Eucharist IS Jesus, so it is Jesus that is forgiving our sins.  But I’m not sure it would be technically correct to say that we receive the Eucharist to forgive our sins.  Our sins are forgiven simply by asking them to be, BUT, if a sin is so serious that it actually breaks our relationship with God, then yes, we need to receive the Sacrament of confession/reconciliation.

There are two types of sins.  Those that damage our relationship with God (venial) and those that break it (mortal).  Mary was conceived without the stain of Original Sin which we are all born with.  It is passed down from parent to child in our “natures”.  That is removed permanently at Baptism.  But committing a mortal sin, as Judas did, would be a deal breaker without the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Were Judas to have asked Jesus to forgive Him, he would be in heaven as we speak.  Mary was capable of committing sins, both venial and mortal, but she didn’t because she was filled with Grace.  Grace so powerful that it gave her the strength she needed to remain sinless. 

When we go to confession, whether for venial or mortal sins, we too receive supernatural Graces.  Same with the Eucharist.  These Graces are the power we use to lead a good Christian Life.  It cleans the soul, which allows God to remain close to us.  The more sin you have the more cloudy the lines of communication.  Think of your soul as a crystal hanging in a window.  Baptism cleans it.  It shines and the sun can go right through it, casting rainbows all around the room.  But dust, and fingerprints (venial sins) will cloud it making it harder for the sun to shine through.  Fewer rainbows.  Confession is like a good dose of Windex.  Leave it for too long and no sun can get through (mortal sin).  Now it’s not a matter of the crystal working less, it’s a matter of it not working at all.  It MUST be cleaned.  Mary had a lot of Windex.  A whole lot.  Her crystal never got dirty.  Dust just bounced off.  We’re not so blessed.  Which is why we are so grateful for confession.

Ted Seeber:  The “all you need is Jesus” is a platitude some people like to claim.  When you ask for a further explanation of what that means, I am sorry to say they cannot provide you a credible or biblical response.  I don’t personally hold to Seventh Day or the Vineyards.  President Obama says he is Christian.  Vice President Biden is a Catholic.  Both have just stated this week their full support for gay marriage.  Should we view these selected individuals as representative of all Christians and all Catholics?  Of course not.

Jackie, the saints are not dead!  Jesus Christ Conquored Death!

Read the Catechism on the communion of Saints.  Then Buttler’s Encyclopedia.  I guarantee you will make some new friends.

Jackie,

Hello!  Great questions!

A tabernacle is a vessel which holds God.  We are all tabernacles in that sense, since the Holy Spirit lives in each of us.  In the OT the tabernacle was kept in the Holy of Holies.  Before there was a temple, it was kept in the Ark of the Covenant.  When Jesus grew inside of Mary’s womb, she was a tabernacle in the most strict sense of the word since she contained God, made Flesh.  This is why John leapt in his mother’s womb.  This is why Elizabeth KNEW that Mary was carrying someone very, very special.

In every Catholic Church there is a Tabernacle, usually behind or just off to the right of, the Altar.  But actually, the entire Church is a Tabernacle, as it contains the True God, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the form of Consecrated Bread.

This is why we say Mary was the New Ark of the Covenant.  She was the new vessel that carried God. 

As for her being sinless while other around Jesus were not…Only Mary carried Jesus inside of her.  It is a singular gift. 

Lastly, every Saint, including Mary, points right back to Jesus.  We look at them and we see how awesome the power of God is.  Yes, exactly.  These were mere humans, but they achieved superhuman feats…THROUGH Jesus.  And ONLY through Jesus.  We never look at Mother Teresa without also seeing Christ.  They were near perfect images of Him.  Because we are human we are creatures living in two worlds.  The visible and the invisible.  Saints are part of the visible world and they help us to see the invisible world more clearly.  ANYTHING or ANYONE that brings us closer to God is to be honored.

And as to all of her names…each one tells us how hard she is still working to bring souls to her Son.  She is Moon to her Son.  She reflects Him as no other.  Her greatest desire is that we love Him as much as she does.  She never takes the accolades for herself.  Catholics understand this.  She is a jewel and a precious gift, left to us by her Son when He said the words “Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother!”  He placed us under her care.  She is Jesus’ mother, He is our brother, therefore she is our mother too!

Teb Seeber:  Your comment to me— “New Observer, read the Catechism to find out what the Church teaches.”  Is that what you tell someone who is making an inquiry concerning some aspect of the Catholic faith?

New Observer- yes, it is.  In fact, I have been known toeven buy copies for curious friends.

Ted,
I wrote—”“Since all that we have of the apostles is found only in the written NT Scripture “

You wrote:No it isn’t.  Where do you get that idea from?”

What else is there that we have from the apostles that is not in Scripture? Do you know something that no one else knows?

Erik,

Seriously?  Did you not even look at what I’ve written?  The Didache.  The Apocryphal Gospels.  The infancy narrations.  On and on…

MK,
What specifically are you referring to when you mention the “fullness of the Truth. We believe what has been handed down by the Apostles, undiluted.”

Don’t know where you are getting this from. You can’t be serious that the apostles passed down the Marian doctrines since we both know that the apostles never taught Mary was sinless, queen of heaven, or that all grace comes through her. Fullness of truth must mean something else. Would that be right?

Ted,
If a saint is in purgatory and you pray to that saint, can that saint hear you and do something about your requests? I’ve always wondered how purgatory affects a Roman Catholic’ ability to hear prayers from there. Does your church teach anything about this?

MK - Thank you for your thoughts on the word “tabernacle”.  I liked when you wrote, “But actually, the entire Church is a Tabernacle, as it contains the True God, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the form of Consecrated Bread.”

—only I’d change it to say, “the entire Church is a Tabernacle, as it contains us: the Body of Christ, Christians!”

We are to be the “salt and light” to a lost and dark world.  I think the best way for us to grow in Christ, is to know more about Him, about Our Father and about the Holy Spirit, Who, post Pentecost, is most active and working through us.  Anything else or anyone else that distracts us from our Triune Godhead, is bad.

Right now, I’m listening to Raymond Arroyo on “The World Over”, hearing about President Obama and Catholic VP Joe Biden’s endorsement of same sex marriage.  God help us.  Catholics and non-Catholic Christians of like-mind must find common ground, joining hands to heal our land.

This will not happen by itself.  We can’t afford to become distracted from what’s important: worshipping and being obedient to our holy Triune Godhead, knowing more about Jesus, growing in Him, and creating a society that respects God.  Let’s all of us join hands in prayer, to our Father.

Mk,
I’m quite familiar with the other writings that did not make it into the NT canon. Some of those works were used by various churches but failed to be accepted by the church as Scripture. None of them for example could claim to be written by an apostle or one closely associated with one. Some of them were ruled out because they taught things contrary to Scripture. The infancy narratives of the apocryphal gospels were primarily written by the agnostics and other frauds.

PS- do you think its right and godly for a person to consecrate themselves to Mary?

Erik: In our responses to your queries, your respondents have answered you time & again, under the assumption that you have been raising these questions in an earnest and serious search for the truth. Implicit in this sort of exchange is a sort of trust that not only would you not engage in this discussion for any lesser reason but also that you would have the moral courage and intellectual honesty to follow the truth wherever it leads. This necessarily entails that you respond in good faith to the points made by those who have honored you with remarkably lucid, well-informed replies. Given the medium of exchange, as our host pointed out earlier, it is both a practical necessity and common courtesy to respect a reasonable scope so that the discussion is manageable.

Unfortunately, there are indications that your motives may not be quite so lofty. You appear to be quite knowledgable, so you must know that a considerable number of full-length books have been written on the Marian doctrines alone. Yet your latter posts touch on such large topics as Purgatory, the Eucharist, Confession, and others. All these questions continue to be framed with the expectation that explicit scriptual rereferences must be provided, while you have made no attempt to defend your underlying premise of sola scriptura against the very valid criticisms offered.

Earlier, I said the replies given to you so generously are the tip of the tip of the iceberg. For whatever reason you do not seem to begin to apprehend that there is much more substance to Catholic teaching than your questions reflect. So let me pose this to you: I can affirm, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Catholic Church, instituted by Christ, proposes for our belief the fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, our Saviour. Consequently, answers to any & every objection can be presented to a mind with the requisite sincerity and desire for truth. Does this describe you?

If so, then the best place to start is to go back and look through this really outstanding thread & make an honest attempt to understand the author and ask questions that reflect a sincere desire for clarification. This also includes a duty to make some effort to do independent reading as suggested.

If not, then it is intellectually dishonest and lacking in Christian charity for you to ask questions for the sake of criticism, without real interest in the answers offerred. I have never encountered any of the folks in this thread before, but from the content and spirit of their posts, I can assure you, their faith is unshakable, at least at the level of the questions contained in your posts.

So do you dare pursue the truth? Either way, may Our Blessed Lord richly bless you!

Erik, saints (by definition) are in heaven.  People who will one day become saints are in purgatory.  We pray FOR the souls in pugatory WITH the saints to God.  Or rather, that is a better way of saying it:  pray a rosary to learn more.  Better yet pray a week of rosaries.

With that I am leaving this discussion.

Erik: I can answer your last question very economically, so I will. Early in his priesthood, Fr Karol Wojtyla, later Blessed John Paul II (the Great), asked himself the same question. Then he read “True Devotion to Mary”, by St Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort, a spiritual classic available in paperback. This slim volume answered all his questons, & I can recommend it heartily.

By the way if you question the “godliness” of the late Pope, I challenge you to read any of his books,  such as “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” or “Love & Responsibility”, or any of his papal documents, such as “Veritatis Splendor” (the Spendor of Truth) or “Fides et Ratio” (Faith & Reason). These and many other works can be downloaded for free from he document library at EWTN.com. Better yet, check out “Witness to Hope”, by George Wiegel.

You are in for some literary treats!

mk (& Ted):

Clap…clap…clap…

Good job… well done.

FWIW, there’s a good possibility that Erik and New Observer are just stringing you along a bit with their questions/comments… but in *this* case, it doesn’t really matter.  IMO, you are doing such a great job with your responses that many other *serious* and *inquiring* non-Catholic NCRegister readers will definitely benefit from your informative posts now… and in the future.

So… IMHO… since you’ve done such a heroic job here, there is a *very slight* possibility that Mark will feel compelled to share some of his ‘multi-million dollar’ salary from NCRegister with you.  Let us know if he does… but please keep the amount confidential.  [wink]

Ok, that brought me back for one last post before I sleep.  Any donations in my name can go to John Clare Knights of Columbus council #15485.  Thank you and have a good night.

Erik: I see above that Ted has left the discussion. Before you smugly claim some sort of victory, let me admonish you (one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy):
• Rendering judgement on the answers posted without any consideration of their merit is PREJUDICE.
• Asking questions of others with no real intent to consider the answers os DECEIT.
• Taking other’s time given to you so generously so you can amuse yourself is STEALING.
• Ridiculing others’ sincere beliefs without real respect is DETRACTION.
• Misrepresenting yourself, besides being deceitful, is GUTLESS.
• Placing your desire for ego gratification ahead of God’s Truth or the good of others is IDOLATRY.
• Doing this to fellow Christians, hindering their Christian mission & yours, is an ABOMINATION.

I’m not a moral thologian, nor am I rendering any sort of judgement. If none of the above ring true, then perhaps you will avail yourself of the data provided so incredibly generously & you will post some reply.

Since that seems unlikely, please, for the sake of your soul’s peace, take this to prayer, and to your pastor or spiritual director. If you were Catholic, you could go to confession, receive absolution, do penance, and be cleansed. As it stands, I would urge you to do SOMETHING. Pride is the worst vice, & spiritual pride is its worst form. Do not be like the Pharisees in John 9, who because they insisted they saw, were found to be blind.

“By their fruits you shall know them.” I dare you to answer.

Ed, thanks so much for your generous comment. I bear no rancor, and was sincere in my plea to the young man to examine his conscience. It was an intersting exercise, and I am honored to have participated in a minor way in what I think is really a remarkable thread. It is really heartwarming to encounter Catholics so on fire with their faith they feel so compelled to share it, never wavering in either their firmness of belief or charity of disposition.

God bless!

David,
Since you seem to have some Marian devotion what do you think of this from the Glories of Mary by Liguori:
                  “PRAYER OF CONFIDENCE IN MARY

Most Holy, Immaculate Virgin and my Mother Mary! To thee who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, the Hope, and the Refuge of sinners, I have recourse today, I who am the most miserable of all.

I render thee my most humble homage, O great Queen, and I thank thee for all the graces thou hast conferred on me until now, especially for having delivered me from Hell, which I have so often deserved. I love thee, O most amiable Lady; and for the love which I bear thee, I promise to serve thee always and to do all in my power to make others love thee also. I place in thee all my hopes; I confide my salvation to thy care.

Accept me for thy servant and receive me under thy mantle, O Mother of Mercy. And since thou art so powerful with God, deliver me from all temptations; or rather, obtain for me the strength to triumph over them until death. Of thee I ask a perfect love for Jesus Christ. Through thee I hope to die a good death. O my Mother, by the love which thou bearest to God, I beseech thee to help me at all times, but especially at the last moment of my life. Leave me not, I beseech thee, until thou seest me safe in Heaven, blessing thee and singing thy mercies for all eternity. Amen. Thus, I hope. Thus, may it be.”

Do you think any Christian should ever pray this prayer?

[Erik: I see above that Ted has left the discussion. Before you smugly claim some sort of victory…]

Trust me David… no one in this Galaxy would ever think Erik was close to any type of victory here at all.  Believe it or not… we *truly* have a great deal of compassion for all our separated brothers and sisters and pray for their return.

But we also know:

You can lead horses to water… but you can’t make them drink.

Have a good evening David…

Erik,

If you are still around, I will attempt to answer your remaining questions.

But first, ED…David Paggi…wow.  Who knew that anyone else was paying attention.  All thanks goes to the Holy Spirit.  It is He that has directed these comments.  I just let my fingers walk the keys. 

Okay Erik,

Consecrating yourself to Mary.  Not only do I not find anything wrong with it, I have done it.  And I have consecrated my six children to her also.  Since no human being is closer to God than she is, placing my innermost desires into her hands, fully knowing they will go from her lips to God’s ears…well, what could be better. 

Yesterday my son called me, his mother, and asked me to pray for him as he is going through an especially challenging time right now.  He did not ask me to pray instead of him, but for him.  He is praying very hard himself, but he knows that if we bombard heaven with our needs, our voice will be heard.  I do the same with Mary.  My son asked his mother to pray for him, and I asked my Mother to pray for him.

Understand tho, that God hears me just fine without any help.  Our prayers do not “change God’s mind”.  Praying is more for our benefit than God’s.  When we pray, we draw close to Him.  And that is His greatest desire.  When we pray to His Mother we also draw closer to Him.  It’s not about our “prayers” reaching God.  It’s about us keeping the lines of communication open with Him.  It’s about Communion.

When we say the fullness of the Truth we mean exactly what I wrote earlier.  ALL 7 sacraments.  We have Baptism.  For us, Baptism REMOVES the stain of Original Sin, it does not just cover it up.  We do not believe in imputation.  So even tho we both have the Sacrament of Baptism, we believe it achieves different things.

Perhaps you even have Confirmation.  Some protestant Churches do, tho I don’t know if you view it as a Sacrament or just a ritual, a rite of passage.  But again, for us, it is Sacramental.  It changes us on a fundamental level. 

We have Reconciliation, the ability to speak to God, through a priest and confess our sins, receiving Supernatural Graces.  Not just telling God our sins, but an actual Sacrament.  We are sanctified through these Graces.

We have the Sacrament of Marriage. Not the rite of marriage, but the Sacrament.  We do not believe in divorce.  Not so much because it is wrong as because it is impossible.  When God fuses us together, we cannot undo it.  And because it is Sacramental, it must be open to Life.  Therefore we do not condone the use of Birth Control.

We have Ordination, the Apostolic Succession of the priesthood.  Jesus is our High Priest, all the faithful belong to the priesthood, and we have a special “office” of the ministerial priesthood.  Again, when a man is ordained, he becomes something new.  He is changed.  That’s what Sacraments do.  They change you.  Some changes are permanent.  Some are ongoing. 

We have the Sacrament of the Sick.  A rite that is very powerful.  It is done on those that are very ill or close to death.  Like Baptism, it renders the person clean and pure and able to die a holy death, at peace, and assured that they will see God once they pass.

And finally, we have the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  How does one explain what the Eucharist is to someone who refuses to believe?  God is present…in a physical way, a unique way, in the Eucharist.  And not only can we fall on our knees and adore Him, but we may also take Him into our own bodies to be nourished and sanctified.  What a gift!!!

We have the Mass, the perpetual Sacrifice, the opportunity to be present at Calvary and offer up Our Lord to His Father, day in and day out.  To be witness to a miracle over and over and over.

We have a long line of Popes, Fathers who have watched over, protected and guided the Church for the last 2,000 years.  We have the Saints who cheer us on and pray for us. 

And of course we have the most rockin’ Mom in history at our beck and call. 

There is more, but we have all of this, while you basically have three doctrines that are false.  Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and Once Saved Always Saved.  We have the FULLNESS of the faith, you have it’s shadow.

However, and this is a BIG however, we all have God with us….A Father who loves us as His children, a Brother who is ever present and ever loving, who gave up His very Life for us and a Spirit that moves us towards charitable love for one another. Is that enough?  Of course.  But why wouldn’t you want to take advantage of each and every gift that Jesus left us?  Why would anyone say “No Thank You” to the body and blood of Our Lord?  Why would anyone say “No thank you” to the Mother of God?  Why would anyone that claims to love Jesus say “No thank you” to an opportunity to stand at the cross and offer up His Sacrifice at Mass?  I don’t know.  Maybe you could explain it.

Jackie,

Actually Jesus is present in five ways at each and every Mass.  He is present in us, as you point out.  He is present in the Holy Spirit, there and everywhere.  He is present in the Priest who stands in for Him.  He is present in the Word.  And He is present in the Eucharist.  Wow!  When you think about it, a Catholic Mass is a close to Heaven as we’ll ever get this side of time!

So yes, the Church is a Tabernacle in more ways than one.

Erik,

[None of them for example could claim to be written by an apostle or one closely associated with one.]

*sigh*

We don’t even know if the Gospels of Scripture were really written by an apostle. 

But in that list of writings I put up (and if you are so familiar with them then why do you play dumb?) are a number of books/letters written by people who lived at the time of Jesus or very soon after.  It’s not like they had You Tube.  We have no “proof” that anyone wrote anything.  What we have are numerous writings that while not perfect, do confirm that what is believed today was believed then.  Truth was revealed to us through Jesus.  That Truth had to be discerned and understood as I have said a dozen times now.  The Truth did not evolve, but our understanding of it did. 

Yes, some of the Apocrypha is false from beginning to end, written much later and passed off as authentic.  But MUCH of it was real.  Within the books/letters that were real, some things were less true than others.  But ALL of it is a way to know what the general thinking of the time was.  Even the stuff that was false manages to highlight that which was true.

If I have 7 encyclopedias that say that Mars is a planet and one that says it isn’t, I am better able to discern that the one is not a reliable source while the others are more likely to be true.  What I do not do is throw them all away because one is false.

If I were to look up “Russia” in a 1955 encyclopedia, I would get a very different picture than if I looked the same up in a 2012 encyclopedia.  But both would have been true for the time they were written.  The Apocrypha has much to offer as insights into what was believed and UNDERSTOOD at the time they were written.  They are NOT Gospel Truths, which is why they were not put into the Canon.  But this does not mean they were false across the board.

Erik,

[Do you think any Christian should ever pray this prayer?]

LOL…I think EVERY Christian should pray that prayer.  I’ve never seen it before and I thank you for sharing it!  Mother of Mercy, pray for us indeed! 

Mk,
I want to focus on the “PRAYER OF CONFIDENCE IN MARY”.  Since you have no problem with it that means that you believe that Mary is:
1) The Advocate, the Hope and Refuge for sinners
2) She has-will deliver you from hell
3) You place all your hopes in her
4) She is the Mother of Mercy
5) Will deliver you from all temptations
6) Give you strength to triumph over temptation
Would it be correct to say that you believe all these things to be true of Mary?

Mk,
You wrote about the popes that “We have a long line of Popes, Fathers who have watched over, protected and guided the Church for the last 2,000 years.”

Have you read any history of the popes? I’m sure you would know there were a lot of evil popes. “Take Pope Leo X (A.D. 1475-1521) commissioned John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to travel throughout Germany selling indulgences on behalf of the Church.”
Do you think it was right for the pope and Tetzel to come up with a unscrupulous scheme to finance the building construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome?

Should we believe that Christ was guiding this pope to protect the church by these false means?

Mk,
We certainly do have good grounds to know who wrote the documents of the NT. The names that are associated with each one has always had that name attached to them. Never has there been a different name as the author for them. We also have the testimony of Papias who was a bishop of the early church (2nd-3rd centuries) who tells us who wrote some of the gospels. We are on good grounds for knowing who wrote what in the NT. The only book that we are not sure of is Hebrews.

Mk,
Did you know that the NT Apocrypha was condemned by a pope and were to be avoided by Catholics?
““In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected. He gives a list of apocryphal writings and makes the following statement regarding them:

The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), p. 38).”

The books condmend by Gelasisus were condemned for what the taught, as well as their dubious origins: Gelasius says,

“These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of ERclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius,Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., (Cambridge: James Clark, 1991).”

David Paggi, your comments to Erik at 12:24am (EST) are disappointing.  The central theme expressed in most all of Paul’s letters is not competition but rather his wish for Christian charity (even in disagreement) among the brethren.

New Observer:

If you look at my last post to Erik, I gave him a test: I challenged him to respond to a previous post. He failed the test miserably; he asked me (with something of a verbal sneer) about the text of a prayer, thus introducing a new matter.  If you review the thread, you will see that he rarely responds to the substance of a reply to his question; if he acknowledges it at all it is only to offer a fresh question or criticism. For the good of his soul I gave him a pretty challenging examination of conscience, which he blithely ignored, at least as evidenced by his subsequent posts.

The bottom line is that I don’t believe Erik has any right to pose any more challenges or questions until he responds adequately to the ones already provided, as he shows no real respect for all the effort that has been given him already. There are some things that just can’t be done, like putting toothpaste back into a tube, or engaging in civil discourse with someone who won’t abide by reasonable rules.

BTW, admonishing the sinner IS one of the spiritual works of mercy, & I had good reason to doubt his intentions, which Ed’s posts confirm. Upon reflection, I could have been milder, but in my own case I usually respond better to a 2x4!

I do not think Erik is acting in good faith, which means his treatment of his interlocutors has crossed over the line into abuse, rather than Christian charity. Apropos of that, I can’ t recall any indication that Erik even considers Catholics Christian. I have a definition that many Protestants I’ve asked agree with: An Evangelical thinks it may be possible that a Catholic could be saved. A Fundamentalist is absolutely certain he cannnot. Erik may well among the latter.

Mk’s perseverence has been nothing short of heroic, so Erik should stand & respond, not continually run off to some new issue. While I agree this dialogue should not be viewed competetively; were that the case Erik would be seen as having conceded almost every point by default. You can’t find truth by evasion. God bless!

David,
Lets cut to the chase. I have answered most of what people asked me directly. The problem is that Roman Catholics cannot believe that what they have been taught about Mary is not grounded or found in the NT. Its a shock to them and you to think that your church could be wrong about this.
Mk and Ted tried to show that Scripture does show Mary was without sin but not explicitly. They failed in that also because when we look at those passages that are supposed to allude to it we find it says nothing of the sort. In fact, I showed that it actually denies other passages such as Rom 3:9, 23 and 5:12 do show all men are sinners. The only exceptions were Adam-Eve how were created directly by God and the Lord Jesus. All that they and others claimed was some kind of special act by God that kept her from sinning. We both know that is pure speculation with nothing in Scripture to support it. I even showed that there were fathers who thought she sinned.

Why don’t you step up to the plate and try to refute what I have written? Just remember that speculations are not facts.

BTW- please stop trying to mind read over the net. Its just foolish.

I agree with what Erik wrote.  What we have been taught about Mary comes from sources other than the Bible.  It is difficult to pry ourselves away from what we have been taught to believe, because it’s like a house of cards that may tumble, should any of the foundation be undermined.

No doubt many Catholics of the past meant well.  But they just thought too much, and not about Who God is, and Who Jesus is, and how the Holy Spirit works in our lives, but rather, they got distracted by Mary, and other saints- the myths that distract us from Jesus, just grew and grew.  We’ve heard these things for so long that, when people hear something enough, they consider it fact.  But it’s a myth.  I agree with Erik, that there is no basis to anything that’s outside of Scipture, regarding Mary.

Regarding MK’s point about Jesus being present in 5 ways at Mass, with “He is present in the Priest who stands in for Him” as one of the 5.
I cannot accept that.  Yes, Jesus is in all of the people at Mass, and the priest is among the people, presiding for the people.

But the priest is not separate from the people.  We need no one to “stand in” for Jesus, as a human being, if Jesus Himself, is already present. 

As a rule, Catholics don’t think out the consequences of what we’ve been taught to believe, and we are absolutely not taught critical thinking skills regarding our faith.

No doubt, we were taught by well meaning people.  But just because someone is sincere, & even a person of fame, like Bishop Fulton Sheen, or a saint from the year 400AD, it doesn’t mean they can’t ever be wrong.

Erik,

You have no intention of discussing this with any intellectual honesty.  You have not answered any of the challenges and if you believe you have you’ve done it depending solely on your sola scriptura presuppositionalism, something a Catholic does not embrace.  Basically, this conversation is not going to go anywhere.  I will use your own language to prove this (i.e., the all capitals is my emphasis).

Firstly, you stated,

The problem is that Roman Catholics CANNOT believe that what they have been taught about Mary is not grounded or found in the NT.

Catholics do believe what they’ve been taught about Mary and they believe it’s grounded in scripture and tradition.  It’s you who doesn’t believe which is fine but please don’t put words in other people’s mouths.

Secondly, you stated:

Mk and Ted TRIED to show that Scripture does show Mary was without sin but not explicitly. They FAILED in that also because when we look at those passages that are supposed to allude to it we find it says nothing of the sort.

They didn’t try they actually SHOWED how to go about it but it’s apparently something you’re not buying which is perfectly fine.  They have not FAILED to show as you state since it’s never been their purpose to show you according to your hermeneutic but to show the way a Catholic approaches this, something again which you are not willing to buy into, which is perfectly fine too but hardly the words you’ve attributed in your commentary.

You are not going to convince or impress anybody here with your point of view since you’ve come into a Catholic board where most folks here are comfortable with their faith.  If you’re interested in learning, please read what’s been availed to you but don’t pretend you’re trying to have an honest discussion when you can’t even admit that your presuppositional belief impedes you from looking at the question honestly.  History is not on the side of Protestantism because you can’t trace your hermeneutic of belief back 2000 years and your form of belief has only been around since the 1500’s.  I kindly suggest you take some serious history lessons if you really want to discuss this issue or just move on.  Having said this, I will pray for you and would hope you would just move on for the sake of Christian charity.  I know I am.

The “Prayer of Confidence in Mary” is scary.  It sounds heretical to me.  If Mary is all and everything to us, then Jesus is made irrelevant.  Mary usurps the roles of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, based on what I read.  That prayer is very, very troubling.

Erik,

Let’s take them one by one, okay?

1) The Advocate, the Hope and Refuge for sinners
We are all advocates.  When you give witness to a non Christian are you not mediating?  Are you not advocating?  When you pray for a fellow Christian are you not advocating?  Mary is one advocate among many, but she has a special place in her Son’s heart.  Hope?  Are all Christians not hope to other Christians.  When I see a Christian reflect Christ am I not inspired?  Do I not have hope because I see that by their actions God must be alive?  Refuge.  Scripture.  Enmity between the woman and the serpent. Mary and Satan.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  She protects me yes.  She fights Satan every minute of every day.  We are all each others refuge as we are all fighting evil. 

2) She has-will deliver you from hell
Yes.  We believe that Mary goes to bat for us.  She pleads to her son for Mercy, just as I plead to Jesus for Mercy for all sinners.  Every time I am Christ to someone, every time I speak His name out loud, every time I stand up for what is right, protect the weak, admonish a sinner, invite someone to Mass, I am helping to deliver them from Hell.

3) You place all your hopes in her
I place my hopes in a lot of people.  I ask my husband to pray for me. I ask my children to pray for me.  I place hope in my priests, that they will continue to offer the perpetual Sacrifice of the Mass.  And yes, I place hope in My God’s Mother.  I hope she will never forget me, never stop praying for me, never stop being there for me.

4) She is the Mother of Mercy
God IS Mercy.  Jesus IS Mercy.  He is not just Merciful, but He is MERCY incarnate.  Mary is His mother.  That makes her the Mother of Mercy.

5) Will deliver you from all temptations
First by giving birth to Our Savior she has most certainly delivered me from temptation.  Literally.  She delivered a baby who became the King of all.  But secondly, yes, she can obtain Graces for me, through her Son.  So can you.  So can I.

6) Give you strength to triumph over temptation
Have you never called a friend when you were in trouble?  Did they not help you through the ordeal?  If I was tempted to cheat on my husband and I called a friend and asked for her help and she talked me through it, bringing me to my senses, would I not say that she gave me the strength to triumph over temptation?  Isn’t that what A.A. is all about?  Getting strength against temptation from each other?

 
Would it be correct to say that you believe all these things to be true of Mary?

Yes.

Jackie (Cradle),

I’m sorry you feel that way.  Hard to call yourself a Catholic when most things Catholic give you hives.

Erik,

You misunderstand the role of the Pope as you misunderstand most else about the Church.  It seems to me, Peter denied our Lord three times, yet was still given the keys to the Kingdom in the absence of the True King.

The Church is made up of a Divine part and a Human Part.  The Divine part is as infallible as Scripture.  The human part is as fallible as any man.

Popes are protected and guided by the Holy Spirit on matters of Faith and Morals.  On all other matters, they are on their own.  Well, they can avail themselves of the same help that we can, but they are not protected in the same was as they are when dealing with Faith and Morals.

So a Pope can have multiple affairs, commit every sin there is, and still not be able to make a mistake when and only when it comes to Faith and Morals.  Because it is not really the Pope who is guiding the Church, it is the Holy Spirit. 

Others have brought this up and now I’m afraid I must join them.  While it is true that you have not evaded all of our questions, there is one that you have consistently avoided.  Where in Scripture is Sola Scriptura taught?  Where in Scripture is Faith ALONE taught?  Where in Scripture does it say that once you are saved you are always saved?

Here’s the thing.  NEVER in the History of Salvation has God ever left us without an Authority figure.  NEVER.  Moses, Abraham, Judges…ALWAYS we have had someone, some human someone that guides us through Scripture, through revelation.  The Ten Commandments didn’t fall out of the sky with God yelling “It’s every man for himself!”  Why, when He has just dropped more Revelation than in the history of mankind would he suddenly say “Okay, there’s the stuff.  You all figure it out on your own!”  And don’t tell me the Holy Spirit will teach you, because you see where that has led.  Thousands of Protestant denominations, started by people who all claim to be being led by the Holy Spirit, yet all are saying conflicting things.  No.  Not possible.  God left us an Authority.  It is called the Teaching Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

When I am sick, I go to a doctor.  I don’t buy a medical book and attempt to diagnose myself by reading a few chapters.  The Catholic Church is HUGE..HUGE I tell you!  If you started to study it today and continued to study every day without fail until you 500 years old, you would only have touched the tip of the tip of the iceberg as someone said earlier.  Why you think you are more qualified than Augustine, Aquinas, the Popes, the Saints, the Fathers…to understand what God revealed is mind boggling to me.  This is why I said your church is watered down…diluted.  It is like a kindergartners version of the Faith.  Good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far.

And so, in good Faith and because that is what Our Lord told us to do, we trust in the Apostolic Succession of the Popes to guide and protect the Church on all things to do with Faith and Morals no matter what kind of men they might be in their private lives.  How the heck do you think the Church has lasted and is growing by leaps and bounds for 2,000 years, given the troubles she has faced (including Good Popes who were bad men), if it wasn’t because the Holy Spirit is at the helm?

Lastly,  people, it seems to me, leave the Catholic Church and join protestant ones because they do not understand the Church, and seek to feed their own egos.  BUT, people leave the Protestant Churches and come home because they DO understand…all too well, and are much more interested interested in the Truth than themselves.  It is the difference between the “Jackies” and the “Hahns/Cavins”...and they all come home kicking and screaming, fighting it every step of the way.  But in the end, they DO come home.  Because the Truth is the Truth and the Truth will set you free, no?

[The problem is that Roman Catholics cannot believe that what they have been taught about Mary is not grounded or found in the NT.]

No, Erik, the problem is that Catholics are able to believe things that are grounded in Scripture and clarified by TRADITION.  The problem is that we accept Jesus at His word, that Peter and his successors carry the keys, the Authority of the Church while Jesus is away and that they are guided by the Holy Spirit and you do not believe this.  The problem is that you adhere to an un-scriptural litmus test…sola scriptura…to discern Truth.  How in the world can you base your entire Faith…that Scripture alone carries the fullness of Truth…when that premise goes against the very thing you proclaim???  It is just so frustrating. 

David:  Your point is taken and accepted in your follow up.  Erik:  Your reservations I understand to some degree but you must also accept that Catholicism has very deeply held doctrinal beliefs.  Some areas of Catholic tradition as you have pointed out appear weak or may have originated tribally and totally without scriptural foundation.  Nevertheless, understanding the source and reasoning is important even if there is disagreement.  The doctrine of Mary, especially, is learned very early on in childhood.  When your challenge has a hostile tone or if you jump to additional challenges one is less likely to receive the best response.  One’s credibility is diminished as well.  Even though you and mk are not going to agree, both of you are going appreciate what the other believes and more importantly —why.  Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals share a common unity and purpose in Jesus Christ as Savior.  At its heart, we are not competing for Christ because it is He who already owns us.  Paul says “we have been bought with price.”  Only Satan is pleased when these conversations deteriorate into hostility or when someone wishes to pursue getting over on the other.

Mk,
Thanks for responding. I was beginning to think that the Catholics here don’t want to dialogue when things starting getting tough. Hopefully they will follow your example :>
  I’m not going to ask for any Scriptural support for yours and Liguori’ claims about Mary. I know there are none to be had. I’m shocked that you are not shocked about the things he wrote her.  Lets look at other things that Liguori has written about her. Since you believe there are “types” of Mary mentioned in the OT so does Liguori.

“God guided His chosen people from Egypt to the Promised Land by day in a column of cloud, by night in a column of fire (Ex 13:21).

This stupendous column was a type of Mary fulfilling a double office: as a cloud, she shades us from the heat of the sun of Justice; as fire, she protects us from the devil. 33

As wax melts before fire, the devils melt away before all who keep our Lady’s name in mind, devoutly invoke her, and work at imitating her. 34

Full of glory and wonder is your name, O Mary (exclaims St. Bonaventure), and whoever pronounces it at death need fear nothing from all the forces of Hell!

Our Blessed Lady revealed to St. Bridget that the devil flies from even the most abandoned sinners—- from those farthest from God and fully possessed by the devil, if only they invoke her most powerful name with a true purpose of amendment. But our Blessed Lady added at the same time that, if such persons do not amend and wash away their sins in sorrow, the devils return and begin again to possess them.”

One has to ask themselves how Liguori knows this about Mary. Its not in Scripture. Where did he get this from and how does your church know this is true? (The RCC has fully endorsed this work officially).

I wonder what Mark’ protestant friend who is thinking about converting to Catholicism would think about this. It boggles the mind.

Erik,

Read this…

“and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Do you understand that we are talking about Mary here?  There is a spiritual war between Mary and Satan.  Her seed will definitely destroy death, but she has still been given power over Satan.  She didn’t earn it, she didn’t “deserve” it, she didn’t take it…she was given it.  Satan hates her, but more, Satan fears her.  Calling on her for protection against evil is not only smart, but imperative.  Isn’t Michael the Archangel also at war with Satan?  Do we not call on him to protect us?  Of course we do.  It would be foolish not to do so.  We are all part of an army.  Army’s have many participants from the grunts to the highest officers.  Mary is the head of the Army.  Other than Jesus, she has been given the next highest rank.  Darn tootin’ I’m calling on her when I’m in trouble!  As Fr. Corapi (God have mercy on him) used to say “MY MOTHER WEARS ARMY BOOTS!”

It is this passage that gives us our understanding of Jesus calling Mary “Woman” in a number of passages.  By calling Mary “Woman” we know that He is referring to the “Woman” in Genesis.  We see it again in Revelation.

“And there appeared a great sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the Sun, and the Moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and screamed in the anguish of delivery.”

Now I know you are going to say that that is not how you see it.  And that’s fine.  But for us, it doesn’t matter how you see it, or how I see…all that matters is how the Church sees it.  I was not given the keys to the Kingdom.  You were not given the keys to the Kingdom.  Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom. Understanding what those keys represent is “key” (pun intended) to understanding the Papacy and understanding the Papacy is key to understanding why we believe what the Church teaches.

Now, can you please tell me where in Scripture it teaches Sola Scriptura?

[I wonder what Mark’ protestant friend who is thinking about converting to Catholicism would think about this.]

I hope he’s thinking “WOW! What a powerhouse and what a gift! I gotta get me some of that!”

Mk,
Let me address this: You wrote -“Others have brought this up and now I’m afraid I must join them.  While it is true that you have not evaded all of our questions, there is one that you have consistently avoided.  Where in Scripture is Sola Scriptura taught?  Where in Scripture is Faith ALONE taught?  Where in Scripture does it say that once you are saved you are always saved?”

I tried to stay on topic and these issues are not part and parcel for it. First we have to define what Sola Scriptura is. This will not be an exhaustive answer due to this format. Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that since the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God, they alone are the ultimate authority in all matters of faith, doctrine and practice. There may be other authorities in the church but none is equal or greater in authority. We see this worked out in the ministry of Jesus where He referred to the OT as authoritatively as He did with His own teachings. Never does He appeal to some “tradition” as an authority equal to the OT or His own teachings. The same principle applies to the writings of the apostles.  Only doctrines that are clearly supported by Scripture can be said to apostolic and biblical. The Marian doctrines fail this test.
Faith alone is taught in Ephesians 2:8-9 and other passages (John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10). It is not faith in faith but in Christ. Only faith alone in Christ alone is what saves.  There is no work a man can do to add to what Jesus did for us. Our works are the fruit of our salvation in Christ and not the cause of it.

There are a number of passages the support OSAS i.e. eternal security. Those who believe in Christ gain eternal life. Eternal life by nature cannot be lost. Passages that support it are:
The Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed, “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand” (John 10:28-29b). Both Jesus and the Father have us firmly grasped in their hand. Who could possibly separate us from the grip of both the Father and the Son?

Jude 24 declares, “To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy.”

Romans 8:38-39; “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Philippians 1:6- For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
Eternal security is grounded in the fact that God is in work in the Christian and will bring his ultimate salvation to pass. Its not based on my efforts to keep myself saved but His Spirit in me.

If osas is false then when you commit mortal sin you can never regain salvation again. See Hebrews 6:4-8

And honestly Erik, Liguori was writing poetry, not Scripture.  Those are metaphors, not teachings.  Imagery.  Not doctrine.

Mark’s Protestant friend better not ask where is that in Scripture or for the first 1000 years of church history either.  Talk about numbing the mind.

Erik,

Just for fun, why don’t you ask where that is in TRADITION?  Lol.

Now c’mon. I’ve written a tome here, and you won’t answer a single question.

Where in Scripture is Sola Scriptura taught?

Mk,
Even poetry points to truth. Nice try though. He was making a defense for Mary and he intended this work to be taken literally true.
There is no doubt his work has a tremendous influence today on Mariology. Keep in mind he is not the only one who makes these claims about Mary. There is far more claims about Mary than most Catholics are not aware of that are firmly supported by your church.

I feel for Roman Catholics who are forced to defend this kind of stuff. They have no choice because they have been taught that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals even though they can see error right in front of them. This is the downside of infallibility. It cannot be allowed to be wrong even though the evidence says that it is. What a predicament.

Mk,
what are you talking about? I just gave you an explanation. Reread my post at 5:39. Its all there. Now you can be at peace :)

First, Jesus taught on His own Authority, not Scriptures.  As a matter of fact He challenged many of the old Scripture passages/laws.  Such as “working on the Sabbath”.  Given that He IS the Word, He of course had the Authority to do so. 

You have shown that Scripture is important, VERY important and I agree that NOTHING can contradict Scripture, but you have not shown that it is Scripture ALONE that contains inspired and inerrant Truth.  Scripture itself tells us that that Authority, was then given to Peter and his successors.  That IS Scriptural.  It is also in Scripture that we are to follow Tradition that is handed down.  We do. 

So what you have shown me is that Scripture is special, Truth, the Word, but you have not shown me that it ALONE contains the Truth.  See?

Same with Faith alone.  You can show me dozens of passages that tell us that we must have FAITH.  Must.  But nowhere does it say Faith ALONE.  As a matter of fact it says that there are many things you MUST do.  Be baptized.  Eat my Flesh.  Follow my commandments.  You can’t just ignore those explicit texts in favor of your implicit one.  If for instance I was to make my claims about Mary and Scripture said “No one, not even Our Lords Mother, was born without sin”, and I still claimed that Mary was born sinless, I would be wrong.  But Scripture does not say this.  Even when Paul says that no man is without sin, he cannot mean Original Sin, because baptism takes that away.  (By the way, there are passages in Wisdom I think…a book you guys threw out…which is also amazing.  You say that Scripture is inerrant and inspired and then dump a bunch of books as irrelevant…about Mary being pure and spotless.  It’s calls her “Wisdom” but it’s talking about Mary)

But what you are claiming is that we are saved by “Faith” alone when Scripture itself says that you MUST be born again OF WATER AND SPIRIT.  And Jesus says “UNLESS you eat this bread you cannot have life within you”, so clearly, clearly, clearly you are making a claim that flat out contradicts Scripture.

As for once saved…no it is not by my merit, but it IS by my cooperation.  God withholds salvation from no one.  But many refuse to accept it, either by action are rejection.  No one is saying that if you love Jesus and remain in a state of Grace you won’t be saved, but we are saying that even if you obtain a State of Grace, you can fall from it.  To say otherwise is to say that Judas was never a follower of Christ.  That he was not saved and sold that salvation for 26 silver coins.  He most certainly had Faith.  But he traded it in for something shiny. 

I don’t agree with many that just because you believe you are saved and nothing can take it away translates into “I can do whatever I want”.  I understand that you take your obligation to live up to your vows very seriously.  This is about love and if you have Faith it must be assumed that you also LOVE God.  When you love someone you spend your life trying to please them.  Not out of some obligatory works of the law, but out of Love.  But at the same time, to say that you don’t need to show your love is disingenuous.  If I was married, told my husband that I love him, and then proceeded to treat him badly, lying to him, cheating on him, disobeying him…all the while claiming that I love him and that since we are married there is no way he can get rid of me….well, let’s just say that I’d find myself out on the curb in a real hurry.  That is called the Sin of Presumption.  I don’t tell God that He has to accept me because “Hey, I have faaaaaaith”.  I offer myself to Him, and trust that yes, He will make me part of His Family.  But I have to BE part of the Family.

There would be no point to the story of the Prodigal Son if it wasn’t possible to fall from the Father’s Grace.  The point of the story is that if YOU walk away, God will always welcome you back.  But what if the son had never returned?  He was part of the Family, renounced the Family.  (Note, the Father never denounced HIM) and if he hadn’t come back he would have lost his place in the household forever.  But he WAS part of the household to begin with.  He lost his Faith, and found it again.  He was saved, but his salvation was in jeopardy and could have been lost forever.

It’s the same with us.  We can be in on Tuesday, out on Wednesday and in again on Thursday.  Depending on OUR actions and choices.  God remains unchanged.  But WE can change our minds.  What Paul is talking about is trust in GOD’S constancy, not ours.

Erik,

[what are you talking about? I just gave you an explanation. Reread my post at 5:39. Its all there. Now you can be at peace :)]

we were posting at the same time.  Sorry.  I had already posted my comment and yours came up after…

Thanks for answering.  You’re right, it is off topic, but in a way it isn’t as it is these premises on which the doctrine of Mary is founded…

Erik,

I didn’t mean that what Liguori was saying wasn’t true.  I was simply pointing out that it is “Flowery”, filled with imagery. 

The Truths that that imagery portrays is indeed what the Church teaches.

[They have no choice because they have been taught that the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals even though they can see error right in front of them.]

First, you have not shown me one single error.  What you have shown me is that you do not accept the Scripturally sound teaching that the Church has Christ’s Authority here on earth.  Of course we have a choice.  We choose the Church precisely because we DO NOT see any errors in her teaching.  It is you who cannot see that Scripture contradicts, flat out contradicts, not just doesn’t say it implicitly, what you guys believe.

There is a HUGE difference between Scripture doesn’t say that and Scripture explicitly says otherwise.  In the case of Mary, Scripture does not say anything explicitly.  In the case of Sola Scriptura, Faith Alone and once saved, Scripture EXPLICITLY says NO…this is NOT the case.

It is SCRIPTURE that tells us to trust Tradition and the Church.  THAT is why we believe it.  You on the other hand believe things that Scripture plainly says is NOT true.

Hebrews 6…it is impossible for us, but for God?  No.  We place ourselves back in His good Graces through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  This is, again, not something that WE do, for that WOULD be impossible, but something that is done TO US.  God can bring us back.  We might not be able to get there on our own, but HE can do it.

Note also that Hebrews speaks of DEAD works, implying that there are LIVING works.  He lists all the things that we must do and then says that if in spite of having done them, we go back to our old ways we CAN, in fact WILL lose all that we had gained.  This passage is PROOF that OSAS cannot be true!

Mk,
Nothing is like the Scripture. Only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant Word of God. No other writings in existence have this quality. That does not mean all the truth in the world is contained in them. There are other truths. However, these truths would not apostolic I.e. handed down by the apostles to the church.
What Traditions have been handed down? That’s why I asked for a list of them so I know specifically what they are.
Faith is necessary for salvation. It is by our works that we show we have salvation. Eating the Lord’s supper, keeping the commandments etc will not save a woman. They are only evidence of salvation that Christ won for His followers. We keep His commandments not to be saved but to be obedient and to demonstrate our love for Christ.
The only way you prove that Mary was sinless is by Scripture (New Testament) and the Scripture never makes that claim for her as I have shown. Not sure what book protestants threw out that says she was pure and sinless. If you find it, let me know. I’d like to know what it was.
I never said faith alone rather I said FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST ALONE. We are saved by the life and death of the Lord Jesus. My faith in Him is what saves me. Nothing else can. You could go to mass a million times and if you don’t believe that Christ died for your sins and rose again you would perish.
Salvation is either all of God or its nothing. Your ability to understand, believe and repent is only because He makes that possible via His Spirit. Left only to yourself without Him you would perish. That’s why Paul wrote Ephesians 2:9. He alone gives you the power to believe in Him.
Judas was not a true follower of Christ. He showed it by his fruits.
If a man is truly in Christ he will seek to please Christ. It is not a license to sin as much as you want. Romans 6 deals with this issue and refutes it soundly. If anything, having the Spirit of Christ in us compels us to seek to live a righteous life. If that is not the case for someone who claims Christ then that may be an indicator they are not in Christ.  Being in Christ means that we have the Spirit of Christ in us. We have been given a new nature that is alive to God and desires to please God by obeying Christ and putting sin out of our lives.  Having the Spirit of Christ in us means He is working to conform us to image of Christ. This union is unbreakable because it is of God. When we sin, we are forgiven because He has paid the price in full. We have immediate access to the Father for all things. He will not fail to bring us safely into His presence on the day of Christ.
Because this kind of theology is unknown or ignored in the Roman Catholic church, the church has had to come up with all kinds of doctrines that are antithetical to the gospel. This is why the Marian doctrines developed. Those who developed these doctrines had a deficient view of the Lord Jesus and the Scripture. 

Now that I have answered your questions i have one for you: What saves a Roman Catholic? What must a Catholic do to be saved?

Mk,
How should I understand this?
“St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, says this: “When we pray to the Mother of God we are heard more quickly than when we call directly on the name of Jesus—- for her Son is not only our Lord but our Judge. But when we call on the name of His Mother, though our own merits will not insure an answer, yet her merits intercede for us and we are answered.”

Erik,

[Only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant Word of God.]

Where in Scripture does it say that?

Mk,
  2 Tim 3:16-17. Also, the church has recognized this to be the case.
What else besides the Scripture is considered inspired-inerrant Word of God?

Erik,

[Eating the Lord’s supper, keeping the commandments etc will not save a woman. They are only evidence of salvation that Christ won for His followers. We keep His commandments not to be saved but to be obedient and to demonstrate our love for Christ.]

Then why does Scripture tell us otherwise?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answered him,  You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’”

These are not sort of, mights, probably ought to’s…these are UNLESS…!

Nothing implied, but stated directly.  If you do NOT do these things, you will NOT have eternal LIFE.  It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

So, you saying that all you need is “Faith” is in direct contradiction not only to Scripture per se, but to Jesus’ own words!

No one is saying that you do not need Faith.  We are only saying that you need Faith AND…

[2 Tim 3:16-17.]

I’m sorry, which translation are you using?  Because I do not see the word ONLY anywhere in there.  I see what I have been saying.  That Scripture is the inerrant, inspired word of God.  But I just can’t seem to find the word ONLY.

Mk,
Its not in there. However, since there is no other inspired-inerrant Word then that means the Scripture alone is. To refute this, you will need to produce another source that is inspired-inerrant. Once you do that, then I’m wrong. If you can’t produce such a source that is inspired-inerrant then I’m right.

[What else besides the Scripture is considered inspired-inerrant Word of God?]

Whoever first used those brackets is a life saver.  I used to italicize quotes, but then my comments kept getting held up in moderation…so thank you to whoever put those up first…

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled programming…

The Pope, when He makes infallible statements on Faith or Morals is speaking the inerrant, inspired word of God.  Well, technically, it’s the Holy Spirit speaking through Him/Them, but you get my drift.  It works the same was as Scripture.  The Holy Spirit speaks through chosen men…

What do you think Scripture is? 

What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.  What do you think that meant? 

[However, since there is no other inspired-inerrant Word then that means the Scripture alone is. To refute this, you will need to produce another source that is inspired-inerrant. Once you do that, then I’m wrong. If you can’t produce such a source that is inspired-inerrant then I’m right.]

Say what!?!?  You just told me that Scripture is the only source of inerrant, inspired Truth.  If it ain’t in Scripture, it can’t be trusted.  Then you tell me that it ain’t in there, but unless I can produce other inspired, inerrant Truth then it must be so!  lol…I’m dizzy!

Regardless, I just showed you that Scripture itself gave Peter (and all the Popes who followed) inerrant, inspired authority.  Whatever they say is so, will be so.  Which we believe means if it is so, they will say it.

It’s the “It ain’t true because the Catholic Church says it’s true.  The Catholic Church says it, because it is True.”

Mk,
Do you know what “eating and drinking” mean in John 6? Its not about the Lord’s supper.
When Jesus told the young man that keeping the commandments would lead to eternal life, could that man have done so perfectly? That’s what keeping the commandments means. You must keep them all perfectly otherwise you sin. That’s why Jesus came. He alone kept the Law of God perfectly in our place. No man could ever do so.
That is why the “just shall live by faith”. It is by faith a man is reckoned righteous and not by works. See Rom 4:2-8.
Your works cannot and do not add anything to what Christ has done for us. He alone by His life kept the Law perfectly and by His death He paid for our sins and was raised for our justification.

Does your church consider pronouncements of its popes to be inspired-inerrant in the same way the Scriptures are? If they do, these pronouncements should be added to the rest of Scripture in your Bible. Correct?

I never said if it isn’t in Scripture it can’t be trusted. What I said is that only the Scripture is God-breathed-inerrant.

As for papal succession from Peter you have some serious problems with proving that historically.

  And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,  and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

[Your works cannot and do not add anything to what Christ has done for us. He alone by His life kept the Law perfectly and by His death He paid for our sins and was raised for our justification.]

Where did I or anyone else say that they did?  What we have said (repeatedly) is that we must cooperate.  Christ doesn’t “need” us for anything.  We need Him.  But that doesn’t mean we don’t have to “do” anything.  It simply means that the Sacrifice has been made and we need to cooperate with it.

As for John 6…puhlease.  Not tonight.  I’ll go there, but not tonight.  For someone who claims we need to take Scripture seriously and at it’s word, you guys seriously jump through hoops to get around that one!  It’s the CRUX of all of Scripture.  EVERYTHING points to the perpetual Sacrifice of the Mass and the Bread of Life, also known as the Eucharist! 

The Papacy is an “office”.  It is not Scripture.  You asked me to show you where inerrant, inspired Truth could be found outside of Scripture and I did.  Now, instead of accepting that as you said you would, you want me to make it BE Scripture so you can say “HAH!  Told you so!  ONLY Scripture is inerrant and inspired!”  haha.  Doesn’t work that way.  Being inerrant and inspired does not make something Scripture.  Thats a logical fallacy.  Like saying that all dogs have 4 legs.  Cats have four legs, so they must be dogs. 

All Scripture is inerrant and inspired.  The Pope speaking Ex Cathedra speaks inerrantly and with inspiration.  This does not mean that the Pope is Scripture.

Where did Peter exercise this authority?

Faith is a gift of God.  He taps you.  You, do not find Him.  Not everyone has faith because (as Paul says) the natural man is hostile to the word of God.  Erik, the Eucharist at Catholic Mass is the summit of Catholic faith yet not every Catholic takes Eucharist.  John 6 can be a distortion if Catholics think receiving daily Communion places more of the Holy Spirit inside them.  I am reading a book now in which the author (Catholic) believes one can acquire “more” of the Holy Spirit.  I don’t know if the author’s view is consistent, though, with Catholic teaching since you either have Him (in the fullness) or you do not.  There is nothing in Scripture to support He metes Himself out piecemeal to believers.

I’m done for tonight but look forward to the morning.  You’re a good “sparring” partner. Respectful, thoughtful, intelligent…I’m enjoying this immensely, but I’ve gotta go for now.  I’ll be praying for “inspiration” before I fall asleep tonight! Would that I could trust it to also be inerrant!  ;)

Its been good. Sleep well.

[Where did Peter exercise this authority?]

haha…couldn’t let that go.  Other than dozens of Scripture passages, I’d have to give you the last 2,000 years of Church History to answer that.  He is still exerting his Authority as it isn’t “his” per se, but the office that he holds…and it is actually the Holy Spirit that is acting, not the man himself.

New Observer,

I think your author means “grace” not the Holy Spirit.  No, the Church does not teach that the Spirit is “meted out”.  But Grace is, and we receive sanctifying Grace every time we receive a Sacrament.  The Eucharist is a Sacrament, and we receive Grace every time we receive Him.

What book are you reading?  And kudos for reading “Enemy Material”! ;)

Now I really am off to bed.  This makes my head hurt!  Call the brain doctor!

mk:  I questioned the author’s statement right off.  The book is “Discipleship for Catholic Men” subtitled (Embracing God’s Plan for Our Life) by Peter Ziolkowski.  At the bottom of P47:  “and ask God for more and more of His Holy Spirit.”  Ziolkowski may be well intentioned, however, according to the gospel he is misleading Catholics in his teaching.  There are Protestant ministers I do not hold with as well.  Whether Protestant Minister,  Christian Pastor or Catholic Priest, it’s important to examine and test first what they say.  Too often Protestants and Catholics are cynical of the other seeking to expose the other’s error before even hearing them.  Of all the Spiritual gifts, Discernment seems to be highly important.  It’s what God reveals in our understanding.

mk, I had the opportunity last year to hear Christian apologist Greg Koukl (www.str.org)—“Stand To Reason” speak.  He had positive remarks concerning Francis Beckwith who recently became Catholic.  While not embracing everything Beckwith holds, Koukl does not view him as an enemy.  Evangelicals I know do not view Catholics as the “enemy” or Catholicism to be a cult.  There are enough people on both sides who enjoy sowing discord.  No one takes more pleasure in stirring these divisions than Satan.

New Observer,

I only meant “enemy” tongue in cheek.  It’s why I dialogue like this.  I once participated in a blog post where we racked up over 5,000 comments.  It went on for months.  There were only 5 of us.  This is because I wanted to know what others were thinking.  I mean, it’s possible I had gotten it wrong and like I said it’s not a contest, but a search for the Truth.  I came away more convinced than ever that The CC contained the Truth, but I listened to the other arguments with an open mind.  That’s why I know that we have different premises. 

This was a long time coming.  We went round and round about Faith Alone, OSAS and Sola Scriptura for weeks before it finally hit me that our definitions of words are totally different.  Faith, Grace, Salvation…we don’t see any of these the same.  I had never realized that we didn’t even understand Baptism the same way.  One woman I know doesn’t believe in the Trinity but calls herself Christian, another doesn’t believe Baptism must be done with water! 

This more than anything cemented it for me.  If Christian is to mean anything, it must mean something.  There can’t be as many definitions of what it means to be a Christian as there are Christians.  The one thing I knew was true was that division could have no place in Christ’s Church.  It had to be cohesive, or it couldn’t be real.  It’s like the whole debate with Romney…are Mormon’s Christian?

So I stayed with the Catholic Church, as it has remained virtually unchanged and united for all these years.  I attribute much of that to the fact that we have an Authority.  We have a Shepherd here on earth so when disagreements come up we know where to find the definitive answers.

So, yeah, enemy was tongue in cheek.  If we love Jesus we can’t be enemies.  How does the arm oppose the leg and the body still work?  It doesn’t.  We are His body.  We are in this together, despite our differences.  There is one premise that does not separate us.  Jesus is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

Mk,
What must a Catholic do or believe to be saved? What is the gospel message in the catholic church?

Erik,

That’s kind of a difficult question to answer.  I don’t think Catholics spend a whole lot of time worrying about whether they are “saved” or not.  It’s a matter of focus.  Our focus is on deepening, seriously deepening, our relationship with God.  What must I do to be saved is kind of a legalistic view.  Do A, B and C and bingo, you’re in!

It’s more like falling more deeply in love.  I don’t give myself a grade in my marriage.  I just keep getting closer to my husband.  I’ve been married for almost 32 years and our relationship today is not even recognizable compared to our wedding day.  We made vows to each other, and we live out those vows.  I’m there for him, he’s there for me.  We love each other, using love as a verb not a feeling.

Asking if I’m saved is like asking if my husband has decided to keep me.

I don’t know if this is Church Doctrine or whatever, but in my opinion, or understanding, every man is saved.  The minute Jesus offered up His life, we were saved.  We now, but didn’t before, have the opportunity to spend eternity in heaven.  We have eternal life.  Death was conquered.  That is salvation.  Plus, with the Mass, we have heaven right here on earth any time we want it.

Mother Teresa wasn’t running around telling people she was saved.  She was too busy “loving” them.  So I don’t even know how to answer that.  You’re end goal seems to be “getting saved”.  Ours is just being with God.  Now, and in the future.

mk, you have a misunderstanding of how being “saved” is viewed by Christians.  It is absolute assurance on the part of the believer that Christ will do as He says for all who belong Him—those who are in full submission to His Lordship.  You are correct that Catholics do not spend time worrying about being saved because, frankly, they don’t know.  When your ask them, the usual Catholic response is:  “I hope so” or “I’ll know once I get there.”  Catholics (in my experience) do not have eternal security.  There is always some doubt.  Evangelicals do not view it that way.  Evangelicals do not “Do the A,B,C & D” you suggest.  It is the Holy Spirit who convicts a man or woman of their salvation.  It is definitely not pride in some personal accomplishment on our own but rather gratitude and humility before Christ for what He has done for us.

mk:  your statement “but in my opinion, or understanding, every man is saved.  The minute Jesus offered up His life, we were saved.”  mk, the gospel says the opposite.  We know from the gospel every man is not saved.  Even your reference to Mother Teresa loving people is problematic.  Many who reject Christ can love people and also do good works.  Jesus even predicted those doing things in His name might be told to depart from Him.  Too often for both Christians and Catholics alike, the Savior is either presented or presumed to be only a component of our life.  The gospel fact is—He IS our life.  He desires fellowship with us deeply and intimately in our relationship.  He is a personal Saviour having died for you and for me.  Not everyone sees it this way nor desires Him.  Jesus said “I stand at the door knocking.”  No doubt many people (even in church) will ever truly open that door for Jesus to enter inside.

New Observer,
You hit the nail on the head. There is a major misunderstanding and ignorance what the gospel is and how we are saved by it. This makes sense and explains why much of the theology of the RCC is based on works and rituals. That’s why the sacraments play an essential role for the Catholic. It also explains why Mary plays such a pivotal role. Without a proper understanding of the gospel and its power men will make up all kinds of ideas that miss the mark and mislead people.

mk:

This may be a VERY good time for you to wrap it up.  You did a wonderful and heroic job!

Clap..clap…

But… it’s obvious our teenage friends are not really interested in pursuing the Truth at this time.  As you can see… they have their own *silly* agenda.

Hopefully, with all your patience, knowledge, and motherly love you have somehow planted a few good seeds for their future enlightenment.  Who Knows?

In any case… you have CERTAINLY given many other *serious* non-Catholic readers much to chew on from this thread.

So… if you can somehow find it in your heart to stop it now and call it quits… you will actually help (and stop) me from having to post something to these *$&%^# kids that I will probably regret and have to pay for in Purgatory.

So please mk… won’t you help me?  I don’t want to spend more time there just because of this thread.  Please help me..  :)

ED, Your wisdom is harmful, not helpful.  Instead of furthering a dialog of understanding, a review of your prior contributions reveal only personal insults and your delight in sowing evil and Satanic division among followers of Christ.

[ED, Your wisdom is harmful, not helpful.]

Yes… I suppose to those with a different *agenda* that may be true.

New Observer,

Its not that Catholics don’t know, it’s that they don’t “care”.  We aren’t in doubt, because we don’t think about it.  As I said, we are all saved.  So in that respect, there’s nothing to wonder about.  You speak as if being saved is something to be done in the future, but it’s something that WAS done in the past. 

I don’t love God to get something out of it (getting “saved”).  This is what I mean by an immature Faith.  Kids obey their parents out of fear or to be rewarded.  Catholics don’t think that way.  I tried to explain it above, but I guess you don’t get it.  It’s about “LOVING”, not about “GETTING”.

ED,

lol…almost done. 

Erik,

We are not the ones who have “made” things up.  You can know this by a number of things.  One, unity.  Two, the words of Lord.  Our focus is not on what we can “GET” but rather on what we can “GIVE”.  Our Church has remained unchanged for 2,000 years.  Yours only began a few hundred years ago and has so many splits and fractures that even you can’t agree on what you believe.  Your Church was founded by and on men (Calvin/Luther) while ours was found by and on God, Jesus. 

Jesus Himself, gave the authority to the Church.  THE Church, not the CHURCHES.  Jesus Himself gave us the Sacraments.  Jesus Himself remains present here on earth, truly present in the form of Bread and Wine. 

You are doing to me exactly what you have done to Scripture.  Taken what I/It says and adding/subtracting words/ideas.  You add the word “only” when it suits you, ignore passages that are meant to be taken literally, take passages literally that are meant to be taken metaphorically, thrown out entire books of Scripture based on your own discernment, interpreted Scripture relying on yourselves instead of the Holy Spirit and Our Lords instructions…

New Observer has made the statement that I believe that we don’t need faith, we must only perform good works and you jump on the bandwagon.  Nowhere did I say that, or even imply it.  You read my comments the way you read Scripture.  I have stated that we believe that you are “saved” by Faith alone, but that our definition of Faith is different from yours.  Ours includes ALL of the things Our Lord commanded, yours ignores most of what He said and focuses instead on your own assent.

You are not saved because you believe, you are saved because He gave His life for you.  You are part of the family because you cooperate in His death.  But salvation came the moment He rose.  We call ourselves PRACTICING Catholics, because we are living out our Faith.  We don’t use terms like “WE ARE SAVED” because we are being “saved” is a process.  It’s something you do day to day, every minute.  It’s not about BEING saved, it’s about living out a salvation that is already done. 

You want to be good little boys and girls and receive your “cookie”.  You want assurances and prizes and affirmation.  We just want to please God.  We’re not looking for a pat on the head.  We understand that He already DID the work.  We now enter into it. 

Someone is misunderstanding Scripture, that’s the truth.  But it’s not Catholics.

Mk,
I’m glad you were not intimidated by silly ED. Sometimes those like Ed will try to hijack a good discussion on Catholicism because they don’t want to see that things are not what they have been told so they will try to get those like yourself to stop the discussion. Its been great to talking to a Roman Catholic with convictions and willing to put it on the line. That takes courage. To bad there are so few of you.
Have you you studied church history? If you would find that there was no single individual that was the supreme ruler of the church for centuries. As I said before there was a plurality of leaders. No one leader was supreme.
Even in Scripture we don’t see Peter being recognized as the supreme leader of the NT church. In fact, in at the first church council in Acts 15 he was not the leader of it. James was.
As for your claim that “Our Church has remained unchanged for 2,000 years” just does not hold up under historical scrutiny. In fact what you believe in large part was not believed by the NT church. Take church leadership. There was no pope type office in the NT church nor an office of a celibate priesthood. Both of these offices were never mention in those passages on the structure of the church. See I Tim 3 for example.  In fact, your church has changed the requirement for church leadership by requiring celibacy for its men in direct opposition to the Scripture that says that church leaders are to be married with children. I could give you many many more examples to show that your church is not the same as the NT church in structure nor doctrines. 

Mk,
Again, we are not saved by faith alone but by faith alone in Christ alone. Did you know that Luther was not the first to write faith alone? Consider this:
Aquinas believed in faith alone as did a number of others:

“Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.”

As for your church being in unity could not be farther from the truth. I could give you countless examples of what Roman Catholics believe that are in direct opposition to what your church teaches that it would make your head spin. Just look at the polls that show how many Roman Catholics support homosexuality in direct opposition to its catechism. Birth control would be another. Even how a Roman Catholic gets to heaven is all over the place when you ask a Roman Catholic.

Mk,
I’m still trying to understand what saves a Roman Catholic. Must a person repent of their sins, believe in their heart that Christ died for their sins and rose again to be saved i.e. gain heaven? Or does a Roman Catholic have to believe this plus do good works in conjunction with belief to be saved? In other words you must do both if you are to have any possibility of heaven?

If a person does not have explicit faith in Christ i.e. that He died for our sins and rose again, will that person be saved?

Since you claim to understand Scripture better than protestants, what does the Scripture mean by “saved”?  Saved from what?

mk,  I do not believe I inferred (or stated) you do not need faith.  My only reference to works (alone) is what Jesus said.  The example of the blind man at the pool of Siloam illustrates this best.  The blind man had faith Jesus could cure him.  The Pharisees remained in their blindness because their faith was not in Christ but in Jewish legalism.  I did say we do not come to Christ on our own.  Faith is His gift to us.  A very precious gift.  Paul tells us the natural man is born hostile to the word of God.  Our works become an extension of faith in Christ and that would be true for all Catholics and Protestants.  Good works alone, though, are not necessarily a condition of faith nor one’s salvation Even atheists perform good works.  I hope this provides more clarity.

mk, this comment of yours needs more explanation.  You stated:  “I have stated that we believe that you are “saved” by Faith alone, but that our definition of Faith is different from yours.  Ours includes ALL of the things Our Lord commanded, yours ignores most of what He said and focuses instead on your own assent.”    The “we” (as Catholics) believe Catholics are saved by faith alone is troublesome.  Is that your (mk) belief or official church teaching?  Certainly you do not accept salvation is based upon being baptized Catholic?  Likewise the same will apply for Christians.  Very likely both you and I know enough baptized Catholics who have not been in church for 20 or 30 years.  I have questioned many Catholics who attend weekly Mass (all good Catholic people) about salvation.  To a person, their response is that “they don’t know for sure” or “I hope so.”  I am concerned with your response when contrasted with that of the Catholics I speak to.  Is yours the correct response (as official church teaching) or have many Catholics just not been fully educated in what Catholicism actually teaches?

mk:  “Ours includes ALL of the things Our Lord commanded, yours ignores most of what He said and focuses instead on your own assent.”  And “You want to be good little boys and girls and receive your “cookie”.  You want assurances and prizes and affirmation.  We just want to please God.  We’re not looking for a pat on the head.”  mk, you appear quite knowledgeable in Catholicism, but this is neither helpful or charitable.

Okay,

Lots of stuff so I’ll address this to both Erik and New Observer and throw in a thank you to Mr. Shea for allowing us to go on so long off topic….Thank you Mark.  It’s really appreciated.

Okay, the topic of Popes, leaders, priests…I’m going to give you a link to a bunch of scripture passages that show how often Peter was looked to as the leader.  BUT, even given those, it doesn’t matter is NO ONE recognized him as the leader.  All that mattered is that Jesus MADE him the leader.  The Holy Spirit gave Peter the right answer; that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God.  Because of that Jesus told Peter that He was giving him the keys to the kingdom, and that whatever He bound on earth would be bound in heaven.  That’s all we need.  BUT, again, there ARE numerous passages where it is obvious that the others recognized this as well.  The OFFICE of priesthood/bishop was recognized by the 11 when they said that someone had to fill it after the Judas scandal.  And the term OFFICE is used. 

The priesthood, the “Ministerial” priesthood, is an OFFICE.  We, the people of the Church, are all part of the priesthood, but there is a specific OFFICE, and that is what the bishops and deacons were.  And they had a head officer…Peter.  But Peter is only the human agent.  The REAL head of the Church is the Holy Spirit.  As I said before there was NEVER a time in Salvation History where there was not a HUMAN leader who spoke for God. 

History does indeed show that there was an apostolic succession of Popes.  I just read, and dang I can’t remember where, how Clement (the second Pope) was discussing this very thing.  I don’t know where you are getting your Church History from, but it can’t be the same place I am, because I can show you every Pope (recognized by everyone in the Church) from Peter to B16!  There were occasions (and I already explained that there can be no bad Popes, but there can be bad men who are Popes) where the Papacy was troubled.  But it never, ever, ever interfered with doctrine on Faith or Morals.  But for 2,000 years there has always been a Pope, recognized by all in the Church.  To say that there has not been this leadership is akin to be a Holocaust denier!  I can list the Popes for heavens sake.  How can you say there haven’t been leaders when I can name them???  EVERY Christian recognized them until the split in 500 with the Orthodox (most of whom came back by the way) and then the split with Luther at the helm.  So for 1500 we have an unbroken line of Popes, with no one complaining or saying it shouldn’t be, and then bingo, in 1500 we have one man who under no authority but his own, decides the Church has been wrong all this time.  And you believe him! 

Here is the link to Scripture passages backing up Peters Supremacy…mind you, some are weaker than others but given the multitude of examples, there is enough to show it.  Plus there are oodles of quotes by the Fathers to show they accepted it.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

When I say remained unchanged I do not mean NOTHING ever changed, I mean the teachings, the Truths, the doctrines…are virtually the same.  The Truth does not evolve, but, and PLEASE read what I am saying…WE evolve and our UNDERSTANDING of revealed Truth can change.  The earth has always revolved around the sun, but we didn’t always understand that.  The earth and sun did not change, but our understanding did.  Same with the Church.  Some things we understood only on a very basic level, but have come to understand much more deeply with time and our customs reflect that.  Which brings us to customs.

Some Church “law” is changeable, and some is unchangeable.  If it was instituted as custom, it can change.  If it was instituted by Jesus Himself, it cannot change.

Examples…Men can be married and still in the priesthood.  In the Eastern Rite they do it all the time.  If a married man who is a priest from say the Anglican Church wishes to become a Catholic Priest he may do so and remained married, even in the Roman Rite.  Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine.

On the other hand, Jesus instituted the priesthood and He only ordained men.  Therefore only men may become priests.  Not because we don’t like women, or because they wouldn’t make fine priests, but because Christ did not see fit to ordain women.  The reasoning is long and I’m not going to go there now, but suffice it to say that the male priesthood is an UNchangeable law, while celibacy is a changeable law.

As for Faith alone.

You need to do some homework for me.  Please answer me these questions.

What do you mean by “Faith”?

What do you mean by “Saved”?

[mk, you appear quite knowledgeable in Catholicism, but this is neither helpful or charitable.]

My comments were not meant to be uncharitable but to illustrate that our focus is different.  Because of this, I cannot answer the question when is a Catholic “Saved” because we are not concerned with this question.  I don’t even know what it means.

Here is the best I can explain.  Let’s use an analogy.

A circus comes to town.  You, Erik and I are all given tickets.  If none of us go, does the circus cease to exist?  No.  Of course not.  Think of the circus as Jesus’ crucifixion.  It happened, even if nobody believed it.  It is an objective fact that Jesus’ sacrifice redeemed the world.

Now, let’s say that you decide not to go to the Circus at all.  You lose out.  When asked if you went to the Circus, you will have to say “NO…I CHOSE, CHOSE mind you, not to go”.

Let’s say Erik goes to the Circus.  He gives the barker his ticket, enters the gate and stops.  He never goes any further.  He just stands inside the gate. Has he gone to the Circus?  YES!  Technically, you could say that he has “gone to the Circus”.

Now let’s say that I go to the same Circus.  I give the barker my ticket, enter the gate and head straight for the Ferris Wheel.  Then I get a Cotton Candy and hit the Tilt-a-Whirl.  I take in a couple of side shows and watch the main act.  I feed the elephant and ride the camel. 

Erik and I have both gone to the Circus.  BUT, I have experienced the circus FULLY as it was INTENDED by it’s creator to BE experienced.  Erik has been there, but he as not taken advantage of all that was offered.  You didn’t even go.

You are like the man who rejects Christianity outright.  Erik is like a Protestant, who goes, so he can say he went, but doesn’t experience it.

I am a Catholic.  I take advantage of EVERY gift that is offered.  I participate in the Mass.  I eat the bread. I drink the cup.  I go to confession.  I honor Mary.  I have all the saints and angels at my side. 

We all got our tickets for free.  This is GRACE.  The Circus is the Church that Jesus instituted.  I didn’t have to pay anything to go in.  I simply had to use my free will and choose to go.  All of the shows and food and games are the Sacraments etc, that the Church offers. 

Now at the end of the Circus, those who came will be asked to join the Circus.  To stay forever!  To live there.  WITH the RINGMASTER! 

Did I work my way in?  Did Erik?  Did you?  By participating in all that was offered, did I earn my way in?  Will I be asked to stay?  Will Erik?  Will you?  What if I left halfway through and said I don’t want to stay forever.  I’ve changed my mind?  When I changed my mind, did the Circus disappear?  Or did I leave? 

You see what I’m getting at?  Jesus died for EVERYONE.  Some of us will love that idea and we will come.  Some of us will love it and want to stay.  Others will changed their mind.

The Circus came due to NOTHING that we did.  We got invited by GRACE, not by anything that we did.  BUT we were free to leave at anytime.  AND there was much to do and see, and we were free to do much or do little or do nothing at all. 

We were redeemed by His death.
We are saved by His Grace.
We participate by Faith.

We were not save by Faith at all.  We were saved by GRACE alone.  Our belief has nothing to do with whether or not the Circus is there.  When speaks of being assured He means we can be SURE that the Circus is where it is supposed to be.  We can be SURE that God means what He says and will keep His end of the covenant.  It is NOT speaking about us at all, except to say that we can continue to receive GRACES, if we want them and those graces will keep us in the Faith.  Not because we believe, but because we are graced.  Because GOD is steadfast, not because we are. 

Erik,

[Since you claim to understand Scripture better than protestants, what does the Scripture mean by “saved”?  Saved from what?]

Oh my.  I don’t claim to understand Scripture better than protestants.  I claim that the CHURCH understands Scripture better than protestants.  I’m an idiot.  I only know what I know because of my first principle. Jesus instituted the Church and put Peter in charge of it.  We have an authority.  Based on that piece of Scripture, those words of JESUS, I believe that I can trust the Church.  THEY are the ones that knows what’s what.  Now, I can read Scripture personally, and it will speak to me and me alone, but that’s not what I’m talking about.  There are so many ways of understanding Scripture.  Like an onion, there is layer after layer.  But when it comes to Doctrine, the Church, not MK, understands it.  I can read what they say and why they say it and THEN come to understand it, but NEVER would I claim to understand Scripture better than anyone.  My understanding is firmly based in the Churches understanding.  Because that is how Jesus set it up.  And Him I trust completely. 

You are Rock and upon you I will build my Church.  If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!

mk, you will need a response from Erik regarding papal succession.  I have made no remarks or asked questions in this area,

mk, the best definition of faith for the believer is summed up in Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”  Salvation is surely life eternal with Christ Jesus.

And Erik,

When the words “WORKS” is used in Scripture, especially by Paul, he is referring to WORKS OF THE LAW.  Not good deeds. He means the OLD LAW.  We are not saved by WORKS OF THE LAW.  No Catholic thinks we are.  Paul was constantly trying to change peoples thinking.  For thousands of years they believed that if they did the WORKS OF THE LAW they would please God.  Suddenly Paul is saying, NO, you’ll NEVER be good enough.  Stop being legalistic.  We follow Jesus by following Love.  Not by following the law.

Paul never means WORKS as in good deeds or following the commandments.  He is ALWAYS referring to Levitical Law!

Here was todays Gospel Reading at Mass (In EVERY SINGLE CATHOLIC CHURCH EVERYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD)”

“As the Father loves me, so I also love you.
Remain in my love.
If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love,
just as I have kept my Father"s commandments
and remain in his love.”

This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.
No one has greater love than this,
to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.
You are my friends if you do what I command you.
I no longer call you slaves,
because a slave does not know what his master is doing.
I have called you friends,
because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father.

So exactly what I keep trying to tell you.  We are not concerned with this idea of BEING SAVED.  We are concerned with BEING IN HIS LOVE.  And in His own words, that means FOLLOWING HIS COMMANDMENTS.  Not works of the LAW, but works of LOVE. 

And His commandments were clear.  Eat my Body/Drink my Blood.  Love one another as I have loved you.  Be born again of water and spirit.  Feed the poor, house the homeless, visit the sick…Works of Love, not the Law.  Do we believe in Faith and Works???  You betcha.  But not works of the law, and not earning our way into heaven.  Rather, remaining in His love.

New Observer,

I’m alone here, remember?  You guys asked dozens of questions and I’m trying to honestly answer each and every one.  Sometimes I miss one.  BUT, I said that due to time contraints my answers were going to be combined and addressed to both you and Erik.  It’s way to hard to take each point and address it to each of you, especially given that your questions often overlap.

Since the authority of the Papacy, the Teaching Authority of the Church, goes to the heart of why we believe what we believe, I think that it matters that it is made clear. It always comes down to premises.

N.O.,

[“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” }

But that doesn’t say anything about my Faith being the key to being saved.  It says that I can be sure of God and things He promised.  It is saying that all the things I hope for, I can be assured are true.  That God is True.  God meant what He said.  It is saying that to have Faith is to know this.  I’m not disagreeing with this.  I’m saying that believing it does not mean I don’t have to live it.  It’s not the “Faith” I have a problem with, it’s the Faith ALONE. 

I repeat, I am saved by Grace alone.  I cooperate with that Grace and work out my salvation with Love.  Works of Love.  I follow His commandments.  I don’t just say, “Yeah.  I agree.  God is True and means what He says!  Done!”

N.O.,

I know you guys have some belief in “Justification” and that we are often at cross purposes discussing being saved, justified, redeemed.  It gets confusing. 

Satan, by your definition, has Faith.  He believes in God, believes that God died to redeem humanity…so how is simple belief enough to get you into heaven….to “save” you?

mk, I appreciate you.  I really do.  You are my sister in Christ.  Most likely we have a watershed minute.  Praise God !!  To your point, though, Faith (in basic definition) is one thing.  So I agree it is not faith alone as Catholics interpret Protestant thinking.  Unsaid is that Faith by conviction of the Holy Spirit is yet another.  This is probably the key to the misunderstanding.  It is unlikely the woman caught in adultery, the household of Jairus, the blind man at the Pool of Siloam, the Roman Centurion with the servant needing healing or the woman with the blood disorder had time to do all these other things beyond having faith.  Nevertheless, as Peter himself was convicted of the Holy Spirit at Caesarea Philippi, these individuals all came under conviction as well.

Mk,
In regards to the issues of the papacy consider this:
1) The bishop at Rome was not considered the supreme leader of the church. Like I said, there was a plurality of leaders in the early centuries. Although Peter was clearly a leading apostle, nothing in Acts or the New Testament epistles implies that he possessed a unique authority that his chosen successor would inherit. Nor is there any strong historical evidence about the last years of Peter’s life.

2) Existing evidence implies that a single bishop never governed a unified Roman church until the mid-second century. (Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years, Orbis Books, p.52).

3) Peter was a leader in the New Testament church but he was not the supreme leader like a pope.

4) What matters is how Peter saw himself. Never does he claim any supremacy for himself or that the church is built on him. This is how he understood what Jesus said to him.

5) It is true Peter was given keys just as the others were. See Matthew 18:18. These keys have to do with preaching the gospel which opens the door for a person to enter the kingdom and have his sins forgiven. We see Peter doing this first in Acts 2:14-36. Others also preached the gospel so that men would be saved by repenting and putting their faith in Christ.

6) Popes have taught falsely in matters of faith and morals. Pope Honorius I (625-38) was posthumously condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople (680-1). He promoted the heresy of the Monothelites, who taught that there is only one will in Christ; the orthodox doctrine is that Christ has separate wills in his human and divine natures.

7) The first bishop to claim primacy (in writing, anyway) was Stephen I (254-257).

8) Pope Damasus I (366-384) was first to claim that Rome’s primacy rested solely on Peter

Mk,

You wrote –“The priesthood, the “Ministerial” priesthood, is an OFFICE.  We, the people of the Church, are all part of the priesthood, but there is a specific OFFICE, and that is what the bishops and deacons were.”
There is no office of priesthood as an office in the New Testament. (see Ephesians 4:11 and I Tim 3). There is no “sacramental” priesthood administering sacraments in the New Testament. Married Roman Catholic men cannot be bishops in your church for the mere fact that they are married. You can call this a discipline if you want but it is still denies what the apostles taught. This is a serious error.
I agree this issue is not what Scripture teaches but what does your authority tell you that matters the most. If your authority comes up with something that is either not taught in Scripture or nullifies it, you are commanded to follow what your church says and not the Scripture. This is why Protectants can never be in unity with the Roman Catholic church. Protestants who “cross the Tiber” have to deny the Scripture to do so.

N.O.,

Conviction.  So you are saying that Conviction is separate from Faith?  But naturally grows out of Faith?

Because if you are, then that is what I have been trying to say.  Your definition and a Catholics definition of Faith are two different things.  For us Faith encompasses belief and acts.  For you it only means belief.  But you also believe that acts follow Faith. 

And if by salvation you mean getting into heaven, then yes, Faith (if included in Faith is what you call convictions and what we call works of Faith) then I agree, we must believe and DO as Christ commanded. 

Now, if a person comes to believe and does not have a chance to “do”, it doesn’t mean they won’t get into heave.  Heck, a baptized infant won’t have a chance to “DO” anything, good or bad.

BUT, when I face Our Lord, I, who am of sound mind (unless you ask my family) and past the age of reason, having made a commitment to Christ, will be asked “What did you DO”?  And I had better be able to say “I did as you commanded”.  Or I certainly tried.  If I say, well, “I didn’t DO anything, but I always BELIEVED in you” chances are good Our Lord will say “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out”.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,* but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

So now tell me this.  If Justification is different than salvation, what happens to people who by your definition have been saved, but have not been justified?  Why wouldn’t Satan get into heaven based on His belief alone?

Erik,

1.  [Nor is there any strong historical evidence about the last years of Peter’s life.]
The fact that another man was chosen to replace Peter and was accepted IS historical proof. Clement, Linus’ VERY EXISTENCE and ACCEPTANCE is historical proof.

2.  [Existing evidence implies that a single bishop never governed a unified Roman church until the mid-second century.]
Again.  They existed.  They weren’t hung and quartered.  PLUS, just because it wasn’t organized as we see it today (with a seat in Rome) doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.  Good heavens!  Are you saying that the only way you’ll accept the papacy is if right out of the gate it looked EXACTLY as it does today???  You pull one sentence out of context by an author I don’t recognize and say “HAH!  SEE! No Popes!”

Okay, lets go with your own criteria.  There is no physical, historical evidence that there was a unified Christian Church headed by one leader.(With which by the way, I disagree).  Where pray tell, in the first century is there evidence that Christians adhered to Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura or OSAS???  LoL

You do realize that the middle of the second century is like the year 150AD, right?  So you’re saying that by the year 150 there WAS evidence that the Church had a leader and was unified under him, but that THAT is not enough for you???  C’mon Erik…you can’t mean that!  By the year 150ad there had already been 10 Popes, all recognized by the Church.

You have to understand that there weren’t billions of Christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries.  Many Christians thought Christ would be coming back any minute.  Heck, the Temple didn’t even fall until 70ad.  Saying that there is no detailed written history of something that wasn’t even understood (that it would go on for 2,000 years) is saying nothing at all really. 

The word “Catholic” was used to describe the Church in the year 107ad!!!  That’s pretty dang early, I think!

[4) What matters is how Peter saw himself. Never does he claim any supremacy for himself or that the church is built on him. This is how he understood what Jesus said to him.]

First, why do we need Peter to say anything?  We have what Jesus said, and that SHOULD be enough.  We also have how the others viewed Peter.  As a leader.  We don’t need a plaque with Peter’s name on it, do we?  JESUS gave the keys to Peter.  JESUS told Peter that the Church would be built upon him.  JESUS gave him the authority to bind and loose.  I don’t need anyone elses confirmation when I have the words of Jesus. Jesus’ words, Peter’s actions and the Churches support are enough.  And the rest as they say “IS HISTORY”!

Erik,

Again.  UNLESS the statements of Pope Honorius were made Ex Cathedra, FROM THE CHAIR, they are just opinions.  A Pope, as I have said can be a bad man.  We see with Honorius that he can even be a bad Catholic.  But his statements were NOT made From the Chair, in his office as Pope.  They were found in writings after his death.  He was not unmade Pope, he was called a heretic.  Two different things.

I can’t seem to make you understand this…The POPE is not the head of the Church.  The HOLY SPIRIT is the head of the Catholic Church.  The Pope is his HUMAN agent.  As a man, strictly a man, a Pope can be a bum!  But the HOLY SPIRIT can NEVER be wrong.  Therefore, when speaking FROM THE CHAIR/EX CATHEDRA, a Pope can never make a false statement because he is NOT speaking for himself.  To say that a Pope has made a false statement Ex Cathedra would be to say that the HOLY SPIRIT Himself has made a false statement.

You believe the Scriptures were written by men who were inspired by God and that they are inerrant, correct?  NOTHING in Scripture can be a lie, true?  Why?  Because the HOLY SPIRIT used men as His agents.  If the words are wrong, then the Holy Spirit is wrong.  Speaking Ex Cathedra is the same principle.  If the Pope (speaking Ex Cathedra) is wrong, then the Holy Spirit is wrong.  If you are having a hard time with this then think about yourself.  You believe the Holy Spirit guides you.  That when you read Scripture, it is the Spirit who helps you interpret it.  It’s the same thing with the Pope, except more perfect.  Jesus did not promise YOU that you would never interpret Scripture wrong, He only promised that the Holy Spirit would guide you.  But He DID promise that Scripture itself would be completely trustworthy, and He DID promise that the Holy Spirit would keep the Pope safe from falsehoods.  The gates of Hell will NOT prevail.  The Father of Lies will have no power.  Not over the Divine Church.

Erik,

[There is no office of priesthood as an office in the New Testament]

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, 16“My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.m 17He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. 18n He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out.* 19This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood. 20For it is written in the Book of Psalms:

‘Let his encampment become desolate,

and may no one dwell in it.’

And:

‘May another take his OFFICE.’

Erik,

[If your authority comes up with something that is either not taught in Scripture or nullifies it, you are commanded to follow what your church says and not the Scripture.]

You really have to stop saying that.  Yes,  you are right, IF the Church EVER taught something contrary to Scripture I would have to conclude that the Church is wrong.  The same rules should apply to you.  BUT, the Church has NEVER, in her official capacity, EVER, EVER, EVER taught ANYTHING that is even remotely contrary to Scripture.  I don’t think that you can make the same claim.  Many protestant Churches allow divorce.  Abortion.  Homosexual Marriage.  They don’t believe in the Eucharist.  Confirmation.  The priesthood.  Confession.  ALL Scriptural.  And all Protestant Churches do not believe the same things.  If Church A say X and Church B says Y and X contradicts Y, then how can Church A AND Church B both be right?  Yet, this is exactly what you have in the Protestant Churches. 

I follow what my Church teaches because (and I keep saying this) I believe the WORDS of JESUS.  Not the words of the Pope based on the Pope, but the words of the Pope based on the words of JESUS!  There is not one word in the Catholic Faith that goes against or nullifies Scripture.  There simply isn’t.  There may be an inability or refusal on your part to understand what the Church is saying, or to read Scripture as the Church does, but that is only saying that based on YOUR interpretation, the Church has gotten wrong.  But you do not have the Authority of Jesus’ on your side. Jesus never said “Erik, I give YOU the keys to the kingdom.  What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”  Nor did He say the same to Luther, or Calving or Aquinas for that matter!  So I don’t listen to you as an authority.  Only as a person with an opinion.  But I do listen to my Church because according to JESUS HIMSELF, listening to my Church is the same as listening to the Holy Spirit.

Erik,

Read this passage.  Tell me if it sounds familiar and then tell me what it means.

I will thrust you from your office

and pull you down from your station.

On that day I will summon my servant

Eliakim,* son of Hilkiah;e

I will clothe him with your robe,

gird him with your sash,

confer on him your authority.

He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,

and to the house of Judah.

I will place the key* of the House of David on his shoulder;

what he shuts, no one will open.

Mk,
What is the context of Acts 1:16-20? It is a replacement for Judas who was apostle (not a priest). If you had read on further to 21-22 you would see what the qualifications are i.e. that candidate who was to replace Judas’ apostleship was a person who accompanied them (apostles) during the ministry of Christ and had been a witness of the resurrection. This does not support any office of priesthood in the NT,

As for your statement—“he POPE is not the head of the Church.  The HOLY SPIRIT is the head of the Catholic Church.  The Pope is his HUMAN agent.  As a man, strictly a man, a Pope can be a bum!  But the HOLY SPIRIT can NEVER be wrong.  Therefore, when speaking FROM THE CHAIR/EX CATHEDRA, a Pope can never make a false statement because he is NOT speaking for himself.”

The pope is the head of your church on earth. He is the “vicar” of Christ on earth. Vicar means-A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. source-Catholic Encyclopedia. It is is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth.

BTW- how many times over the centuries has the pope spoken EX CATHEDRA?

Mk,
You wrote about pope Honorius not erring in matters of faith and morals -“UNLESS the statements of Pope Honorius were made Ex Cathedra, FROM THE CHAIR, they are just opinions.” is not how the later church looked at this. Pope Honorius erred in matters of faith and morals because he was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated from the Church by the ecumenical Council of III Constantinople. Any man after Honorius who became a pope had to take an oath condemning Honorius. This went on for centuries.
A heretic is one who teaches error. No pope in the early centuries spoke Ex Cathedra which would include Honorius. 

You claim that “I believe the WORDS of JESUS.  Not the words of the Pope based on the Pope, but the words of the Pope based on the words of JESUS!”

This is not true in regards to the assumption of Mary. Jesus never taught such a doctrine as this and yet you are commanded to believe it. To not believe it would condemn you—“Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

You also claim that “There is not one word in the Catholic Faith that goes against or nullifies Scripture.  There simply isn’t.” is not correct. I have given you a number of doctrines-practices of your church that do indeed go against Scripture. Celibacy as a requirement for leadership which directly nullifies I Tim 3 and the teaching that Mary never sinned or was kept from sin directly contradicts Rom 3:9, 23 and 5:12.

Your church allows for divorce. They don’t call it by that name but by annulments.

What Protestant churches that you know of don’t believe in the deity of Christ and the Trinity?  If they all believe different things, lets see if they believe different things about essential doctrines such as the nature of God, man’s falleness or that Christ died for sin. Do you know any Protestant church that believes anything different about these things? 

Erik,

The priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper.  My point was not to “prove” the priesthood, but to show that the OFFICE of priesthood/bishop was indeed Scriptural.  You made the statement that nowhere in Scripture is the OFFICE spoken of, and I showed that indeed it is.

Vicar: : one serving as a substitute or agent; specifically : an administrative deputy
2
: an ecclesiastical agent:

As Vicar, yes, He has authority.  But ONLY because he IS a vicar…a substitute or agent.  He is a HUMAN agent of the HOLY SPIRIT.  That’s what I’ve said all along.

What would be the point exactly of his being a vicar if he had no authority as such.  He is the HUMAN agent of the HOLY SPIRIT here on the temporal plain.

Which brings me to Isaiah 22.  What do you think that passage is saying?

Erik,

*sigh*

I believe the Teaching of the Church, because I believe the Words of Christ.  What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.

The Church, by means of the authority given to her BY JESUS says that Mary was conceived immaculately, that she is our mother and that she was assumed into heaven.  I keep telling you that my beliefs are built on the premise that Jesus gave HIS authority to the Church.  Once I accepted that, then all else follows naturally.  Including the doctrines/dogmas on Mary.

I’m a mother.  I go out.  I hire a babysitter.  I tell the babysitter that while I am gone she is in charge.  I tell the children to listen to her as if she were me.  She tells them to clean up their toys.  Should they?  Or should they say “Where is it written by my mother that I should clean up my toys?”

Her response would and should be, “you heard your mother say that I was in charge.  You must respect me as an authority because your mother told you to.  As the person in charge, I am telling you to pick up your toys!”

Now if the babysitter said “I like pizza” the children are not obligated to like pizza as the sitter has not spoken from authority but is simply speaking as herself.  In the case of the toys she is speaking as ME.  She is the agent of MY authority.

Erik,

I am not an historian.  I don’t even play one on TV.  So for me to adequately refute your arguments about Honorius would be impossible.  From what I have read you are getting your info from an anti Catholic source and it is not reliable.  It’s like arguing against the Catholic Church using a Jack Chick tract.

If you are serious about understanding what happened (and I warn you it is very technical…so I’m sure you will misinterpret much of what is said….) here is a link.  I read some it but I gotta tell you, New Advent gives me a headache. 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

As for your claim that there was no Ex Cathedra at the time….where do you get your information????

“If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires good work.”

This is yet another passage that describes the OFFICE of the Priesthood, something you keep claiming does not exist. 

You also use this same passage to claim that priests (whom you don’t even recognize as valid) must be married.  The emphasis of this passage is not on priests being married, but on priests being married only ONCE.  If as you claim, the Office of the Priesthood refers to ALL believers then ALL Christians would have to be married.  If it refers to only those holding the OFFICE of priest, then it would leave men like Paul out in the cold.  It can only make sense if it means, and it does, that a priest must marry only once, not remarry and furthermore his wife will be held to the same standards that he is.  The reason for this is that as Paul says, it would be better if you were NOT married, but given that we are starting in the middle and not from scratch, many of you are ALREADY married.  Therefore, since divorce is not allowed, you may remain married, but you must not REmarry.

mk:  It would appear we are now making progress in clearing out a long held Catholic laity misunderstanding.  You wrote:  “If Justification is different than salvation, what happens to people who by your definition have been saved, but have not been justified?”  Let us reference Romans 8:3O.  Paul says:  “And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified.”  Of course, glorification is at the end of life.  In this earthly life, though, the saved individual is saved by and through justification.  One cannot be saved absent of justification.  The saved person is justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ.  This connects with Ephesians 2:9 in reference to salvation:  “not of works, lest that any man should boast.”  Reliance upon works alone denies the sufficiency of the cross.  An attitude of: “I believe in God so I must do works” creates a problem in that you will never know how many works are needed or——-if I have ever done enough works.
 

Here is the first statement made Ex Cathedra and it is in Scripture. 

Acts 15:28

Finally, the consciousness of corporate infallibility is clearly signified in the expression used by the assembled Apostles in the decree of the Council of Jerusalem: “It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you”, etc. (Acts 15:28). It is true that the specific points here dealt with are chiefly disciplinary rather than dogmatic, and that no claim to infallibility is made in regard to purely disciplinary questions as such; but behind, and independent of, disciplinary details there was the broad and most important dogmatic question to be decided, whether Christians, according to Christ’s teaching, were bound to observe the Old Law in its integrity, as orthodox Jews of the time observed it. This was the main issue at stake, and in deciding it the Apostles claimed to speak in the name and with the authority of the Holy Ghost. Would men who did not believe that Christ’s promises assured them of an infallible Divine guidance have presumed to speak in this way? And could they, in so believing, have misunderstood the Master’s meaning?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

And these (same source) from the earliest Church:

  It is clear from the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch how intolerant he was of error, and how firmly convinced that the episcopal body was the Divinely ordained and Divinely guided organ of truth; nor can any student of early Christian literature deny that, where Divine guidance is claimed in doctrinal matters, infallibility is implied.
  So intolerant of error was St. Polycarp that, as the story goes, when he met Marcion on the street in Rome, he did not hesitate to denounce the heretic to his face as “the firstborn of Satan”. This incident, whether it be true or not, is at any rate thoroughly in keeping with the spirit of the age and such a spirit is incompatible with belief in a fallible Church.

  St. Irenaeus, who in the disciplinary Paschal question favoured compromise for the sake of peace, took an altogether different attitude in the doctrinal controversy with the Gnostics; and the great principle on which he mainly relies in refuting the heretics is the principle of a living ecclesiastical authority for which he virtually claims infallibility. For example he says: “Where the Church is, there also is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is there is the Church, and every grace: for the Spirit is truth” (Adv. Haer. III, xxiv, 1); and again, Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, i.e. with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who . . . are the guardians of our faith . . . and securely [sine periculo] expound the Scriptures to us” (op. cit., IV xxvi, 5).

  Tertullian, writing from the Catholic standpoint, ridicules the suggestion that the universal teaching of the Church can be wrong: “Suppose now that all [the Churches] have erred . . . [This would mean that] the Holy Spirit has not watched over any of them so as to guide it into the truth, although He was sent by Christ, and asked from the Father for this very purpose — that He might be the teacher of truth” (doctor veritatis — “De Praescript”, xxxvi, in P.L., II, 49).

  St. Cyprian compares the Church to an incorruptible virgin: Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est et pudica (De unitate eccl.).

The point Erik, is that we could go tit for tat all day.  But it is fact, objective fact, that the Church has always, from the apostles in acts to today, believed that the Holy Spirit was represented by the GOVERNING Church. 

It begins with Jesus’ own words.  Once you accept Jesus at His word, then it doesn’t matter how many or how few examples we can dig up.  I don’t believe in the Authority of the Church because of the Fathers, or historians, or my parish priest.  I believe it because JESUS said it.  And I believe it has been interpreted correctly because it is what the apostles believed. 

Mk,
There is no evidence or indication of a priesthood being instituted at the Last Supper. Jesus is not teaching them that they are to be priest that offer up His supper. You are reading RC doctrine back into the text. That is called isogesis. In fact there is no verse-passage in the NT of an apostle performing the Lord’s supper. Paul is the only one who mentions the Lord’s supper briefly in his writings and the others do not at all.

Before we can know what Isaiah 22 means we have to understand the context of Isaiah and how Isaiah 22 fits. Can you answer these questions before we know what Isaiah 22 means?

Since it seems you are not that knowledgeable about church history how can you claim I am wrong about it and say i use jack chick stuff? I have studied church history. I have even given you sources from scholars.

In regards to Ex Cathedra statements here is what one of the best RC apologist has written on this issue: “Robert Sungenis: In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. The first was in 1870 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was decreed as a doctrine in itself, and the second was in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was decreed. Every other teaching by the popes, past and present, has never been officially defined as an excathedra, infallible, and irreformable teaching. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings.”

Mk,
You may believe that “the Church has always, from the apostles in acts to today, believed that the Holy Spirit was represented by the GOVERNING Church.” but that does not mean its true.
Take the inquisitions that went on for centuries. People were tortured and murdered by the inquisitors of the RCC. These inquisitors had the full support of popes for centuries. Was the Holy Spirit guiding these inquisitions that resulted in so much pain and suffering for so many? 

N.O.,

You guys do this a lot.  I’m not trying to be confrontational, I’m just pointing out.  You take a statement and then claim that it says or means something that it does not.  Like Faith alone.  You show me a passage that says we need Faith.  I agree.  And then you say, “See it says Faith ALONE”.

Now you say that because we believe works are required there must be some specific amount of works.  No one ever said that.  It is not necessary to say it.  To say that you have to do good deeds is NOT to say that there is a certain amount of good deeds that you must do.  We are not earning our way into heaven, we are living our life as we have been commanded.  No one ever said “Do 10 pushups”.  There is no quanity, and only someone who thinks that being saved is a “reward” could think that it does.  Be saved, getting into heaven, is a way of living.  It’s imitating Christ.  You do that by doing good works.  If you don’t imitate Christ then you are not a Christian.  If you do not follow His commandments then you are not a Christian.  Nowhere does Jesus say or imply that if we follow His commands 15 times we will be saved. 

It’s a way of life.  Not a scoreboard!

As to justification, you’re going to have to do a much better job of explaining it to me.

Define Faith, then define salvation, then define justification.

[Of course, glorification is at the end of life.  In this earthly life, though, the saved individual is saved by and through justification.]

I thought they were saved by Faith. Either Faith and Justification must be the same thing, or you can’t be saved by Faith alone. 

Jesus died and redeemed the ENTIRE world.  Those who believe, those who don’t, those who are born, those who are dead.  Is this what you call “Justification”?

mk:  Continuing from my last post.  It is the result of justification in which the saved individual embarks upon his/her journey of sanctification.  THIS is the growing and developing process of Christian living.  Paul covers this in Romans 12 as we (you and I, mk) are “conformed” into the image and likeness of His Son.  The works we do during the sanctification process following justification are purely in gratitude, willful obedience, love and from our desire to please the Lord.  We thus emulate Christ when He said in John 8:29 “I only do those things which are pleasing to the Father.”  It is further commented by John again in 1 John 3:22 “we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.”  Whether one may call these things works, charitable acts, offering prayers, tithing, bearing another’s burdens or what Catholics call coporal and spiritual works of mercy, we do all these thing not for merit (which is sinful pride) but because we love Jesus, the Christ.  All these things we do are in servanthood to the master.  mk,—this is the sanctification process of our life.  And He may call you home at only 22, 52 or 102.  The sanctification duration process is of His own choosing so we do not assume a life of Christian service by someone of 83 is of any greater value than someone of, say, 31.  Our role is simply to submit ourself to pleasing Him knowing He is sovereign over all things.

mk:  Your remark of Jesus redeeming the “entire world” is problematic.  The gospel tells us the opposite is true because the—“world”—does not mean “all” men.  Christ desires that no man should perish, yet we know many have and will perish.  Reference the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus.  The gospel tells us not all men are saved.  And it is very likely many people who even “call” themselves Christians and Catholic will also perish.  The question will always remain:  What did you do about Jesus in your life?”

mk:  You wrote “I thought they were saved by Faith. Either Faith and Justification must be the same thing, or you can’t be saved by Faith alone.”  mk, you and I agree, it is not the mere technical act of faith alone.  It is one’s conviction of faith in which the Holy Spirit thus compells the individual to now serve the living Christ.

N.O.,

That’s what I said!  lol But His death paid the price, redeemed all men.  That’s the circus.  It’s there.  It happened.  Being saved, as I believe you mean it, is a matter of going to the circus/Faith.

But He didn’t die for those who believe.  He died for everyone.  Do you believe.  And yes, the question will always remain “What did you DO about Jesus in your life?”  Which is the same as WORKS, not of the LAW but of Faith. 

And this is where we depart…you believe that redemption is made possible through your faith, we believe redemption is an objective fact, made possible through Christ’s death.  I don’t need to believe it to make it so.  I need to believe it to have an affect on me, but not to make it so.  He died for everyone.  But everyone will not take advantage of that fact.

So we are all redeemed.  Humanity as a WHOLE was redeemed.  But only part of humanity will embrace that redemption.

N.O.,

[It is one’s conviction of faith in which the Holy Spirit thus compells the individual to now serve the living Christ.]

How is that different than Faith and Works?
Using your own argument that should (but of course I don’t believe it does) mean that the next question is “how convicted is convicted enough”?  What is the measuring rod for conviction, of which of course, there is none.  Just as there is no measuring rod for works. 

N.O.,

[The sanctification duration process is of His own choosing so we do not assume a life of Christian service by someone of 83 is of any greater value than someone of, say, 31.  Our role is simply to submit ourself to pleasing Him knowing He is sovereign over all things.]

I have said the same thing a hundred times now.  But this sanctification process…is that not salvation?  Do you not enter heaven because you have gone through this process?  Is this not PART of FAITH?  How is this different from what we believe.

Either Faith means simply believing or it means more.  If it means more then you and I are in closer agreement.  But we cannot say that we are saved by Faith alone.  We can say that we believe and we enter into a process of working out our salvation.  So which do you believe?  That we are saved by Faith alone, or that our salvation is worked out over time by cooperation with God’s graces? 

And what happens if a man begins that journey (what you would call “becomes saved” but quits the journey at some point, either because he ceases to believes or ceases to be willing to walk the walk or simply gets tired and takes an easier road?  Like Judas?  How can a man be OSAS if he is working out his salvation through his entire life and given free will can step away at any time?

mk:  Then where is the disagreement?  Men do not “work out” our salvation.  Catholics enjoy pointing to that passage from Paul in Phillipians 2:12.  Protestants and Evangelicals reject the technicality but would accept your (mk) position as you describe.  The cross was the work done by Christ so no more “work” for salvation is required because man is incapable of his own salvation.  As I have said, technically, faith (alone) absent of serving Christ is not evidence of faith.  Paul says this.  So, mk, when you see the sola of Fath Alone, you are dealing with people not explaining what they mean fully.  Very likely these same Protestants are possibly confused themselves.  Certainly I do not judge all true Catholic positions are based upon what some Catholics tell me.  Ignorance of true biblical and doctrinal belief surely exists among people both Catholic and Protestant.

mk:  Your comment, “But this sanctification process is that not salvation?  Do you not enter heaven because you have gone through this process?  Is this not PART of FAITH?  How is this different from what we believe.”  mk, it’s in the mosaic.  I think you and I are getting closer.  mk, the sanctification process is a result from having (first) received the gift of salvation.  One does not begin sanctification, though, without having been saved to new life in Christ (first).
A woman in hospice or a terminally ill young person in high school who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior likely will have no opportunity to enter sanctification serving Christ yet they are saved by belief in the blood atonement Jesus paid for them at Calvary.

N.O.,

You had me to a point.  Working out our salvation.  If we leave it at that then there is a problem, for me and you, yes, I agree.  BUT, we do “work out” our salvation always understanding that it these acts that “prove” so to speak our good faith.  Without them, in ordinary circumstances mind you, (not infants, or death bed conversions and certainly no comparisons between individuals)we will not get into heaven.

I’m still not sure what you mean by salvation.  Do you mean spending eternity in heaven?  Then that will be judged by our works because they are a “show of faith”. 

If there is no real difference between what we believe then why aren’t protestants Catholic?  Why aren’t we one Church?  I think there is more of a difference than we are stating.  I can’t help but feel that I’m missing something.

Jesus died.  The entire world, every man, woman and child was redeemed.
I hear this and believe it then proceed to show it by my works of Love, obedience and fidelity.  If I do this, then I can spend eternity with God.  Only God can know my heart, even I can’t fully know my heart.  So I will know if I made it, when I make it.  Which means I cannot be SURE that I will make it.  I can be sure that God will be there and that all He promised is true; that if I keep trying, God will continue to give me the Graces I need to succeed.  But I cannot be sure of my own motives or if I will drop the ball at some point and reject Him and His promises.  My doubt is not in Him, but in myself.

All of this to me, flies in the face of Sola Fide and OSAS.  What am I missing?

Oh, and if Mary was given these Graces, FULLY, as no other human being was and the Grace was so immense, so powerful so, well, FULL, that she would have to work really, really hard to sin, which she didn’t, plus she received the benefits of redemption at conception as the Old Testament folks received it after death, then why wouldn’t she be greatest among humans?  Why wouldn’t I honor her to the fullest extent?  Why wouldn’t I stand in awe of such an amazing, pure, good, holy human being?

Mk,
What matters in regards to faith is the “object” of faith. A Christian is puts his faith, trust in the Lord Jesus Who died for his sins and rose again. When that happens that man is justified because he now is united to Christ (Romans 6:5, 8:9) and is born again i.e. has a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:21). This change in our nature from death to life can never be lost. (Romans 8:29-39).
Sanctification is a life long process of putting sin out of our lives and seeking to become more and more like Christ. (Romans 8:29). It can be summed up by Romans 13:14—But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts, and I John 2:6- the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. The power to do this comes from God also—for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. Phil 2:13
More details are given in Scripture how this works.

mk:  Here is a gospel illustration from Luke 19 you are probably quite familiar with.  You recall Jesus had come to Jericho and a wealthy Tax Collector named Zacchaeus lived there who had great interest in Jesus.  The passage goes further:  “He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd.  So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.  All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’”  But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”  Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.  For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”  mk, Jesus knew Zacchaeus was already pre-disposed in his heart toward him.  No man calls or refers to Jesus as “Lord” unless He really is Lord.  The natual man would not do that.  It’s common for you and I to call Jesus Christ Lord and Savior because we both know He is.  Unbelievers do not because they are not in submission (at least yet).  We do pray they will come, however, to this saving knowledge.  The life of Zacchaeus was forever changed that day. 

mk:  Notce the difference between Zacchaeus contrasted with, say Caiaphas (The High Priest) and Herod.  All three men were very much interested in this “Jesus.”  The difference is that Caiaphas and Herod were driven by worldly (fleshly) motives.

mk: My dear, my very dear sister in Christ,—your understanding has been clouded.  You wrote:  “Jesus died.  The entire world, every man, woman and child was redeemed.  I hear this and believe it then proceed to show it by my works of Love, obedience and fidelity.  If I do this, then I can spend eternity with God.  Only God can know my heart, even I can’t fully know my heart.  So I will know if I made it, when I make it.  Which means I cannot be SURE that I will make it.  I can be sure that God will be there and that all He promised is true; that if I keep trying, God will continue to give me the Graces I need to succeed.  But I cannot be sure of my own motives or if I will drop the ball at some point and reject Him and His promises.  My doubt is not in Him, but in myself.”

mk:  Do you not think Jesus already knows what is in your heart?  You don’t need a lifetime to prove your heart to Christ.  He knew your heart from eternity past.

The whole world (world) does not mean every man, woman and child is redeemed to new life.  Think again what Jesus told Nicodemus.  Even Nicodemus had trouble understanding.  Not every man, woman and child will be born of (His) Spirit.  You will “not know if you make it until you make it” is untrue—because He has already given you assurance of life eternal with Him when you first believed and trusted in Him.  All your works since then were not done by you **because of a requirement** but because you desired to do these things.  You have been motivated to do these things out of your love for Him.  His Spirit has been guiding you.  mk, you have been going through the sanctification processes of Christianity without realizing it —until perhaps now.  He has already assured you of your salvation because you love Him and have trusted Him.  mk, you CAN know.  You CAN be sure.  You CAN have eternal security and literally reign with Christ forever.  You CAN stand and believe John 14:2 when Jesus says:  “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.”  The “You”—is you, mk.  And note that Jesus underscores with emphasis:  “Were it NOT so, I would have told you.”  mk, I have not been able to identify any part of the gospel where Jesus lied.

mk, consider also the experience of Martha when Jesus purposely delayed his coming to Bethany upon hearing of Lazarus.  She knew the Resurrection would occur on the last day.  What Martha didn’t realize was that the Resurrection was not an event but, moreover, Jesus Himself.  He told Martha “I” am the Resurrection (and the life).  Who so ever believeth in me though he were dead yet shall he live.  And who so ever believeth in me shall never die.”  The Resurrection is a person (Jesus).  This person we know and trust personally in relationship.  We can believe what He said.  Jesus then asked Martha:  “Do you believe this?”

N.O.,

[Do you not think Jesus already knows what is in your heart?  You don’t need a lifetime to prove your heart to Christ.  He knew your heart from eternity past.]

Yes, of course Jesus already knows.  But I don’t know. Jesus knew Peter was going to deny him three times, but Peter didn’t. Peter was positive, absolutely positive, that it would not happen. Jesus knows if I’ll finish the race and He knows if I’ll quit the race.  I have no idea.  Like Peter, I’d like to proclaim loudly that nothing will keep me from finishing. But I simply don’t know.  So I’ll have to wait.  I can’t make the statement “I am going to heaven”, because I am not dead yet.  I’m still living out my salvation.

[This person we know and trust personally in relationship.  We can believe what He said.]

Of course we can, and I do.  But that has nothing to do with me.  My end of the covenant.  It only speaks to His end.  I have no doubts about Him.  But I have doubts about myself.  (not acute doubts, but the kind that come with knowing I am human and fallible)  I’m not losing sleep over it.  Hardly ever think about it.  But the bottom line is that I simply don’t know if I’ll make it to heaven.  Neither do you.  There is no way that you could.  Those lines are not saying I promise you you’ll make it.  They are saying I promise you that if you hold out to the end you’ll make it.  Do what I tell you and you can come to the table. 

Just as there are death bed conversions and changes of heart at the last minute, there are also changes the other way.  People rejecting Him at the last moments.  Like Judas. 

We can always repent and come back (through the sacramental graces received in confession) but who’s to say whether we will or not?
Peter could just as easily have slunk away in shame, never to be heard of again.  And Judas could now be called St. Judas if he’d asked forgiveness.  We do have free will, right?

To both:

And here is another place where we diverge.  We are not born again because we believe.  We are born again because we are baptized.  Which is not to say that Jesus could not take away Original Sin without baptism…in fact we see that He did….but the ordinary way of being born again is to be baptized.  Baptism removes the stain of Original Sin.  This is what is meant by BORN again.  We have a new birth in baptism.  We do not have Jesus goodness morphed onto us.  God doesn’t look at us and see Jesus.  He looks at us and sees that we have had that first sin’s stain removed, gone, kaput! 

[This change in our nature from death to life can never be lost. (Romans 8:29-39).]

Yes.  Baptism is permanent.  It cannot be undone.  But Baptism (what you would say is belief) is not a guarantee that you will be allowed into heaven.  That can’t be known until you get there.  You are adopted into the family, but as we see with the prodigal son, being part of a family is not a guarantee that you will live as part of the family.  Baptism changes me, but those changes don’t mean anything if I don’t live them out. 

You yourself just said that there are protestants who will not make it into heaven.  Why?  I thought they could assured that they were saved.

mk,  Catholics believe baptism washes away original sin from an infant or an RCIA adult candidate.  That person is still guaranteed to sin because he/she carries a sin nature all their natural life.  Water baptism itself is not a condition of salvation.  Again, think of Nicodemus.  Jesus told him “Unless a man be born again of water and Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”  mk, born of water is NOT the physical act of water baptism but of Christ cleansing your Spirit through regeneration.  He puts His Spirit within you.  Prior to this event every man is dead, spiritually.  This is what Nicodemus did not understand then and most people today also do not understand concerning the Christian life.  Nicodemus needed to be born again to new life in Christ.  It is He who washes you.  It is nothing you can do.  No amount of working hard to measure up or be worthy of Heaven can ever be achieved.  That’s why I said you were wrong about Evangelicals doing A,B,C & D.  Recall the Apostles the night before Jesus died in John 13.  When Jesus was about to wash his feet, Simon Peter said to Jesus “not just my feet, but my hands and my head as well.”  Jesus replied “A person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean.  And you disciples are clean, but not all of you.”  (The not all of you refers to Judas).  mk, Jesus underscores your cleansing again in John 15:3.  “You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.”  mk, it’s not complicated, but men have have made it complicated.  Just believe the gospel.  Perhaps this will help from Philippians 1:6 concerning your uncertainty:  “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”  You can have eternal security NOW because He has already been working in your life.  mk, you are currently undergoing sanctification because you have already been justified.  You just haven’t known—until now.

N.O.,

Born again of water and spirit is speaking of Baptism and nothing else.  There are so many passages that state that you MUST be Baptized, with water, that I could be here all day citing them.  Way up there I made the statement that a Sacrament is the invisible being made visible through the physical.  Baptism is not a voodoo ritual.  The water itself is an agent.  It is Jesus who actually removes the stain of original sin.  And because Jesus was right there He was able to remove those stains without water.  Jesus was the invisible God made visible through the physical.  Once He went home, however, we needed a different PHYSICAL agent to remove that stain.  And water is the agent that JESUS left us.  It’s not some random, inconsequential, superficial show of faith.  It’s a supernatural event.  It is the physical action that brings about a supernatural change.  To claim anything else is to deny the words of Our Lord.  A prefigurement of the sanctifying ability of water is given way back in Genesis water is overshadowed (just as Mary was, just as the Ark was) by the Holy Spirit. 

From the Catechism:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

This is why an infant can be baptized.  It is a SUPERNATURAL event that happens TO YOU, not something that YOU do. 

Pointing out cases of saved individuals sans Baptism is pointless because as I said, it is Jesus who takes away sin and those who had personal contact with Him could have the same Supernatural event take place without baptism.  There are also conditions where a person can be validly baptized without the “ritual”, such as Baptism by desire, where a person who hasn’t had an opportunity to be baptized but wanted to but died before getting the opportunity.  Just as the Sabbath was made for man/Man was not made for the Sabbath, Baptism was made for man and not the other way around.  God can do anything and HE is not bound by the “laws” of Baptism, but we are.

It is NOT faith that causes a person to choose Baptism, but Baptism that causes a person to have Faith.  It is through Baptism that we receive the Supernatural GIFT of Faith, the Grace to Believe.  We don’t believe and then show it by being baptized.  We are baptized and receive that ability to believe.

As for not knowing that I am being sanctified until this moment…I have been working out my salvation for over 53 years now.  I’m well aware of the fact that I am and have been practicing my Faith for a long time.  I have been “justified” since I was 3 days old.  Whether that justification will get me into heaven remains to be seen.  I was given the gift, and I am using it, albeit imperfectly.  I hope that I will be found acceptable when I reach those gates.

And just as with Peter, I look to the words of Jesus before I look to the explanations of Paul.  Jesus said “You are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church”.  Jesus said “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”  Jesus said “TRULY, TRULY unless one is born of </B> and the Spirit</B>, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” 

No disrespect intended, but sometimes you guys crack me up.  You take so much of Scripture literally, when it is meant to be taken metaphorically, and then turn around and ignore things that are SO meant to be taken literally as metaphors.

When it comes from Jesus’ mouth, ESPECIALLY when preceded by the words “AMEN,AMEN” or “TRULY, TRULY”, you can be pretty sure THESE things are meant to be taken literally!

“TRULY, TRULY unless one is born of </B> and the Spirit</B>, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” 

Jesus said to them, “AMEN, AMEN I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.”

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.”

I don’t know why WATER doesn’t show up…

“TRULY, TRULY unless one is born of WATER and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

concerning your uncertainty:

But I am not concerned with my uncertainty.  You are.  The only people who can be certain of their salvation are the newly baptized.  If they were to die immediately after Baptism, we can be CERTAIN that they will go directly to heaven.  They have NO SINS.  Their sins, all of them, as well as their temporal punishment, have been WASHED away.  Gone.  Finis.  Any child who dies before the age of reason can be CERTAIN.  But I am capable of sinning after baptism and can therefore jeopardize my salvation.  Thank God for the gift of Confession.  Were I to die after making a “Good” confession I could be CERTAIN of entering heaven.  But the rest of us just have to keep pluggin’ away. 

What I CAN be certain of, is that because Jesus died and redeemed us, and I HAVE been baptized, and I AM LIVING out my Faith, there is a pretty good chance that I’ll get there.  But I CAN and MIGHT break my end of the covenant and then all bets are off.  Only those who believe can enter heaven?  Well, if I don’t believe on my death bed, I won’t be one of them.

Mk,
Not sure what you mean by saying “You take so much of Scripture literally, when it is meant to be taken metaphorically, and then turn around and ignore things that are SO meant to be taken literally as metaphors.”
Can you give us a couple of examples?

Why would you take John 6:53-54 literally when to do so would lead to cannibalism?

Mk,
If making a “Good confession” before you die would guarantee heaven then the wisest thing you could do is to have a priest nearby 24/7. You demonstrate that what your church teaches you is a works based faith. Your fear of sin breaking your union with Christ and Christ not capable of bringing you into His presence is the result of the doctrines of your church. No wonder Catholics need Mary, indulgences and purgatory. These things may look like you have the “fulness of the truth” but these things actually take away from what Christ did for us. Your salvation depends on what you do and not on what God is doing.

mk, re your many comments:  “we needed a different PHYSICAL agent to remove that stain.”  .....mk, you said “God can do whatever He wants.”  You would thus deny His ability to apply grace and/or His ability to apply the blood of Christ to whomever He chooses and at anytime.  Abraham was not baptized and neither was Elijah.  Both are reigning with Christ as we speak.

mk, if baptizing an infant is considered a supernatural event then why are so many baptized Catholics fallen away from the church?  They should be locked in and sealed by your definition.  You have already said it is Jesus who takes away sin (not the physical act of baptism by water).  You wrote:  “We are baptized and receive that ability to believe.”  mk, why then do not all baptized people believe?  Why then do not all baptized Catholics believe?  Unless you have the imputation of the Holy Spirit, the physcial act of water you speak of is meaningless.  Your position stating:  “We are baptized and receive that ability to believe” is likely Catholic theological extrapolation but has no support other than it may sound good.

Erik,

Why would you take John 6:53-54 literally when to do so would lead to cannibalism?

Short answer…because He told me to.  You yourself said that I cannot believe anything that contradicts Scripture.  To say that Jesus did not want us to take His body and blood into us, literally, to eat Him, is to deny Scripture.  Flat out deny it.

Same with claiming that Baptism is not a requirement for salvation.  Flat out denial of Scripture…Of Jesus own words.  Of THE WORD.

Heck, the Jews asked the same question that you just did and were told if they couldn’t accept to use the door.  Nicodemus asked how a man could be born again…he couldn’t crawl into his mother’s womb…and was told he needed to be baptized…to be born again of WATER and Spirit. 

mk, re your comment:  “God can do anything and HE is not bound by the “laws” of Baptism, but we are.”  mk, you make Catholic teaching sound like an extension of Mosaic law.  Paul tells us we are now under grace rather than the law. Without the imputation of the Holy Spirit there is no grace providing you desire to remain obedient to His commands and precepts.

So here are a few questions I’d like you guys to answer for me, if you will.

If all a person has to do is believe, and we all know that I believe, then why are you all so worried about my salvation.  YOU believe that YOU can be sure that I am saved because I fit your criteria.  Why the push for me to abandon the Original Church if I’m already doing what you say I have to do?

N.O. said that some protestants as well as some Catholics will not get into heaven.  Why?  I thought once saved, always saved.  What have these protestants done or not done?

You seem to use the terms believe and Faith interchangeably.  Is there a difference?  If so, what?  If not, then how is “Believing” not a work?  If Faith is a gift then why believe?

What is baptism?  Why does Jesus tell the apostles to go and baptize?  What is the point?  And why with water?  What is the significance of water?

How does the Holy Spirit enter you and dwell in you?  What “change” happens?  What “event” takes place that at one moment He is not in you and the next He is?

Mk,
Jesus is not literally talking to you but the Jews at the time. This is where so many people today do not take the time to exegete the Scripture and because they don’t they derive things from it that are absurd. This is why context matters. Why was Jesus having this discussion with these Jews to begin with in John 6?

On this issue of baptism, what does baptism represent?

Since pouring water or immersing someone in water does not save automatically what must precede baptism?

mk, you said “at the end, you might break your end of the covenant.”  This is your reasoning for never being sure.  So why would a child of the living God ever do a 180 and turn away from Christ?  That would be insanity.

[mk, you make Catholic teaching sound like an extension of Mosaic law. 

Without the imputation of the Holy Spirit there is no grace providing you desire to remain obedient to His commands and precepts.]

It is the FULFILLMENT of Mosaic Law.  God has CHOSEN to use a physical element, water, to bestow a supernatural phenomenon upon us.  Isn’t he allowed to do that?  Are you saying that Divine Law no longer exists?  That there are NO LAWS of Nature, human or otherwise?  And that we are not bound by them?  Can we kill our neighbor?  Gossip?  Commit adultery?  Sounds like Mosaic Law to me!  Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.  Circumcision marked you in a purely physical way.  Baptism marks you in a physical AND metaphysical way.

There is no “imputation” of the Holy Spirit.  There is an “infusion” of the Holy Spirit.  We are FILLED with the Holy Spirit.  He is now a part of us, living in us.  This can only be achieved, ORDINARILY, through Baptism.

We have no way of knowing whether or not Abraham and Moses were baptized post death.  But either way, they were not FILLED WITH the Spirit.  The Spirit could work ON them, or WITH them, but He did not dwell IN them.  He was not fused with them, as He is with us, through Baptism.

[mk, if baptizing an infant is considered a supernatural event then why are so many baptized Catholics fallen away from the church?  They should be locked in and sealed by your definition.]

No.  By YOUR definition they should be locked and sealed.  By MY definition they are ABLE to receive all that is offered.  But they are only ABLE to, not compelled to.  We still have free will.  Baptism is not a guarantee of heaven, it is only a guarantee of Grace and forgiveness of sins.  Confession is an extension of Baptism.  Were more Catholics moved to Confess more often they wouldn’t fall away.  I keep telling you that we believe you must cooperate with said Graces.  The work isn’t done for you!

Abraham was not “saved” because He believed.  He was saved because he had Faith…and we know he had Faith because of what he DID.  Not because of what he believed.  It was his ACT that proved his Faith. 

No one is saying that Baptism guarantees you will be saved.  What we are saying that you will NOT be saved without Baptism.  It’s not the end all/be all.  It’s a step in a process.  Cooperation is the key.

[Jesus is not literally talking to you but the Jews at the time. This is where so many people today do not take the time to exegete the Scripture and because they don’t they derive things from it that are absurd. This is why context matters. Why was Jesus having this discussion with these Jews to begin with in John]

And didn’t I say “The Jews asked the same thing and Jesus told them if they couldn’t accept this then there’s the door?” 

And we both know that when Jesus talks to anyone He is talking to everyone. 

He had just fed them with loaves and fishes.  Now they wanted Him to do it again.  He says, and I paraphrase “Ha!  knucklheads…that was parlor tricks.  The real deal is sitting right in front of you. I am the bread you are looking for and if you want the real deal, you’ll have to eat me!”  To which the Jews replied “Huh?  Crazy Talk”  and Jesus says “Look, were you not supplied with heavenly bread that you were all too eager to eat when you were starvin’ in the desert?  Well that was a precursor to the REAL bread from heaven. ME!  You’re gonna have to eat me, if you want to have LIFE within you.  I = LIFE.  If you want LIFE in you, then you’ll have to have ME in you.  Now here’s how it’s gonna work…remember how I was the INVISIBLE God, and you guys couldn’t see me?  I was waaaaaay out there somewhere?  Then I became visible by taking on the form of a human being.  Now you can see me.  I look like a person.  I sound like a person.  Heck, today in this heat, I even smell like a person.  Surprise.  I AM a person.  But I am still GOD.  After I am gone, I will come back in a whole different form.  I’ll look like bread.  Taste like bread.  I will BE bread.  But underneath it, the actual SUBSTANCE, will God.  I will become bread, and you will then be able to consume me, your God, and you will have LIFE within you”...and then many of the Jews and others said “Too much for me…I’m outta here”.

If God could become man to redeem the world, why couldn’t He become bread to feed it?  Do you know that the actual Greek word used for “Daily Bread” in the Lord’s prayer is not used anywhere else in Greek.  It’s very hard to translate, but when you break it up, the first half means over/above.  St. Jerome originally translated it as SUPER SUBSTANTIAL bread.  As in substance that is over and above…

mk, to your question, no one is saved by church membership.  Be one Catholic or Protestant, not all truly accept the gospel nor Jesus Christ.  The thought of applying OSAS to all Protestant people cannot be done because not all Protestants are in Christ nor are Catholics.  Also, it is not my wish for you to abandon the Catholic church.  We are only having a discussion about the gospel, Paul’s letters and what the teaching is.  May I say I appreciate your comments and I hope you also feel the same.  We are united in Christ

Did you know that Bethlehem means house of bread.  Or than Manger means to eat?  Or that the actual word used in the Bread of Life discourse is not eat, but but closer to gnaw?

mk:  So the water for Abraham, Moses and Elijah is really not critical.  It was baptism by the Holy Spirit in which they were cleansed.

N.O.,

Of course I agree, Church membership has nothing to do with.  We’re not “card carriers”.  But if you claim to be a protestant, and believe you are saved, are you not saved?  How can you know?  If you don’t believe then why do you call yourself a Protestant given that the only thing that makes you one is that you believe?  See what I’m asking?

mk, re your comment “And we both know that when Jesus talks to anyone He is talking to everyone.”  That would not be true.  Please think more about this. 

[This is your reasoning for never being sure.  So why would a child of the living God ever do a 180 and turn away from Christ?  That would be insanity.]

LOL…well yes, to you and I it WOULD seem insane.  But millions of Christians walk away, Catholic and Protestant.  As I pointed out the only difference between Peter and Judas is that Peter asked for forgiveness.  He returned.  It could just as easily gone the other way.  St. Judas, Peter in hell.  Both were believers.  Both committed seriously grievous sins.  One came back, one didn’t.  I believe BOTH were sincere in their belief, both were weak, and one quit.  I think Judas was insane.  Don’t you?

[mk, re your comment “And we both know that when Jesus talks to anyone He is talking to everyone.”  That would not be true.  Please think more about this. ]

When has Jesus ever spoken to someone in Scripture that it was not meant for us also?

[So the water for Abraham, Moses and Elijah is really not critical.  It was baptism by the Holy Spirit in which they were cleansed.]

Two different covenants.  One: Mosaic Law.  Live by the law, get into heaven.  Moses, Abraham and Elijah did what THEY were required to do. 

Two:  New Covenant.  Be baptized, follow my commandments, eat my flesh, confess your sins…and you will have lived up to your end of the New and EVERLASTING covenant.  I don’t make the rules, I just follow them.  Who knows if Moses etal sins weren’t washed away with water post death?  I sure don’t.  That’s like asking how they could get to heaven when Jesus had died for their sins yet.

I was looking for another blog and came across this one that looks interesting.  Erik asked what baptism represented.  I may be wrong, but the question reminded me of the Ethiopian eunach who asked Phillip to baptize him, after hearing the Gospel of new life in Jesus.  I think the water is a symbol for death (drowning, being crucified with Jesus, and choosing to be dead to ourselves) and coming up in a new life with God, born of the Holy Spirit.  It is an interior conversion first, and the water is an external symbol that follows.

Ian,

Hey.  You’re right (from a Catholic point of view) that we go into the water and come up as a symbol of rebirth, but Baptism itself is not just symbolic.  It’s real.  It’s a metaphysical reality.  It changes us.  We don’t just come up out of the water symbolically changed, but actually changed.  And the water also symbolizes washing away the stain of our sins.  It’s not the water tho, it’s the Grace that does the washing.  But the washing, and the rebirth are not symbolic.  There for realz.

Oh, and it doesn’t require an interior conversion.  It requires consent in adults, but that’s just because they know what is going on.  You consent to allowing the Baptism.  But it’s the Baptism that causes the conversion, not the other way around.  So baptism takes place even without consent, because it is done TO you, but after the age of reason consent must be given because of free will.  You are basically consenting to being metaphysically changed.  See?

Hi Ian.  Catholicism views baptism as the washing away of original sin.  This is why Catholics view infant baptism imperative in case the child dies in the state of (original) sin.  James 2 speaks of the body being dead spiritually, so the correct application of baptism itself is (as you say) an outward affirmation of one’s conversion made only possible by the Holy Spirit come to live inside him.  All men are born in spiritual death and remain so until born again to new life.

[All men are born in spiritual death and remain so until born again to new life.]

Well that part is right.  But the Holy Spirit comes to live IN you through Baptism.  He can affect you, or influence you…work in your life, but is is through the supernatural Sacrament of Baptism that He comes to dwell IN you.  That’s is why we are not just born again of Spirit, but of Water and Spirit.  Scripture is very clear on that.  If it was just a matter of symbolism I doubt that every Christian everywhere would do it.  Or that Jesus would command, yes command, that the apostles go out and Baptize.  Not just preach, not just spread the word, but Baptize.

mk, of course you are correct (from the Catholic view) that baptism doesn’t require an interior conversion because the infant hasn’t agreed to be baptized.  The child has not made any decision.  There is no support that the event of Baptism results in conversion.

mk, the commission given the apostles to go out and baptize all nations is not just to line people up and process them through the act of baptism.  The Holy Spirit does not come to dwell within men and women by virtue of stepped regimenation.  There are many former Catholics baptized as infants who are now Born Again Evangelicals.  They understand what has has happened.

Here’s a thought.  Jesus was baptized.  And at the moment of His baptism, the Holy Spirit appeared and God spoke saying This is my beloved Son.  It is one of the few times the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all there at the same time.  Must have been pretty dang important.  Doesn’t sound like symbolism to me.

It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”  Mark 1:9-11

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son,* with whom I am well pleased.” Matt 3:16

Roman Catholics have separated Baptism from Confirmation, but it was not always so.  Eastern Rite Catholics Confirm and Baptize their infants at the same time.  Confirmation is a continuation of Baptism and is considered a second Sacrament because the Spirit came down and filled the apostles on Pentecost.  But the Spirit enters you at Baptism.  Baptism was introduced in two parts in Scripture (Baptism by water/Baptism by fire), but baptism covers both.  The reason earlier passages (mostly John) speak of Jesus baptizing with fire is because the Holy Spirit had not descended yet.  There was a very small window when the two actions were separate.  But once the spirit descended, Baptism was WATER and SPIRIT. 

N.O,

[the commission given the apostles to go out and baptize all nations is not just to line people up and process them through the act of baptism. ]

Really?  Then why is that exactly what they did?

mk, the apostles did not baptize people like an assembly line.  Of what value is baptism if the person has no understanding of the event?

[There are many former Catholics baptized as infants who are now Born Again Evangelicals.  They understand what has has happened.]

It is precisely because the DON’T understand what happened that they are now evangelicals.  What you get, as converts, are weak Catholics, Cafeteria Catholics, uncatechized Catholics, lapsed Catholics and dissenting Catholics.  Catholics who don’t like what the Church teaches (and I don’t mean about baptism)...Catholics who think it’s about emotionalism, the music…Catholics who don’t like the teachings on birth control, abortion, homosexuality.  Catholics who are bored or filled with pride or just plain lost.  But no solid Catholic who understands his/her faith leaves. 

However, the protestants who come home are usually reluctant.  They don’t come because they are dissatisfied.  Many, many of them start out like you, trying to debunk the Faith and end up finding out the Faith is Truth.  It is by studying what we teach that they come to see the Truth.  I have yet to meet a Catholic who is now a protestant who truly understood what he left. 

Mk,
There are a number of problems with infant baptisms. One is that there is no example of them in Scripture. Two, it denies that faith, repentance and knowledge of Christ precedes baptism. Three, it has resulted in millions of baptized unbelievers. Fourth, infant baptism does not really catch on until centuries after the apostles.

mk, Jesus had no need of baptism to receive the Holy Spirit so the act was symbolic for you and for me.  The man Jesus is Holy God in the flesh
(Father, Son and Spirit).

[mk, the apostles did not baptize people like an assembly line.  Of what value is baptism if the person has no understanding of the event?]

First, I never said the lined them up in an assembly line, you did.  But I am saying that they baptized them in droves.  Baptism, Confirmation and First Eucharist used to be done whenever a Bishop came that way.  Whole towns would be baptized.  But Scripture tells us:

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.  Sounds like an assembly was baptized that day, no?

I asked you a number of questions up above and you haven’t answered them (unless I missed them).  But here is another. 

On whose authority do you reject the Church and claim that your “vision” is the correct one?  I mean 1500 years we all believed the same thing.  Then in a few years span, this whole new way of thinking came about.  Who had the authority to do this?  To change the accepted Church?  Who had the authority to say that some books of Scripture were not Scripture.  Where did that authority come from?  How do you know?

[One is that there is no example of them in Scripture.]

Of course there is. 

“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon
“If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized”

Entire households were baptized.  Scripture says so.  Households include children.  Let the children come unto me. 

Plus, Baptism replaces circumcision.  Infants were circumcised.  So were adults if they were converts.  BUT, most were circumcised at 8 days old.  Which answers N.O.‘s question…what good is to baptize an infant if he doesn’t know what is happening to him.

mk, True that Catholics leave the church for all the likely self-serving reasons you mention.  Often they just stop going to church.  They also leave because they have been Born Again of the Spirit.

Mk,
That is a good question—“On whose authority do you reject the Church and claim that your “vision” is the correct one?”
To answer it, we have to understand what was happening a couple of centuries or so before the Protestant Reformation. There were a number of factors involved. One had to do with the corruption that was an ongoing problem in your church. I know this goes against the idea that the RCC is the church of Christ and cannot err but the facts of history and theology show otherwise.

[Two, it denies that faith, repentance and knowledge of Christ precedes baptism. Three, it has resulted in millions of baptized unbelievers.]

No it doesn’t.  It simply means that they have not cooperated with Grace.

Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.”

So it is totally possible to be baptized but not believe.  You must be baptized, but baptism is no guarantee you will be believe, it is only a guarantee that you will be given the graces/ability to believe.  Whether you do or not is up to you.  One does not have to believe to be baptized.

mk, re your comment “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.  Sounds like an assembly was baptized that day, no?  mk, using your same example from ACTS, then why do Catholis find illegitimacy when an “assembly” comes forward and “accepts the message” at a Billy Graham event when he preaches the gospel?

Mk,
Entire households would not necessarily include infants. The children coming to Jesus has nothing to do with baptism. There is not one verse where Jesus says they must be baptized.
Baptism did not replace circumcision. These are 2 entirely different concepts that are meant to show something specific. Circumcision would not apply to females. Water baptism in the Bible is constantly tied in with repentance, faith and discipleship (eg Matt 3:6, 11; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 36-37; 16:14-15, 31-34; 1Cor 1:16: compare with 16:15f; Eph 4:5); circumcision is referenced to no one’s faith but Abraham’s.

Erik,

It is a good question.  So why didn’t you answer it.  On whose authority did you leave the established (by God) Church?

There is corruption wherever there are men.  That is not the point.  There is plenty of corruption in your churches.  So what?  The question is, who gave you the authority to “break” God’s Church?  And throw out Scripture?

Erik,

[Entire households would not necessarily include infants]

I didn’t say they necessarily contained infants.  But given that fact that NUMEROUS households were baptized, what are the odds then none of them contained children?  If baptism is necessary for salvation, and JESUS HIMSELF says that it is, then why would he leave out children?

N.O.

As for circumcision being replaced by Baptism…it most certainly was.  Circumcision was a physical sign that you and your family belonged to the House of Israel.  It left a visible, indelible mark.  Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.  It is a metaphysical sign that you belong to the Family of God.  It leaves an invisible, indelible mark.

The Old Testament was about the physical world, the New Testament is about the Spiritual.  Everything in the OT was precursor, foreshadowing, type of what was to come.  Circumcision was replaced by Baptism.  I’d be willing to bet that even your pastor would agree.

To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to “be saved”. To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever.

Know who said that?

Mk,
Help me out. Where in Scripture did the apostles teach that baptism replaces circumcision? Acts 15 doesn’t. It does not even mention baptism.

Mk,
I gave you some of the answers to your question. Why did the Luther and reformers leave the church? What was your church’ response to them and their charges? Do you know?

This is from a Protestant website:

  Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?

  A. Yes. For they as well as adults belong to God’s covenant and community (Gen. 17:7) and no less than adults are promised forgiveness of sin through Christ’s blood (Matt. 19:14) and the Holy Spirit, who produces faith (Ps. 22:10; Is. 44:1–3; Luke 1:15; Acts 2:39; 16:31).

  Therefore, they, too, ought to be incorporated into the Christian church by baptism, the sign of the covenant, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers (Acts 10:47; 1 Cor. 7:14). This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision (Gen. 17:9–14), in whose place baptism was instituted in the New Testament (Col. 2:11–13).1

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/35-1/does-baptism-replace-circumcision-an-examination-of-the-relationship-between-circumcision-and-baptism-in-colossians-2-11-12

Ex opere operato:

This is a Latin Phrase that means “from the work done”...as in it is the work itself that has an effect.

It is not our belief that brings the Grace but the act/Sacrament itself.  The Grace is a gift…freely given.

In modern usage, the phrase often refers to the idea that sacraments are efficacious in and of themselves rather than depending on the attitude either of the minister or the recipient. For example, Confirmation might be held to bestow the Holy Spirit regardless of the attitude of both the bishop and the person being confirmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato

It’s opposite is ex opere operantis which means from the action of the doer. 

Baptism falls into the first category.

[I gave you some of the answers to your question. Why did the Luther and reformers leave the church? What was your church’ response to them and their charges? Do you know?]

No Erik, you didn’t even come close to answering it.  You keep telling me why they “broke” the Church that God instituted.  I know why.  I am asking you ON WHOSE AUTHORITY they broke the Church that God instituted.  On whose authority did they eliminate books of inspired and inerrant words of God?

Erik,

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And even when you were dead [in] transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he brought you to life along with him, having forgiven us all our transgressions;

Mk,
i know some protestants baptize their infants. These are not New Testament baptisms. They fail in the pre-condtions for baptism as we see in the NT.

Can you give me the reasons why the Reformers left the RCC? Yes or no? If yes, then what were they? Then we can discuss if they broke away from a legitimate authority and if it indeed the RCC is truly the church Christ established or not.

The Reformers did not take any books out of the Bible. It was Trent that “elevated” the deuteron-canonical OT books to full canon status. Before this time, these books were not considered inspired-inerrant Word of God.

Mk,
By whom is the circumcision that Paul is mentioning in Colossians being performed by? Is he referring to some kind of ritual that men do or is it by the HS?
Secondly, does he say anything in this passage about baptism replacing circumcision?

mk, Jesus (as an infant) was dedicated in the temple.  Evangelicals still conduct child dedications before the congregation with parents pledging to raise the infant in the admonishion of the Lord.  The child will then (hopefully) make a decision to be baptized.  The child or adult makes a personal decsion.  An infant makes no decision.

Erik,

Yes.  And I will happily give you those reasons when you answer my question.

Erik,

All baptism is done by the Holy Spirit.  We can’t keep going over the same things. 

Try to understand this basic premise.  We are human beings.  Human beings have 2 natures.  Physical and Spiritual.  Body and Soul.  We cannot see spiritual things.  We can sense them, and they can affect us, be they are of a different “world”.  God, knowing this, always has a physical component to His sacraments.  Water in the case of Baptism.  Oil for Confirmation.  Bread and Wine for the Eucharist.  But there is a hidden reality to these things.  He uses physical elements in deference to US.  It is a way for us, as physical beings, to experience in a real way, things of the spiritual world. 

This is why I say it is the invisible being made visible through the physical.

mk, you said the Catholic view is that Baptism “provides grace.”  What is the manifestation of this grace in the infant who has had made no decision?  Often the child (and parents) never end up in church and have no relationship with Christ.  The parents only desired the event of Baptismal ritual be performed as a “work.”

Mk,
Some of the reasons for the Reformation was that the RCC was corrupt in its clergy, doctrine and practice. The Reformers wanted to reform the church to way that Christ had established it in the beginning. The leaders of the RCC refused to repent and reform the church and so the Reformers had no choice but to leave and re-establish churches that reflected more closely the church Christ intended. This could not have happened unless the Spirit of Christ was behind the Reformers just as He was behind the church in Acts.

Your turn.

N.O.

You have to read what I write or I fear I am going to become to frustrated to continue.  I understand fully, that an infant cannot make a decision.  I understand fully that you believe that a decision is part of baptism.  I understand fully that you think it is impossible to baptize someone who is unaware that they are being baptized and unable to consent and understand.

We do not believe this.  I explained this as best as I can when I posted the phrases Ex opere operato and Ex opere operantis.  I believe that Baptism is the former, you believe it is the latter.  I believe it is a work that is done TO ME and you believe it is a work done BY YOU.

Until the 1500’s NO ONE believed as you did.  You ask me often to show where the early church said or did so and so…and you even balk when there is a 50 year difference between Christs death and the first written accounts of an act, but NO ONE has ever believed that Baptism is anything other than what the Catholic Church teaches until the 1500’s.  That means something.  It means that someone, not GOD, not JESUS, but some man (and I do not care what his reasons were for doing so) tore the Church that Christ instituted apart on his OWN AUTHORITY.  So no matter what written documents were or were not written, and no matter how many years passed before certain doctrines or dogmas were documented…it does not matter…because your first documentation of any kind from anyone came from men who changed the game after 1500 years and did it on their own authority.  It simply holds no weight.

[Some of the reasons for the Reformation was that the RCC was corrupt in its clergy, doctrine and practice. The Reformers wanted to reform the church to way that Christ had established it in the beginning. The leaders of the RCC refused to repent and reform the church and so the Reformers had no choice but to leave and re-establish churches that reflected more closely the church Christ intended. This could not have happened unless the Spirit of Christ was behind the Reformers just as He was behind the church in Acts.]

You are obviously not going to rest until you manage to tell that the church was corrupt.  I have NEVER denied this.  NEVER defended it.  And already KNOW IT. 

I have not, will not, asked you WHY the church split.  I don’t care.  I have asked you one question, and one question only.

ON WHOSE AUTHORITY?

Erik,

[This could not have happened unless the Spirit of Christ was behind the Reformers just as He was behind the church in Acts.}

C’mon.  Seriously?  I’m sure the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and Buddhists feel the same way.  You tellin’ me that it was the Spirit of Christ that caused Henry VII to split the Church also? 

Mk,
On the authority of Scripture. It is the Scripture that pointed to the corruption of the RCC and the Scripture is to be obeyed when the church is corrupted.

“‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved,’ that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary, divine water profitably. ... But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation”

“He always [the Christian] has enough to do to believe firmly what Baptism promises and brings—victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. In short the blessings of Baptism are so boundless ... Now here in Baptism there is brought free to every man’s door just such a priceless medicine which swallows up death and saves the lives of all men. To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, “But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body.” ... No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than Baptism, for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire”

“Thus we see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new man, always remains until we pass from this present misery to eternal glory. ... As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism ..

Who do you think said this?  St. Augustine?  John Paul II?  Aquinas?

Erik,

Thank you for answering the question that I asked.  Now, where in Scripture does it say that if the Church begins corrupt, you can chuck it and start another?

Mk,
Yes. The HS was behind the Reformation because of its success and its adherence to the Scripture in doctrine. Henry VII was not a Reformer.

Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and Buddhists all teach false doctrines. There doctrines on the nature of God do not line up with Scripture. Therefore, the HS could not be said to be truly guiding them. Buddhists don’t even claim a HS as far as i know.

Sorry, I sent that too soon.  And I meant to say becomes corrupt, not begins corrupt.

Christ instituted a Church.  He calls Her His Bride.  Where in Scripture does it say that if the Church becomes corrupted, if the Church that Christ instituted, and promised would not fail, would be protected by the Holy Spirit becomes corrupted, that you had any right to disassemble HIS Church.

Mk,
No one should stay in any church that teaches false doctrines and practices. See also 2 John 9-11.

Mk,
Remember, it was your church that was the cause of the Reformation. It was its corrupt doctrines practices that caused it. It was not the Reformers.

Erik,

[No one should stay in any church that teaches false doctrines and practices]

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  Either the Church was teaching false doctrines and was NEVER the Church that Christ instituted, or it was NOT teaching false doctrines and became corrupt.  Pick one.

Claiming that it was OUR fault that the reformers split is nonsense.  That’s what abusive husbands do.  They blame the victim.  I have already said that MEN sin, and MEN make up the Church.  Where there are MEN there is corruption.  But there is a DIVINE Church, which Christ PROMISED that the gates of hell would not prevail against.  He didn’t say hell wouldn’t try, he said it would not prevail.  NOBODY had any right, for any reason, to disband the CHURCH that JESUS instituted.  Period.  Christ promised that whatever ever flaws the human Church had, the Holy Spirit would protect it and keep it from defeat.  The reformers deserted the ship like rats.  They did not stay and fight for Her.  They ran and they caused a schism like no other.  That is not what Christ wanted when He gave her to the world.  UNITY.  That is what He wanted.

What happens when Luthers Church wasn’t teaching what the next guy thought he should teach.  They split again.  And when that Church wasn’t teaching what they thought it should teach?  It split again.

No Erik, it was not the Churches fault.  It was the fault of those who attempted to destroy the bride of Christ.  And that includes those that tried to destroy her from within!  Trust me, there still at it.

Now, can you tell me who said that quote on Baptism?

Dudes.  How come no one is saying church leaders wanted to kill Luther?  The Bible allows for marital separation, in cases of adultery.  We aren’t forced to stay in union with someone that wants to kill us.  None of you will deny those church leaders were not hearing from the Holy Spirit, when they planned to murder Martin Luther.  Right?  It was leave, or die.

Erik,

Henry VII was not a Reformer.

But he thought the Church was wrong so he left.  And started a new Church.

Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and Buddhists all teach false doctrines. There doctrines on the nature of God do not line up with Scripture. Therefore, the HS could not be said to be truly guiding them. Buddhists don’t even claim a HS as far as i know.

YOU say they are false.  They say otherwise.  And therein lies the problem.  This is EXACTLY why Jesus gave us a governing Church.  To avoid the whole he said/she said thing.  We have an authority.  A GOD APPOINTED authority.  The mormons do not.  The Jehovah witnesses do not and the Protestants do not.  They rest on their own authority and their own unauthorized interpretations of Scripture.  Only the Catholic Church is protected from the mistakes you guys make because only the Catholic Church was instituted by God.

Heck, even the Lutheran Church is named after a MAN.  Not the Christian Church, but the LUTHERan Church.  That should tell you something.

Now who do you think wrote those quotes on the SACRAMENT of baptism?

Ian,

[How come no one is saying church leaders wanted to kill Luther?]

Source please?

NO ONE is saying that the MEN within the Church were not corrupt.  Awful at times.  Downright evil.  That has already been established.  It does not matter.  Here is the proof.  In spite of the split, eventually the 99 thingys were corrected.  That’s how the Church works.  We trust the words of Jesus, and we trust the Holy Spirit to do his job.  Luther, etal, did not trust the Holy Spirit and instead took matters into their own hands. 

Are you trying to tell me there is no corruption in the Protestant Church???  Really? 

I like this MK quote about the New Testament church - “This is why I say it is the invisible being made visible through the physical.” Reminds me of circumsion of the heart replacing physical circumsion. It’s invisible. But real.  Explains a lot.  Cool. thanks. 

Mk,
What you have in your church is some truth and some error. The problem you have in it primarily has to do with an authority that claims to be incapable of error (something which Jesus never promised) and so it is impossible to reform it when it does error. Take the inquisitions. At the time the RCC thought this was right but now realizes it was major mistake.

Since I have answered your questions on the Reformation its your turn to tell me what were the causes of the Reformation? Have you read or listened to anything on church history during this period?

You are welcome Ian.  It is the crux of what a sacrament is.  All 7 of them.  You should read Theology of the Body.  Most important Catholic Teaching in the last 500 years!  Pope John Paul II was AMAZING.  Another example of what has always been believed but only understood by a few.  JPII expressed it in a way that every man can grasp it.  And, oh, how grateful we all are.

Erik,

I could name a few of the complaints.  Many of them were legitimate.  That’s what you aren’t getting.  No one said that what Luther was fighting against was not true.  I don’t know how to be any clearer.  In every stinkin’ age the Church has passed, there has been corruption.  Look at Judas.  Christ wasn’t even dead and already there was corruption in His Church.  Jesus never said this wouldn’t happen.

Focus.  The gates of hell will not prevail.

NOT the gates of hell will not do damage.  Satan WANTS the Catholic Church to fail.  It is His downfall!  His greatest enemy.  He would do ANYTHING to destroy it.  But we are protected against destruction.

IF as you say, the Holy Spirit was TRULY guiding Luther and his ilk, then the Catholic Church would no longer exist!  But it does.  That should tell you something.  Would the Holy Spirit have allowed the Catholic Church to continue and FLOURISH if He was establishing a new one????

You say that the Church has some error and some Truth.  Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, it is you who are in error.  That perhaps, God knew what He was doing and didn’t need Luther or Calving to “fix” things?  That perhaps, THEY got it wrong?  That what the Church teaches is correct and that Luther etal just might talk a good game that has no substance?

Because you see Erik, if you are right and I am wrong, then Christianity and Scripture is a lie.  It’s all a hoax.  Either Jesus instituted a governing Church that has existed for 2,000 years and promised to protect it from destruction and those promises are true or He promised these things and they were not true.  What is an objective fact is that He did speak those words.  So tell me, was it a hoax or was it for real?

Mk,
Your church sought out and murdered a number of the Reformers. They burned Jan Hus at the stake. During the period of the inquisitions many lost their lives at the hands of your church.

As for authority, Protestants have the authority of the Scripture on their side. That’s why we compare doctrines with the inspired-inerrant Word. Only the Word has this ultimate authority. That how we can say to the Mormon, JW and Buddhist they are wrong because their beliefs don’t square with Scripture. The same applies to the doctrines of your church. Many of them are either false or un-biblical and would not be binding. You as a RC cannot hold your leaders accountable because you accept the premise that they are infallible and incapable of error. What is sad, is that Jesus never promised this.

Never said there was no corruption in Protestant churches. It is expected because men are fallen. That is our advantage that we can correct errors via the Scripture. No man, no church body stands equal to or above the Scripture.

As I said, in your church you cannot correct what a council or pope proclaims even if there are errors.

Mk,
Did God allow the Jews in the time of Christ to offer animal sacrifice in the temple after the death of Christ? Keep in mind, that on the day Christ died that the animal sacrifice was no longer needed and yet it went on until the temple was destroyed in 70 ad. God does allow false teachings and institutions to exist while the true one is present. Your premise does not follow.

You are assuming that the NT church is identical to the RCC. That is not the case at all. Just compare to the churches in structure and doctrine and you will a wide difference between the 2.

You write-” Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, it is you who are in error.’???. Yes, but you would have to show me the facts that I am wrong. So far you have not done so. Could you be wrong?

Erik

[Only the Word has this ultimate authority.]

We’ve been over this.  Not only does Scripture not say, nor even imply, that only Scripture is the ultimate authority, but it explicitly says otherwise.  In more than one place.

And on whose authority are you interpreting this Scripture?  Anyone can (and have in the case of the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons) can interpret Scripture to say anything they want, and then prove it with passages and then claim that THEY have the Truth because it says so right there in Scripture according to their interpretation.  You have worked yourself into a corner Erik.

You have the authority of Scripture when Scripture does not give you that authority and Scripture is only as good as the interpretation.  You have no authority when it comes to interpretation except your claim to be right.  Only the Catholic Church can show that SHE has the authority given to her by JESUS in Scripture.  Nowhere, Erik, can you show me where Jesus gave this authority to ANYONE ELSE. 

[What is sad, is that Jesus never promised this.]

Of course He did.  And I’ve proven it over and over.  You don’t want to accept the clear words of Our Lord, that’s fine, but anyone who can read can see them.  It’s not like they are the “hidden words of Scripture”.  You don’t need a magic crystal, or a set of deciphers or a special lamp.

You are ROCK and upon THIS rock I will build MY CHURCH.  And the gates of hell will not prevail against it.  Period.  That’s it.  If you argue with the words that Jesus spoke, clearly and plainly and then try to tell me that YOU have the authority to interpret Scripture I’m afraid I just can’t take you very seriously. 

You simply have no authority to interpret Scripture, make doctrine or declare dogma.  None.  Your argument is circular.  “I have the authority because by my authority I say that I do”.  So by your own authority you have the authority.  Cuz you sure didn’t get the authority from Scripture, or Jesus.

God does allow false teachings and institutions to exist while the true one is present. Your premise does not follow.

Erik, where is that temple now?  Who is sacrificing animals now?  The temple, by your own admission was DESTROYED.  Just as the Catholic Church would have been if the Holy Spirit saw fit to start another.  He cannot have two Churches now anymore than He could have them then.  The old religion fell.  Yes there are still Jews today, but they are not the same Jews as in Jesus’ time.  Their religion as they knew it is gone.  What is left is a shadow of that religion.  WE are the new Jerusalem.  It was replaced.

Of course He allows false institutions to exist.  But not HIS Church. He would not allow two TRUE Churches to exist.  One must be false.  If ours is false then yours is false.  It has to be so, because yours came from ours.  You wouldn’t even exist if we didn’t.  If ours is True then yours is false.  If yours is true then Christianity is a lie.

I’ve asked you three times now to tell me who you think wrote that quote about baptism.  When you’ve answered, I’ll continue. 

Meanwhile, look at this one:

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.

What does that sound like to you?  Is it familiar?  Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? 

I’m serious now, read it and answer my questions.  This is important.

Mk,
How did the OT Jews interpret Scripture before the time of Christ? The leaders in the time of Jesus were the Pharisees. Was Jesus obligated to follow them since they had authority?

There is not one verse in the entire NT where the RCC is given the authority to interpret Scripture.

In regards to your church interpreting Scripture it has never done so. There is no work you can turn to that will tell you if you have the correct interpretation of a verse. It has never infallibly interpreted the Scriptures.

Remember also that every time you bring up a Scripture to support your view you must interpret it. So the question is: who gave you the authority to interpret Scripture? 

What quote about baptism are you referring to?

I have been to a mass. There are serious theological problems with it.
It does not follow that your church is true because Protestants came from the ancestors of the Reformers. Your church teaches error as I have pointed out a number of times. Some are more serious than others.
If your church was the true church how could it be responsible for so much evil in its history? If the HS was guiding it as you claim, we would not see this.

Erik,

I feel like I’m spinning my wheels here.  We have been over this…

Jesus says:  You are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will prevail against it.  That is the institution of the visible Church on earth.  Then He says “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

First He institutes the Church, then He hands over the authority of said Church to Peter.  IF, and this is apparently a big IF, you understand the significance of the keys, then you understand that Peter was given authority.  You also understand that the way the “keys” work in those days is that whoever hold them has the authority of the king himself.  If the key hold should die before the king returns then he is to pass the keys on to the next in line and so on.  Normally the king would return before the keys passed hands too many times, but in the case of Jesus it’s been two thousand years.  That means the keys have been being passed all that time and with them the authority.

If you are unsure of what the keys mean, look it up.  As for the statement “What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven I refer you, again, to Isaiah 22.  You see the same scene play out.  The authority is taken from one and given to another and the EXACT SAME WORDS are spoken.  What you bind is bound, what you loose is loosed.

Once you establish, AND I HAVE, that the authority rested with Peter and subsequently his successors, it follows that what he OR his successor binds is what is bound.  There is the AUTHORITY from which I draw my interpretation.  Not MY interpretation, but the interpretation of the Authority that Christ appointed.

I’m not going to repeat this so read it a few times.  I have established on whose authority my Faith rests.  You have not. You say that by your own authority, YOU, ERIK, have interpreted Scripture to say that YOU, ERIK have the authority to interpret Scripture.  That is a circular argument and furthermore is not backed up by said Scripture.  LUTHER was not given the keys.  I was not given the keys.  YOU were not given the keys.  NO ONE has the authority except the CHURCH.  JESUS SAID SO.

If this is not true then scripture LIES.  Can you really not see that?

Enough.  I’m not going over this again.

The Church has the authority.  It always has.  I follow what the Church teaches because that is what Jesus told me to do, IN SCRIPTURE.

I do not need to remember that every time I bring up Scripture I am interpreting it…because I AM NOT INTERPRETING it.  The Church has done that for me.  I trust Jesus.  Jesus told me to trust the church.  Therefore I trust the Church.  I trust the Holy Spirit.  He promised to guard the CHurch against destruction.  Therefore I believe that the Church, the ORIGINAL Church is true because I believe that the Holy Spirit is true.  IF the CAtholic Church is a lie then it is ALL a lie.

THIS QUOTE:  I feel like you only read parts of what I write.  It’s really, really frustrating.

“‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved,’ that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary, divine water profitably. ... But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation”

“He always [the Christian] has enough to do to believe firmly what Baptism promises and brings—victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. In short the blessings of Baptism are so boundless ... Now here in Baptism there is brought free to every man’s door just such a priceless medicine which swallows up death and saves the lives of all men. To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, “But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body.” ... No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than Baptism, for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire”

“Thus we see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new man, always remains until we pass from this present misery to eternal glory. ... As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism ..

Who do you think said this?  St. Augustine?  John Paul II?  Aquinas?

Mk,
Again, you are the one spinning your wheels not me. You assume its the RCC in the NT and I have shown this is not the case at all by structure and doctrine. They are not the same thing.
If by baptism you mean that repentance and faith in Christ precede it then i would agree. If by baptism there is no faith, no knowledge of Christ, no repentance and just baptism then that accomplishes nothing but get someone wet.

I don’t know who wrote what you quoted. Who did?

mk, a few responses to your earlier comments.  1.  I’m not sure if you attempting to tie Mormons, JW’s and Buddhists with Protestants but why bring mention this since there is no value equation.  2.  Are not the gospel and NT letters authoritative since Evangelicals and Catholics both believe the Bible is inerrant?  3.  It is sure not my wish to frustrate you.  Truly that is not my intention.  John the Baptist called people publicly to repent and be baptized.  Thus it is an event you do of your choosing to affirm your desire.  It is done to you (as you say) but out of your consent to become baptized.

Mk,
You are interpreting Scripture just as you have to interpret my posts. There is no getting around interpreting. In fact you have to interpret the interpretations of your church like everyone else does.

I am super, super tired and need to go to bed.  I get cranky when I’m tired, lol, so I’m sorry if I sounded snippy tonight.  Really.  You’ve done nothing wrong, it’s all me.  But it’s best if I quit for now.  BUT, I really, really, really want you to read the passage above and tell me what you think of it…where it’s wrong, where it’s right…okay?

And then, please, read this one and also tell me what you think of/about it?  Again, I’m sorry if I was harsh tonight.  My bad.  Sadly it will probably happen again as I’m really a morning person, but I’ll try to do better and quit sooner when I feel my patience running thin.  Peace and have a good night.

On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts. The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings. Then we all stand up together and pray.

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.

We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration.

mk, the man Jesus was Jewish, not Catholic.  I thought we should keep this in mind.

Arrrrggggh, just when I thought it was safe to get out of the water.

First, thank you for reading that quote.  But tell me what you thought of it.  Was it right?  Wrong?  Where?

Second, the reason I mention the J.W.‘s, Mormons etal is to show that everyone who believes anything can use Scripture to prove it based on their own authority which is precisely why God, foreseeing this dilemma, gave us a definitive authority.  An authority to interpret Scripture.

Third, yes we all interpret, but we don’t all make doctrine based on our interpretations.

Fourth, I know you aren’t trying to frustrate me, like I said, by this time of night I’m just wiped out.  This is pretty heady stuff.  So no worries.

Fifth, The Roman Catholic Church is only one of many rites.  It is not the only “Catholic” Church.  There are a number of rites, each with their own customs, but all adhere to all the same doctrines and dogmas and all acknowledge the authority of the Pope.  There is Eastern Rite, Caldean Rite, and dozens of others.  So you are right to say that the first Church was not the RCC.  But it was the Catholic Church.  There was no other.  Catholic simply means Universal. 

Sixth,  when I say “done to you” I do not mean that someone else pours water over your head.  I don’t mean physically “done to you”...that is obvious.  I mean something supernatural is done to you.  Something invisible is done to you…you see the difference, right?

Seventh, I GOTTA GO TO BED!  lol

I’ll be back bright and early!

N.O.

[mk, the man Jesus was Jewish, not Catholic.  I thought we should keep this in mind.]

Wasn’t that the whole point?  He came to establish a new covenant with the old religion?  Which became the Church?  Are you saying that Jesus didn’t establish Christianity?  That we are all still Jewish? 

N.O.

If it makes you feel more comfortable simply switch the word Universal for Catholic…Jesus belonged to the Universal Church, right?  Catholic means universal, so if He was the head of the Universal Church then He was Catholic.  The term just wasn’t used, but the meaning was there.

mk, in Acts 16:30, the jailer questioned Paul and Silas to wit:  ““Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”  They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”  Now we recognize the jailer to be quite serious so that is a critical element to the jailer’s salvation.  mk, I understand your reservation re OSAS because many poorly taught Protestants will claim the matter of being saved as if it is pixie dust.  In fairness, we both know many Catholic parents rush to baptize infants and they, too, think the event is magical.  Such Catholics also are poorly educated.

What are we to do with Romans 10:9 “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”  Paul does not say “and be baptized.”  It’s the “believe in your heart” which will compel you to come forward and be baptized.

mk, it’s OK.  The hour is late.  No one is offended if you feel a little cranky.  No problem if you wish to turn in.  This is good conversation.  I am not looking for you to leave the Catholic church.  We are only examining the faith.  Tomorrow is another day since you are a morning person.

mk, just kidding. No, we are not still Jewish.  Ann Coulter already felt the wrath of CNBC host Donny Deutsch for saying he was not a completed Jew.  Biblically, Ann is correct.  The logical progression for a Jew is to become . . . Christian.

Mk,
From what i gather from your post “on Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members…” looks fine to me. It reminds me of an ancient church service in the early centuries.

I don’t think of authority when it comes to interpreting Scripture correctly. Protestants have been interpreting the Scriptures for centuries without appealing the RCC. In fact, RC scholars even use Protestant commentaries as do Protestants would use RC commentaries.
What matters in interpreting is using exegetical principles to determine the meaning of a text. Much can be learned from these methods and it helps us to understand what the authors of Scripture meant when they wrote.

It may have worked well in the early centuries to depend on what the church said because many people were illiterate and did not have their own Bibles. In this case it made sense for the church to be the only one to interpret Scripture. With the advent of the Reformation, the enlightenment, the printing press and more and more people getting educated the idea that the church alone is the only one to interpret Scripture could no longer be sustained.

Take the printing press. Once Bibles were translated into the language of the people, that changed everything because more and more people were reading it and this eventually would cause problems for the church. Today its almost the opposite. Most people don’t read or study it in the church and so rely on what the culture says. I just saw a poll that shows 43% of RC support gay marriage. These includes many of its leaders. I know a priest or 2 that does. These RC’s either don’t know what the Scripture and your church says or don’t care. Its mind numbing and tragic.

Hope you have a good sleep.

Erik,

[From what i gather from your post “on Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members…” looks fine to me. It reminds me of an ancient church service in the early centuries.]

Exactly.  But it is also a perfect description of the Catholic Mass.  That is exactly how a Mass looks.  So if that is what Mass looked like in the early Church, and that is what the Mass looks like now, and it looks nothing like a Protestant service, what does that tell you?

This passage is of special import:

On the conclusion of our prayer, bread and wine and water are brought forward. The president offers prayers and gives thanks to the best of his ability, and the people give assent by saying, “Amen”. The eucharist is distributed, everyone present communicates, and the deacons take it to those who are absent.

This is a description of the Eucharist as it is understood in the Catholic Church today.  Here are the parts that I left out, clarifying what Eucharist means…For the record, this was a letter defending the accusations that Catholics were cannibals.  And it was written in 150AD.  Note also that they met every Sunday.  Mass is an obligation.  It is a mortal sin to miss Mass (sans a grave reason….serious illness, not a football game). 

No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.

The apostles, in their recollections, which are called gospels, handed down to us what Jesus commanded them to do. They tell us that he took bread, gave thanks and said: Do this in memory of me. This is my body. In the same way he took the cup, he gave thanks and said: This is my blood. The Lord gave this command to them alone. Ever since then we have constantly reminded one another of these things. The rich among us help the poor and we are always united. For all that we receive we praise the Creator of the universe through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

Erik,

Also could you please expound on your thoughts about the quotes on Baptism?

N.O.,

I’d be very curious about your thoughts on both passages also.

N.O.,

Yes.  What must I do to be saved?  Believe and you will be “saved”.  But what if “be saved” means Baptism?  Please read this quote I posted about Baptism and give me your thoughts.  Note that it talks about salvation coming THROUGH Baptism…

“‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved,’ that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary, divine water profitably. ... But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation”

“Thus we see what a great and excellent thing Baptism is, which snatches us from the jaws of the devil and makes God our own, overcomes and takes away sin and daily strengthens the new man, always remains until we pass from this present misery to eternal glory. ... As we have once obtained forgiveness of sins in Baptism ..

Who do you think said this?  St. Augustine?  John Paul II?  Aquinas?

Mk.
Even if this were some kind of mass that would not prove this was from the apostles. Rather it would show that it goes beyond what the Lord Jesus and His apostles taught. For example, if the bread and wine are Jesus, then that would mean the bread and wine are deity. Do you believe that the bread and wine at the mass is literally deity?

Erik,

Do you believe that Jesus instituted a Church?  A universal Church? And that it survived past the death date of the last apostle?  Or did it die with them?

I believe, as did all Christians from the Last Supper on, that the Bread and Wine is the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

Please, Erik, I’m not going to let this go…before we go onto the Eucharist, would you tell me what you find right and what you find wrong with the passage about Baptism?

Mk,
As I said before with baptism, the Scripture always implies repentance and belief in Christ as preconditions for baptism. First a person must see himself as a sinner and in a state of condemnation because he has broken the Law of God. This is where the gospel of Christ comes into play. It tells that man the good news that the Lord Jesus died for his sins and by putting his faith, by entrusting himself to Him he will be saved. Now this is where water baptism comes in. Water baptism is the identification of that person with Christ in His death and resurrection. The physical act of baptism does nothing to the person but it is the person’ faith in Christ where Jesus by his Spirit forgives him and gives him salvation which is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”. (Col 1:27.
The benefits of baptism—“victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, God’s grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit with his gifts.” is not derived from the ritual of baptism but from Christ in Whom we have faith in. It is by faith in Christ that we gain these benefits. Eph 2:8

Mk,
Yes, Jesus did establish a church that has been with us throughout time. He also gave us a pattern in how His church was to be structured and doctrines that were to be believed. All of this is found in the Scripture. It is the Scripture that sets the boundaries on the structure of the church and what it is to be believe and practice. Anything outside of these boundaries is not of Christ. This is where your church runs into so many problems. It has doctrines and has structured itself outside the boundaries of Scripture.

Erik,

So you disagree with the passage?  Because it says:

<B>so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation”

for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire”<?B>

I’m double checking because I do not want to put words into your mouth.

Also, can you tell me where the doctrine of Faith Alone started and when it was first practiced?

Okay, so Jesus established a Church.  Can you show me the first time, post the apostles, where this Church was alive and working according to Scripture?  I mean at what point to you, Erik, say “That is the Church Christ instituted”.  At what point in history do you, Erik, recognize the Church?

Mk,
We see “faith alone” in John 3:14-16, 6:40, 47, 11:25-26; Acts 2:21, 38, 16:30-31. This is when it first started. I could also make a case for it from the OT. 

I would disagree with this if you are saying that the ritual of baptism does this alone without any faith and repentance in Christ: “so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation”

and

for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire”.

Do you think that the church and individuals in the church after the apostles died all had correct and apostolic beliefs?

The passage is saying that salvation comes THROUGH Baptism.  Faith is needed to take the step to be baptized, but salvation itself comes THROUGH the Baptism.

for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire”.

Mk,
The church exist where there are true believers in Christ and seek to live for Him. Where 2-3 are gathered in His name, He is present. These believers would seek to establish churches where it follows the apostolic pattern that Paul for example lays out. That does not mean that people who did this, did it perfectly. Part of the problem is that there were false teachers in the church. Some were excommunicated because their teachings were blatantly false while others were embraced because their teachings were more subtle.

mk, I presume the baptismal quotations are from John Paul II, but even it not, the writings are an extrapolation of Cathoic teaching not found in the gospel.  We do not obtain “holiness” via baptism (as the writer) states since only God is holy.  The blind man at the Pool of Siloam came to faith in Christ and Lord and Savior without baptism as did Zacchaeus, Jarius, and no doubt countless others.  This is not to say they were not later baptized.  It seems, however, your position (the Catholic) is that you must hurry and baptize the infant and “presto”—now all things according to Catholic teaching are assured to fall into place.  The reality is that doesn’t happen.  We all know too many people where that has not been the end result.

[Do you think that the church and individuals in the church after the apostles died all had correct and apostolic beliefs?]

I have never made that claim, have in fact stated that it is not true. 

But again, you are not answering my question.  At what point do you think the Church is recognizable as the Church you believe that Jesus instituted.  In the first century?  The second?  Show me the first time you would look and say “There it is.  THAT is the Church that Jesus established”.

New Observer,

The quote is by Martin Luther.

Mk,
Without faith there is no salvation. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality that can only be gained by faith alone in Christ alone.

mk, you said for 1500 years, Protestant thought had not entered into the church.  Are you denying the work of the Holy Spirit?  You said God can do anything.  Is is possible the Holy Spirit was working to require reform in His church and it was Rome remaining obstinate refusing to (another Catholic term) “cooperate with the Holy Spirit.”

[The church exist where there are true believers in Christ and seek to live for Him.]

By that definition, the Roman Catholic Church would be a valid expression of the Church Jesus instituted.  But again, that is not what I asked you.

I asked you to point to a specific place in history where you think the Church was active according to your doctrine.

[Part of the problem is that there were false teachers in the church. Some were excommunicated because their teachings were blatantly false while others were embraced because their teachings were more subtle.]

Who were these false teachers?  What were their doctrines and who excommunicated them? 

[Without faith there is no salvation. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality that can only be gained by faith alone in Christ alone.]

I agree.  always have, with the exception of those who are to young to understand.  In those cases a set of faithful adults speaks for them, and the Baptism still takes affect.

The only way that what you are saying could be true, is if it is the Faith that saves and not the Baptism.  But according to your own Martin Luther, you know, the guy that gave you Faith Alone and cleaned up the Church from false teachings, it is Baptism itself, that is salvific.

Mk,
I don’t know the specific practices of the churches during the first few centuries. It appears it was not all uniform. We do know that in the 15th century that it did not look entirely like the church that we see in the NT.

Jesus in Rev 2-3 rebukes a number of churches for getting off track. So it appears that this happens quite early. Its interesting that the Lord Jesus does not address any pope in His rebuke of these churches. If the papacy existed then you would think He would have held him responsible for this.

Mk,
Do you have any quotes from Luther that says Baptism itself without faith in Christ saves?

mk, Catholics forever refer to the “fullness” of the faith.  I understand that means the Mass, the Liturgy of the word, Sacramental rites, the rich and historic tradtions, etc.  When it comes to doctrine, however, why is it that Catholic theologians need to “build in” and “build up” so much bureaucracy surrounding the basic gospel message?  Why the need to make the message of Christ more complicated for people to understand?  Furthermore, when I often read Vatican statements and ask Catholics what the Vatican means (or is being said) by the proclimation, I am told even everyday Catholics don’t know why the Vatican cannot simply state their postions in 100 words or less.  A few years ago, one Catholic man at work told me: “I wish the Vatican would write more like normal people speak.”

mk:  Thanks for the Luther quote.  I didn’t know you and the Catholic church do find Luther credible rather than being a heretic and apostate.
No doubt it was his Catholic seminary training leading him to that position.

Let’s do another analogy.

I say that baptism is an act that has an affect ON YOU.  You say you must believe for it to work.

So lets look at something else that has an affect on you.  Something else that can keep you from death.

A smallpox vaccine. 

Suppose a doctor goes to a remote tribe in Africa.  They have never heard of smallpox, never heard of bacteria or viruses, and certainly have no clue what a vaccine is. 

The doctor explains it to them.  He knows that in order to administer the vaccine, he must have their consent.  They must BELIEVE what he is telling them. 

Some believe.  The take the vaccine.  Now in one sense, it is their “faith” that saves them, because without their belief, there would be no consent; without consent, there would be no vaccination.

Tell me now, it is Faith alone that keeps them from getting smallpox?  Or is it the actual vaccine that will protect them?  Are they protected because they believe?  Or because they believe and are then vaccinated?
Are they “SAVED” from smallpox by their Faith?  Or by their Faith combined with their cooperation?

What about the children in that community?  Can the parents speak for them and say because THEY believe, they give permission for their children to be vaccinated also?  Will the vaccine work any less because the children don’t understand or believe that it will?

What if it’s a vaccine against something that will later need a booster shot?  What if they refuse the booster shot 10 years later?  Will they still be “SAVED” from smallpox?

If the doctor were to ask the people of the village, just before He gives them the vaccine “Do you Believe”, would he mean “Because if you believe you don’t need the vaccine?  Your belief is enough”

And if the doctor were to tell 20 more doctors to go and convince other villages that they too would need to be vaccinated, couldn’t he use the phrase “Go…make believers out of them” ?  And wouldn’t it be understood that what he was really saying was “Go.  Convince them to be vaccinated?” 

And couldn’t the headlines read “DOCTORS PREACH VACCINATION TO VILLAGE…THEY BELIEVE…AND MANY LIVES ARE SAVED”?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Couldn’t that read “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, vaccinating them in the name of good health”?

N.O.,

But he DID have that position, didn’t he.  So we see that from the beginning of the Church up to an including Luther, Baptism was viewed as salvific.  So on whose authority did this belief change?

mk, you asked Eric:  [I asked you to point to a specific place in history where you think the Church was active according to your doctrine.]  Surely you would not deny the Great Awakening in the United States in the early to middle 1800’s.  Surely you studied in school what French political writer, thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville had to say about the church in America.

N.O.,

Lol…I’d say it is because given the 2,000 years of history, biographies, encyclicals, doctrine etc, the task is daunting. 

While the Church must be able to teach and reach us peons, it must also be able to reach the highest heights.  When you have the likes of men with minds like Aquinas and Augustine to contend with, the language can get pretty overwhelming.

But for every simple article of Faith, there is a plethora of intellectual minds waiting to pick it apart.  I might be satisfied with “Baptism is necessary for salvation” but a greater mind won’t be.  So the conversations and debates begin.  And they are WAY over my head.

But we have the Catechism, and boatloads of books (though there you have to be careful as a theologian does not an authority make) to help us wade through the mire.

A perfect example is JPII and Theology of the Body.  The Church has always believed and taught what John Paul II says, but he has made it totally accessible to those of us with lesser intellectual skills.

All of a sudden I am able to understand my own body in relationship to the Mystical Body of Christ, the Eucharist, my husband, Christ and the Church, the Trinity to each other, the Trinity to me, me to you…and St. Paul said the whole thing in two sentences.

“For this reason a man shall leave [his] father and [his] mother
and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh.”
This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

Dang straight it was a mystery…until JPII put it into laymans terms.

Just look at this thread.  Do you think that anyone reading it wouldn’t say “Why the heck do you guys go on and on and on…couldn’t you just say it in 5 comments or less”?  lol again.

N.O.

Are you saying that the first example we have of the Church that Jesus established was in America in 1800?

No, mk.  You asked for “one” example, post 1500AD.  I gave you one example you asked for.

mk, your problem with OSAS are still unsupported because biblically Catholic teaching rejects too much of what Scripture says regarding the King and His Cross.  There is a rejection that Christ can be separated from those who are His (Romans 8:35-39).  There is a rejection that Christ has perfected for all time those who are His (Hebrews 10:14).  There is a rejection that Christ paid for your sin fully and completely for all time (Colossians 2:13-14).  There is a rejection that Christ’s sacrifical life saves us FOREVER and the we are no longer in danger from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9-10)—and—that He has set us free from the OT law of sin and death (Romans 8:2).  There is a rejection of the doctrine of the elect and your adoption in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-6).  There is a rejection that the believer’s life has been predestined to be conformed to the image and likeness of Christ (Romans 8:28-30). 

N.O.,

[No, mk.  You asked for “one” example, post 1500AD.  I gave you one example you asked for.]

Fair enough….but my original question to Erik (and of course to you) was to show me where the FIRST time the Church was as it should be. 

mk, these are perhaps the two most important areas.  Catholic teaching rejects the power of the Holy Spirit to both keep and help the believer persevere in life (Romans 8:26-27).  Additionally, it is also a rejection of John 6:37-40 that all whom the Father has given the Son can lose their salvation.

Those aren’t rejections N.O…those are misunderstandings on your part of what those passages mean.  If you want we can take each one but I fear I’d answer them only to have you come back in a day and repeat the same statement.

First, can I have an example of the FIRST time in history that the Church taught OSAS, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.  I’m assuming that is the basic criteria for when the Church was fully expressing itself as Jesus wanted, true?  So until these doctrines were embraced everything else was false teaching?  So when and where can you show me the FIRST time that the Church was true to what Jesus established?

Oh and N.O.,

I asked for the first time POST THE APOSTLES, not post 1500AD.  In between the last apostle and today, when is the FIRST time the Church that Christ established fit your criteria?  You keep telling me that the Catholic Church has always gotten it wrong, that they teach false doctrine.  So I am trying to figure out who FIRST got it right?  And when?

N.O.,

{Catholic teaching rejects the power of the Holy Spirit to both keep and help the believer persevere in life]

Ummmm…not only does she NOT reject that, I have stated as much myself.

And why is it possible for the power of the Holy Spirit to both keep and preserve you and me, but not the Blessed Virgin?

Do we or do we not have free will? 

Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,

Is there a difference between everyTHING and everyONE?

mk, I have not said the church has “always” gotten it wrong (your phrase).  If the church has always been correct, why did they wait 1200 years before requiring celibacy for priests?  That would mean the apostles “got it wrong.”

Mk,
Have you studied the history of the church in the first 3 centuries?

mk, which translation says “thing?”  mk, John 6:39 says “And this is the will of God, that I should not lose even one of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them up at the last day.”  mk, Jesus is talking about people, (those)—not things.  He will be raising up people on the last day.  Those who died in Christ.

mk, if you have a problem with the term “Once Saved, Always Saved” then you can at least rely upon the truth contained in many passages which assure the believer He is saved unto eternal life with Christ Jesus.

N.O.

I addressed celibacy eons ago.  Celibacy is a DISCIPLINE not a doctrine.  It is not UNchangeable law.  It is CHANGEABLE law.  In other rites in the Catholic Church priest DO marry. 

And Paul suggests, STRONGLY, that priests DO remain celibate.  So the apostles and the Church got it right, depending on the circumstances.

That still doesn’t answer my question.  I didn’t say she got everything wrong.  YOU said that the True Church believes in OSAS, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.  I am asking when the FIRST time the Church that Christ instituted came into being in your opinion, based on your criteria after the apostles?

Mk,
I think your baptism analogy at 11:23 AM (EST) makes our point. Jesus alone is the vaccination, the antidote for sin. We are vaccinated when we put our faith in Him. Baptism would be a sign that a person has taken the vaccination but it is not the baptism in and of itself that is doing the vaccinating. It is at the moment of belief in Christ that salvation-justification happens.

I don’t have a problem with the Term once saved always saved, I have a problem with the doctrine.  If you dance through hoops you twist scripture to say that you cannot be unsaved.  If you accept that Baptism is the means of salvation then you can say that you cannot be UNbaptized.  But nowhere in Scripture does it say that once you believe you will always believe and furthermore there are DOZENS of examples of believers who a. quit believing or b. while believing chose not to follow.  And there are dozens MORE Scripture passages that say that you have to stick it out til the END.

The doctrine that I believe in is once Baptized always Baptized.  What you are calling saved is actually getting into heaven. 

Cooperation is the key to this whole conversation.

Mk,
Do you think any of the apostles were married?

mk,
If osas is false, then once a person sins he cannot be re-saved because of Heb 6:4-6 and 2 Pet 2:20-22.

[,
I think your baptism analogy at 11:23 AM (EST) makes our point. Jesus alone is the vaccination, the antidote for sin. We are vaccinated when we put our faith in Him. Baptism would be a sign that a person has taken the vaccination but it is not the baptism in and of itself that is doing the vaccinating. It is at the moment of belief in Christ that salvation-justification happens.]

No Erik, The Holy Spirit is the ANTIBODIES and the means of delivering those antibodies is a vaccination.  The means of delivering the Holy Spirit is Baptism.  It is GOD that will kill off all those sinful tendencies.  It is GOD who will wipe out sin.  But the means in which He is infused into our soul is baptism, just as the means that the antibodies are infused into our system is the vaccination.

Antibodies = Holy Spirit
Disease = Sin
Vaccination = Baptism
Health = sanctification
booster = staying true to the end/living out the Faith
Trusting the doctor/medical manual = Trusting the Priest/Scriptures
Trusting Science/Medicine = Trusting the Church

What you are saying is:

vaccination = Jesus
Trusting the Doctor = health without the vaccination

Mk,
Does the HS apply the benefits of what Christ did for us before a believer is baptized or are the benefits applied after baptism?

[Do you think any of the apostles were married?]

Of course I do.

[If osas is false, then once a person sins he cannot be re-saved because of Heb 6:4-6 and 2 Pet 2:20-22.]

Two passages pulled out of context does not a doctrine make…

Peter 2:20 says nothing at all about Once save always saved…it says a man who had the Faith and lost it is worse off than if he never had the faith…Which means he HAD it and LOST it.  Same with Hebrews. 

Same with Hebrews.  Both of those passages back up what I am saying…that you can have the Faith and lose the Faith.  All these two passages are saying is that it is harder to come back to the Faith once you have believed and left than it is to come to the Faith in the first place.  If those are the best passages you have to back up OSAS you are in a pickle! ;)

A person must have the benefits of Christ, in order to hear the command to be baptized.  So benefits (grace) is given before baptism.  Right?

My sister is a Catholic convert, due to her husband, being Catholic.  I am not Catholic, but I’m close to my sister.

Mk,
Lets look at Heb 6:4-6. Let’s see if it is saying “s harder to come back to the Faith once you have believed..”.

Here is the passage—
For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

Notice verse 6.—“it is impossible to renew them again to repentance..”
Impossible does not mean harder. It means its not possible no matter how hard you try.

Ian,
Have you compared the RC doctrines with the Scripture? Have you studied church history?

Is Jesus a liar?

Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy, but they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time of trial.

But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’* and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, 46then that servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful.

The Prodigal son…you can be a member of the family and still leave.

Judas

Indeed you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, [perhaps] he will not spare you either. See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again  (Hard to be more clear than this!

Do you want me to go on?

Erik,

[Does the HS apply the benefits of what Christ did for us before a believer is baptized or are the benefits applied after baptism?}

Define benefits.

mk:  Point taken re discipline verus doctrine.  Salvation is eternal life with Christ when you pass from this earthly life.  mk, until the Holy Spirit enters and comes to live within, all men remain dead—Spiritually.  This is what Nicodemus had difficulty understanding.  This is the problem of the world today.  We do not have many Spirit-filled Christian or Catholic people when contrasted with all living people.

Erik - I saw a movie about Martin Luther, and thought the church wanted to kill him.  That’s the extent of my church history know-how.  Even my sister hasn’t compared Roman Catholic dogma with the Bible.  That’s what nearly caused world war 3 in our family.  Mom is over it now.  Sister is happy, as is her husband.  I have no formal training.  Just like to read the Bible.

Here are some of the benefits from Ephesians 1
2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him
10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

Ian,
Its good you are reading the Bible. There are a number of excellent resources out there that can help you understand it. If you are interested in some of these resources, let me know. Same goes for church history. Itunes U has some excellent audio courses on RTS. Very balanced and taught by seminary professors.

Ian,

God can work with or on a person regardless of baptism.  His sacrifice was for everyone, baptized or not.  But baptism is different than God working “ON” you.  Baptism means that the Holy Spirit is fused into you, becomes a part of you.  Not coming and going, but with you.  Baptism changes you. 

Erik believes that Baptism is a symbol and that the Holy Spirit does not fuse with you, but rather once you believe (not become baptized) then God says my son is good, so I’ll pretend that you are good too.  This is called imputation.  Jesus goodness is attributed to you, but you are still not good.  Infusion, which is what we believe, means you are cleaned up and presentable.  You are made holy.  You are actually born again as a new person, not the same old person but with benefits attributed to you that were merited by Jesus.

Which is NOT to say that I merited the change.  It is because of Jesus’ sacrifice that I am able to HAVE the Holy Spirit fuse Himself to me.  But He does fuse Himself.  I am infused with the spirit.  Am I making sense?

Kind of like I don’t have any money.  Erik believes that Jesus pays for you.  He hands the store clerk the money and as far as the clerk (God is concerned) the payment was made by Jesus.  WE believe that Jesus gives us the money (the Holy Spirit) and that allows us to pay the clerk ourselves.  It is still due to Jesus generosity, but the clerk now sees that I have paid the bill.  It’s not a perfect analogy I know, but hey, I’m wingin’ it.

Or look at the Vaccination.  Erik thinks that if Jesus gets the vaccination then I am vaccinated by virtue of Jesus’.  WE believe that we must get that vaccination as well, but that we couldn’t get that vaccination if it weren’t for Jesus getting it first.  Up there I said that the Holy Spirit was the antibodies.  I’d add that Jesus is the inventor of the vaccine.  Basically, He gave us the ability to wipe out smallpox/the consequences of sin/death.

Mk,
It is true the Christ died for the sins of the world but that does not mean the whole is saved. Only those who put their faith in Christ will be saved.

Ian,
How would you describe yourself in your beliefs?

N.O,

and what is the means by which the Holy Spirit comes to live in you?

Think of the vaccine.  The mode was given to us by Jesus.  What is it?  And don’t say Faith cuz Faith alone will get you smallpox.  We are commanded by Our Lord to do a NUMBER of things to enter into eternal life.  And they are not implicit.  They are explicit.

You asked earlier for examples of you guys accepting metaphors that were meant to be taken literally and accepting as literal things that were meant to be taken metaphorically…

Here some…

Creation took 6 days
Divorce
Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus] to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The Eucharist

Believe AND be Baptized

Scripture is inspired and inerrant…yet you threw out books of same Scripture.

The Papacy…I give you the keys to the kingdom

Hail Mary FULL of Grace

Repetitive Prayer when Our Lord clearly taught us a prayer and told us to repeat it.  You just seem to skip over the whole “Vain” part and apply it to all repetitive prayer.

works, when works means WORKS OF LEVITICAL LAW.

Thou Shalt keep the Sabbath Day Holy.  This means EVERY Sabbath Day.  Not just once a month.

The OFFICE of Bishop.

Faith ALONE when James clearly, explicitly states that we are NOT saved by Faith alone. 

The perpetual sacrifice…For every High Priest MUST have something to Sacrifice…

I had one protestant woman argue that Jesus is literally SITTING at the right hand of the Father.  Not metaphorically, but literally, SITTING.  She used this to prove that Jesus could not be continually sacrificed as it plainly says in Hebrews because He was SITTING.

That there will be a rapture and believers will all be taken up.

That there is no Sacramental Confession…Those whose sins YOU forgive are forgiven, those YOU retain are retained.

I could go on, but I won’t.  I’ll let you know as they come up.

[Only those who put their faith in Christ will be saved.]

Only those who put their faith in Christ and are BAPTIZED will be saved.  Have I said otherwise?

Mk,
Actually you not one said “Only those who put their faith in Christ and are BAPTIZED will be saved.”

Your belief in infant baptism precludes this. Infants are baptized without any faith in Christ on their part.

Ian,

You’re sister most likely went through an R.C.I.A. program.  It was there that she would have learned the teaching of the The Church and had them explained to her to her satisfaction.  When did she come into the Church?  This Easter? 

She has a long road ahead of her.  Being a Catholic means constantly growing in the Faith.  Talk to her about it.  Ask her how committed she was or if she was simply going through the motions for her husband.  If she REALLY chose to enter the Faith, and is truly living it out, you might be surprised to learn she knows a lot more of the Scriptural background than you think.  Most of the Mass is Scripture.  Every Sunday she hears 3 readings from Scripture, and the prayers are all straight out of the Bible.  She’s inundated with Scripture…she just might not realize it.  Catholic know their Scripture, they just don’t learn it the same was as Protestants.  We can tell you the stories, but we aren’t proficient in naming chapter and verse.  Then again, I think protestants tend to memorize a certain amount of Scripture passages that help them defend their Faith and a lot of Scripture never gets read.  I could be wrong.  But I’ve been debating like this long enough to know that it is the same passages over and over.  Could just be that those are the passages that answer our questions best.  After all, I keep quoting Peter and the Keys.

There is no perpetual sacrifice on the part of Christ. Hebrews 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
Heb 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

As you can see, Jesus made only one sacrifice for sin. It is finished. Never to be repeated.

It is true there is no sacramental confession mentioned in Scripture. The passage you use in support of it does mean some kind of sacrament. Secondly, there is no example in Scripture of someone confessing their sins to a priest, bishop or apostle.

James is not teaching some kind of works that makes one saved. Rather he is addressing the issue of true belief. If you truly believe then there will be works that show that. The works in and of themselves have no power to save. They are the result of true belief.

Because Erik, the children have been placed in Faith by their parents.  And I didn’t say that to be saved one ONLY needed to have Faith and be baptized.  I said that ONLY those who have faith and ARE BAPTIZED can be saved.

I’ve also explained that there are extraordinary cases where a person can be baptized sans water…baptism of desire, baptism of martyrdom.  And the exceptions of people who can be saved sans faith or baptism.  But these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

And none of them, with NO exceptions, can be saved by anything but Grace.

I’m tellin’ ya, you guys have got the right words in the wrong places.

Once Baptized Always Baptized
Grace Alone
Scripture/Tradition/Magesterium Alone

mk, the Holy Spirit can come to live inside you as a prelude to baptism.  Isaiah 61 confirms that.  The prophets confirm it as well.  Catholicism teaches the Holy Spirit only arrives at infant baptism or at Confirmation.  Your Bishop does not have any super power to confer upon you the Holy Spirit.  Only the Spirit does this and at His own choosing.  If what the church teaches is true, you would not have so many fallen away Catholics.

It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn’t ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn’t do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn’t know what faith or good works are.

It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire.

Know who said that?

Erik (and N.O.)

Perhaps the question has made you uncomfortable. I don’t know why you won’t answer it.  But I can’t move onto other things until I know this.

When did the FIRST TRUE CHURCH makes its appearance after the death of the Apostles?

Isaiah 61…I have no idea what you are talking about.  Verse please?

[If what the church teaches is true, you would not have so many fallen away Catholics.]

Cooperation my friend.  You just cannot seem to grasp this whole it’s done to you thing.  We don’t believe that just because the Holy Spirit dwells in you that you are suddenly exempt from sin or rejecting God. 

Do we or do we not have free will?

Erik,

I won’t move on to the Eucharist until we settle some of this other stuff first.  It’s too complicated and once we start on the Eucharist that’s all I want to focus on.  Last time I got into one of these we were cut off at 500 comments.  What do you guys want to do if that happens?  We can go to my facebook page…?

Erik,

[Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” ]

Why did the Father send Jesus?

My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.*

Apparently Hebrews 6:4-6 cannot mean what you think it means…but it could mean that “Renewal” refers to Baptism.

Is anyone among you sick?  He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord,and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.*

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

To save the world.

“Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.” Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyraeans, 9 (c. A.D. 110).

Erik,

How?  What did the world need saving from?

Let me put it this way…

The Father sent Jesus to sacrifice himself so that…fill in the blank.

Mk,
Hebrews 6:4-6 and James 5:19-20 are dealing with 2 different issues. In Hebrews 6:6 the term “fallen away” means “Heb. 6:6, denoting a falling away, an abandonment.” In James 5:19 the word used for “stray” means “to be seduced, go astray (James 5:19; 2 Pet. 2:15)”
In Hebrews 6:6 this person has willfully abandoned the faith while the person in James 5:19 is being led astray.

What difference does it make?  According to you NOTHING can take them away once their in…stray, leave…it’s all the same from the point of view that once you are saved you are saved for good.  So no one could lead them away and they couldn’t leave on their own.  According to you.  Yet here we are being told that IF they leave, coming back will be hard but that bringing them back could save their soul.  How do you come back if you can’t leave?

Jesus came into the save us from God. It is wrath of God that He took on for our sins. See john 3:36.

mk:  Isaiah 61:1 you should know this by heart.  “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, . . .”  Isaiah nor any of the prophets could preach if the Spirit was not dwelling within them.  They were not formally baptized as you have explained what baptism is.  We alread covered Elijah and Moses standing with Jesus on Mt. Hermon for the Transfiguration.  Both are reigning with Christ then (and now) without having been sprinkled with, poured on or even fully immersed.

It makes all the difference in the world. If we don’t keep the Scripture in context it will lead to contradictions. Those that leave show they were not us to begin with. I john 2:19 makes this point. They were never saved to begin with. I think the church is full of people like this.

mk, You want to extoll the benefits of Ephesians 1 while Catholicism is highly selective concerning Romans.  Romans 1-7 explains entirely how the gospel saves the sinner.  Romans 8:1 (based upon the first 7 chapters) says:  “Therefore, there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.”  You keep saying a baptized person might fall away and reject Christ.  This is your understanding why you are unsure and have doubts about going to Heaven.  mk, the Bible provides clear evidence otherwise.  His Spirit (revealed in His Word—the man Christ Jesus) provides convicting evidence all in Christ will be saved.  Not all baptized.  Not all Catholics.  Not all Protestants.  All in Christ.  Why do you keep insisting upon treating baptism as if it’s some kind of pixie dust?

mk, baptism is your outward public sign based upon Romans 10:9 “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”  If a person truly believes this, why would you worry about falling away or rejecting Christ later on in life?  Trust me, it’s not going to happen.  He will keep you.

mk, how do you know if the Holy Spirit was not using Luther to help with educating the church?  No doubt if Luther was further up the Magisterium ladder, Catholic Bishops would have been more willing to listen to him rather than placing a bounty on his head.

[mk, how do you know if the Holy Spirit was not using Luther to help with educating the church?]

By the fruits of his actions.  There is no way the Holy Spirit would have wanted the Church fractured. It’s even possible that he was meant to be the instigator of good change, but he crossed a line.  Had he only remained obedient, things would have (heck, they did) eventually changed.

God makes good things come of evil things tho, and in the end the Spirit used the situation to bring about great good.  Just as he is using the priest scandal right now.  We always want things to happen right now, but our ways are not God’s ways and God’s time is not our time.  Luther knew, that as a priest he was to be obedient to the Magesterium.  Instead he proclaimed he knew better than the Magesterium.  On some things he may even have been right, was right, but on his methods?  No.  Many times we don’t live to see the fruits of our efforts.  Maybe Luther would have gone to his grave never knowing whether his efforts had succeeded.  But he didn’t trusts the Holy Spirit to do his job, and as if often the way, he took matters into his own hands. 

We don’t hate Luther.  We hate what happened because of Luther.

Eric:  your comment, “They were never saved to begin with. I think the church is full of people like this.”  Amen, brother.  Ask a Catholic priest if he is saved.  I have.  He doesn’t know with any certainty.  He’ll know when he gets there.  The point is, he doesn’t really believe the gospel.  He doesn’t fully trust God’s word.  How can Catholic people have assurance when their own priests have no assurance?

Erik,

I don’t think we needed saving from God.  God is love.  He would not harm us just because He was angry.  He might allow harm to come to us because of our own actions, in order to draw us closer to Him.  So no, I don’t think Jesus came to save us from God.  More like He came to save us from ourselves.

Why was God angry?

Mk,
I have asked this before and I don’t remember seeing your response. Have you read any history of the conditions that led up to the Protestant Reformation and what happened to Luther?

mk, what’s more important, obeying God or obeying men?

How can Catholic people have assurance when their own priests have no assurance?

You are assuming we want assurance.  As I’ve said before, I am sure.  I am sure that God loves me.  That God wants me in heaven.  That He created me just so I could be with Him forever.  I completely, totally, unequivocally, trust God.

Now tell me why I should trust myself?  I have already show with over a dozen passages that Scripture tells us, CLEARLY, that we can fall.  If I know that I am capable of falling away, how can I be sure that I won’t?

Do we have free will or don’t we?

My sister went into the Catholic church a few Easters ago.  Thanks for the info about the on-line university.  You never know how far I’ll get into theology.  It’s just basic now.  Read my Bible.  I like this blog.
Sunday, you guys talked about circus parks.  When we were kids, my parents took us to a park that stamped our hands so we could come and go, as proof we’d paid our admission fee.  Would that be like the difference between a person that was saved, having admission fees paid for them, with hand stamps, and a person that never paid fees, and was not saved, trying to get inside the park, unpaid, with no hand stamp?  A few posts ago, you talked about differences between fallen away and strayed.  Maybe I didn’t make sense.  I’m not real deep.  If the blog stops after 500 posts, I learned a lot.  Will share with my sister too.  Cool blog. Thx

Erik,

[I have asked this before and I don’t remember seeing your response. Have you read any history of the conditions that led up to the Protestant Reformation and what happened to Luther]

I still have dozens of questions for you guys on the table.  Answer those and I’ll answer yours.  I’ve been waiting awhile…

Mk,
Jesus came to take on the wrath of God for our sins. We see His wrath many times in the OT beginning with the flood. We see it in His dealings with His own people such as in Numbers and various other places.
Remember: Jesus is taking on to Himself the wrath and punishment of God in His body for our sins. If Jesus had not done this, we would have to ourselves. That is what hell is all about. It is the wrath of God on sinners who have not placed their faith in the Substitute that God provided in Christ.

God is love but He is also just and He cannot violate either one of His attributes. That is why the gospel is pure genius. He demonstrate His love for us by sending Christ into the world to save us from His wrath. On the cross His love, justice and mercy meet. It is the most wonderful and yet mysterious news the world has ever heard. Its so sad so many in the church do not understand it.

Erik,

[it is impossible to renew them again to repentance..”
Impossible does not mean harder. It means its not possible no matter how hard you try.]

As I’ve pointed out, the key word there is renew.  Look it up in greek.  Tell me what it says. 

IF it means what you say then ALL the other passages I quoted you are wrong. 

If it means what I say, then ALL the other passages I quoted you are right.

Logic says it can’t be both.

Here they are again.  Now YOU tell ME how they can all be true if Hebrew 6 means what YOU say it means?

Those on rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, receive the word with joy, but they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time of trial.

But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’* and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and get drunk, 46then that servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the unfaithful.

The Prodigal son…you can be a member of the family and still leave.

Judas

Indeed you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, [perhaps] he will not spare you either. See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again (Hard to be more clear than this!

N.O.

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, . . .”

Upon me, N.O., not WITHIN me but UPON me.  That is the whole point.  Again, (you guys aren’t reading what I write) God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit can affect us, work on us, walk beside us WITHOUT Baptism.  What He cannot do is reside WITHIN us.  He cannot be INFUSED in us, without Baptism.

Ian,

It’s more like the Admission was paid for everyone.  We all got free tickets.  That’s redemption.  Some of us will go.  Some will not.  Some will go and not do anything but stand there.  Technically, they are in.  Some will go and DO everything there is to do.  That’s the Catholic Church in her Fullness. 

The handstamp is for reentry.  If you’re within the circus grounds it is assumed you had a ticket to get in.  But if you leave, you get your hand stamped before you go so that you can reenter.  I’d say that was like Baptism.  You are marked indelibly, and that hand stamp is good forever.  That would be the Holy Spirit ready and waiting should you decide to return.  He’s there, on your hand, waiting.  The minute you change your mind, He goes to work.  But you can’t get back in just by having the stamp on your hand.  You’ll have to actually, physically, through an act of the will, a decision, go back to the Barker.  That’s coming back into the fold if you’ve left. 

You aren’t saved once.  Salvation is an ongoing prospect.  You have to stay in the game.  It’s possible to leave or quit.  It’s also possible to come back.

The analogy only goes so far though.

Erik,

Yes, I get all that.  I disagree with a lot of it, but let’s leave that for now. 

Why is God angry?  What have we done?  And what has Jesus death done to make it all right again with God?

I can see that you are reading way too much into the question so let me help.

Did God send Jesus into the world so that our sins could be forgiven?  Is that a fair assessment?

[mk, what’s more important, obeying God or obeying men?]

When it is God who commanded you to obey those men, then obeying those men is obeying God. 

Erik,

[Those that leave show they were not us to begin with.}

lol…well that’s convenient.  Okay, I’ll play.  Did they THINK they were saved?  I mean, did they THINK they believed? 

Erik and N.O,

Here is one of the questions I’m waiting on…

Okay, so Jesus established a Church.  Can you show me the first time, post the apostles, where this Church was alive and working according to Scripture?  I mean at what point do you, Erik, say “That is the Church Christ instituted”.  At what point in history do you, Erik, recognize the Church?

Mk,
There are a number of reasons that God sent Christ into the world. Yes it was also so that God could forgive our sins because of what Christ did.

God’s justice demands that He punish sin. God is not angry like men are. His wrath is perfect and just in all its dimensions. God’s wrath is holy and always justified.

When Adam sinned, that is when the wrath of God towards man began. God is angry against sin and those who live and promote it. God nature demands perfection in His creation. Sin corrupts it. 

The sins of the world were laid on Christ (He was made sin for us- 2 Cor 5:21) and God poured out His wrath on Him because in Him He was made sin. God punished Christ in our place for our sins. He is our Substitute. Our sins were imputed to Him and His life was imputed to us.

Mk,
People can be self-deceived about being in Christ. See Matt 7:21-23

The church has been here since Pentecost.

What is your definition of the church? What does the Scripture say it is?

Ian,

You’re doing fine.  I’m amazed that you’re reading all of this!  You just keep pluggin’ away and if this thread gets shut down, I’ll give you my email address or we can hook up on facebook.  You can ask me anything at anytime.  I’d be willing to bet the boys would feel the same.  The important thing is to keep growing, asking, searching…I’ve been a reverted Catholic for over 20 years now and I still know nothing! The Faith is rich and deep and beautiful. 

This whole post started on the topic of Mary and why she is so special.  You can always ask her to help you along.  She’s way easy to talk to and wants you to find your way as much as you do.  She will lead you to her Son in a gentle, non threatening way.  Ask your sister about her.

Also, ask your sister if you can go to Mass with her.  You won’t be able to receive communion, but you will be very welcome to come to Mass.  Then ask her to explain it to you.  It might be overwhelming the first time, but there should be a missal (a book) that you can follow along with.  Don’t let the kneeling throw you off.  We kneel because we believe that the bread and wine actually turn into Jesus and when the priest elevates Him, we fall to our knees.  It’s an amazing moment. 

And like I said, I’m always around to answer any questions you’ve got…today or 5 years from now.  And I will take all the time you need with them.  We can talk for decades if you want…lol.  That’s an offer, not a threat!

my email is mkhastings at ameritech dot net

Erik,

We’ll skip the whole imputed/substitue thingy cuz that will take us off topic.  So you are saying that God sending Jesus so that our sins could be forgiven is only a small part of it?  Really?

I thought that was the whole purpose.  That God sent Jesus into the world for the forgiveness of sins.

You think it’s so we won’t be punished?  Not so we’ll be forgiven?

People can be self-deceived about being in Christ. See Matt 7:21-23

Okay…so a person can believe that he believes but be mistaken because he has been deceived, through no fault of his own?  He can honestly think he is a believer, but unbeknownst to him, his faith is false?  Have I got that right?  Because he was deceived?

The church has been here since Pentecost.

The apostles were also there at Pentecost.  I’ll ask the question again…

  Can you show me the first time, post the apostles, where this Church was alive and working according to Scripture?  I mean at what point do you, Erik, say “That is the Church Christ instituted”.  At what point in history do you, Erik, recognize the Church?

Thx for your patience, MK, and all.  I like to read my Bible on my knees sometimes.  A pastor once mentioned it.  I found I liked it.  Kneeling at Sunday worship is good.  About the circus metaphore, I thought being saved (declared justified) was a one time event, quick and declared by God.  So that would be the hand-stamp seal, right?  Like circumsion of the heart.  It’s real.  But not visible, like a seal of baptism, after a person repents and chooses Christ, and the Holy Spirit seals him.  MK, you called “salvation” one, long period of time. I was taught it was “sanctification” that’s a long period of time, where we grow more like Jesus.  After being saved (by grace) we’re justified, then baptized, then sanctified.  I know a respected old man that chose to follow Jesus at age 3.  Evidence of it being true is all over his life, the man’s Jesus-like, even in hard times.  He’s the real deal.  Set apart for Christ. 

Mk,
God accomplished a number of things when he sent Christ into the world. It was not just to die for the sins of the world but to bring in the Kingdom of God in its fullest expression. He was sent to defeat the evil forces that were raised up against God. He came to fulfill the Law and taught us how to live. He came to give us hope that there is more to existence than just our physical lives. He came to show that death is not the end. I could go on but hopefully you get the idea.

This is why the Marian dogmas, praying to the saints, indulgences and purgatory are not only not true but also unnecessary. If you study just Ephesians 1 you will find that these doctrines are not needed since we have all that we will ever need in Christ.

Mk,
Yes a person can be self-deceived in thinking they are saved. In can occur to those who think that going to church or doing good must mean I am saved. It can occur to those who are even baptized. They think their baptism proves that they are saved. All of these things can deceive a person into thinking they are in Christ. That’s why Matt 7:21-23 is so terrifying.

Why don’t you tell me what the church was like after the apostles died? For example: where were believers meeting since there were no church buildings?

mk,

You’re not going to get an honest answer out of Erik with regards to the establishment of The Church after the apostles because he knows as well as all Protestants that study history that there are 1500 years they cannot account for where their hermeneutic of interpretation (i.e., imputation, sola scriptura, etc…) is not espoused.  It’s a problem for them.  They just can’t admit it.  Their arguments in favor of solar scriptura are begging the question and they can’t get around it no matter how hard they try.  Since we believe in both Scripture and Tradition, we don’t argue circularly as they do.  I admire your efforts even though unfortunately their falling on deaf ears.

abimopectore,
Great. Another Roman Catholic comments. I don’t get it. This is a Roman Catholic site and only one Roman Catholic is willing to defend Catholicism. Some is so wrong with this picture.

Is it this the best you can do abimopectore? Why don’t you tell me what the church was like immediately after the apostles died? Please help.

Erik,

You don’t accept Sacred Tradition, that’s fine.  If you did, you’d see what mk is trying to tell you.  You’re not hear to learn, you’re here to proselytize.  If you were genuine in your attempt to learn, you would have heeded mk’s and other folks calls to follow-up on some reading that would help you understand the HUGE gaps in knowledge that you’re statements are clearly indicating.  I’m willing to concede to you that you are approaching it through some Protestant hermeneutic and hence the reason why you take the positions you do.  But what you’re not realizing is that we, meaning Catholics, DO NOT interpret scripture as you do.  All you’ve done here is attack the Church without honestly reading what’s been offered to you.  The evidence is clear.  Protestants started interpreting their way in the 1500’s and the Catholic Church traces its origin since the times of Jesus, supported historically throughout the early period of the Church to this moment in history.  This is something you can’t do.  I’ll give you a website where you can argue with other former Protestants and present day Catholics where they clearly challenge your notions of interpretation and provide THOROUGH and SOUND argumentation on why their former ways are not the way of the true Church.  Read all you want, although I hardly believe you’ll try:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/

Ian,

That’s really what all of this conversation has been about.  The very different ways that we see salvation.  For Erik and N.O. it is as you say.  For Catholics is it very different.  Which is probably why your folks were so upset. 

For us, salvation is an ongoing process.  The only thing that is permanent is the sanctifying grace of Baptism.  This cannot be undone.  Once baptized always baptized.  But Baptism is no guarantee that you will get into heaven.  You must be baptized to get into heaven (almost always) but baptism is not the only thing you need.  You need to live out your Faith.  Follow our Lord’s commandments.  This includes going to Mass each and every Sunday.  You have to grow spiritually closer to God. It’s a journey.  You must be in a “State of Grace” when you die.  In other words, right after Baptism, and I mean right after, you have no sins on your soul.  None.  You are as clean as if you had been created with Adam and Eve before the fall.  But we tend towards sinfulness.  This is our nature since the fall.  We call this concupiscence.  That just means that due to our fallen nature we are drawn to sin.  We are good.  God doesn’t create anything that isn’t good.  After baptism, we WILL sin again.  That’s a given.  When we do, if the sin is small, we can ask God to forgive us.  But if the sin is serious, what John called a deadly sin, we can actually sever our relationship with God. 

We have fallen from Grace.  If we died at that point we would sadly, go to hell.  BUT, because of the Sacrament of Confession we can confess our sin to a priest.  The priest is a man, but when conferring the Sacraments, Jesus works through him.  Remember, we are human and therefore need human ways of doing things.  (The invisible made visible through the physcial).  So we speak out loud to another, an ordained other (ordained means that Jesus can work directly through that person) and through that person, Jesus confers the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and we are mystically reconciled with God.  We are now once again in a state of Grace.  We do this over and over.  If we manage to stay in a a State of Grace, which is just a fancy way of saying we stay in relationship with God, we keep our end of the covenant, then we will go to heaven. 

Hell to us, is not a place of punishment, but the absence of God.  It’s not like getting sent to your room without supper so you learn your lesson…there is no lesson to learn.  God doesn’t “send” us to hell.  We choose to go there.  Freely.  We reject God’s love so thoroughly, that we actually choose to live forever without Him.  Now to us, that seems like punishment and it is.  But not punishment like “YOU’RE BAD/YOU MUST BE PUNISHED”  More like you didn’t want to go to the Circus so you stayed home and stared at the wall.

Almost no one dies perfectly sinless (infants, martyrs are the exceptions) so most of us still have small sins on our souls.  For this we go to a place called purgatory.  Purgatory comes from the word Purge.  It’s a final stop and it’s where we are perfected so that we can enter heaven unstained.  The boys will tell you purgatory and a lot of other things I have just said are non biblical, but they are incorrect. 

Everyone who goes through the purging process will end up in heaven.  These are some of the basic teachings of the Church since it’s beginning way back with the apostles.  In the 1500’s a man named Luther and another named Calvin came up with a whole new way of looking at things.  Based on their new ideas (and they were new…no one had ever believed them before this) many people left the Church and began to follow them.  We know them today as Lutherans and Calvinists.  But some people who followed them began to think THEY were wrong and came up with new ideas and left the Lutheran Church and the Calvinist Church and started their own Churches.  It’s obviously more complicated than I’m making it and there were more than just Luther and Calvin.  There were anabaptists and Henry the VII…but the point is we have gotten so far away from the original Church that we now have over 8,000 DIFFERENT protestant denominations (Protestant means any Christian who is not Catholic or Orthodox.  The Catholic Church is not a denomination.  Denomination means taken from the original.  Like Little Debbies are taken from Hostess. lol)  Erik and New Observer (and your family) belong to denominations.  I am a Catholic.  I belong to the original.  The word Catholic simply means Universal.

Erik,

Can a Protestant be deceived and think he is a believer but he isn’t?

abimopectore,
Thanks for responding and helping Mk out. You say a lot here. Much of it looks like mind-reading over the net.
Help me out! Can you give some examples of Sacred Traditions so I can know specifically what you are referring too? I hear this term from Catholics and I’m not sure what they are specifically referring to.

Have you ever studied church history? i have. I have yet to meet a catholic who has. Maybe you will be the first.

Mk,
Yes a Protestant can be self-deceived.

Erik,

“Have you ever studied church history? i have. I have yet to meet a catholic who has. Maybe you will be the first.”

I can see you haven’t met lots of Catholics.  I’ve provided an excellent website:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/

If your serious about truly finding out, you’ll start reading.  Good luck and God bless.

Erik,

Fist things first.  Please, why is this so hard.  It’s a simple question. You make the claim that the Church can only exist if it is Scriptural.  You also claim that Jesus established such a Church.  Either it ended when the apostles died or it continued.  I am asking you what the first point in history after the apostles death you would be willing to concede that an identifiable, according to your criteria, church existed?

I know you are chomping at the bit to share your knowledge of the early Church but I can hardly be expected to discuss the early Church until you tell me what that is!  Every example I have given has been shot down.  It wasn’t scriptural.  It was too late in the game.  Those guys don’t count.  So YOU tell ME…where IS this Church?  Where are the documents that the Church you claim existed, existed.  I need a starting point.  Please!

abimopectore,

Thank you.  That felt good!  It’s been a long week…lol.  But really, I don’t mind.  I consider it practice.  These conversations always challenge my own Faith.  I have to dig deep and I learn SO much.  Plus, it never hurts to look through the other sides eyes.  I learn a lot that way too.

I only get tired when the discussion starts going in circles and I get frustrated when I can’t get an answer after I spend hours giving thoughtful. well researched and often LONG answers to every question I am asked. 

But other than that, N.O. and Erik have been very gentlemanly and courteous.  They are as invested in this as I am.  You’re right that Erik probably won’t avail himself of your website but I can assure you that I will.  Thanks for that also.

My goal is to one day be able to use the word hermeneutic in sentence, but first I’ll have to learn to spell it.  lol.

Peace.

Erik

It’s not that Catholics can’t defend their faith, it’s that they have been down this road before.  Many, many, many times.  Most of them don’t believe this will do anyone any good.  My personal belief is that good means different things to different people.  If this helps me to know my faith better and to express it more easily, then it is good, for me.

I have spent some time on http://www.calledtocommunion.com/ and have dialogued extensively there as on other catholic websites.

Erik,

Then you know that there are MANY learned Catholics out there who can and do defend their Faith.

And the answer to my question iiiiiiiis….?

Okay Erik and N.O.,

I can see that you’re not going to answer my question…tonight anyway…and it’s getting late, and I’m gonna start getting cranky again.  Besides, there’s only three guys left on Idol and it’s already started.  I’ll check again in the morning.  If you’ve answered, we’ll pick up there.

G’night and God Bless.

Mk,
By the time the apostles died, Christianity had spread out over the Mediterranean world and at least as far as Rome. There were at least 3 major centers for Christianity—Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome. Christians met in homes scattered about the Mediterranean world. There must have been thousands.  There was no centralized base for Christianity like there is for RC today. So when you ask “That is the Church Christ instituted”.  At what point in history do you, Erik, recognize the Church?” is difficult to answer if not impossible because our records of this time period are not the extensive.

I never claimed the church can only exist if its Scriptural. I do think that there are signs of a true church that will be apostolic. Even the RCC has some signs of being apostolic and other signs its not. That’s what you get when you have a doctrine development theory. The Marian dogmas are an example of this.

Hope this helps

Mk,
I never said there are no RC’s who don’t try to defend their Catholicism. What i have found in my own universe is that many don’t.

Erik,

It was a start.  But there is documentation of centralized beliefs.

So now we know that you do not think that you would point to the time immediately after the apostles died.  But I asked you when the first time there IS a Church that you would identify as valid.  From the very first days after the Apostles died we have documentation of what the Church was doing.  When I show you this documentation you dismiss it. 

So YOU tell ME.  Where is this Church that Christ instituted.  It isn’t the Church that Justin Martyr belonged to.  It isn’t the Church that Linus was leading.  It isn’t the Church that Augustine loved.  It isn’t the Church of Irenaeus or Cyril or Chrsostom or Ignatius or Origen or Polycarp…

So who belonged to this Church, what did they believe and how do we know?

I cannot believe how hard this is…

And you most certainly did say that the True Church can only exist if it is based on Scripture.  Are you kidding me???

Where is this Church?
Who belonged to it?
How do we know?

Where is the Church that believed in Sola Scriptura first found?
Where is the Church that believed in Sola Fide first found?
Where is the Church that believed in Faith alone first found?
AFTER THE APOSTLES WERE DEAD?

Mk,
I asked you to define the church. What are the characteristics that make up the church? I need to know if we are going to see where it is in history. 

Mk,
You wrote—“And you most certainly did say that the True Church can only exist if it is based on Scripture.  Are you kidding me???”

Can you show me from my quotes where I wrote this?

Do you know that “the Church that Augustine loved.  It isn’t the Church of Irenaeus or Cyril or Chrsostom or Ignatius or Origen or Polycarp…” did not believe in the Marian dogmas, purgatory, or papal infallibility?

Mk,
As you will see from this list, the early church fathers considered the Word of God to be their final authority which is a component of Sola Scriptura:
* * * * *
“1. Irenaeus (c. 140–c. 202): We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us [namely, the apostles]; which they then preached, and afterwards by God’s will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith.
2. Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236): There is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge, brethren, but out of the Sacred Scriptures. For as he, who would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain it, unless he read the doctrines of the philosophers; so whosoever will exercise piety towards God, can learn it nowhere but from the Holy Scriptures.
3. Tertullian (c. 160–235): The Scriptures . . . indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith.
4. Origen (c. 185–254): In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of the Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing.  . . . Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures.
5. Origen (again): In the two testaments every word that pertains unto God may be sought and discussed, and out of them all knowledge of things may be understood. And if anything remains which Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received to authorize any knowledge, but we must “commit to the fire” what remains, that is, reserve it unto God.
6. Athanasius (c. 296–393): In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth.
7. Athanasius (again): The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the truth.
8. Athanasius (again): For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures.
9. Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386):  Do not then believe me because I tell these things, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.
10. Basil (c. 329–379):  It is evidently a falling away from the faith, and a proof of great presumption, to neglect any part of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not written.
11. Chrysostom (344–407): These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scriptures.
12. Chrysostom (again): When there is a question of Divine things, would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures.
13. Chrysostom (again): `Tis from ignorance of Scripture that all our evils arise; hence the plague of so many heresies, hence our careless lives, our fruitless labors.  . . . They err who look not to the bright rays of the divine Scriptures, because they walk in darkness.
14. Augustine (354–430): Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought.
15. Augustine (again): In those things, which are plainly laid down in Scripture, all things are found, which embrace faith and morals.
16. Augustine (again): Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere.  . . . I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles.
17. Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466): Bring me not human reasonings and syllogisms, for I rely on the divine Scripture alone.
18. John of Damascus (c. 676–c. 760): All things that are delivered to us by the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists, we receive, acknowledge, and reverence, seeking for nothing beyond these.”

Erik,

Pick and choose.  That’s what you Protestants do.  You ignore the rest of the writing of the Fathers of the Church and select what suits you.  I saw the page from where you grabbed the quotes above:

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Sola.html

I’ll point out what St. Irenaeus said in Adversus Haereses about Tradition and succession.  Here it is:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,3313 that is, the faithful everywhere, 416inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

If you’re going to quote the Fathers of the Church, READ ALL THEIR WRITINGS, and don’t solely pick and choose in order to back up a hermeneutic of belief that didn’t exist until the 1500’s.

abimopectore,
Have you read all the church fathers? I understand there are 38 volumes. I Have yet to meet someone who has.
BTW- Your post does not refute my post above in the least.

Erik,

My post clearly demonstrates that your reading of the Church Fathers is not complete since you ignore St. Irenaeus’ words regarding Tradition and succession.  Sola scriptura is not a teaching of the Church Fathers unless you pick and choose writings as you’re doing.  Heck, anybody can believe whatever they’re looking and wishing for if you selectively embrace only certain parts.  The key is to read ALL of it and then you might see the WHOLE picture if you open your mind and heart.

abimopectore,
The church fathers do have some value but there are errors in what they wrote. Take this quote from the quote you gave me:

“....universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul..”

There is no historical evidence that Peter or Paul founded and organized the church at Rome. Some historical scholars don’t think Peter was ever in Rome.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this about Peter,
“...we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).”

“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…“Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).
“

abimopectore,
What does “Irenaeus’ words regarding Tradition” mean? What is he specifically talking about?

Erik,

This is the problem.  You pick and choose what you want to quote and order them according to the presuppositional beliefs that you come with in your inquiry.  You can’t have it both ways.  You either read them entirely and stop the nitpicking or you’ll never to come to the complete Truth.

abimopectore,
Have you read all the church fathers? yes or no?

Erik,

I’m not going to play games with you.  You’ve been directed kindly to read further if you really want to get to know about the Catholic faith.  I’m not here to challenge you with regards to your faith because I see clearly what you’re doing in your inquiry.  Nor do I believe that you’re sincere about learning because you’ve not taken seriously any of the recommendations folks have made.  You say you’ve been to the site I recommended (i.e., http://www.calledtocommunion.com/ ) and I didn’t find your name in any of the discussions.  So unless you’ve posted under another name, I don’t know what you’re claiming when you say you “have dialogued extensively there.”  If you had, you’d know the answers to the many questions you’re making.

mk,  I have been away for many hours at a client meeting but I am disappointed abimopectore has come in and charged Erik with all the usual attacks.  Erik is not sincere, he’s not willing to learn, he really has no interest.  We know that no one invests this amount of time on nonsense.  Everyone’s time too valuable to play games.  Thank you, mk, for your courtesy.  As I have stated earlier, it not my intention to have you leave the Catholic church.  We are examining doctrinal beliefs in light of the gospel.  And I will say again, Christianity is not a competition.  There is much, very much that both Catholics and Evangelicals agree on.  If the site will eventually max out, we can carry forward by alternate means as you indicated.

All Marian doctrines are actually reflections on Christ, since her status is directly related to His. I think that part of the reason our protestant brethren have such a hard time with Marian doctrines is that it requires them to apply algebraic thinking to the Bible in order to arrive at the truths which the Church teaches.  For example, to arrive at the conclusion that Mary is the Mother of God, here is the algebraic formula that one must apply:
Given that a=Jesus and b=God and c=Mary, then if a=b, and c=mother of a, then c is also the mother of b.

There is no biblical text to tell us that Mary is the Queen of Heaven and Earth.  This is, again, derived through the application of algebraic principles whereby if Jesus is King of Heaven and Earth, and Mary is His Mother, and the mother of the King is the Queen, then Mary is Queen of Heaven and Earth.

mk, the Church began at Calvary with the sacrificial price Christ paid for our sins.  Since the answer was obvious, I never thought you really needed a response from either myself or Erik.  I am not afraid to answer the question.

mk, the question was raised regarding the SOLAS existing in Scripture.  You, Erik and I know the term SOLA does not appear.  The implication is clear, however.  The parable of the Sower and the Seed the apostles did not understand but there, too, Jesus had to explain the implication.  The word Trinity does not exist in Scripture, but the implication is clear both in Genesis and when John baptized the Messiah, Christ Jesus.

New Observer,

You have not been paying attention except to what you want to hear.  Go read Erik’s previous comments on how he criticizes the Church and has made little or no sincere effort to read what’s been suggested less answer clearly any questions.  If the point is to learn, then start reading.  I’m going to point both of you to two articles that you SHOULD read that is MUCH MORE extensive than this discussion regarding sola scriptura.  If you read it, you will see clear arguments that delineate clearly the Catholic position.  If you’re truly interested in Catholic thought, you’ll read them and the discussions.

“You, Erik and I know the term SOLA does not appear.  The implication is clear, however.”

It is NOT clear.  Here’s are a couple of articles and an extensive discussion if you’re capable of wading through it that clearly demonstrates that this is NOT the case:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/is-scripture-sufficient/

and:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

mk, I was reading again tonight in ACTS 2:41 while considering your earlier point:  ” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”  mk, those who came forward to repent and be baptized could not have done so without prompting by the Holy Spirit within.  What motivates a man to be baptized?  Such a man is convicted he has heard truth and has been called to live out the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  You keep saying baptism is done TO you.  How many Catholics are baptized and show no evidence of the Holy Spirit the rest of their life?  In fairness, there are no doubt enough poorly taught Christians who fall in the same category.  It is a question, though, of not how much the Holy Spirit does a person have, but moreover, how much does the Holy Spirit have of you.  It is the carnal Christian who is not fully submitted and yielded to Christ as Lord.  Again we have been discussing true Christianity and not unbiblical Christianity.

ambimopectore:  I will not have an opportunity until tomorrow to review and comment on http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority.

Do you know that “the Church that Augustine loved.  It isn’t the Church of Irenaeus or Cyril or Chrsostom or Ignatius or Origen or Polycarp…” did not believe in the Marian dogmas, purgatory, or papal infallibility?

Finally.  Now we are getting somewhere.  You are implying that there WAS a visible Church before Augustine and that they held certain beliefs. 

Now can you show me the documentation to back it up?  And some documentation on what the they believed as well as documentation that they did NOT believe in papal infalliblility, marian dogma,or purgatory?

This is what I have been asking you.  To show me this Church that you keep talking about.

Erik,

C’mon now.  Read this statement:

As you will see from this list, the early church fathers considered the Word of God to be their final authority which is a component of Sola Scriptura:

And then this one:

<i>“And you most certainly did say that the True Church can only exist if it is based on Scripture.  Are you kidding me???”

Can you show me from my quotes where I wrote this?</i.

And then explain to me how you have not said that the True Church can only exist if it is based on Scripture.

Unless you are now saying that the True Church does NOT have to be based on Scripture, in which case I am unclear why you object to the Catholic Church since so far your objections have all rested on them not being based on scripture!

Yes a Protestant can be self-deceived.

So if I am a protestant, and I believe sincerely that I believe, but I have been deceived, and by believing I believe, according to you I can be SURE of my salvation, what does that tell you about OSAS? 

I mean, this poor guy is goin’ around ASSURED that he is saved.  But he isn’t.  He only THINKS that he is SURE.  How do you know that YOU are deceived and that you only THINK that you are SAVED and your ASSURANCE is a FALSE ASSURANCE?  How does any protestant know?

Erik,

I asked you to define the church. What are the characteristics that make up the church? I need to know if we are going to see where it is in history.

It doesn’t matter what I think.  We already know what I think.  I’ve told you what I think and you’ve shot me down.  That might have been the Mass, you said, but those guys were WRONG.  300ad is too late.  I don’t care what the Didache says, those guys don’t count.

So since you don’t recognize the sources that I have cited, and you don’t recognize the Church that I have shown you, it is up to YOU to show ME where this Church was.

Do you know that “the Church that Augustine loved.  It isn’t the Church of Irenaeus or Cyril or Chrsostom or Ignatius or Origen or Polycarp…” did not believe in the Marian dogmas, purgatory, or papal infallibility?

So you keep saying.  And then when I show you that they did you say “Oh, those guys don’t count.  They weren’t following Scripture”...sheesh

Erik,

I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not.

How can Sola Scriptura be a component of of their final authority.  By DEFINITION it cannot be a component.  If they used anything else, then it isn’t SOLA.  That’s what that means.  Scripture ALONE.  They say right there that they also lean on tradition and they do NOT say they lean on Scripture OVER Tradition.  There is no components to Sola Scriptura.  It stands ALONE.  That’s the whole point.  If it was a component it would be POLY SCRIPTURA!  lol

Erik,

Those quotes are saying that everything that God has revealed to us is in Scripture.  Nothing the Catholic Church believes can be contradicted by Scripture.  We covered this like 500 comments ago.

The problem is that when I show you FROM SCRIPTURE why we believe something we do, you don’t accept the INTERPRETATION of that Scripture.  But it is FROM SCRIPTURE.  Mary…FULL OF GRACE…right there, in Scripture.  But you say it doesn’t mean what we say it means.  But it IS in Scripture.

All the Truth we need to know is in Scripture.  That is what the Fathers are saying, and that is what we believe.  BUT we believe that the Church has the authority to INTERPRET that Scripture. 

The Word Trinity isn’t in Scripture is it?  Do we not believe in the Trinity?

Brandy,

I LOVE you.  That is exactly it.  I keep saying things aren’t always explicit in Scripture and that you have to connect the dots. Algebraic equations.  PERFECT!

Thank you!

New Observer,

I feel the same way. I too think Erik is sincere. There are, to be sure, folks who come to these sites just to stir up trouble with no intention of “hearing” anything another party might have to say, but given the amount of time and pure tenacity shown here by all, I’d conclude that we are all sincere.  I appreciate the nod to not trying to pry me from the clutches of the C.C.  While I’d love to see you join the Catholic Church, it is not because I think your soul is in jeopardy but rather because I believe that any True Christian that isn’t benefiting from reception of the Eucharist and other sacraments is missing out on the closest thing we have here to heaven on earth. 

Just in case we get cut off…here is my email.  If you all email me we can set up somewhere to continue…

mkhastings at ameritech dot net

N.O.,

mk, the Church began at Calvary with the sacrificial price Christ paid for our sins.  Since the answer was obvious, I never thought you really needed a response from either myself or Erik.  I am not afraid to answer the question.

I don’t think you are understanding the question.  The apostles were alive when Jesus died on Calvary.

It has been said here, by Erik and you, that the Church existed when the apostles were alive.  And you can show me Scripture passages that prove what they believed.  But after Jesus died/rose, and the apostles all died off, where did the Church go?  What do we have to show us that the Church was alive and well.

I say that we have the writings of the Church Fathers, but every time I quote one of them I am given a reason why they were wrong.  The quote was written too long after the apostles (300ad).  The writer was a heretic.  What the writer claims is not Scriptural.  And on and on.  I am told that they were scattered and that there was no “written documentation” of what they believed or what they were doing, even though I’ve shown you what the Fathers say they believed and what they were doing.  I put up a passage of Justin Martyr defending the Mass to the emperor and am told that he was wrong…that Mass was non Scriptural so it wasn’t what the Church really believed.

So I conclude that the Church of Polycarp and Clement and Martyr etal is not the TRUE CHURCH that Jesus instituted.  I am asking you to show me where this TRUE CHURCH was, and document it.  What DID the early Church believe, how DID they practice their Faith and where is the documentation.  You need to do this without using the Church Fathers, the Didache or any other source that the Catholic Church claims is it’s own.

I am asking you to show me when the Church that believes in Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and OSAS first appeared, with documentation, AFTER the death of the Apostles.

Because I, and most others, contend that Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and OSAS are new doctrines, never, ever, ever espoused anywhere until Luther.  Ever.  You claim that it has always been believed.  I am asking you to show me this Church and document that it existed.

I can document, and have, that MY Church existed from the Apostles on with no break.  I can show from Scripture (I know you don’t agree with our interpretations, but it is IN Scripture) and history that our Church existed, and what it believed and follow it from the apostles to today.  I am asking you to do the same with the SS, SF, OSAS doctrines that you claim are from apostolic times.  Because all I can see is that you interpret Scripture to fit a view that was not put forth until the 1500’s.  There is a HUGE gap in between the apostles and Luther.  I am asking you to fill it in.  To show me the Church that believed these things all along.

N.O.,

mk, those who came forward to repent and be baptized could not have done so without prompting by the Holy Spirit within.  What motivates a man to be baptized

How about prompting by the Holy Spirit from WITHOUT?  And I don’t know how I can say this so that you will understand it.  The Holy Spirit living in you is NO GUARANTEE that you will LISTEN to Him.  You must COOPERATE.

Do we or do we not have free will?

What you are saying is that once the Holy Spirit lives within you you have given up your free will.  Yet, we know that cannot be true because even with the Holy Spirit living WITHIN you, you can still sin!

Asking how a Christian can fall if the Holy Spirit lives within them is like asking how a man can SIN with the Holy Spirit living in them.  For that matter, if the Holy Spirit was already living IN them, and that is what prompted them to believe, why weren’t they believing all along?  Why don’t we come out of the womb believing if it is the Holy Spirit within us that causes us to believe????

I am born.
The Holy Spirit lives IN me.
He prompts me to believe.
I believe.
Now I cannot NOT believe.
WHY?  What has changed? 

Why didn’t He cause me to believe at birth?  Because it is a CHOICE.  And I have power over my choices.  I can choose to HEED the Holy Spirit or I can choose to ignore Him.  That is true when He is on the outside OR when He is on the inside.  The difference, from our point of view, is that after baptism He is part OF me.  He has been infused INTO me.  But I can still CHOOSE to HEED Him or IGNORE Him.  It’s not pixie dust as you say, it is a matter of me being changed.  BORN AGAIN, this time with the Holy Spirit as part of my very make-up. 

Mk,
You are avoiding the issue when “I asked you to define the church. What are the characteristics that make up the church? I need to know if we are going to see where it is in history.”

Then you wrote:
“It doesn’t matter what I think.  We already know what I think.  I’ve told you what I think and you’ve shot me down.  That might have been the Mass, you said, but those guys were WRONG.  300ad is too late.  I don’t care what the Didache says, those guys don’t count.”
It does matter what you think. I want to be sure what you mean by the word “church”.  Our churches are different in structure and doctrine. So what constitutes a true church? What are the essentials?

I know that you assert that the Roman Catholic church is the church that Jesus established but you never prove it. I have repeatedly shown you that the church as we see in the New Testament in structure and doctrine is not identical to the Roman Catholic church. The differences are quite apparent. There was no supreme leader i.e. pope, celibate leadership, no Marian dogmas, no purgatory and no indulgences to name a few differences.
You did not even prove that was a mass but assumed it. There was no mention of a priest turning the bread and wine into Christ.

You write again:
“So since you don’t recognize the sources that I have cited, and you don’t recognize the Church that I have shown you, it is up to YOU to show ME where this Church was.”
I answered this already. Christianity was spread out over the empire where Christians met in homes. There was no church building to go to. Communication between churches was slow.  Parts of the New Testament were being copied and used in churches along with other writings. There were 3 main centers of Christianity in Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome.  There was no pope or supreme bishop in Rome that governed the entire church. There were no bishops in Rome prior to the second century (and Peter died in the first century):
“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…“Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).”

This is a major blow to the RCC claim that the papacy has been in the true church since the beginning. History shows otherwise as we see here. Is not the papacy the linchpin of the RCC? That without it, there can be no RCC? What do you think?

<i>It does matter what you think. I want to be sure what you mean by the word “church”.  Our churches are different in structure and doctrine. So what constitutes a true church? What are the essentials?

I know that you assert that the Roman Catholic church is the church that Jesus established but you never prove it. I have repeatedly shown you that the church as we see in the New Testament in structure and doctrine is not identical to the Roman Catholic church. The differences are quite apparent. There was no supreme leader i.e. pope, celibate leadership, no Marian dogmas, no purgatory and no indulgences to name a few differences.<i>

No Erik, you don’t “prove” it, you claim it.  I have shown you and can show you more, quotes by what WE believe WERE the leaders of the Church stating that they do indeed believe what we claim.  Our Church today believes what the Church believed then.  They believed what we believe today.  I have shown you and you respond that those quotes don’t count.

I hold that the TRUE CHURCH is the Church that was handed down from Peter to Clement to Linus and so on.  I hold that there was a leader and I can name who they were.  I can show you that they believed in the TRUE PRESENCE in the Eucharist, Sacramental Confession, Salvation through Baptism (HECK, I proved that Martin Luther believed the same thing), the Priesthood, and all the rest of it.  Including the veneration of Mary. 

BUT you don’t accept it.  You rationalize every proof away because they don’t fit your preconceived notions.

I have shown proof, CAN show proof for the Church that I claim was the TRUE CHURCH that God instituted.  And I can show that we believe the same things today.

You show me some quotes from the discussions that went on try to fine tune what Scripture says and say “SEE, they didn’t believe that”  or “See, it wasn’t made official until”...Always an excuse.  So I am asking you…AGAIN…to show me the CHURCH that YOU believe represesnted what YOU think the Church taught…and prove it with evidence.

Let me make this simple.  PROVE that the Early Church believed in Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and OSAS.  Show me where that is said.  Because I can and HAVE shown you that they did not.  NOT the Fathers and early writers that I consider to be the True First Church.  You cannot use any of the sources that I use, because they did not believe in SS, OSAS or SF.

So you’ll have to come up with other sources.  When did the Church FIRST begin to believe in SS, SF and OSAS because to you that would be the TRUE CHURCH.  If they did not believe in OSAS, SS and SF then they would be a false church.  If they DID believe in purgatory, the True Presesnce, Confession, salvation through baptism then according to you they had to be a FALSE CHURCH.  Clearly, the sources I am quoting believed all of those things so they cannot have been the TRUE CHURCH.

If you say that they are then you MUST believe what they taught, and they taught all of the doctrine that you oppose.

[This is a major blow to the RCC claim that the papacy has been in the true church since the beginning. History shows otherwise as we see here. Is not the papacy the linchpin of the RCC? That without it, there can be no RCC? What do you think?]

The Pope is not the Magesterium.  That is the word for the Teaching/authoritative Church.  It is made up of the College of Cardinals and the Pope.  You yourself just said there WAS a College of Cardinals…IN THE BEGINNING…it’s not that much of a leap to say that they viewed one of them as the “leader”, the head Bishop.  And how can you say there was no Church in Rome in the first century?

Mk,
You wrote:
“Because I, and most others, contend that Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and OSAS are new doctrines, never, ever, ever espoused anywhere until Luther.  Ever.  You claim that it has always been believed.  I am asking you to show me this Church and document that it existed.”

I gave a list of church fathers who wrote of the supremacy of the Scripture above. There was no higher authority for them. No church father ever appeals to Rome or the papacy for authority.

Sola Fide i.e. justification by faith alone is taught in Scripture.  “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:4-5). Galatians 2:16 also teaches this great doctrine where it is written—“nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”
James uses justification in a different sense than Paul. Paul is showing how God justifies us while James is addressing the false idea that mere assent or saying you have faith is enough to claim you are saved. If you are truly justified-saved then there will be works that will follow from that. You cannot claim to be justified by faith before others if you don’t have the works to back it up.

Here Erik,

Written in 80AD!

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

And 180AD

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

And 189AD

topics

  Home
  Mary and the Saints
  Morality and Ethics
  Sacraments
  Salvation
  Scripture and Tradition
  The Church and the Papacy
   

Enter your email address to receive a weekly quotation from the Church Fathers.
 
Apostolic Succession
Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).

“t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).