Fantastic. I’m a revert to Catholicism, and since then I’ve had a strong emotional connection to Mary, and I’ve been trying to grow in my understanding of her role in Salvation History. It’s great to have found an intellectual resource like you, because in converting, you obviously had to go through scripture and teachings to understand and accept the veneration and reverence of Mary. Thank you so much for writing this, and I think I’ll have to pick up Mary, Mother of the Son as an essential aid to furthuring my knowledge and love of Mary.

Amazing, simply amazing. You write very well, Mark, and the article is so fitting for me to read on this Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady! Happy feast day to you and your family!

One comment for Protestants concerned about this issue who are saturated with Scripture: Did you ever notice that in the book of Kings (2) whenever a king was picked/anointed/usurped, whatever, they tell you his mother’s name? This was because in the polygamous and probably promiscuous households of the kings of Israel, who were, as a whole….ehhh.. You know. Anyway, the king’s mother had to be a woman of probity and recognized good reputation,and she stood “at the king’s right hand” as an affirmation that he was in fact the late king’s son and she attested to his birth. This is also why the king’s wives are referred to as wives, not queens. When, after the early centuries of persecution, the early Christians “went public,” one of the first aspects of Christianity that came into public view was Mary’s status as the mother of the King of Israel, who by her presence attested His Sonship to the Father.

There is so much error here that its hard to know where to begin. Take this sentence from above-“Could I offer my son to such a world?” Since the gospels are the only source of material on Mary (she is mentioned in Acts once and indirectly in Gal) we need to go there to see if such a thing was said or even implied. What we find is that there is not even a hint of Mary offering Jesus to the world. That was not her place to do so. It was the Father alone Who did. 
As for the title-“Mediatrix of All Graces” is another error. Again, Jesus nor His apostles ever taught such a thing.
Take this quote from pope Leo-“Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196: “... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us—for ‘grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ [Jn 1. 17]- nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.”
This should cause any Catholic to seriously think deeply about what your church teaches about Mary and compare it with Scripture. Its not the same thing.

“Mary’s cup was to endure not hanging upon the Cross.”

This is a very beautiful line. In my life I have tended not to have suffered as much as those I love, and this sums up that unique suffering that comes from watching the one you love suffer. It is hard to endure because you think, “if only I could take his place”, yet her example gives a view into how we should offer it.

@Proto1

It sounds like you could use some reading material like Mr. Shea’s books to really understand what exactly the Church teaches about Mary. There are reasons we believe what we do, and if your comment was really a good faith attempt to make us see the error of our ways, you’ve gone about it all wrong. In the meantime, please do not insinuate that the readers of the NCR are uneducated drones, completely ignorant of our faith. Peace.

“What we find is that there is not even a hint of Mary offering Jesus to the world. That was not her place to do so. It was the Father alone Who did.”

Proto:

I take it you have no children?  Or don’t know any mothers?  If you have any friends who ever lose a child, do them a favor and don’t speak at their child’s funeral. Your inhuman theology will only cause them anguish.

Mark- lets stay focused on what the Scriptures do teach and not what we want it to. Where does it say that Mary offered up her son for the world? 
If I were to speak at a funeral I would not mention anything about Mary but the hope we have in Christ who conquered death for us all. Death is not the end. Agreed?

Christina- no insult intended on my part. My hope is that Catholics will examine the church’ teaching by Scripture. Protestants need to do the same. Did the apostles teach what Mark Shea or your church teach? Did the apostles teach that Mary is the “Mediatrix of All Graces”? If they did not its not apostolic but the teachings of men. Only the Scripture can tell us what is apostolic because it is only there that we have the complete teachings of the apostles recorded.

Proto1

Luke 2:35.

Great article. From which book is the CS Lewis quote? Gotta read it! Thank you.

@Proto1

With all due respect, the Apostles didn’t teach Sola Scriptura, either. I have never seen a verse in the Bible which instructs readers that only Scripture can be thought of as reliable Christian authority. I would tend to believe that the Church, which since the beginning has had the Holy Spirit as its guide is more reliable in teaching Christian theology than any person following the lead of Martin Luther, who was, after all, a sinful human being just like the rest of us.

Dave P- what does Luke 2:35-and a sword will pierce even your own soul—to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.” have to do with Mary offering Jesus to the world?

Christina- I’m sure you would agree that the writings of the apostles that we have are inspired-inerrant Word of God. There is no teaching, writings of anyone whose writings are on the same par with Scripture. The apostles never taught we are to follow the teachings of men if those teachings don’t square with the Scripture. This is why its vitally important for anyone who claims Christ to test all teaching by Scripture which includes the teachings of the church. Don’t assume that all teachings of the church are grounded in Scripture nor believe something because the church tells you to. The church is made up of sinful human beings as you say and can err. Jesus never promised that the church could not err.
Christ also gave the church pastor-teachers who are to teach the Word to the people. However,  these Scriptures also warn of false teachers coming into the church itself who will deceive many. See 2 Peter 2:1. Paul also speaks of this.
With such a warning as this we have no choice by to be on guard and hold all teachings and doctrines up to Scripture.

Good article.  Some Protestants just hate our Lady no matter what you tell them.  I wonder how they’re going to feel when Jesus asks them a their particular judgment - “Why didn’t you like my Mom - I love yours?”

Dear Proto: Your problem is with “Sola Scriptura”; Catholics don’t just go with the words of Scripture, but with almost 2000 years of Sacred Tradition. For a good explanation of that difference between Catholics and Protestants, and very well written too, in a language accessible to non-scholars, I would suggest reading, or listening to, Scott Hahn’s conversion story, when he started looking in depth at Scripture to find where it said what he believed about Scripture alone.

Lovely article, Mark, as usual.

@Proto1: Thank you for your fierce love of Scriptural truth. It is a grace, and one desperately needed in our sorry world today. However, you do make a common error in saying that because there is no *explicit* mention of Mary’s “offering” of herself and her son in the Gospels that therefore she didn’t. Remember, the apostles didn’t mention birth control, abortion, same-sex marriage “rights” either. Does this mean that the Church has no authority to teach on these?
Actually Mark has already addressed this in his earlier book By What Authority, a book you might find enlightening.

One other thing: How do you discern which are the “false teachers”? You see, Jesus invested teaching authority in a group of men who then invested that authority in other men. This is not the ordinary grace that all Christians receive, which is the light of the Holy Spirit (not that He is “ordinary”!).

Those chosen men—the apostles’ successors—came to see, through the light of Scripture and faithfully transmitted oral revelation, that Mary MUST have given a free assent, that her assent MUST have been a true sacrifice, and that she MUST have been singularly, uniquely graced by our Lord in order to be His mother.

Once again, my sincere greetings and appreciation to you for your honest zeal. Read Mark’s book for a better understanding.

@ Proto

It is THE CHURCH that is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:14), not the Bible!  From the Church we received the Bible, and they are servants to each other.

sibyl- I have not read Mark’ book nor have listened to Scott Hahn’s conversion story. If I’m not mistaken he had problems with Marian doctrines before he converted. These things may be interesting but our court of appeal must be the Scriptures for all doctrines and practices and not someone’ conversion story. Its not about church authority but is is true? Is it apostolic? Do the Scriptures teach the Marian doctrines? We already know that the Scriptures do not make any statements about Mary offering Christ to the world. This is the first test: is it apostolic? Another test would be: did the NT church in the writings of the 1st couple of centuries teach it? If you do a study of these doctrines you will not find them in Scripture nor in the early church of the first couple of centuries.

JP- what church did Paul have in mind when he wrote “THE CHURCH that is the pillar and foundation of truth”? Was he thinking of the church in Rome? Also, what did he mean by “truth”? Do you think it was the Marian doctrines and if so how could he if he never wrote about any of the beliefs that the Roman Catholic church teaches about her?

@Proto1

It strikes me that although you talk about the mention of false teachers, you (as well as many other Protestants) never stop to consider whether these false teachers are the ones who guided you. Remember that until 1517, no person who was not considered by all to be a heretic had bothered to say that the Church was teaching in error. This is the Church that taught the same exact doctrines which it teaches today. You cannot tell me that for fifteen hundred years, with some of the brightest men in the world numbered among them, Catholics were all just too dumb to know they were being misled.

Additionally, it is the peculiar office of Protestants not to bother reading the context of the Scriptures, but to take everything at face value. This is fine and well with some of the texts, but others require exegesis which cannot be gleaned from any reading, however thorough, of the English translation. It requires one to look at historical, literary, linguistic, and cultural context before being able to truly understand what the text is saying. This has led to quite a few inaccuracies in Protestant belief, though ordinary Protestants cannot always be faulted for not knowing.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus clearly descibe Mary as the “New Eve”, loosening the knot of Eve’s disobedience and participating in our salvation according to her state, in the 2nd century.

“...Our court of appeal must be the Scriptures for all doctrines and practices”...This belief would have bound the Apostles to enforce circumcision on believing Jews (Acts 15). As it was, they relied on experience and the material, rather than formal, witness of scripture.

It’s really the same issue as in the 16th century. Does God “infuse” his life into the soul, making us “partakers of the divine nature” and shares of his life (2 Thes 1:10), or “merely” impute forgiveness to us, while remaining ever transcendant only?

@Proto1

Paul would have had in mind the Church Jesus founded.  The one the Apostles taught.  The one that came to be called Catholic.  The one who formalized the canon of Scripture you now maintain as the pillar of truth.

In asking me what truth is, you sound like Pontius Pilate.

God is Truth.  Jesus is God.  The Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as its head.

Paul did not have to write Marian doctrines, as they were unchallenged.  The Church seldom if ever codifies a doctrine that is unchallenged.  Why would she? 

Jesus loved His mother enough to ensure her care while He was dying on the cross.  He gave her care to John, His spiritual brother.  John loved Mary enough to accept this.  Why?  Because as Jesus was his spiritual brother, Mary became his spiritual mother.  We are to do what Christ did.  Would that not include revering His mother, whom scripture tells us would be called blessed by all generations?

Why don’t you call her blessed?  It’s in scripture.

Christina- Protestants have had their false teachers. A false teacher is one who does not teach in line with the Scriptures. No church can claim not to have had false teachers. The issue is how does a Catholic recognize false teachings in its churches if it is being told by its leaders it cannot err?

I agree we need to know the context of texts and the “historical, literary, linguistic, and cultural context before being able to truly understand what the text is saying.” This is where Catholics are going to find major problems with the Marian doctrines. Its when you apply these methods to Scripture that you don’t get a sinless Mary nor anyone thinking of her as the queen of heaven and being prayed to.

JP- the truth that Paul is referring to is to be found in verse 16. How can you say that the Roman Catholic church is what the apostles believed if these doctrines are never mentioned in Scripture and developed centuries later? There is no hint in the 1st century that the church had these Marian doctrines. They were not challenged because the church did not have them.
When Jesus gave His mother into the care of John that was because Jesus would no longer be able to care for her. If Mary was to be the mother of the church, why don’t we see anything like this in the NT? No one ever says anything about this.
Protestants do consider Mary blessed because of her part in God using her to bring Christ into the world and raising Him. That is a blessed thing to be part of. However, you should not take this any further than what Scripture does. It never exalts her to the various titles that the Catholic church has given her. This is to go beyond what is written.

@Proto1

Catholics have been “at” the whole church thing a lot longer than Protestants.  The Church is not required to follow the rules placed by Protestants, as the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church…actually for a long time it was the ONLY Christian Church.

One of the ways we can know if a teaching is true or not is…is it in line with longstanding teaching?  Does it actively contradict something taught in established teaching?  Does it contradict scripture?

As for Marian doctrines…They do not only NOT contradict scripture, but are frequently supported by scripture.  The Old Testament image of the “Queen Mother” is an example of this.  But of course the Church is not confined to scripture for support of its teachings.  It couldn’t be, since one of the teachings of the Church is the canon of scripture.

@Proto1

Once again…why should we be confined to Scripture?  It didn’t exist for centuries after the Church began.  And it was the Church that arrived at the canon.

Like many Protestants you seem confused about WHY dogma is defined.  It is not defined because it is new.  It is defined because there has been a challenge to something that already existed.  Marian teachings may not all be found explicitly in scripture, but the dates at which they were defined were usually many centuries after the doctrine began to be taught.  Evidence has been cited here that Mary was seen to be the New Eve as early as the 2nd century.  That belief is older than our canon of Scripture.

JP- the apostles never taught the Marian dogmas. This means that they are not apostolic and therefore have their source outside the Scripture. The Catholic church’ claim that Mary was sinless does contradict Scripture. All men have sinned and fallen short. Romans 3:9,23.
It is true that your church is “not required to follow the rules placed by Protestants” but it is required to follow what Christ and His apostles taught i.e. the Scripture if it is to be considered a church based on Christ. To go beyond this is to follow the teachings of men and not Christ.

JP- the church has always had the OT Scriptures. It had the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles and we know the NT Scripture was written down before the apostles died. This means that church has never been without the Scriptures. Even before the canon was recognized by the church it still had these 27 books of the NT.
We should be confined to the Scriptures only because it is only there that we find the teachings of the Lord Jesus and His apostles. It is in the Scripture alone we find the inspired-inerrant Word of God and nowhere else. Only the Scriptures can give us a sure foundation for doctrine and practice.
You claim that the teaching that Mary is the new Eve comes from the 2nd century by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Do these 2 men speak for the entire church? Were they the supreme leaders of the church at that time? We should also ask where in Scripture it speaks of Mary being the new Eve?

@Proto1
>>it is required to follow what Christ and His apostles taught i.e. the Scripture if it is to be considered a church based on Christ.<<

Sorry, but you have it precisely backwards. Scripture is Scripture BECAUSE the bishops of the Church determined that the writings we now consider Scripture were consistent with the Faith as handed down from the Apostles by their successors. Church is not defined by Scripture, Scripture is defined by Church. This is simply historical fact. If it was necessary for Scripture to authenticate Truth, how would there have been any way to ascertain what was true between the death of John and the declaration of the Canon? How would anyone have been able to know whether they should follow (for example) the Gospel of Thomas? Who determined that the Gnostics were NOT Christians, back in the day before there was a New Testament? Hmm. “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church” - Ignatius of Antioch, on the way to his martyrdom, in about 115 . . . 250 or more years before anyone recognized the New Testament we have today as the Word of God.

Sally- I agree that the “Scripture is Scripture BECAUSE the bishops of the Church determined that the writings we now consider Scripture were consistent with the Faith as handed down from the Apostles by their successors.” Keep in mind that the church did not make the writings inspired-inerrant. They recognized they were the Word of God.
The problem today in the Catholic church is that its leadership over the centuries has not been consistent with what the apostles taught. How could they be consistent with the apostles if the apostles never taught what the Roman Catholic church teaches about Mary?

Proto, you asked this…
“Another test would be: did the NT church in the writings of the 1st couple of centuries teach it? If you do a study of these doctrines you will not find them in Scripture nor in the early church of the first couple of centuries”...
You were given evidence that you are mistaken regarding early Church witness, nothing more, nothing less. Some individuals would perhaps ask themselves if they are mistaken about other “traditions” handed down from their teachers about Catholicism.

Daniel- you wrote-“Justin Martyr and Irenaeus clearly descibe Mary as the “New Eve”, loosening the knot of Eve’s disobedience and participating in our salvation according to her state, in the 2nd century.”
I asked if Justin Martyr and Irenaeus spoke for the entire church. Did they when they wrote this? Did the entire church believe this in the 2nd century?
Just because someone wrote something back then does it mean the entire church believed it. Agreed?

The bulk of the objections raised here are addressed by utilizing the typological sense of scripture, which Christ and the Apostle Paul employed themselves in their interpretation of the Old Testament. Catholics practice a method of scriptural exegesis which is consistent with Christ and the sacred authors.

“I asked if Justin Martyr and Irenaeus spoke for the entire church”...

...After your initial question was addressed. No answer is sufficient for you, but the Catholic can present reasonable evidence for his/her beliefs. Mr. Shea has done so.

Who are the real Protestants besides yourself, since under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they believe differently on critical issues like baptismal regeneration, etc.?

Daniel- your answers did not address my questions. Did Justin Martyr and Irenaeus speak for the entire church? If so, who gave them that authority?
Right now its not important what other Protestants believe but what do the Scriptures say about Mary and who has the authority to speak for the entire church in the 2nd century.

While no one Father spoke for the entire Church, the two cited were followed in the patristic era by Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Peter Chrysologus, Ephraem of Syria, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodotus, Andrew of Crete, and John of Damascus.
Of course, like Jehovahs and Mormons, you would say “the Doctor of Grace” and the others went off the rails with regard to Mary’s role in salvation history.

Proto1
RE: Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, what is interesting is that we don’t have a record of anyone denouncing the New Eve thought as heretical.

RE: Romans. Taken in context of the entire book it’s clear Paul is addressing Jews who thought that once they were circumcised they were always saved. With that one verse he is saying “All, Gentiles AND JEWS, have sinned” as in “people from both groups”. Further, if you look at the psalm he is quoting, it is one written by David when being oppressed by his own household (even those closest to him have turned against him). Later in that psalm he says “The Lord is in the company of the Righteous”. Yet if all is absolutely every single person, as you say Paul means, then either this verse refers to a null set or Paul ripped it out of context.

Proto, your argument is not very consistent.  You argue that we must teach only what is in Scripture (even though Scripture itself tells us that Jesus said much that is not recorded.  It also tells us to hold fast to traditions we’ve been taught…but oh well.  Doesn’t suit the plan).  Yet when it’s been pointed out that it was the Church who canonized Scripture, you rightly point out that we always had the OT.  The books were there, it’s true, and others.  It was the Church that decided which of the OT books were inspired.  There were many others in use.

Thing is…if the early Church had only the OT, were they to teach only what is in there?  That makes NO sense.  That would, in effect, make us Jews!  The Church had to be teaching something that was non-scriptural between the time of the foundation of the Church (Pentecost) and the time of the writing of the NT scriptures.  St. Paul tells us in Timothy that Scripture is sufficient.  But he was talking about OT Scripture!  Taking that phrase literally would render all NT writings superfluous.

Does not work for me…or the Church

Why should we believe you?

JP- It is true that there were things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in Scripture. The problem is no one knows what this was since it was not recorded. It is also true that Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the tradition they taught. However, none of Paul’ teaching-traditions say anything about the Marian doctrines.
The church did not decide the canon of the OT. They accepted the canon of the OT from the Jews from which Jesus and His apostles quoted from.
The NT church had the OT and the teachings of Jesus and His apostles. They had the oral teachings of the apostles while they were alive to guide them and before they died their teachings were written down. What was written down became the NT.
My question for you is: why should I believe what your church teaches about Mary if the apostles never taught it?

Lady Cygnus- just because we “we don’t have a record of anyone denouncing the New Eve thought as heretical” does not mean its true. Lots of things throughout church history have been said that we know are wrong but have not been denounced.
Do you believe in the Brown Scapular and The Sabbatine Privilege? Here is a quote from an article on this-“St. Dominic prayed to Our Lady that she would force the devils who possessed a man to reveal the truth about devotion to her. The devils were forced by Our Lady to reveal: “Now that we are forced to speak we must also tell you this: Nobody who perseveres in saying the Rosary will be damned, because she obtains for her servants the grace of true contrition for their sins and by means of this they obtain God’s forgiveness and mercy.” http://olrl.org/pray/rosary.shtml

Do you believe this that ” Nobody who perseveres in saying the Rosary will be damned..”?  Would you believe something that is said by a devil?

@ Proto1

How do you know the Apostles didn’t teach it?  Some Marian doctrines were well established by the 2nd century.  They didn’t appear from nowhere.

And the Church DID decide on which OT books were to be used.  There were different OT books used in different areas of the Jewish world.  The Church chose those which she felt were inspired, to use to guide Christians.  Ultimately, it was the Protestant Church which is the reason two OT canons are now used in most of Christendom (the Orthodox Church has a couple of books found in neither canon, and I’ve only just heard of the Ethiopian Canon and that it’s very large).

You didn’t answer my question…why should we believe you?

Here’s something for consideration:  it’s not just Rome.  It’s Constantinople, Etchmiadzin in Armenia, Alexandria, and Antioch, in all the ancient patriarchates.  It’s from Britannia to Ethiopia and from Spain to India.  Anywhere you find the ancient Churches founded by the Apostles, you will find the all-male priesthood, the Trinity as defined in the First Council of Nicea, the Eucharistic Liturgy as described by St. Justin Martyr, and high honor to the Blessed Virgin Mary. All these predate the final canon of the New Testament.  It’s all paradosis.

JP- You bear the burden to show that the apostles taught the Marian doctrines not me. This is a problem as you know since there is no hint of these doctrines in the NT. Since they are not in the NT that means someone outside of the NT came up with various beliefs about her that are not grounded in Scripture. If I’m not mistaken these beliefs about Mary did not start until centuries after she died.
The church up to the time of Trent accepted the OT books that the Jews used as Scripture. The Apocrypha of the OT was not considered Scripture by the Jews. These deutro-canonical i.e. second canon books were not considered Scripture until Trent declared them so in the 1500’s.
Don’t just believe me. Do what the Bereans did in Acts 17:10-11—
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

All Christians should examine the teachings of their church in light of Scripture and not just accept what they teach. Hold them to the Scripture. You already can see some of the problems with the Marian doctrines in our discussion. That should tell you something.

Dave P- what did these churches say about the “high honor to the Blessed Virgin Mary”?

Proto1

Your ignorance is showing.  The OT canon did NOT change at Trent.  It was officially declared (remember me telling you what that means yesterday?).  It was Martin Luther who chose a different canon.  BTW, he believed in Marian doctrine, too.

I can only speak for the Orthodox Church, among those Dave mentioned, and they hold Mary in regard at least as high as that of the Catholic Church.  I see by a quick search that the Armenian Church also celebrates the Assumption and has churches named for Mary, so I assume they believe something like what we do.

If, as you acknowledge, the NT was not created until later in the Church’s history (canonized 4th century, I believe.  Written in the first couple of centuries) how was the Church governed as it spread throughout the known world?  They would not have had scripture to guide them.  Well, maybe the OT, but that of course makes no mention of Christ, which is a little problematic, don’t you think?

And if they had only scripture to guide them, how did they know which books to include in that same scripture?  There was a lot to choose from both among Old and New Testament offerings.

And you still haven’t answered my question.  Why should we change 2000+ years of Church teaching to believe you?

JP- Here is part of an article about the Deuterocanonical books.
“Deuterocanonical books is a term used since the sixteenth century in the Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Old Testament that are not part of the Hebrew Bible. The term is used in contrast to the protocanonical books, which are contained in the Hebrew Bible.”
There was “opposition to these books’ inclusion were Cardinals Seripando and Cajetan” at Trent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books

The church in the early centuries had the writings of the apostle that were being copied and sent to other churches. There was a wide circulation of their writings even though it took until the 4th century to declare which writings were to be considered inspired-inerrant. There were also other writings that the churches used such as The Didache: Teachings of the 12 Apostles that is not considered Scripture. Other works such as the gnostic gospels were condemned by the church. Some of the Marian doctrines are taken from these gnostic gospels. The apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae is the basis for Mary’ assumption.
See my answer to your question why you should believe me above.

Proto1

I think you need to read a little further on in that Wiki article.  Given that the deuterocanonical books were widely accepted by early Christians, the fact that the list was finalized at Trent (after the Prots removed the deuterocanon…the challenge that usually precedes something being defined…remember?) is entirely consistent with Church practice.  It should be noticed by you that the short version of the OT is recognized mainly by Prots.

And given that THEY did not come into existence until shortly before the council of Trent…

Well, I’m sorry but this is just not credible.  Remind me again why we should believe you over nearly all of Christian history?

From the Coptic Church (founded by St. Mark):

O Theotokos (Mother of God), the second heaven
You are the honoured Mother of the Light.

From sunrise to sunset
the faithful offer you praises

You are the bright and unchanging flower
and the mother who remained a virgin
for the Father chose you
and the Holy Spirit overshadowed you
and the Son deigned to take flesh from you.

Wherefore, ask the Lord
to give salvation to the world
which He created
and to deliver it from all tribulations

Let us praise the Lord
and sing to Him a new song
now and forever and from all ages to all ages

Amen.

From the Armenian Church (the first nation to be officially Christian - even before Rome):

“Thou art the Flower which cannot wither,

Thy birth was free from the condemnation of original sin,

Immaculate, holy Virgin, We glorify thee!”

“Living Eden. Tree of immortal life

guarded on every way by the flashing sword.”

“Thanks to thy stainless and spotless purity, Thou art good!

Thanks to thine immaculate holiness thou art a Tutelary Advocate!”

TO PROTO1 - The Catholic Church has not as yet proclaimed Mary as co-redemptrix. If it does, in the manner it proclaimed her Immaculate Conception and Assuption, it will do so because it it the one, true church, founded by Jesus Christ (“Peter thou art rock and upon this rock I build my Church…” - scriptural enough?)and is uniquely guided through history by the Holy Spirit,which the Protestant churches (they are legion) are not.

Paul M Blake

From the Malankara Orthodox of India (founded by St. Thomas):

http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=149

Dave P- In your quote from the Coptic Church that Mary remained a virgin goes against the clear teaching of Scripture on this. Mary certainly did have other children. See Matt 13:55, Mark 3:31 Galatians 1:21.

Paul Blake- What does co-redemptrix mean and where specifically is this idea-concept found in Scripture for Mary?

Proto1- Look up the Greek on those verses you cited. The word translated into “brother” has multiple meanings including cousin or half-brother. There is nothing in scriptures that tells us Mary had other children.
Do you really think Catholics are so unintelligent that we would miss those verses?????

You just nicely demonstrated one problem that can come up with trying to read scripture “for oneself” without any help in understanding or interpreting them.

The “Brethren” referred to in Scripture are close kin or cousins, as Aramaic (along with other Semitic languages) has the same word for “brother” and “cousin”. This could be extended to other kin, as seen in Genesis 14:14, when Lot, Abram’s nephew, is called Abram’s brother.  Also, James, who is called “brother of the Lord” specifically has a different Mary mentioned as his mother (Mark 15:40); she is also identified as the wife of Clopas in John 19:25.  Lastly, had Jesus had other biological brothers, Mary would have been taken care by one of them.  Instead, John was entrusted with that duty.

Margaret H- Here is why we should believe Mary had other children:
1)  No mention of it in the Scripture.  She nor do any writers claim she was a perpetual virgin. 
2)  The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity.  It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
3)  The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
4)  When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
5)  In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
6)  There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
7)  Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
8)  There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36
9) There is no theological problem if Mary had children after the birth of Jesus. It takes nothing away from the Lord Jesus in any way.

Proto1, there are answers to all these points—you are not the first protestant to use them against Catholics. We have 2000 years of defending the faith behind us, but to go easy on you, try picking up Mark’s book and browsing through it.

As of right now, nothing you’ve said has even come close to refuting good Catholic apologetics, most of it is the tired same old-same old.

Proto:

You are making agile use of the semi-permeable membrane of sola scriptura.  Any tradition you wish to uphold, you say, “Scripture does not deny it!”  And tradition you wish to deny, you say, “Scripture does not unequivocally attest it!”  It’s a “Head’s I win, tails you lose” trick which sola scriptura folk use constantly and either never notice or never admit noticing.  Catholics, however, do notice it and aren’t fooled.  It’s of a piece with the Protestant myth of the Perspicuity of Scripture.

Proto1:

You are showing your ignorance of history and culture, which is needed in order to understand Scripture correctly.  The Fathers of the Church (who predate the NT canon, and some of whom knew the Apostles personally) understood the brothers of the Lord to be either his close kin, or his stepbrothers from Joseph. In neither of those cases would they be obliged to take care of a widowed and childless woman.

Lady Cygnus- If you think Mark’ book can help you, then do so. I don’t have it. All you need to do is to demonstrate where you think I’m wrong and why.

Mark- this discussion is not primarily about sola scriptura but the Marian doctrines. I have challenged you and other Catholics here to show from Scripture the foundation for these doctrines. So far that has not been done.

Try this:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6811&CFID=92512029&CFTOKEN=67216337

Dave P—lets first focus on what Scripture says about Mary’s family since the gospels are the primary source documents on her. I posted this to Margaret H:
1)  No mention of it in the Scripture.  She nor do any writers claim she was a perpetual virgin.
2)  The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity.  It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
3)  The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
4)  When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
5)  In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
6)  There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
7)  Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
8)  There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36
9) There is no theological problem if Mary had children after the birth of Jesus. It takes nothing away from the Lord Jesus in any way.

Proto1:

I got it the first time.  I also think you’re proving Mark’s point.  You’re ignoring history, culture, and context to suit your own personal interpretation.  Personally, I would think that if all the ancient Churches believe these things, and that they are attested to by Christians who lived before the New Testament was finalized (even to the point of knowing the Apostles themselves), and that even the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) found enough evidence to believe them - then there might be something to them.

Dave P- if anyone is a type of the Ark of the Covenant it would be the Lord Jesus. “In the Greek the word dwelt is skeinoo from the Hebrew word shekinah which was the word for God residing in the tabernacle. Jesus clothed himself in human flesh Phil.2:5-8, the ark was His body it had carried the creator of the universe. It was not Mary who was the ark it was Jesus’ body that was the tabernacle.” http://www.letusreason.org/RC8.htm

1)  Nor is there any mention that SHE had other children (no other “Sons of Mary”.
2)  And until doesn’t always mean that afterwards it happened (see Ps. 71:7, I Cor. 15:25, and Matt. 28:20
3)  Is it - your knoweldge of Jewish customs doesn’t instill trust in this statement. Also, the Jews also had an extreme reverence and fear of the Lord God. So much so that it would be unheard of of a man to touch the woman chosen by God to be the mother of the Son.
4)  Look at Acts 1:12-15. You have the 12, Mary, some women and the “brothers of Jesus”, yet somehow this is 150 total. Mary had a lot of babies huh?
5)  Or you can understand them as close relatives or even just close friends, as is often done in middle eastern cultures.
6)  True, these “brothers” could be cousins or just those who believe (as in Acts 1)
7)  And someone else has already pointed out how he had a different mother.
8)  They probably spoke Aramaic, but even so, the tradition of that culture is to use brother. I’ve experienced this first hand.
9)  If you don’t care about the divinity of Christ or the dignity of women…sure no problem. Mary’s virginity points to Christ’s divine origin in that it emphasizes the glory of God - Jesus is Holy and thus, by association, the woman who was the sole source of His body and blood was holy. Jews knew better than to profane what was holy. As for women, to say that God used Mary as no more than a surrogate and her role as Mother means nothing is demeaning to all women. We are more than just objects for making babies, but precious souls in an eternal relationship with God.

And apart from looking up the exact passages…no research done. These are OLD arguments - I suggest Mark’s book because you obviously have never heard them before or you would have skipped to step two (answering these points).

Dave P- I’m not ignoring history but you are ignoring Scripture and assuming that these churches in later centuries are correct. If these churches did teach these things its not based on Scripture. The Scriptures warned that false teachers would come into the church and deceive many. One way to see if there is a false teaching is to first look to Scripture and see if the Scripture does indeed teach such a thing. In the the case of the Marian doctrines they do not.

Proto1

I think this will be my last post on the issue.  You are presenting nothing new.

Note how several posts back churches begun by Apostles or their proteges reverence Mary.  This is EARLY Christian history…not “centuries later”.

You are using two standards.  Everything must be in the Bible…except where it isn’t and it suits your purposes.

The Church which gave you the Bible you worship is not capable of giving you “traditions, whether by letter or word of mouth”.

I’m handing this over to others, who will undoubtedly do a better job.

JP- I encourage you to read church history on this. This reverencing of Mary is nothing like you have in the Catholic church today.

I encourage you to read church history on this. This reverencing of Mary is nothing like you have in the Catholic church today.

We have.  But you reject history when it doesn’t suit your interpretation (the other ancient churches, the Antenicene Fathers on Mary); and do likewise with Scripture (your rejection of the exact parallel between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary).

Dear Proto1

I am quite well-versed in history.  I teach Church doctrine and history.  I am also aware of how “history” has been manipulated by those trying to prove a point, like sola scriptura, or trying to paint the Church as the “!@#$% of Babylon”.

It gets really tired.

With that, I’m out of this discussion.

JP- I’m shocked you teach church history and doctrine. You did not counter anything that I wrote especially on the doctrines of Mary. I never manipulated the Scripture, history nor Catholic teachings.

I never manipulated the Scripture, history nor Catholic teachings.

Absolutely laughable. I certainly hope you didn’t type that with a straight face, because you’ve done nothing but manipulate Scripture (you apply it only the way you read it, ignoring 2000+ years of Catholic Tradition…including the glaring fact you wouldn’t even HAVE THE BIBLE if it weren’t for the early Church, i.e. CATHOLICS).

THE BIBLE WAS CREATED BY THE CHURCH, the CHURCH WAS NOT CREATED BY THE BIBLE.  ANY ARGUMENT THAT PRECLUDES THE FORMER FOR THE SOLE SAKE OF THE LATTER IS ERRONEOUS AND INCORRECT.

<i>The Scriptures warned that false teachers would come into the church and deceive many.<i>

Pot, meet kettle.

You obfuscate and minimize Catholic history by saying what we do today isn’t want was done in the past (it is). 

And you sure do a good job of twisting Catholic teaching to fit your incorrect Protestant world view.

Amy P- You claim I “you’ve done nothing but manipulate Scripture”. Give me one specific example on any of these posts that I have done so.

Give me one specific example on any of these posts that I have done so.

Oh, wow…you want to make it THAT easy for me?

When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of ancient language and ancient culture knows “brothers” and “sisters” were interchangeable for other members of the family.

Misinterpretation of Scripture and ignorance of history.

And that’s just one.  There are more, but your response to everything is “I am rubber, you are glue.”  So nothing matters except YOUR interpretation of Scripture, which is AT MOST 500 years old, versus the two MILLENIA of CATHOLIC SCRIPTURE and DOCTRINE.  Which also makes you hypocritical…what mystic power gives you the insight into knowing 2,000 years of Tradition and teachings (including compiling the Scriptures) that the Catholic Church doesn’t have?  At what magical point in history—at a time before Internet, cell phones, or efficient means of travel—did Christianity go off the rails and you (and your fellows) get bestowed with this inerrant knowledge about the Christian faith.

Jesus being the Ark of the Covenant is another one.  The Ark of the Covenant CARRIED THE WORD OF GOD, and likewise, Mary CARRIED THE WORD OF GOD (Jesus) in her womb.  Therefore, the parallel between the two is 1) Scripturally based.

I suggest you get a new Bible and read it closely, rather than proof-texting that which supports your incomplete theology.

And last question:

Why is YOUR interpretation—interpretation which you seemingly loathe when it’s Catholic—correct when ours is easily, irrefutably supported by Scripture?

Amy P—your example of what I wrote-“When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19” is not manipulation of Scripture. Show me any Greek NT lexicon that shows this is wrong.
As for Mary being a type of Ark of the Covenant do you know of any author of the NT that ever refers to her in this manner? Name just one. If Mary is supposedly like the Ark of Covenant what does that make Jesus? If Mary is the Ark, what was she after Jesus was born? Did she cease to be the Ark?
As for Tradition, do you happen to know all the Traditions of the Roman Catholic church? Does such a list exist? I have asked this question to a number of Catholics and none have ever been able to produce such a list. You might be the first to answer it.
If my interpretation is wrong then show me I’m wrong and why yours is the correct one. Take the Catholic church’ claim Mary was without sin. What text of Scripture will you present that demonstrates this? This should be easy for you.

Revelation 11:19, which immediately precedes the Woman:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. 

And Mary as the Ark need not be explicitly mentioned.  The parallels are there, as shown in the link above. 

If Mary is the Ark, Jesus is the Word Made Flesh (the Tablets of the Law).  He is the Bread of Life (the jar of manna).  He is the High Priest (Aaron’s staff).  He is the New Covenant.

Dave P- has your church officially-infallibly interpreted these verses in Rev 11:19 the way you are? If so, where?
The Ark was God’s throne in His dwelling place in the Tabernacle. Do you think Mary fits this description?

As for Tradition, do you happen to know all the Traditions of the Roman Catholic church? Does such a list exist? I have asked this question to a number of Catholics and none have ever been able to produce such a list. You might be the first to answer it.

It’s call the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Mass.  Both of which chronicle the teachings and traditions of the Church.  Read accounts of early worship services…they are extremely similar to the modern-day Mass.  Also, look up a list of all the Popes and bishops: you’ll notice a clear and historical linage from them TODAY back to Biblical times.

What about YOU? Your theology dates back to a monk who decided he was fed up and broke away from what—prior to this—had been and remains what the Catholic Church teaches.

Show me any Greek NT lexicon that shows this is wrong.

The language of the time of Jesus was Hebrew and Aramaic.  The Greek translation was to preserve the Aramaic terminology.  See THIS: http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/jesbrs.txt

You keep ignoring the end of John.  If Jesus had biological siblings, there was NO NEED FOR HIM TO GIVE MARY OVER TO JOHN.

As for Mary being a type of Ark of the Covenant do you know of any author of the NT that ever refers to her in this manner? Name just one. If Mary is supposedly like the Ark of Covenant what does that make Jesus? If Mary is the Ark, what was she after Jesus was born? Did she cease to be the Ark?

She remained the Ark, because she remained a Virgin.  Believing Mary was perpetually virgin, as well as without sin, reinforces this.  It makes no sense that Jesus—who was sinless—would be born of a woman (from whom He got His humanity) who was anything but preserved from sin through the grace of God.  That’s why in Luke Mary says “All generations shall call me blessed” (which has already been mentioned).  You don’t think carrying the Lord in her womb had any sort of impact on Mary?

What text of Scripture will you present that demonstrates this?

First, Mary is greeted by the angel as being “Full of grace” (see Luke), second, Mary is meant to be a contrast to Eve, a second Eve, one who—unlike Eve who sinned—is free from sin, one who says ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’

Old Testament is full of prophetic references to Mary, and Jesus.

But now I want you to show me where, in Scripture, it says that Scripture alone is what you need.  Where is Scriptural evidence for THAT?

Amy- you write about my challenge to find a NT Greek lexicon that disputes what I said with this-“The language of the time of Jesus was Hebrew and Aramaic.” That may be but we have to go by the language that the gospels were written in and that was Greek.
As for a list of the popes what am I to do with the anti popes or some of the evil popes? Was the Holy Spirit leading them also?
There could be any number of reasons Jesus gave His mother to John and not His siblings. For one, His siblings were not there. The fact is that Jesus gave her to John. To claim this means this makes Mary the mother of the church is a seriously flawed interpretation of this passage.
You did not answer my questions about Mary being the Ark. Being a virgin has nothing to do with being an ark. You have yet to establish from Scripture that Mary was sinless. Being “full of grace” does not mean without sin. Here is what it means-“To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharit?mén?, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitó? declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitó? is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.”
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5486). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers
As you can see it has nothing to do with being sinless.
The Scriptures alone are the only sources we have of Mary. She appears in the contexts of the gospels and in Acts. In Acts 1:14 it mentions her with Jesus’ brothers and after that she is never mentioned again by name. Paul indirectly refers to her in Galatians. 
Here is what it says about her death-“The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

Proto1 - You’re like the bumblebee who refuses to fly because, of course, it’s aerodynamically impossible for bumblebees to fly!  Your protestant faith has ironically left you unable to believe, or even recognize, true doctrine.  And I think it’s because Marian doctrines represent the most outrageously unbelievable examples of God’s astounding grace operating in sinful humanity, to the utter defiance of reason and logic.  You just don’t have the spiritual muscles to follow the wild unimpeded coursings of the Holy Spirit!  It probably won’t help you to study greek for a million years, because this mystery, like all Christian mysteries “is an absurdity to the Greeks.”  Better if you follow the Saints into holy submission.  (That’s another reason why Jesus set up a hierarchical Church: its actually a service to the faithful.)  As far as Mary is concerned, try reading the 4th Commandment.  ‘Nuff said?

Matt B- is this the best you can do to defend the Catholic faith? If it is, then the world has nothing to fear.

Nothing to fear - and everything to hope!

The sad fact about the meaningless multiplication of words is that often little if any knowledge is conveyed.  It’s like “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury…”  True faith is a gift.

what exactly is “True faith”?

I have a really whacky comment. When I read your story about your wife giving birth, I read the “Evergreen Point Bridge” and was like “where the heck is that?” then I realized you were talking about 520 :D It’s a shame we don’t call it by its real name more often.

@proto1 you have asked the connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. I propose the following to you. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant held the Word of God (the 10 Commandments), or God’s Covenant with His people. We understand then that Christ, the New Covenant, the Word of God, would be placed in the Mary’s womb, which could accurately then be described as the Ark of the Covenant as her womb held the New Covenant. Now, when the tablets were removed from the Ark, does that mean the Ark was no longer the Ark? Likewise, when Christ was born, does that which transported the new Convenant cease to transport Him? Cease to protect Him? Cease to care for Him?

Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I would ask you pray about this. I believe that Sacred Scripture reveals much to us, but, it was also not decided upon for a couple hundred years after the Apostles and Christ walked the Earth. To follow only it would assume that before it was declared Scripture, no one knew what was going on. Yes, they had Old Testament which was Scripture, but even the letters of Paul and Peter and the Gospels could not be considered Scripture at that time, but only writings of the Apostles, which SOME were written in Greek when it was the most common language (for example Luke’s gospel). But you also must understand Hebrew and Arameic tradition for it all to make sense. Furthermore, Luther decided that the deutro-canonical books of the Old Testament should be removed because they were only written in Greek, and not in Hebrew. So why should books written in the Greek be the most trustworthy translation for understanding Scripture?

You’ve been commended for your zeal of Scripture and I commend you again. Scripture is important for us all, Protestant or Catholic for understanding God. I hope that we can all work towards proclaiming the love of Christ.

God bless you, my brother.

Proto1 - Faith is a pretty common human experience.  We find it in all areas of life.  In fact it is as necessary to human existence as air to breathe and food to eat.  The systematic abuse of faith has resulted in the world degenerating into a materialistic, nihilistic and legalistic hellhole - perfect trolling ground for protestants!  True faith is faith directed toward some worthy object.  Although there are many conditionally worthy objects deserving of a partial faith, only God himself is fully worthy of belief.  Therefore only faith in God is absolutely true faith.  Your unreserved commitment to holy scriptures is an example of misplaced absolute faith in a conditionally worthy object - at least for protestants.  That’s because, while scripture is indeed of good quality, and worthy of belief, protestants hold that object under a faulty title, which vitiates their use of this good.  Even for Catholics, faith in holy scriptures is subservient to faith in God, and certainly not identical to it.  As St. Paul tells Timothy, scripture is good for a lot of things.  But if that’s all you have, you really don’t know God.  That’s why all your arguments from holy scripture fall flat: the real owner of the book may return at any time and turn you out altogether.  Certainly arguing back and forth like pharisees does nothing to enhance faith. You only qualify yourself for “bookworm of the year” awards at the local AG reading room.

Matt B- how do you go about determining a true teaching from a false one? Can anyone really know what God is like without the Scriptures?

Do you deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?

Proto:

You pretend to want answers, but have no interest when you get them.  If you seriously want to know the sources of Catholic teaching about Mary, then email me your snail mail address (chez.ami@frontier.com) and I will send you my Mary trilogy free of charge.  If you want to just go on telling Catholics what they believe and making ignorant pronouncements, continue what you are doing.  Everything in Catholic dogmatic teaching about Mary is rooted in apostolic teaching.  That you don’t know this is due to your ignorance, not to a failure in the content of Catholic magisterial teaching.

Mark- thanks for the offer for your book. I’ll have to give that some thought. It seems my questions have hit a nerve. I have read the responses and as you know they lead to further questions and issues.  I have not misrepresented Catholic teachings. It is true I have challenged them because they are not grounded in Scripture. If they were Catholics would be showing me the errors of my ways. 
You claim that “Everything in Catholic dogmatic teaching about Mary is rooted in apostolic teaching.” Take Mary’ being without sin. Where did the apostles teach this doctrine? Where in the NT is this even hinted at?

Matt B- no I do not deny Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

You claim that “Everything in Catholic dogmatic teaching about Mary is rooted in apostolic teaching.” Take Mary’ being without sin. Where did the apostles teach this doctrine? Where in the NT is this even hinted at?

The doctrine is hinted at in the angel’s greeting, “Kaire, Kecharitomene”.  As I say, if you actually want to know the answer to this and all your other questions, give me your address and I will send you the trilogy.  I’m not going to rewrite the book here in the comboxes.

Proto1, I have been watching this discussion, and I’ve seen you continue to assert that certain Catholic teachings (such as the Immaculate Conception) are not “grounded in Scripture.”  I hear this objection often from Protestant Christians.  I myself said such things, and believed them vehemently, during my years as a Protestant, before I returned to the Catholic Church (as a result of Biblical, theological, and historical study and prayer). 

I admit that a doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly, immediately apparent from Scripture.  However, have you considered that certain doctrines which you may take as actually *being* explicitly apparent in Scripture may only seem so apparent because they have been taught to you, from certain verses and passages, for years—such as the Trinity? 

I once had a Jewish friend who became a Christian.  He and I were members of the same Protestant church together, a serious, “expository preaching”-oriented church.  My friend and I deeply cared about knowing and loving God and understanding the Bible.  At the church we attended, we were taught the importance of reading passages, chapters, and books of the Bible in context.  We were taught *not* to simply take verses or passages here and there, out of context, and build a theology out of them (though, in retrospect, I have to say that this did actually happen at the church). However, the church did affirm the Trinity, as taught from Scripture, and other core, orthodox, historic Christian doctrines.

Well, one day at church, my aforementioned friend, raised as a Jew, but for years, a converted Christian, came to me and confided that he had begun to study the doctrine of the Trinity, from Scripture, with a pastor from another church—a Pentecostal church which did *not* affirm the Trinity, believing, from study of *the Bible itself*, that the doctrine was not “grounded in Scripture.” 

I could hardly believe what I was hearing.  I knew that such non-Trinitarian “churches” existed, but I couldn’t believe that my Christian friend, serious about the understanding the Bible, would actually take their arguments seriously.  I mean, if anything were clear from Scriptural teaching, it had to be the Trinity!  However, upon more reflection, I did have to admit that while there were/are many places in Scripture which clearly seemed to affirm the Trinity, there were also many other places in Scripture which could also easily, “clearly” seem to deny it. 

Now, as a Bible-studying Protestant who cared about sound exegesis and proper hermeneutical principles, I had been taught to always take the unclear (or less clear) verses and passages in the Bible, and to compare them to the clear ones.  I was told that I would do so, the things in the Bible which were necessary for salvation would be clear to me. It was partially through just this kind of Bible study, and comparison of different verses/passages, that I believed doctrines such as the Trinity to be “Biblical.”  They seemed very clear from the Bible itself—and it seemed to be the consensus of my pastors, and of all the other Protestants around me, that people who did not believe the Trinity were heretics, so I didn’t dare to take the arguments of non-Trinitarians *too* seriously, as if they might actually be right! 

However, my coverted, Jewish, Christian friend *was* taking non-Trinitarian arguments seriously, *from Scripture itself*, and it unnerved me.  I didn’t allow it to unnerve me too deeply though, in terms of my own Trinitarian faith.  At the time, I basically told myself, “Well, the Trinity is clear from Scripture, so if he comes to deny it, that will be an indication that, tragically, my friend was never saved in the first place.  (Another Protestant doctrine which can be argued and “proven” from Scripture but also argued against, quite well, by those who disagree, also from Scripture…). 

Eventually, years later, though, I had to admit that while the Trinity did seem quite clear to me from Scripture, some of this seeming clarity was on the basis of having been taught the doctrine, in sermons, Bible studies, and apologetics classes and books, for years, in Protestant churches.

What seemed virtually self-evident to me, from Scripture (i.e. the Trinity), and my embrace of it, were actually the result of a many-layered combination of things—Biblical/theological study and prayer, affirmation *of* that study from others, reaffirmation, continually hearing, and being taught, that non-Trinitarian were heretics, and the Trinity was “clear from Scripture,” *and* mostly unbeknownst to me, Church councils from the 3rd and 4th centuries, which had defined and codified the Trinity as being essential for orthodox Christian faith.

Thanks be to God that I never ended up denying the Trinity.  I do believe that the doctrine correctly reflects Scriptural teaching.  I don’t know if my friend ever became “non-Trinitarian” or not.  Partially due to moves on both of our parts, over the years, we lost touch with each other.  I deeply regret that.  However, I have thought back to our conversations, and they have challenged me, in terms of what is clearly, obviously “grounded in Scripture” and what is not—and in terms of who has the right to definitively make such claims and *settle* them, as far as defining what is “essential” for orthodox Christian belief. 

What I didn’t know, for most of my years as a Protestant, was that the Catholic Church, and its Councils, had been interpreting Scripture for well over 1, 500 years.  It was partially as a *result* of that interpretation, and those Councils, that Protestants such as myself accepted the Trinity as an orthodox “Christian essential.” 

However, other things, which were defined and codified at those *very same* early Church Councils, we Protestants denied—such as calling Mary “Mother of God.”  We denied those other things, as Protestants, because we didn’t believe them to be “grounded in Scripture.”  Had we really, seriously studied them though?  Had we gone back and looked deeply into the theological debates of those times (as deeply as we had studied the Trinity from Scripture) in order to see *why* the early Councils saw both the Trinity and Mary being “Mother of God” as being crucial for Christians to affirm?  In my case, as a Protestant, I must admit that I had not really done so.

Which brings us back to square one of our discussion, so to speak—the Marian doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church.  You, as a Protestant, do not see these things in Scripture.  I did not see them in Scripture either as a Protestant.  However, the Catholic Church has been interpreting Scripture for well over 1, 500 years.  As a Protestant, I knew very little of that interpretation, other than what I was told about it by other Protestants.

I sincerely, and seriously, thought that I had all that I needed, reading and studying the Bible itself, and making use of “sound Biblical exegesis,” from Protestant preachers and authors such as Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, and others.  However, I had not spent extended time with the Biblical exegetes of the 1st-4th centuries, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, Athanasius, and others.  When I began to read their interpretations of the Bible, I was quite shocked—and I began to see why we Protestants did not see Catholic teachings about Mary as being grounded in Scripture, and why the early Christian exegetes *did* see them as such.

I would encourage you to take Mark up on his offer to send you his trilogy of books.  Some of what you learn may well challenge you and make you very uncomfortable, in terms of what you have, heretofore,  believed.  In the end though, Truth is what matters most, not staying comfortable where we are. I speak from hard-won and sometimes painful experience that was, in the end, worth it.  God bless you, my brother in Christ.

My dear good people of God. Please give up convincing Proto1 anything to do with the Catholic Church.  He is the equivalent to the High Priests, Scribes and the Pharisees who, even though they knew the Scripture thoroughly, and had interpreted correctly the Prophets who had foretold the coming of the Messiah and how He would be born - refused to accept Him and His teachings.  Instead they plotted against Him and killed Him by hanging Him on the Cross.  That is why Jesus Christ, the all-knowing God - being aware of their obstinancy in the face of Truth He preached - called them “snakes and sons of snakes”.  It is, therefore, pointless to try to convince the Proto1s of this world to accept the Truth of the Faith of our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  He, and others like him, have closed his hard hearts to the Graces of the Holy Spirit, who guides us into recognizing and accepting the REVEALED TRUTH FROM GOD.  Jesus Christ is God, He left us His Church to lead us into the Truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He cannot contradict Himself.  It follows, therefore, since he subsists in His Church, it is His Church which proclaims and teaches His Truth until He comes again on the Last Day.

Mark- This forum is great place for Catholics and Protestants to engage each other. If you think you have the truth then defend it. Use your book to show others here why they should believe it by engaging in a conversation with someone who challenges Catholic doctrines.
Take the angel’ greeting-“Kaire, Kecharitomene”. If you have done your homework by studying the meaning of the Greek in this passage you would know it has nothing to do with Mary being sinless. It speaks of divine favor. The divine favor has to do with God choosing her to bring Christ into the world. Agreed?

Christopher- You “.. admit that a doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly, immediately apparent from Scripture.” This is good. Then where is it even hinted that she was assumed into heaven? (No need to discuss the Trinity at this point. If a doctrine is true it must stand on its own merits.)
I already posted from Catholic sources that no one knows what happened to her. So to claim she was assumed into heaven is not based on any Scripture or historical facts. Agreed?

Proto:

As I say, I’m not going to re-write my book for you here in the comboxes.  The offer stands.  That you keep evading the offer tells me you are not really serious about trying to understand.  Goodbye.

Mark- I’m not evading anything. When I engage atheists and skeptics on the Bible I don’t tell them to go read the Bible because if I do I may lose an opportunity to dialogue with them. It is far better for me to know the Bible so I can discuss and engage others on it who will not take the time to read it.
If I was not serious about understanding I would not take the time to post here. What it seems to me among Catholics is that they are very shallow in their understanding of Catholicism.  I have met only one catholic in my life who is willing to go to the mat for Catholicism. Sadly, many are not up to the challenge.

hmm…So, would it be a venal or mortal sin to pretend to be Proto1 just to get a copy of Mark’s Trilogy for free? Would it even work since it’s quite obvious he’ll never ask for it?

Lady Cygnus- I get the book then what? Does that mean I can’t continue to try to discuss your faith with you and the others? After all, this stuff is not that complicated and as you know I have not misrepresented Catholic teachings on this matter. Perhaps the Catholics here should get it and then come back and discuss it with me. Agreed?

Hi, Proto.  Many people have already responded, and the last thing I wish is to toss fuel on a fire, but I would like to further explore your assertions about Scriptural authority (particularly your personal understanding of the Protestant doctrine of *sola scriptura* (“Scripture only”) which has been mentioned before in response to you, but perhaps not fully discussed.

I too believe that God’s word (and His Word) are “sufficient”, but I would contest the idea that all Truth contained in His word is readily apparent simply from the basic meaning of the text, or that every individual is capable of drawing out all shades of meaning simply by reading and contemplating (after all, not all of us are given the same Spiritual gifts - if all had the wisdom to independently interpret Scripture, then what need would there *ever* be for teachers or preachers, save for mere exhortation?).

I would contend that the Bereans did not (and could not have) examined all they were taught and then believed it only if it could be *found in* Scripture.  “Scripture” in the time of Paul and the Apostles meant OT only, and certainly the teachings the Bereans received *had* to have included the actual life and teachings of Christ, which cannot be gleaned from OT Scripture, no matter how wisely or rigorously it is interpreted.  Rather, I would suggest that they checked the teachings they received against the Scripture they had in order to ensure that these teachings were not *contrary* to God’s holy word.

To illustrate, here is a brief list of things that Catholics and (most) Protestants believe, that cannot be found to be *stated* anywhere in Scripture (OT or NT) to the best of my knowledge (I confess, there may be an item on the list that I simply couldn’t find in Scripture, and I would be truly glad to have a passage brought to my attention - with or without the Magisterium of the Church, knowing God’s word more fully can be only a good thing).

1) The validity of the Scriptural canon.  This has already been mentioned, and you (if I recall) noted that OT canon at least was received from the Jews of the early Church.  However, what of the NT?  Which Gospels are canon can be attributed pretty much to which ones can be verified as coming from either an Apostle or someone close to one, and the Pauline Epistles’ validity is also based mostly on strength of attribution, but what of some of the books *not* included?  What of Esdras, in the OT?  It was widely read, widely cited, and even widely respected, but ultimately declared non-canonical by the Catholic Church and most Protestant traditions.  What of the Apocalypse of Peter?  Certainly, it was not likely written by Peter himself, but the Second Epistle of Peter was accepted as canon *despite* doubts about its authorship, while the Apocalypse was rejected (scholars date the two books to almost the same period, by the way).  These books are “non-canonical” for most Christians (Catholic or otherwise) because the early Church decided so - they could not possibly have relied solely on Scripture itself to make these distinctions, but were guided by the Spirit.

2) The Trinitarian doctrine itself.  Many places in the NT associate the Father and the Son as One, but I cannot find any place in the Bible that actually *states* that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct and separate entity - a “sub-God” if you will.  Nonetheless, Catholics and the vast majority of Protestants are Trinitarians.

3) The refutation of the Arian heresy.  Arius taught that Jesus was a created being, divine, but not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father (that is, that there was a time when the Son did not yet exist).  Nowhere is this explicitly contradicted in Scripture (even the beginning of the Gospel of John only says that He was present “in the beginning”, but this is the same language used in Genesis (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”).  Clearly, God the Father existed before “the beginning”, and Arius would have held that Jesus was simply the first of God’s creations (and thus was the Word “with God” “in the beginning”).  As far as I am aware, all mainstream Protestants reject this, and hold that Christ (and the Spirit) are co-eternal with the Father, and that there was no time in which any of the three trinitarian Persons did not exist, but this view cannot be derived *merely* from textual interpretation of Scripture.

4) Refutation of many other heresies of the pre-Reformation Church (e.g. Sabellianism - that the Persons of the Trinity are merely “aspects” of God, and not truly distinct Persons at all, Pelagianism - that human nature was not tainted by the sin of Eden, and that humans are therefore capable of doing/being good without the necessity of Grace, Docetism - that Jesus only appeared to be flesh, but was, in reality, pure spirit, Apollinarism - that Jesus was *part* human and *part* divine, rather than fully both, Monophysitism - that Jesus was *only* divine, and not truly human at all, just in the “form” of a human, Nestorianism - that Jesus, the human man, was basically “inhabited” by the Word, but that the human and the divine were wholly separate entities, etc.)  All these heresies were conceived and refuted before the Lutheran Reformation, and to the best of my knowledge, they are rejected by most Protestants as well, but *merely* analyzing Scripture textually is generally not enough to definitively disprove any of them.

5) The Apostles’ Creed - I gather that it is at least acknowledged by most Protestants, even if not (necessarily) recited frequently by some denominations, but the Creed never appears in Scripture.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that there are many things that I suspect you yourself believe, but cannot specifically prove from Scripture.  Rather, these beliefs can be justified as such - 1) they do not, in any way, *contradict* Scripture, 2) they can be *rationally inferred* from an educated, contextualized, and Spiritually discerning reading of Scripture, and 3) (this is the big one) they are *in accord* with an ancient Tradition of Christian practice (*usually* but *not* always taken from what we know of the Apostles’ direct teachings - sometimes from the authority of others in the early Church, and sometimes, especially in the case of some of the Medieval heresies, from the authority of the Vatican).

For an added bonus, when you pray the Lord’s Prayer, do you end with “for Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, now and forever”?  The phrase doesn’t appear in any of the earliest manuscripts of Matthew, appearing only in later (early 2nd century) copies, and the first verified reference to it is in the Didache (a recording of the Apostles’ teachings not written by the Apostles themselves).  The Catholic Church, therefore, does *not* treat it as Scriptural, omits it from Matthew, and includes the phrase in the Mass only as a *separate* prayer, not as part of the Lord’s Prayer itself (though following shortly after), because it is not recorded as part of the prayer Christ actually gave us.  Thus, we give it credence and due respect as part of early Church tradition, but maintain the Scriptural accuracy of the Lord’s Prayer.  Most Protestants both use it (indicating willingness to import tradition from outside Scripture) *and* believe it is part of the Lord’s Prayer.  I don’t mean this in any way as an attack or challenge, simply as an example, both of Catholic scrupulosity when it comes to Scripture, and of Protestant willingness to accord authority to non-Scriptural sources (as we Catholics do).

I eagerly await your reply, and prayerfully hope that my post is taken in the spirit (and Spirit) intended - as an invitation to dialogue about our faith, not as a challenge to your sincerity or piety, or an insult to your beliefs.

Pax tecum.

***Edit - I seem to have been beaten to the point with respect to the Trinity, and Christopher Lake also explained very well what I meant (and neglected to include explanation of, initially) by denying that “merely” analyzing Scripture textually could yield all of its truths - I do not mean there are any “gnostic” or “hidden” truths, but that analyzing line by line is not enough (not even with cross-referencing).  You must add to it both the context of the rest of Scripture as a whole, and also your knowledge of God as revealed to you by reason.  Assumption, for example - Jesus was (by the very words of the Gospels) clearly a devout Jew in every respect in which He did not specifically differ from Judaism (He even calls Himself a Jew in conversing with the Samaritan woman).  To the Jews, death was unclean, and the corruption (i.e. decay) of the body was something to be regarded negatively (see some of the Psalms - don’t have exact references on-hand just now).  Furthermore, filial piety (honor of parents, and especially mother) was critical to the Jewish way of life (not to mention one of the Commandments - either 4th or 5th, depending on if you use the Catholic or Protestant numbering).  Therefore, a good Jewish son would do whatever he was capable of doing to honor his mother.  If Jesus, a loving Jewish son of Mary (and her true son, in every way) had the power to spare her from bodily corruption (which He indisputably had), why would He not do so? All the facts come either from Scripture, or from verifiable scholarship on Jewish culture of the era, and they point directly to a conclusion.  If that conclusion is not spelled out explicitly in Scripture, does that mean that it is wrong to use our God-given reason to reach it.

Lady Cygnus- I get the book then what?

You read it?  You find out how Catholics think?  You listen to ideas from outside your cramped worldview?  You think it possible you could be wrong?

Lady Cygnus: One nice thing about writing for a serious Christian audience is that you don’t have to be too concerned about people stealing books about how to be a good Christian. :)  I’m honored you are interested in my work.  God bless.

Hi Anthony,—adding more fuel to fire is a good thing when pursuing the truth. Its good to have theological discussions if they can lead to a greater understanding of another’ view. Iron sharpens iron.
Let me briefly address some points. I’m not saying all truth is in the Scripture but I am saying that all that is necessary for a Christian to believe is found there. Secondly, the doctrines we believe must be grounded in Scripture or they are not binding and may be untrue. The Marian doctrines fall into the later category because they cannot be grounded in Scripture and the implications of them also affect other doctrines and practices. Her supposed immaculate conception is a denial of the fall of all men. Praying to her as you know is also not taught in Scripture.
I do think the church got the canon right for the NT. I also believe Jews had it right for the 66 books. The Deuterocanonicals are a problem though.
There is much in the Scriptures the “average” Christian can understand. Christ gave the church pastors-teachers whose job is to teach with clarity the Scriptures. Does that happen in your church? Do the homilies you listen to grounded on the Scriptures and soundly exegeted? The ones I have heard are not that well done. 
It is one thing to claim what God can do and another to show that He did indeed do it. Take your comment on the assumption of Mary. The question you have to ask yourself is: did Jesus “spare her from bodily corruption”? If so, where is the evidence that He did indeed do so? We know from Scripture that its not mentioned. We also know from history that no one knows what happened to her body. See a previous post on this.
Here is something to note: “In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.”
These comments should give pause for any Catholic to believe that she was assumed into heaven. Compare this with the Lord Jesus. We know He was because its recorded in Scripture as an eyewitness account.
So how do you deal with this?

Mark- you write-” Lady Cygnus- I get the book then what?
You read it?  You find out how Catholics think?  You listen to ideas from outside your cramped worldview?  You think it possible you could be wrong?”
What ideas on Mary am I missing? I know the doctrines, Scripture and some of the history for them. If I’m wrong show me that I’m wrong as I have shown you.
BTW- this would be a good opportunity for you to demonstrate this for Catholics that are reading this don’t you think?

Proto -

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply (I myself won’t be able to reply again until tomorrow - got to go run some errands).  So then, more fuel it is!  I’ll actually work backwards a bit, since the last comment is the one that I (at present) have least to say about.

As far as the papal condemnations of the Assumption doctrine go, can I get a source on that?  Not because I doubt your veracity, but so that I can put the assertion in context, and see exactly how these decrees are worded and such.  I freely admit that if there were in fact *infallible* papal decrees condemning the doctrine, and then a later (infallible) decree affirming it, that would be very troubling for me.  Hence, my desire to get some context and do some independent research.

As to the question of whether proving that Jesus *could* do something provides evidence/proof that He *did*, I’d simply like to clarify that I wasn’t just relying on the fact that He could have, but rather that He could have *and* was (by Scriptural evidence) the sort of person who *would* have done such a thing if He could.  Think of your own mother (assuming that you have a loving and nurturing relationship with her - if not, then my prayers are with you in that situation).  If you had the ability to save her from death, at no cost to yourself or anyone else (monetary cost or otherwise), and you chose not to do so, could you call yourself a good son?  (Leaving aside contentious cases where she might want to die - we’re talking “saved from death and taken to Heaven” not “saved from death and living in agony and/or decrepitude”).  And if you were to be not a good son, could you truly say you were a good man, in an unqualified sense?  Jesus was not, as some claim, *merely* a “good man”, but He was, in every possible sense, a good man *in addition* to His divine ministry - thus, ipso facto, He was a good son.  (And, yes, you could analogize to the Apostles or His stepfather, but I think it’s uncontroversial to say that a son’s duty to his mother is stronger than bonds of friendship or adoption - again, assuming the ideal mother-son relationship).  Not proof, I concede, but enough strong evidence to suggest that the Assumption is at least highly *likely* and not a grave theological error.

As to pastors, while the term itself has a specialized meaning in the Catholic Church (a “pastor” is the “head” priest of a given parish), all priests are indeed called to take on what you would call a “pastoral” role.  Homilies are indeed *supposed* to be soundly exegetical, and my own parish priest is truly blessed with an amazing ability in that area - he takes each reading and unfolds all its symbolism, theology, and cultural underpinnings in a way that truly enriches the faith of the congregation, and our understanding of God’s holy word.  That said, I have certainly been to parishes where the priest is possessed of sincere faith and piety, but lacks the gift of such exegetical preaching, ad even some parishes where the priest doesn’t even try.  The Body of Christ is made up of imperfect parts, and it is the Church as a whole whose holiness I affirm, not necessarily every individual member (lay or clergy).  To be fair, I have also heard Protestant preachers on both sides of the line - some who open my eyes to new aspects of God’s truth (and whose faith I deeply respect), and others who miss the mark, ranging from feelgood “warm-fuzzies” social preachers to “sound and fury” preachers who whip up the congregation but don’t actually *teach* anything at all.

As to other specific Marian doctrines, I’ll have to either talk with you about them when I have more time, or leave it to others (including possibly Mark, though I haven’t read his book myself).  I’m very interested to discuss it, but as I said, I’m in a bit of a hurry.  I will mention that the practice of praying to the saints *in general* is found in Maccabees, but as that is part of what you consider Deuterocanon, we may have to agree to disagree on that one (though I would be interested to hear why you think that the Church had the authority to fix *some* books as canon, but not others, or why you support those particular books as having been “gotten right” but not others, if it’s not the authority of the Councils themselves that you affirm).

Lastly, as far as “not saying all truth is in the Scripture but I am saying that all that is necessary for a Christian to believe is found there” - not to be pushy, but where does that put you, in terms of the examples I listed?  Can you derive anti-Arianism directly from Scripture? (And if you can, please do - I’d love to know (without any sarcasm)!)  If not, then do you believe it’s an open question whether Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal, and that neither side can be called incorrect?  What about the Trinity?  Is it an essential doctrine of Christianity or not?  I won’t re-list all my examples, but I hope you’ll give them some thought and reply to them (maybe not all of them ;-p) as thoughtfully and prayerfully as you seem to have handled my other comments.

Until tomorrow, pax tecum.

Proto—backing up a bit again, but I have my own two cents: “Christopher- You ‘.. admit that a doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception is not explicitly, immediately apparent from Scripture.’ This is good. Then where is it even hinted that she was assumed into heaven? (No need to discuss the Trinity at this point. If a doctrine is true it must stand on its own merits.)”

 
Now, both Christopher and Anthony stated that the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture.  Yet, people such as yourself who rely on sola scriptura believe implicitly in the Trinity and say that it “stands on its own merits.”  The Immaculate Conception is another such belief not explicitly taught in Scripture either.  Yet Protestants reject it outright without even giving it some thought.  Could it be because it is a Catholic belief?

Can you demonstrate why so many Protestants insist on holding this double standard?

“Here is something to note: ‘In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.’”

Alright, I literally have no clue what this passage is talking about.  While I didn’t and still don’t believe that this is true I dutifully went and researched both Gelasius and Hormisdas anyway (and by the way, Gelasius seemed like a real kick-butt Pope), and have found nothing whatsoever about any controversy at all concerning the Assumption.  There’t only two possibilities as far as I’m concerned: 1) the author made this up, hoping to hide behind the obscurity of these particular popes, or 2) the people condemned were part of a schism that also happened to count the Assumption among it’s beliefs, some of which were wrong (not counting the Assumption).  Which would be a typical, convoluted misrepresentation of the facts that some anti-Catholic types are guilty of.  You could also easily say: These people were condemned by the Pope.  These people believe that wheels are good for transportation.  Thus, the Pope condemns these people because they believe that wheels are good for transportation.

If we’re going to refer to the facts, it is useful to note that Gelasius was instrumental in repressing the pagan Roman festivel of Lupercalia—and replacing it with the Christian festival celebrating the purification of Mary, Candlemas.  Badum-tish!

Lea S—there is ample support for the Trinity in Scripture and none for the assumption of Mary. This is not even a close comparison.
As for the quote on Pope Gelasius condemning the assumption of Mary can be found in a book by William Webster, “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History” (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pages 63-71.
Why would he not considering there is no evidence for her assumption in Scripture and none in history? Would you want someone to believe in something for which there is no evidence for?

Proto1, I don’t have time to engage at length right at this exact moment, but I note that you wrote, “I’m not saying all truth is in the Scripture but I am saying that all that is necessary for a Christian to believe is found there.”  Speaking of “assumptions,” this is a Protestant assumption! What is your basis for it?

Christopher-my assumption is based on the nature of the Scriptures themselves i.e. inspired-inerrant Word of God. Nothing can be higher in authority than this. Would you agree?

“BTW- this would be a good opportunity for you to demonstrate this for Catholics that are reading this don’t you think?”

No.  I don’t.  Take or leave the book offer.  If you take it, you are serious.  If you refuse it, you are just a troll.

Mark- you have to be kidding me. You write books for Catholics to build up their faith and the best defense you have for your faith is for me to go read your book and to call me a troll. This is a terrible example for your fellow Catholics to see.

Come now, Proto, you’re just trying to evade Mark’s offer by diverting the attention to him.  By trying to convince people that he’s being mean.  Hmm.  Just answer him.  Will you accept the free book that outlines the case for Marian doctrines, rather than trying to make him re-write it in the comboxes, or not? 

“there is ample support for the Trinity in Scripture and none for the assumption of Mary. This is not even a close comparison.”

I was comparing the evidence for the Trinity with the evidence for the Immaculate Conception, not the Assumption.  I would still like to know your answer to my question in that comment: Can you demonstrate why so many Protestants insist on holding this double standard?

“Why would he not considering there is no evidence for her assumption in Scripture and none in history? Would you want someone to believe in something for which there is no evidence for?”

The Church interprets Chapter 12 of Revelation as being a reference to it.  Accounts of the Assumption have been found in letters and sermons from as far back as the fourth century.  It is certainly not based on a complete void of evidence.

p.s. “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History” does not seem to be a trustworthy work to me, as it picks and chooses passages from the writings of the Church Father in order to seemingly support the author’s claims…like many book criticizing Catholicism.

Proto1 - I hate to say this, but are you still wasting everybody’s time and effort?  You admitted to me that you can’t deny that Our Lord came in the flesh.  Yet you continue to idolize a book, it is not even given to you to interpret.  The gift of authoritative interpretation of scripture was passed from the actual, historical Jesus to a distinct group of men, who authoritatively passed it to specific successors in an unbroken chain down until our time.  If you can’t deduce from your reading of scripture doctines which were authoritatively pronounced by those spiritually gifted men, I’m not surprised - you’re not among them!  But don’t feel bad, you still have a valid and important vocation in the Christian faith.  It most probably entails marrying and raising a big family, if you are a layperson.  This is the ordinary path of holiness for most.  The distressing witness you’re giving to the sincere Catholics who have responded to you on this website is that it’s their sacred duty to respond to what you’re saying - to convince you.  The most that’s required of a reasonably educated lay Catholic is to recognize the beauty and integrity of their faith - and to live it in virtue and truth.  Your spiritually truncated analysis of scripture, limited by your lack of a specific charism, demonstrates the hazards of 1) the spiritual arrogance of protestants, who arrogate an office to themselves which was not bestowed on them by the actual Lord (see Exodus, where similar activities against Moses were punished by a fiery death); 2) a profound misunderstanding of scripture, as Jesus accused the Saducees (you know niether the scriptures, nor the power of God); 3) a complete extirpation of Sacred Tradition, whereby the actual Lord passed down elements of the faith, including the authority to “bind and loose” to specific real individuals, for our ultimate benefit.  You say you don’t deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, but you do.  You are acting like an anti-Christ.  You are taking on yourself the authority of defining what’s in scripture; taking your seat in the temple and demanding worship from the people of God.  “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book…” Jn 20. 30.  I think you should take Mark up on his offer, and maybe start your way back to the Truth.  Even Saul’s angry arrogance, and pharisaical knowledge of scripture was regaled by the Risen Lord.  There’s still hope for you as well.

Proto1 - If anything, this string should convince you of the ineffectuality of scripture to do anything, or prove anything.  Both yourself, and all your interlocutors have bandied about no end of scriptural reference and response - I’m gathering to no effect.  (At least you got some airtime, Deo gratia, et Mater Angelica).  You might as well have opened a booth: “get in your tilt against the Philistine giant.”  My guestimate is that after all that heat, there was nearly no light shed on this or any subject.  The reason: scripture without Spirit is cold, dead words.  Only the Spirit of Christ, and by extension Christ Himself - living and active, can convince.  Once again, do you deny this Christ, come in the very flesh?

Matt B- you made a lot of claims in your posts. One in particular stands out-“The gift of authoritative interpretation of scripture was passed from the actual, historical Jesus to a distinct group of men, who authoritatively passed it to specific successors in an unbroken chain down until our time.”
I don’t know where you are getting this from and it fails to take into account that false teachers would come into the church and deceive many. So how would you know if you are decieved or not by your leaders?
BTW- have you read Mark’ book?

Proto1 - It wouldn’t be through recourse to scripture alone, since most of the false teachers you cite have been adept at mismanaging scriptural texts, even to the point of deleting books from their “canon.” 

Your question begs the question of who is in charge of God’s Church?  Is it the popes and prelates who constitute the visible sacramental sign?  I agree with you that this would never do.  The head of Christ’s Church is Christ Himself.  He choses weak and imperfect men precisely to “shame the smart and the strong.”  But He Himself, working through His Holy Spirit, is in charge. 

As far as error is concerned in Christian practice - the Truth will out.  “There is nothing concealed which will not be revealed…”  Luther’s recourse to schism, or Henry VIII’s recourse to serial murder of his wife/concubines was certainly no valid response.  But the Lord has allowed these errors to perdure, for purposes known to Himself alone.

Even in the US, scandalous errors have entered the Church - to the highest level of the hierarchy.  Has God forgotten His people?  Don’t bet on it.  His sits “refining as with lye, refining silver.”  I truly believe that God’s Church is the agency by which He brings His message of salvation to the world.  Scripture plays an important part, along with the holy lives of the martyrs and saints, the sacramental tradition whereby the life of the Church is transmitted, and the work of the Holy Spirit among us, teaching us to “remember everything that Jesus has said.”  If there was no fundamental grounding for scripture in the life and practice of the Church, no real Jesus come in the flesh, scripture would be amenable to all sorts of misapplication - as it has been. 

I have a question for you: when there is controversey within the 30-odd thousand christian denominations concerning the meaning of a scripture passage, who decides?  Do you flip a coin 30,000 times?  Is there some kind of protestant ephod, like the one David use?  Does the congregation vote on it, with votes weighted by dollar contribution levels?  Or are you trying to develop a computer matrix, using the latest technology, where you feed in all the options, and the computer generates a “most probable outcome?” 

Or do you simply hold to whatever your own personal reading of scripture tells you - and the rest be damned?  I’m afraid this last would be the most damaging for your chances of salvation, since you may never be challenged in your faith if you are the ultimate arbiter of it’s content.  This is the solipsism that protestatism falls into.  At least if our bishops are imperfect, they constitute someone outside ourselves.  (There’s probably an analogy to sexual relations within marriage and otherwise in there, do you think?  We Catholics are married to imperfect people with moles and hairs, whereas you protestants are blissfully happy - with yourself.  I’ve seen the Sunday telecasts from massive whitebread temples, and this is probably true.)

BTW, I haven’t read any of Mark’s books, but he has an entertaining style, a good appreciation for Catholic doctrine, and he’s offering them to you for free!  I haven’t read anything, really, since 1987, except the Bible and books related to my profession.  Wait - I have read some Catholic mystics, and St. Faustina Kowalska makes for a good recommendation.  See her “Divine Mercy in My Soul.”

God bless you, Matt B. for your defence of our Saviour and His Holy Church. But, sadly, no matter how truthfully and humbly we pass on the HOLY REVEALED TRUTH, Proto1 is totally against our Catholic Church, the LIVING HOLY MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST and whose Living Parts we are. As I commented elsewhere, we need to pray, and pray unceasingly for the Proto1s of this World

Proto1 - One more question: where in scripture does it maintain the innerancy of scripture?  There’s the storied passage of Paul to Timothy, a couple verses worth.  Would that protestants considered quite so seriously Paul’s admonition to clerical celibacy, or the subordinate position of women in the family and in the ecclesial community.  Paul is so doggone Catholic that no one is quite able to comprehend all of him.  Besides, what you mean by innerancy is not proved by this scripture.

Other passages of scripture militate against it’s inerrancy.  When Steven delivers his exegesis to the sanhedrin, it costs him his life.  You would think an innerant scripture would command universal assent.

Similarly, the sermon on Isaiah by Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum elicited a trip to the brow of the hill.  Wasn’t the Savior of the World being clear?

Satan even uses scripture to tempt Christ.  The implication is that only God Himself could overcome the temptation to subvert scripture to the purposes of personal concupiscence.

Your innerancy of scripture is a fabrication of Luther, to justify his decapitation of the true bulwark of faith.

Matt B- you ask- “I have a question for you: when there is controversey within the 30-odd thousand christian denominations concerning the meaning of a scripture passage, who decides?  Do you flip a coin 30,000 times?  Is there some kind of protestant ephod, like the one David use?  Does the congregation vote on it, with votes weighted by dollar contribution levels?  Or are you trying to develop a computer matrix, using the latest technology, where you feed in all the options, and the computer generates a “most probable outcome?”
No we don’t have a magisterium that can decide things for everyone throughout Protestant churches. However, as far as I know most Protestant churches believe the essential doctrines i.e. Christ is God, died for our sins etc. There has been no great doctrinal disputes that I’m aware of except the homosexuality issue. That is causing quite a problem.
You do realize even with an infallible Magisterium in the Catholic church there are divisions among its members on a number of issues. Should priests be allowed to marry or not? Should Mary be declared co-medatrix or not? Does one have to belong to the Catholic church to be saved or not? (The church in the middle ages taught that you had to while Vat 2 says otherwise). As you can see you don’t have perfect unity either.

Matt B- do you believe in innerancy? Doesn’t your church teach that the Scriptures are inerrant?

Since this is obviously going to bounce back to me without a response, I just wanted to say that none of my comments are meant to impugn any person’s good faith efforts to find and follow God.  May God strengthen your resolve and perseverence, and fill you with His light.  I also apologize for my erroneous reference to the sermon on Isaiah at Capernaum.  I believe that sermon was delivered at Nazareth.  Peace!

In reply to Matt B:  But Matt, isn’t this precisely why a Magisterium is necessary.  Individuals may hold variuos opininions on a range of matters and individuals can be fickle, shifting from one opinion to another.  Regardless of opinion, if I wish to remain Catholic, I must follow a higher authority than my own fickle mind.  If Scripture alone could guide us without an interpreting authority then Jesus would not have said to Peter “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church”

John- you still have to contend with interpreting what the Magisterium tells you. You still must follow your own fickle mind.
Question: When Jesus was teaching to the public did they need a magisterium to understand His teachings on they the day they heard them? Could they without a Magisterium understand His teachings?

Proto (we meet again!): “you still have to contend with interpreting what the Magisterium tells you. You still must follow your own fickle mind.”

Actually, we turn to the Magisterium in order that our fickle minds don’t mess up the truth. 

“Question: When Jesus was teaching to the public did they need a magisterium to understand His teachings on they the day they heard them? Could they without a Magisterium understand His teachings?”

You ask a very odd question considering that Jesus Christ is regarded as the founder of the Catholic Church…not sure what else to say about this!

Lea S- my point is that you can’t get away from interpreting anything. Also my point with the question on Jesus teaching the people and a magisterium is that He held those who listened to Him responsible to understand Him. Take for example the passage in Matt 7:24-27 where after His teaching this greatest of sermons this warning: “24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”

The last verses here clearly shows they understood Him where Matthew writes: ” 28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.”

He fully expected the people to understand what He had taught them and to apply it. Notice there is no appeal to a magisterium for understanding what He meant. They understood.

“So does this mean the Church condemns those who honor her by this title? No. It just means that Pope Benedict is (rightly) worried non-Catholics will not understand the “correct intention” behind the title. So the title remains, for the foreseeable future, something Catholics may use if it matters to them (providing they rightly understand what it means) but it’s not something one finds in the Church’s liturgy or dogma.”
—-
And quite right too. OTOH, Mary is Queen of Heaven and earth, Queen of the Universe.

“I’ve been in various protestant churches throughout my Christian journey. I call myself a reformed Lutheran catholic.”

Are they in communion with the Springfield PresbyLutherans ? Sounds like it - one might as well be a Hebrew Jain Baptist. Syncretism is out, sorry - otherwise it would be OK to worship the the Lord Jesus Krishna (peace be upon him).

@Proto,
I’ve been reading this interchange with great interest.  Finally I heard something that I had never heard before from a non-Catholic.

“He fully expected the people to understand what He had taught them and to apply it. Notice there is no appeal to a magisterium for understanding what He meant. They understood.”

Would you also say that the crowds of disciples also understood Jesus quite perfectly in John chapter 6?

I would say that they did.

Proto speaks about interpreting even what the Magisterium teaches.  In a certain sense we are always interpreting:  what did Jesus mean when he said “if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out”?

A point missed in the earlier comments about the crowds not needing a Magisterium to understand Jesus’ message is the fact that the Magister Himself was doing the teaching.  A magisterium only became necessary after Magister had been taken away from them.  The early Church was quick to fill the apostolic vacancy left by Judas and also required a Council at Jerusalem to decide on the question of circumcision.  The latter is surely Scriptural support for the need of a Magisterium.
John

Hi Lj—Yes I think they understood what He was saying but many didn’t like the implications of it.

John- What Jesus meant by-“if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out” was to radically deal with sin in your life.
When the people heard Jesus teach were they able to understand what He taught?  Did they need someone else to explain to them what He taught?

Of course not Proto1 but you seem to be evading the point I was making.  The reason no magisterium was required was that the Magister Himself was doing the teaching.  That is not at issue.  The issue is after the time when Jesus was physically present where was the authoritative voice to be found.  Well Acts of the Apostles gives a clear example of an early exercise of the Magisterium in the Council of Jerusalem making an authoritative statement on the circumcision question.

Then there is the Petrine office.  It is also clear that this was not just meant to be a one off reserved to St Peter but was an office intended by Jesus to be continued throughout history through Peter’s successors, in the same way as the apostles elected Matthias to fill the apostolic vacancy created by Judas.  All there in the Scriptures but conveniently ignored!

Proto: “When the people heard Jesus teach were they able to understand what He taught?  Did they need someone else to explain to them what He taught?”

Errr, you asked the exact same question earlier, and John just gave you a spot-on answer.  I suggest you go read it again.  You DID read the entire comment..?

John- My point was to show that the people were capable of understanding what Jesus taught. They did not need a “third” party to explain it to them. It is true that later the church become more developed in its structure. Paul lays out what this structure is to look like and he never mentions a pope or supreme human leader.  Note that it is James in Acts 15 the makes the final decision and not Peter. The idea of a succession to Peter is not found in Scripture. We don’t see any apostle passing on their office to anyone else in the NT. The reason is that we don’t see it is because to be an apostle you would have had to seen the risen Christ and been a companion of the apostles since the beginning of Jesus’ ministry ( Acts 1:21-22). Matthias was qualified because of this. No one else is.
Are you sure you want to use the papacy to support your position considering the amount of evil various popes are responsible throughout history?

Proto “The idea of a succession to Peter is not found in Scripture”  sorry, Apostolic succession is very clear in Scripture in the election of Matthias to fill the apostolic place of Judas - surely, a fortiori, the same would have happened for Peter’s office.  And yes, James made the final decision at the Council of Jerusalem - an excellent example of the Magisterium at work.  And note how soon after the event of Jesus, such an exercise of Magiserial power became necessary.

Unworthy holders of any office do not negate the validity of the office itself - a false argument.  There have been many holy and worthy occupants of the Petrine office - so I am not worried about individuals who proved to be less than dutiful in their exercise of the Petrine Office

You still haven’t answered my question about what happens when the Magister is no longer physically present? - the need for a Magisterium?  You seem to pick and choose what you respond to and what you choose to ignore.  Not really very honest!!!

John- I’m not avoiding answering your questions. Christ gave the church -“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.” Eph 4. Notice what is missing: a pope or supreme leader.

What the church has always had were bishops (who were to be married) along with elders and deacons. None of these offices are said to carry the power of infallibility. These are the ones who are to teach the doctrines of Christ and hold fast to them. What your church has done is to add to what the apostles taught. They are not biblical nor apostolic.

Question: How could a church that claims to be the church of Christ and led by the Holy Spirit could have evil popes? If the Holy Spirit can supposedly keep your church from teaching error why did He not stop these evil popes from being in power?

Proto
Question: How could a church that claims to be the church of Christ and led by the Holy Spirit could have evil popes?

Well, we only have to look at the twelve chosen by Jesus Himself, one of them betrayed him, most of them deserted him at the hour of crisis, even Peter denied Him.  What you must realise Proto, is that we are all weak and prone to yield to temptation and corruption is perhaps greater, the higher the office.  In St Paul’s account of the structure of the Church apostles are mentioned in a way that implies an enduring office within the history of the Church and not as you imply - an office that was meant to die out after the last of those who had seen the risen Lord had died.  If what you were claiming in your previous post about successors to the apostles were true - what was the point of electing Matthias to an office which would soon become redundant?  No, Proto, the plausible answer is continuity.  And consider the case of Paul himself “the least of the apostles” though he lies outside of that special period of the 40 days between the Resurrection and the Ascension.

What of the Petrine text: “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church…..whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”  The words of Jesus Himself.  What do these words mean?

John- Again. Go back to Acts 1:21-22. These are the qualifications for being an apostle. This also shows why its impossible to pass this office on. If papal continuity was what was necessary for the church it would be mentioned in Scripture. Its not mentioned anywhere.
Peter himself is not what the church is built on. No apostle in their writings ever mention such an idea. What it is built on is on the “foundation of the apostles”. Eph 2:20. We don’t see here any mention of Peter specifically but all the apostles. This would have to be their teachings were are inspired-inerrant.
What the passage you refer to about Peter was fulfilled in Acts 2:14-40 where Peter is the first one to preach Christ on Pentecost and open the doors for the kingdom of God. Those that refuse to believe the message of the gospel are still in their sins (bound) while those who believe are set free from their sins (loosed). This binding and loosing of sin is literally given from heaven by the Lord Christ.

John- was Judas led by the Holy Spirit?

Though the office of the papacy is not mentioned, as you rightly say, by Paul, are we saying that his list was an exhaustive one.  And the case for the Petrine office in Catholicism does not rest on being explicitly outlined in Scripture in the way you seem to demand but as a very early development in the Church itself.  You claim that this is adding something on.  I claim that this is a faithful development of an apostolic Church.

Yes, Judas was led by the Holy Spirit, but Catholics believe that God’s gifts to us never usurp our freedom of choice to respond.  It is God’s grace and our freely given response that leads to salvation.  Unfortunately, Judas did not respond and as Scripture tells us, repeated failure on Judas’ part to cooperate with the Holy Spirit led to Satan entering into him.

However, you have not answered my question about Jesus choice of Judas as an apostle.

John- The papacy is not a faithful development of the apostles teachings. It is doctrine of men and its has been shown by its history not only to have done great evil but it also divides the church. No man should ever be called what God alone is called -Holy Father”.
If Judas could error by being led by the Holy Spirit then no can claim that being led by the Holy Spirit cannot err either. This would include any magisterium also.
Jesus picked Judas to fulfill the Scripture that one of His own would betray Him.

It isn’t because Judas was led by the Spirit that he erred.  It was IN SPITE of being led by the Spirit,that he erred.

The Church led by the Magisterium cannot err.  The individuals, even the Pope, can err, although the Pope when speaking ex cathedra cannot err as it is not he but the Holy Spirit who is speaking.  Regardless of how evil some Popes may have been, none have contradicted an ex cathedra statement, nor, when speaking officially, have they contradicted established Church teaching.

JP- think about what you are saying. If an individual that is led by the HS can err so to can a group of individuals err.
How many ex cathedra declarations of a pope have been made?

I did think about what I said. 

Jesus appointed Apostles to lead the Church in His absence.  Apostles are what we would call Bishops.  Those Bishops faithful to the Pope are the Magesterium.  They provide their own checks and balances so nothing relies on only one fallible person.

Unlike Protestantism.

I believe there are only two ex cathedra statements, both pertaining to Mary.  It doesn’t matter.  I follow what the Church teaches to the best of my ability.  The Catechism is a good guide, aside from weekly Mass.

Proto Think about what you said:
If an individual that is led by the HS can err so to can a group of individuals err.

On the question of the succession of the Petrine office you sound as if you are proclaiming “ex cathedra” (for a non Catholic) that the office entrusted to Peter was not intended by Jesus to be continued through history.  How do you presume to speak for Jesus?  Did he entrust a special office to you to make unsupported dogmatic statements on his behalf?  I find nothing in Scripture to support your dogmatic statement and you have 1,500 years of Christian tradition to overcome -

JP, we are all wasting time on the various Catholic Websites trying to reason with Proto1.  As I stated in another Website, his Mission in Life is to vehemently deny, maliciously distort and with pride, fight the Teachings and the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  He is not a genuine seeker of Truth. He is not seeking to understand what the Catholic Church teaches, what we, the over 1 billion Faithful Catholics believe and why we believe.  As someone else has commented elsewhere, he is just seeking cheap publicity.  Very, very sad.  You see, he does not even know how many solemn Dogmas the Holy Father has pronounced Ex-Cathedra. I even doubt he understands what Ex-Cathedra means. Let us just pray for him.

Proto:  Consider these observations of the Blessed John Henry Newman concerning the corruption of the papacy: “Things that do not admit of abuse have very little life in them.” And it is this very quality of “life” which Newman insists on as an especial note of the Church: “the Church is emphatically a living body . . . . she alone revives even if she declines; heretical and schismatical bodies cannot keep life.”

Not only did Christ predict scandals, but in the parable of the tares and the wheat, for example, he spoke of the Church “as in its very constitution made up of good and bad.” The corruption of the Church has existed from the time of Judas Iscariot and indeed is so “bound up with the very idea of Christianity” as to be “almost dogma.” Given that world is sinful, once “it has poured into the Church, it has insulted and blasphemed the religion which it professed, in a special way, in which heathenism cannot insult it.” One would expect, Newman adds, to find greater corruption in the Catholic Church than in the Protestant Church, for “a Protestant world cannot commit that sin which a Catholic world can.” When ordinary human weaknesses are “coupled with that intense absolute faith which Catholics have, and Protestants have not,” one finds “acts of inconsistency, of superstition, violence etc. which are not to be looked for external to the Catholic Church. In other words, on the old principle that the corruption of the best is the worst, if the claims of the Catholic Church are anything to go by, one would expect to find in it the greatest scandals. In particular, in regard to the papacy, “where you have power, you will have the abuse of power — and the more absolute, the stronger, the more sacred the power, the greater and more certain will be its abuse.” Because, too, the Church is a visible polity, it is also “necessarily a political power, and to touch politics is to touch pitch.”

Wow!! Jesus, do You hear this????Proto1 is claiming - on the 21st Sunday of the Ordinary Time of our Liturgical Year - that the election of Peter as the Rock upon which You “SHALL BUILD MY CHURCH…” is FALSE. Proto1 is calling You, My Lord, a LIAR.  Can someone tell Proto1 to read The Sunday’s Gospel again?? Jesus is quite explicit.  This Church He build on Peter stating She shall overcome the Powers of Hell…..He gave Peter - and his Successors - the Keys of Heaven to bid and loose.  That is, To Teach and to Lead the Church.  The Church and the Authority given to Peter and his Successors is permanent and continuous until the end of the World. “And behold I shall be with you until the end of time”.  Jesus Christ’s own Words. Please, Proto1, let us have an end to these sterile exchanges. The Catholic Church is The Christ’s Church.  He established as the Visible Sign of His Presence in the World until He comes again. Your vehement denials, and arrogant rejection of Christ’s Words do not change the Truth of God’s Divine Salvation Mystery.

Proto:  You have spent a lot of time knocking at Catholicism.  Now tell us something about your own Church or beliefs.  What is your teaching on divorce, abortion etc? Does your Church make any special claim to a teaching authority?  Does it claim to be the true Church founded by Christ?  Are there or have there been any abuses in your own Church?  Is there a concensus in your own Church as to what is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, and if so what is the mechanism for ensuring your own orthodoxy within this remit?  What is your Church’s ( and presumably your own) belief concerning Holy Communion?  I would really love to know what it is you believe.

OR: Is it the case that your Church and beliefs are only defined by Catholicism, meaning that your sole raison d’etre is to be in opposition to Catholicism?

John- where did Jesus establish an “office” for Peter? If you read the NT you don’t see Peter in some kind of position beyond what the other apostles have. He never claims to have any authority-office beyond the other apostles.

John- in regards to my beliefs are that I am a Sola Scriptura Christian. I am against divorce except in cases in adultery. Abortion is murder. The pastors and elders have the responsibility to teach the Scripture. The church is established on the Scripture and apostolic doctrine that is derived from the Scripture alone. There is an agreement on the fundamental-essential doctrines of Scripture. The Lord’s supper is a memorial.

John- Newman’ statement on the papacy is confusing. What is he saying about the papacy?
BTW- did Jesus intend His church to be a political power? (“Because, too, the Church is a visible polity, it is also “necessarily a political power, and to touch politics is to touch pitch.”)

If so, where did He teach this?

Mary42—Its best you stay on the sidelines. These conservations are just to difficult for you.

Proto: Several posts from you and I am about to go out Proto.  I will respond to teach of them.  As a Sola Scriptura Christian, you owe a great debt to the Catholic Church, which predates the earliest New Testament writing by several decades.  It was within this early Catholic community that the Scriptures were first preserved in oral form mostly in liturgies and proclamations.  Eventually, from within this early Catholic community emerged the 27 documents which we all agree is the New Testament.  Even Luther did not dare omit any of these documents though a few of them were relegated to the end of the Lutheran New Testament….Yes all of the documents of the New Testament were carefully preserved by this ancient and primitive Catholic community.

John- remember that the early Catholic church was not the Roman Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church did not develop until much later. One way we know this is that many of the doctrines that the Roman Catholic church holds to were unknown in the early church.

1. God bless everyone here who has taken time to explain to Proto. My eyes started to glaze over half-way through.

2. I have a question: Proto, why do you even care? What difference is it to you about Marian theology? Let me guess. If we believe it, we’re all going to hell, right? Is that why you care? Or is it really that you have a burning interest in this and are attracted to the Catholic Church? Often times, if trolls like you are really honest, that’s usually what’s going on. In the interest of TRUTH, if that’s the case, just admit it. If not, then declare here your intentions for this discussion.

3. Anyone who doesn’t get that the Catholic Church is the one who decided which books officially made up the OT and NT is either an idiot or has a massive axe to grind against Catholics. Even so, let’s pretend for a moment that Scripture absolutely didn’t support any aspects of Marian theology by any stretch of the imagination. Guess what? Most Catholics wouldn’t care because of Church Tradition. Answer to that, Proto. Or is your answer still going to be Sola Scriptura? Here’s my answer: Catholics don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? We’re Catholic!

@Proto1
“Hi Lj—Yes I think they understood what He was saying but many didn’t like the implications of it.”
Agreed.  Just what were those implications?

Charlotte—I like to discuss theological matters with people who care such things. In fact I thinks imperative to do so. It sharpens my beliefs and may do the same with others. What better place for a Catholic to discuss and defend their beliefs than in a forum like this? What better place to learn? Keep in mind that no one is being forced to discuss their beliefs.

Lets take your point about the “Catholic Church is the one who decided which books officially made up the OT and NT”. Do you know the basis on how the books of the NT were determined?

LJ- This chapter is loaded with theology. It is so rich. Some of the things Jesus is teaching and challenging the Jews is that just as they were trusting Moses they were now to trust Jesus in even greater ways. Just as the ancient Jews were given bread to sustain their physical needs in the wilderness now they are to trust Jesus to supply all their spiritual needs that included trusting Him for eternal life. This is so shocking to them that they have a very difficult time understanding it. In fact many turned away from it.
What do you think the implications are?

To add to your comment Charlotte, Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men, begun about 500 years ago and passed down, like any other tradition.  I will guarantee Proto did not get his theology straight out of Scripture.  It was taught to him by someone else (catechesis) who in turn received it from someone else.

Sola Scriptura itself is nonsensical when closely examined.  The idea of agreeing on essentials is a dodge to avoid the real problem.  Some non-Catholics believe that baptism is essential for salvation.  Others do not.  Is that not an essential?  Some believe a Christian can lose their salvation, others believe in once-saved-always-saved (OSAS) regardless of future sins in kind and gravity.  Is that not an essential?  Some believe that man responds to God’s grace through free will, others (strict Calvinist) believe man is not capable of responding to grace(total depravity)  Is that not an essential?

The real problem is that virtually all will say that Scripture is their authority and when pressed will say that it is the Holy Spirit that guides them to the true interpretation of Scripture.  But if all are following the Holy Spirit and they disagree on very important doctrinal issues, is the Holy Spirit then saying different things to different people?  Is the Holy Spirit spreading confusion and causing fragmentation among believers in Christ? 
St. Paul says that God is not a God of disorder and chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33).  Could it be then that the fallible men who are interpreting Scripture outside of the Catholic Church are inserting their own ideas, not from the Holy Spirit at all?  Absolutely. 
Jesus gave the promise to Peter that he would protect the Church against error, and that promise follows Peter’s office, and the Church of which he is the shepherd, the prime minister, the holder of the keys, as you point out was Sunday’s reading. 
I came from Proto’s world and there is an arrogance there, subtle but definitely there, whereby my interpretation, my group or denomination’s reading of Scripture is the “right” one.  Those people over there in that other Protestant church are a little nutty.  Nice people, you know, but they are off track.  But at least they are not Catholic.
But I get a little frustrated as well some times at the ingratitude of the Soal Scriptura crowd.  To give them the benefit of the doubt, mostly it is through ignorance, but the Proto’s of the world know better.  They have heard the truth many times and that makes them responsible for it, in my opinion.  Judgment day will tell that story.

LJ- before you criticize Sola Scriptura why don’t you first define it? Lets deal with the real doctrine-idea and not a straw man. Agreed?

PS- you claim-“Jesus gave the promise to Peter that he would protect the Church against error, and that promise follows Peter’s office,..”. Where did Jesus promise this? Chapter and verse please.

Proto,
What are your intentions in this discussion? You’re evading the issue. Saying that you simply like to talk about this stuff is fine, but is really pointless. What’s your deal?

@Proto,
I think the implications of John 6 were pretty straightforward.  Many of the disciples could not accept the idea of eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood.  So much so that they said it was too hard a saying for them.  Jesus knew there were those who were having trouble with faith in him and that Judas was the betrayer.  He even points out to them in verse 63 that their fleshly, human understanding will not allow them to understand how he could give them his flesh to eat and his blood to drink, it is only through faith and the understanding given by the Spirit that they could understand this.
Isn’t it interesting also that he mentions his ascension as well just before that?  He knew that he would ascend once more to the Father (after the resurrection) and that they would be anxiously waiting for his promised return but that he would promise them he would be with them always.  That is where the Maranatha (The Lord has come!) of the early Church comes in, when they realized that he had returned (before this generation passes away), flesh and blood, in the Eucharist, and all that he had spoke of here recorded in John 6 was fulfilled in the Real Presence. 
So much so that the early Christians were accused of cannibalism by the Roman persecutors because of their own declaration that they were consuming the body and blood of Christ in holy communion.
Neat how it all fits together isn’t it?

LJ- Glad you brought up verse 63. In any of the supper accounts does Jesus claim that by eating the bread does one gain life? Anywhere in the supper accounts that by eating it one is granted eternal life?  In fact, John 6 is never referenced to in any of the supper accounts. Its not even in John’ supper accounts. Something is amiss.

@Proto,
Over to you Proto.  I’ll let you define Sola Scriptura any way you wish since you are the one that declares that particular tradition of men to be true.  I was there once, and I know how we saw it, but perhaps you are from a different faction of non-Catholic than I was, and to be fair, you might well have a different nuance on the doctrine.

Let’s defer the protection of the teaching office of Peter and successors by the Holy Spirit question until you can establish Sola Scriptura.  I’m sure Mark Shea won’t mind.  It is clear that everything that you have argued here hinges on that one doctrine.  The issue is authority.  Believe me I know, because that was what I was looking for when I became Catholic, the real deal, the Church with authority, the original, the one that we saw getting started in the book of Acts, the one that St. Paul talks about to Timothy 3:15.

That should read 1 Timothy 3:15.

LJ- I thought you knew what the doctrine was since you claim its a tradition of men. Primarily the doctrine has to do with the nature of the Scriptures themselves which are inspired-inerrant Word of God and thereby its teachings are binding on all men. No church, man or tradition is inspired-inerrant. Only the Scriptures are. It alone is the ultimate authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Since the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant all other authorities are subservient to it.
You have many problems making the Roman Catholic church your authority. Have you read the history of the Roman Catholic church?

What church was Paul referring to in I Timothy 3:15? Do you think he was thinking of a church in Rome?

@Proto, here’s what the Catholic Church says about Scripture itself;
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).” -Dei Verbum #11
**********
Here’s the essential difference from Sola Scriptura, in your words;
“It alone is the ultimate authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.”
(My background, by the way, would accept that definition.)
I did say it was all about authority, didn’t I?  So then let us return to the question.  How is it that so many different Christians can assert opposing doctrines using that same authority?
You ask why I would accept the authority of the Catholic Church?  Number one, St. Paul says so.  But let us turn that around and go back to the early 1500’s.  Or better still, let us stay right here in 2011 and take all the books that were available and in circulation in the first 200 or so years of the Church, magically forget there was ever a Bible, distribute these books to the thousands of non-Catholic Christian denominations and see if they could come up with the Canon of Scripture.  If it was the early sixteenth century we already know there are a number of books that Luther would have tossed.  He said so himself.  If the better part of non-Catholic Christians agree on essentials they should be able to determine which books are inspired by the Holy Spirit and which are not.  They would not be able to do it.  Instead there would be even more factioning and fragmenting over the issue of the canon.  Count on it.

The only reason you know the Bible as it stands is inspired is because you were told that by the authority of the descendents of the apostles in union with the Pope in the fourth century, the Catholic Church.  They knew it because they had the teaching of the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit to keep them from error.  The only reason you have the Bible at all is because they preserved it down through the centuries until the printing press was invented.

The Scriptures are part of the deposit of faith, not the whole of it.  It requires the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, to be its authentic interpreter because it is her book!

But let’s look at it this way, Proto.  Suppose that I conditionally accept Sola Scriptura.  It is the ultimate authority for doctrine and practice.  Alright then, I search the Scriptures and discover that all the doctrines of the Catholic Church are in the Scriptures, explicitly, implicitly and in some cases in seed form.  Remember, I am using the authority of Scripture to discover this.  The method you cannot challenge because it is your doctrine.  You might disagree with me just as you might with a Lutheran or an Anglican or a Baptist or whoever else, but so far I am using Scripture as my authority.  If you say I am wrong, I may well counter that my interpretation is the right one because I have prayerfully considered this and am convinced that is what God is teaching me through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  At that point the best you can do is agree to disagree. 
However, I also find that Sola Scriptura itself is an error and not found in Scripture at all.  Remember, Scripture is telling me this.  In fact the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, according to Scripture.  So what Church is that?  The one that Jesus founded, of course.  That I can trace through history and lo and behold it is the Catholic Church.

So now I am no longer an adherent of Sola Scriptura, because of Scripture, and I must accept the authority of the Church because of Scripture.  There is no choice left.  Out of curiosity I look back and discover that Sola Scriptura itself was an invention from the sixteenth century.

At that point I might paraphrase Tim Staples and say, “Sola Scriptura made me Catholic!”

LJ- you write-“How is it that so many different Christians can assert opposing doctrines using that same authority?” What opposing doctrines are you talking about? Don’t all Protestant Christians believe that Christ is God and died for our sins? Do not all believe Christians should be baptized?

Let’s look at your church on this issue. You claim to have an infallible interpreter but your Magesterium has never infallibly interpreted the Scriptures. You nor can any Catholic tell me what the offical-infallible interpretation is for a given passage of Scripture is. For example: What is the infallible interpretation of the 6 days of creation? Are they 24 hour days or something else? Or did Mary sin? Some church fathers taught that she did. Same goes for priestly celibacy. Many Catholics believe that priests should be able to marry. The point is that having an infallible interpreter really does not help you that much.

LJ- I don’t understand your canon argument. When Paul wrote I Tim 3:15 he was not thinking of the church in Rome where Peter was the leader. In fact, there is no record of Peter being the head of the church at Rome. Luther had his opinion of certain books of the NT but again Luther was not the supreme infallible leader of the Reformation. There were none and he could err. If I’m not mistaken he later came to accept all the books of the NT. The question you want to ask is why the church at Trent decided to elevate the OT deuteron-canonical i.e. second canon books to full inspired-inerrant status when the church for over 1000 years did not accept these books as Scripture. We know there are errors in these books yet the Roman church accepts them as the Word of God. Why would they accept something that has errors in them?
I suggest you read up on how the NT canon was determined. The reason we have the Scriptures is because of the will of Christ Who used the church at the time to determine what the canon of the Bible would be.

LJ- you write-“The Scriptures are part of the deposit of faith, not the whole of it.  It requires the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, to be its authentic interpreter because it is her book!”
The Scriptures do not belong to one particular sect in Christianity. It belongs to all Christians. If the Scriptures are only part of the deposit of the faith what else is missing? Is it your Sacred Traditions? If so, what are these Traditions that are inspired-inerrant? Do you have some examples?
It is patently false to claim that “all the doctrines of the Catholic Church are in the Scriptures, explicitly, implicitly and in some cases in seed form.” I have already shown that the Marian doctrines are not in Scripture. Secondly, with such a method that you propose anything could be said to be in the Scripture in seed form.
What do Catholics do if they want to know the official interpretation of a passage of Scripture if the church has never officially interpreted the passage in question?
Since no such work exists for Catholics to go to you are really no better off than a Protestant.

Are the pronouncements of your church inspired-inerrant? They would have to literally be equal with the Scripture. Do you claim this?

If you accept the authority of the Roman Catholic church then you must agree with all that they have done throughout the centuries. Are you willing to do so?

@Proto1:  Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, and may be changed. In fact, there are many married Anglican/Episcopalian priests who have come into the Catholic Church as married Catholic priests. However, St. Paul was very clear that it was highly preferable for priests to be celibate.

Believing in 6 days of creation, whether it means 6 24-hour days, or 6 million-hour days-is not doctrinal and is open to interpretation. The Catholic Church, when teaching on Faith and Morals and interpreting Scripture, is infallible. Jesus Himself promised the apostles (hence, their successors: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven”.  He promised ” Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church” Proto, Our Lord was talking about the Catholic Church, not the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical, Fundamentalist Pentecostal churches; the CATHOLIC CHURCH, the only Christian church that existed until Martin Luther came along.

Linda- You can call priestly celibacy a discipline but it is still a denial and rejection of a teaching and command of Scripture. It denies apostolic teaching. Where Paul does mention church leadership specifically it is a married leadership that he lays out. Its not a celibate leadership by any stretch. The days of creation is just one of many examples of differences of understanding in your church. Having an infallible interpreter of Scripture does not help you here.Waht does “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven” mean?
The church of the NT was not Roman Catholic. They did not believe many of the things you believe. In fact many of these doctrines and practices were unknown for centuries.
Are you familiar with the causes of the Protestant Reformation? Why do you think it happened when it did?

@Proto

“LJ- you write-“How is it that so many different Christians can assert opposing doctrines using that same authority?” What opposing doctrines are you talking about?”

I gave you some examples in another post above.  I came from a background that did not believe that baptism was essential for salvation.  There are other non-Catholics who believe that it is.  Is that not an essential, when it goes to salvation itself?  Again, some believe a Christian can lose their salvation, others do not.  Is it not critical to one’s salvation to know which is right?

As to the other questions you are mixing some apples and oranges and a few pears for good measure.  The sinlessness of Mary was defined by Councils and Popes.  Actually that is a very good reason for the authority mentioned.  There were indeed speculations about Mary in the early days.  In fact there were also those who denied the divinity of Christ.  There were others who denied his humanity.  Successive Councils defined all of those important doctrines as they came up.

Priestly celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine, and priests know when they discern the priesthood that celibacy is a condition in the Latin Rite Church.  Priests cannot marry in any of the Catholic rites, east or west, or in the Orthodox Churches for that matter.  But married men may become priests in some of the rites and certain exceptions have been made on a case by case basis in even the Latin rite.  There are a number of good reasons I won’t go into for this discipline but you might want to start with the words of Christ himself such that some are made eunuchs for the Kingdom, but this teaching is not for everyone.  Nor is the ordained priesthood for everyone.

As to declaring an infallible interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, it is only done where it was deemed necessary, and that not very often.  By exercising the teaching authority of the Apostles, the Scriptures always complement the deposit of the faith because they are a part of that deposit.  You may be surprised how much latitude there is within the Church for studying and interpreting Scripture, providing that interpretation is done with the mind of the Church, ie., not contrary to received doctrine passed down from the Apostles.  There are several senses of Scripture, the literal meaning, the allegorical meaning and the spiritual meaning.

As to creation in Genesis, Catholics are free to hold that God created the universe in 6 literal 24 hour periods, or that he created the world in a much longer span of time by our count, and that the language of Genesis is figurative.  But we must hold, as we do in the creed, that God is indeed the Creator.  Before mankind came on the scene, in the eternity of God, what does it really matter if there were 6 literal days or 6 figurative days?  Now a Bible literalist might debate that liberty of belief.  However, there is your magisterial teaching on creation, although perhaps not to your satisfaction.

For clarification, the infallibility of the pope himself is defined as the inability to err when exercising is teaching office with that intent, in matters of faith and morals.  Some popes have taught very little, some nothing at all.  Councils of the college of bishops, in union with the pope, also teach infallibly in matters of faith and morals.

If you would like to see how the Tradition and Scripture work hand in hand just study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and research the footnotes, particularly those from Scripture.

A contraire, having an infallible interpret helps a great deal.  But you must remember, we are not re-inventing the Church every decade or generation as some do.  Virtually any question anyone might have has been asked and answered or defined along the way in the past 2000 years.  In fact, if someone starts teaching something new, it is prudent to immediately distrust it until has been demonstrated to be in line with received doctrine.

But Proto, you have the a belief in the supreme authority of Scripture.  I believe in the Catholic interpretation of Scripture, which is the interpretation of Scripture that does not conflict with doctrine received from the Apostles and passed on.  But whatever my specific interpretation of Scripture, according to your doctrine, it must be just as valid as your interpretation, because by your own doctrine nobody can claim infallibility of interpretation, not even you.  So what can it possibly mean for you to debate Scripture with Catholics?

We claim to have the guide that will not lead us into error.  But you admit that your interpretation is not infallible, by your own doctrine, so why would anyone here want to accept what you say about Scripture, knowing it may not be right? Seriously.

Proto:  I am interested in finding out about your Church.  When was it founded and by whom?  How often do you meet for the Eucharist?  Following a Eucharistic service, suppose you found a leftover piece of bread inadvertently missed by the presider, what would you with this piece of bread?  Discard it or treat it differently than normal bread?  Please give a reason for your answer.

Also, is wine part of your Eucharistic celebration?  If so, what type of wine is used?

Sorry for all the questions - but I am interested in finding out.

John- in regards to who founded my church we go to that great passage in Eph 2: 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
We celebrate the Lord’s supper once a month. If some of the bread is lost there is no problem with that that I know of. Why should there be?
We don’t use wine but grape juice.
Hope this helps.

Proto:  I have been busy at work the last couple days and how this thread has grown!  I suppose I will just start with your more recent comment.

“You can call priestly celibacy a discipline but it is still a denial and rejection of a teaching and command of Scripture. It denies apostolic teaching. Where Paul does mention church leadership specifically it is a married leadership that he lays out. Its not a celibate leadership by any stretch.”

Proto, I’m going to start calling you Dory because I believe the two of us have already discussed this, yet you’ve forgotten all of it already!  We don’t “call” it a discipline, it is a discipline.  It evolved over the centuries to be the preferred status of Catholic priests.  It fits right in with St. Paul’s recommendation of celibacy, which is in the Scripture.  As long as that is irrevocably cleared up, I will add that there are some priests who converted from the Episcopalian and Anglican churches who are married.  How would you fit them in with your view that the Church’s practice of priestly celibacy is somehow unbiblical?

“The church of the NT was not Roman Catholic. They did not believe many of the things you believe. In fact many of these doctrines and practices were unknown for centuries.”

Are you familiar with the early Fathers of the Church?  Their writings are almost ridiculously Catholic.  No, I will not go and read every single work written by them in the early centuries of the Church and post several hundred quotes here just for your satisfaction—go do the research on your own if you are truly interested!

JL- reading your catechism will not tell you what a particular passage of Scripture means. That is not its function. It does not exegete passages of Scripture. Since there is no such thing as an infallible interpretation of the Scriptures by anyone (including your church) you are left with your own fallible understanding that is based on the fallible men. Next time a Catholic claims that a particular passage of Scripture has been interpreted ask where this is claimed. You will be surprised.
  Interesting comment you make-“In fact, if someone starts teaching something new, it is prudent to immediately distrust it until has been demonstrated to be in line with received doctrine.” This is where you run into problems with the origin of the various doctrines on Mary. The NT church did not believe she was without sin nor assumed into heaven nor that she should be prayed to. This did not happen until centuries later.

Proto:  Thank you for your answers.  Where is your Sola Scriptura justification for grape juice?  The Scriptures make it clear that wine was used at the Last Supper, as it is used to this day at the Jewish Seder meal.  Your reference to Eph 2 cannot be held as the origin of your Church.  Eph 2 is referring to the early Catholic community which existed for 3 or 4 decades before the New Testament started to be written.  So your keystone principle of Sola Scriptura could not apply to that Church as there was no no New Testament around - they had yet to get round to writing it!!!

I think Sola Scriptura can only date back to the origins of the Protestant Reformation, the key date being 1517 when Martin Luther promulgated his 95 objections to the Catholic Faith.  The key principle of this movement was “Sola Scriptura”.  The acid test for any practice or doctrine was that it must be at least implicitly in the Scriptures.  However, most of the main stream movements in Christianity have argued for an interpreting authority alongside the Scriptures and these include The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican traditions.

That said, it has to be readily admitted that much of the essential message of Jesus is clearly expressed in Sacred Scripture: Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, the Fatherhood of God, God’s saving will for mankind, the Virgin Birth, the call to repentance, the forgiveness of sin, the Resurrection, the return of Jesus at the end of time and the promise of eternal life.  You quite rightly say that these teachings of the New Testament are clear and do not require a Magisterium.  However, there are situations that arise that are not covered in Scriptures, for example, abortion, blood transfusion and organ transplant.  Someone or some body must show how the principles laid down by Jesus would apply in these new situations.  What about the charging of interest on money loans?  What about capital punishment, killing in a war situation etc?

It has to be taken into account also that prior to 1500, most peasant people could not read.  Go back a few centuries before that into the Middle Ages, there were very few books as printing had not been invented.  People relied on the priest translating the Scriptures for them.  Much Medieval Church art and stained glass windows was about telling the Bible in pictorial form to a largely illiterate people.  Once printing started, the Bible started to be translated from the Latin of the Vulgate version of the Bible into the vernacular.  As people became skilled in reading, they were now able to read the Scriptures for themselves.  So prior to 1500, Sola Scriptura would hardly have worked as most people were unable to read.

Lea S—you write-“Proto, I’m going to start calling you Dory because I believe the two of us have already discussed this, yet you’ve forgotten all of it already!  We don’t “call” it a discipline, it is a discipline.  It evolved over the centuries to be the preferred status of Catholic priests.  It fits right in with St. Paul’s recommendation of celibacy, which is in the Scripture.  As long as that is irrevocably cleared up, I will add that there are some priests who converted from the Episcopalian and Anglican churches who are married.  How would you fit them in with your view that the Church’s practice of priestly celibacy is somehow unbiblical?”
Paul is not “recommending” that bishops and leaders of the church are to be married with children but commanding it. They are to be married with children.  Calling it a “discipline” does not change the fact your church is usurping the authority of Scripture by denying married men with children to be bishops. Paul never recommends celibacy for leadership. Read the context where he does mention celibacy and you find that its in the context of being married or not being married. See I Cor 7.
The church of the NT did not believe: in the Marian doctrines, the pope, indulgences, celibate leadership, and office a priest to name a few differences between the church of the NT and Roman Catholicism.

John- wine is never used in any of the last accounts. So wine is not necessary to use nor a violation of Scripture. Grape juice certainly is applicable.
The NT was certainly around via orally. The church was built on what Paul said it was in Eph 2.
Christ gave the church pastor-teachers who are to teach the Scriptures so that doctrine and practices can be grounded in them. Some things are unclear and the Scriptures do give guidance on many matters. Some matters are up to the individual and may not be shared by all. Some people have convictions about eating meat while some do not.
I agree that people could not read for the most part before the printing press. However, this does not change the fact that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant Word of God. If you know church history you will know that the church became corrupt because it did not put itself under the authority of Scripture and this brought about all kinds of unbiblical teachings and practices that ultimately led to the Protestant Reformation.

Proto writes:
“The church of the NT did not believe: in the Marian doctrines, the pope, indulgences, celibate leadership, and office a priest to name a few differences between the church of the NT and Roman Catholicism.”

How do you know what the Church of the New Testament did or did not believe.  One thing it certainly did not believe or practice was “Sola Scriptura” because it was still in the process of writing the New Testament.

Marian doctrines - well these had yet to be defined.  However, that does not mean that the faithful did not believe them.  For example, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into heaven.  True, it is not to be found in the Scriptures.  It was only defined in 1950.  However, the Church was defining what the faithful already believed right from the earliest times.  So the Scriptures refer to the burial place of that most ancient patriarchal figure - Abraham.  There is even the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, reputedly where the body of Jesus was laid - but no tomb or burial place for Mary.  Instead, you find the place of the Dormition of Mary, revered by the Eastern Orthodox Church from the earliest of times as the place where Mary fell asleep but without dying was assumed body and soul into Heaven.  This is not in the Scriptures of course, but the basis for this belief is.

Firstly, Scripture is clear that Jesus did not have an earthly father.  So his birth was by the power of the Holy Spirit, but taking flesh and blood within the womb of the Virgin Mary.  Now, as His mother, Mary is intimately connected with the Saviour of the world.  From Genesis, we read that death is one of the cosequences of the fall of Adam. Jesus by his own death and resurrection reversed that and opened up the possibility of eternal life to all men, restoring what had been lost by the sin of Adam.  But because of her unique privilege in bearing the Saviour of the world in her womb, she was already intimately touched by the salvation that Son was bringing into the world - so death as a consequence of sin was not to be found in Mary.  Hence, she did not die but was assumed directly into Heaven.  To deny Mary’s Assumption is to deny that Jesus Himself did anything special.  If Jesus has truly destroyed death forever, that has surely applied in a unique way to His own Mother.  And her special place in the life of Christians is to be seen in Jesus words from the cross to John “Son, behold your mother.  And from that moment, the disciple made a place for her in his home”  All true disciples of Jesus do just that - they make a special place for Mary in their lives.  Without wishing to be hurtful, Proto, the absence of devotion to Mary in your life is an impoverished form of Christianity; you are missing so much.  Again, the picture of the primitive community sees them as united in prayer with Mary, the Mother of Jesus.  I hope you wont mind if I pray for your conversion to the fullness of the Faith and commend you to Our Lady’s special protection.

Proto: “wine is never used in any of the last accounts.”  Which last accounts?  All the institution narratives, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John as well as I Corinthians all clearly state that it was wine and only wine.  And when taken in the context of the Jewish Passover meal, it can only have been fermented alcoholic wine.  Sorry Proto, don’t know which version of the Bible you are reading, but it is definitely WINE.  It appears your Sola Scriptura has become selective - once you start being selective - bang goes your Sola Scriptura - the hallmark of your belief.

John—The word “wine” is not mentioned in any of the supper accounts nor in the I Cor passage. Here is how the New American Bible (Catholic Bible) translates Matt 26:27-29—Then he took a cup, gave thanks,  and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you,

28

for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

29

I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

Here again is how the I Cor 11 translates the supper in regards to the cup :“25

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

26

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord”

Sorry. As you can see wine is not mentioned in your own translation. This is not a defeat of Sola Scriptura but of your own misunderstanding of Scripture.

Hmmm.

Wine isn’t mentioned.  What is “fruit of the vine”, given the warm climate?  Grape juice isn’t mentioned either, but any grape juice would very quickly ferment in the warm climate.

What is mentioned is blood.  Do you drink blood, Proto?

Catholics do.

John- lets look again at the supposed assumption of Mary. If you know Scripture its not mentioned nor hinted at. Let’s go even further into history and see what is said about it: “The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

To claim that she was assumed into heaven has no basis in Scripture nor history. It is totally without any evidence.

JP- wine and grape juice are both fruits of the vine. It is not wrong to use either. No I don’t drink blood. Blood has certain properties that can easily be detected. If we were to test the wine that is supposedly changed at mass would we find that indeed it is blood?

John-Lea S, and JP- lets look at some of the prayers and statements that have been said about Mary by your church. Here are a couple of dozens to choose from.

“O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.
________________________________________
O what consolation, what sweetness, what confidence, what emotion fill my soul when I pronounce thy sacred name, or even only think of thee. I thank God for having given thee, for my good, so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name. But I will not be content with merely pronouncing thy name: let my love for thee prompt me ever to hail thee, Mother of Perpetual Help.

Or take this prayer to her:
“Memorare to prayer
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.
Amen.”

Since you all claim your church teachings are based on Scripture where do we find anyone praying to her like this? What passages in Scripture tell you that Mary has these kinds of power?

Proto:  Remember that the Gospels are about Jesus and his saving work and the rest of the New Testament contains some history of the early days of the Christian Church and early theological reflection on Jesus and his saving work.  It is no surprise then that Mary is not often mentioned.  But consider:
1.  Matthew and Luke are clear that Jesus was born of a Virgin birth
2.  Jesus first miracle at Cana in Galilea was in response to Mary’s request
3.  Jesus entrusting of his Mother to the beloved disciple and from that moment he made a place for her in his home
4.  The most beautiful prayer we call the Magnificat is uttered by Mary
5.  Who is the woman clothed with the sun, the moon at her feet and a crown  
  of 12 stars spoken of in Chapter 12 of Revelation or Apocalypse?

You must also consider the Angel Gabriel being sent to Mary in Luke Ch 1 and addresses her “Hail, so highly favoured,the Lord is with you…..do not be afraid, you have found favour with God”  The sending of the angel Gabriel is a highly significant event, don’t you think.

If you do not accept the Assumption doctrine you have a slight problem - what was Jesus death and Resurrection all about?  Was it not to reverse the sin of Adam and restore again the promise of eternal life which was lost by Adam (Genesis).  For all who follow Jesus, yourself included, this promise awaits us all after death.  However, do you not think it most likely that Jesus would spare his own Mother the agony of death?  She who was praised by the Angel Gabriel in such glowing terms, you find it offensive to pray to her in similar terms.  For the Ave Maria prayer is made up of the same words uttered by Gabriel and is all there in Chapter 1 of Luke.  There is no getting away from it Proto, if you advocate Sola Scriptura, then follow it all not just selected passages - Sola Scriptura includes Luke 1, John 2, John 19 and Revelation 12 as well as the praying role of Mary among the apostles in Acts Chapter 1

So you see, Proto, the Scriptures have a lot to say on the role of this unique woman in the whole of human history.  Like St John, I hope you will make a place for her in your life.

On the question of wine - some translations use the word WINE:

Mark 14:25 “
 

New Living Translation (©2007)
I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”

English Standard Version (©2001)
Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

International Standard Version (©2008)
I tell you with certainty, I will never again drink this wine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

However, regardless of that, there is no getting away from the fact that the Jews at the time of Jesus used wine, fermented alcoholic wine, at their Seder meals and still do to this day, so regardless of the phrase used it was WINE.  Why have you and your Church changed the Sacred Scriptures and use only grape juice?  Because you are not really Sola Scriptura but pick and choose what you want to believe and what suits you.

John- nice try but no cigar on the wine issue. Is grape juice a fruit of the vine? Of course it is.
While I’m at it let address Rev 12 from Catholic scholarship: “Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
  In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”
This is solid exegesis on this passage.

It’s hard to argue with Proto1, because his answers go half the way towards truth, and who can argue with a half-truth - it’s true as far as it goes.  What he consistently rejects is an interpretation of scripture, all interpretations of scripture, which envision the institution of a hierarchical, sacramental, authoritative Church, placed in the hands of specific historical people, and handed down to specific others, for the purpose of leading, sanctifying and teaching the people of God, in a role of service.  He also rejects any deposit of faith, such as a living tradition or an oral transmission, besides written scripture.  After so many bona fide attempts to argue him into submission, I can safely say that this is a matter of spiritual color blindness on his behalf.  He is spiritually unable to perceive the scriptural references and reasoned arguments which support many of the teachings of the Catholic faith.  There could be many reasons for this: a psychological inability to accept authority; spiritual pride; investment in the specific christian tradition he’s coming from; true zeal.  Apparently, he suffers from no deficiency in intellect.  How did Christ handle such cases?
1) St. Paul was struck off his horse, and dazzled from doubt by a supernatureal vision.
2) St. Matthew was shown acceptance by Our Savior, despite his outcast status.
3) St. Peter received an insight which Jesus characterized as “from the Father, since no man has taught you this.”
I think in any event, an encounter with the personal, living Jesus is the only thing which can remove Mr. P’s spiritual blindness.  He will see that the Church is not some authoritarian paternalistic hierarchical clerical bureaucracy, filled with pederasts and corrupt popes.  That part is almost besides the point.  Instead, it’s the Chuch, the spiritual home, of converted sinners on their way to God, some of whom have reached exalted, even dizzyingly exalted heights of holiness.  As St. Paul said, “keep your eyes on the beautiful, the lovely, the good…”  I hope to see you reach those heights, Proto1.  I hope to meet you there.  Sincerely, Matt B

Thanks for your reply Proto and of course the primary interpretation of the woman of Revelation 12 is Israel and by extensin, the New Israel of the Church.  However, there is also an underlying typology here.  As Eve is the type of the Old Israel and that through Eve, the drago, the Devil, caused sin to enter into the human story - so, the New Israel has a type, Mary for it was through her obedience to the message of the Angel Gabriel “be it done unto me according to your word” that the sin of Adam and Eve was being reversed.

I appreciate that some Catholic Marian devotion may appear uncomfortably florid and exuberant to a reformed Protestant.  However, Gabriel’s greeting to Mary is quite extraordinary too.  And the extremely rare event of Gabriel being sent to her is surely food for thought.  But the Hail Mary, the distinctive Catholic prayer is nothing more than a repitition of the words of Gabriel, Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you…bleesed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb”  The great John Henry Newman speaks of “the glories of Mary for the sake of her Son”.  Praises of Mary are always understood as referenced to Her Son.  As excessive as the title “Mother of God” may seem this finds its roots in the very early Greek Orthodox title of Theotokos.  Finally understand devotion to Mary as an extension of the praying Church in Acts 1 where the disciples met frequently in prayer together with Mary, the mother of Jesus.

It is not just to be found then in Roman Catholicism, but throughout the Greek and Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as the Anglican Church.

Would you be offended if I asked you to pray for me?  If not, then what is so difficult about asking Mary, in heaven, to pray for us also.

@Proto
“Interesting comment you make-“In fact, if someone starts teaching something new, it is prudent to immediately distrust it until has been demonstrated to be in line with received doctrine.” This is where you run into problems with the origin of the various doctrines on Mary. The NT church did not believe she was without sin nor assumed into heaven nor that she should be prayed to. This did not happen until centuries later.”

Read 1 Timothy 3:15 again and meditate on it some more.  We haven’t run into problems, actually, regarding Mary.  That would be the “reformers” that had the issues.  Nor are the Marian doctrines new.  That is the material point.  You also need to have another look at the early Church Fathers.  Perhaps what you have read has been also truncated.

“Sorry. As you can see wine is not mentioned in your own translation. This is not a defeat of Sola Scriptura but of your own misunderstanding of Scripture.”

But Proto, on what basis do you claim that a Catholic understanding or interpretation of Scripture is wrong?  It is not necessary for us to defeat Sola Scriptura although there is conclusive evidence that it is an invention of the sixteenth century.  You are the one who holds Sola Scriptura and therefore must tell us as Catholics, not just verse by verse where you think we have erred, but you must also claim that we have not been guided by the Holy Spirit whereas you have.  That is the only claim to truth that you can have.  If that is what you wish to say, go ahead.  Otherwise under Sola Scriptura it is simply “he said, she said.”
We both have the Scriptures that we preserved for you (which was then later truncated because of doctrinal issues the “reformers” could not accept without accepting the Catholic Church.)  You say it is the only and ultimate authority but you haven’t backed up that claim from Scripture itself, your own ultimate authority. 
Nor have you explained why your interpretation is superior to the Catholic interpretation on key doctrines.  You have simply made the assertion.  We have the same authority in our hands as you have or any other non-Catholic denominational group has, by your own Sola Scriptura doctrine.  You have already said you are not infallible as a Bible interpreter so how can you be certain we are wrong?
No, Sola Scriptura binds you Proto, not Catholics.
In the matter of the Canon, I think Proto you consistently miss one element.  It is not just that the Bishops and the Pope of the fourth century when the canon was finalized had to have the discernment of the Holy Spirit to recognize those books inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they also had to have the authority to declare the canon as final.  Where did they get this authority?  Read Matthew 16:18-19 again as well as 1 Timothy 3:15.

Was the protection promised by Christ suddenly gone after the Canon was declared?  Did the authority suddenly cease?  Did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church once the New Testament Scripture was in place?  If you cannot trust the authority of the Church at least that far along in the history of the Catholic Church then you cannot trust the authenticity and authority of the New Testament itself.  And you must then presume that the Apostles themselves fell down on the job and distorted the teachings of Christ when they passed them on to their successors.  So then the Holy Spirit, it would seem, did not guide them into all truth.

LJ- Lets see whose interpretation on different aspects of the Marian doctrines is correct. Keep in mind its going to take more than just claiming you have an infallible authority. Anyone can claim that.
Your church claims Mary was conceived without sin and was sinless her entire life.
1) What passages of Scripture mention how she was conceived?
2) Does the Lord Jesus or any of His apostles claim she was without sin?
3) Does the greeting of the angel to her in announcing she was to be the one through whom Christ would come into the world would be sinless?
4) What does the greeting mean?
5) Is there any passage in the OT that says the one through whom Christ would come into the world would sinless?

If Mary was without sin her entire life then we should see some direct evidence for this from the NT itself since it is only in the gospels and one mention of her in Acts and Galatians that we have any knowledge of her. If you can find direct statements of her sinlessness then you are right and I am wrong. If not,  then you are wrong and I am right.

LJ- I believe that the church of the 4th century got the NT canon right. However, it does not follow it got everything right through the centuries. Even Catholics who know their history will admit it got a number of things wrong otherwise there would have been no need for a counter-reformation within the Roman Catholic church itself.
Do you believe your church was guided by the Holy Spirit during the inquisitions that lasted centuries? Do you believe your church was guided by the Holy Spirit when the pope and Tetzel promoted the false practice of collecting money from the people to finance a new church in Rome with the promise that if they gave money to the church that loved ones in purgatory would either be set free or have less time in purgatory? (This was one of things if I’m not mistaken infuriated Luther. I could bring up a lot more on this to test to see if your church is being guided by the Holy Spirit or not. After all, Jesus did each by their fruits you shall know them.

John- you ask-“Would you be offended if I asked you to pray for me?  If not, then what is so difficult about asking Mary, in heaven, to pray for us also.”
The Scriptures command believers to pray for one another in this world. There is no such command nor exhortation to the dead to pray for us. When Paul and Peter mention their deaths they never promise that they will pray for the church here nor that anyone should pray to them after they die. The only One in Scripture that we are commanded to pray to is God. The Lord Jesus commanded us to pray in His name and only He is the Great High Priest Who intercedes before the Father for us. Never is Mary nor any other dead saint ever appealed to in prayer. To ask Mary to pray for you is to do something the Scripture never commands and is unbiblical since there are no prayers in Scripture to her.

Proto: “Paul is not ‘recommending’ that bishops and leaders of the church are to be married with children but commanding it. They are to be married with children.  Calling it a ‘discipline’ does not change the fact your church is usurping the authority of Scripture by denying married men with children to be bishops. Paul never recommends celibacy for leadership. Read the context where he does mention celibacy and you find that its in the context of being married or not being married. See I Cor 7.”

Context of being married or not being married…and not being married has nothing to do with celibacy, by your wording…what are you implying exactly?

Read the context of the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 7 and you will discover that your literal interpretation is absurd.  St. Paul tells them they must have ONE wife, ONE husband, not that they must have a wife or a husband period, as did pagans.  Here, in the exact same chapter where you claimed this “command” for marriage, he also refers to celibacy as a worthy way of life—for those capable of it, of course: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion’ (7:8-9).”

He makes a concession both to the married life and to celibacy.  Each is an equally valid state of life depending on the person in question.  How would you reconcile your confusing, literal interpretation with these verses: “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (7:27-34).

If every bishop MUST be married and have children, then what of couples who are infertile, or men whose family dies?  Are they disqualified then?  Is St. Paul, being single, disqualified from a rule that he himself imposed?  (That would’ve gone over well with his followers, I’m sure.)

Nonsensical.

Not to mention this argument means that since Christ was celibate, He Himself is disqualified from Church leadership.  SCRIPTURE SAYS SO! 

“The church of the NT did not believe: in the Marian doctrines, the pope, indulgences, celibate leadership, and office a priest to name a few differences between the church of the NT and Roman Catholicism.”

I still recommend that you check out the writings of the early Church Fathers.  No need to repeat yourself, however—tomorrow I will simply go back and re-read that last paragraph, so as to save you the trouble of re-typing it… /sarcasm

John- would you be uncomfortable with this? This is taken from a book called the Glories of Mary:

Therefore we say that, even though Mary can no longer command her Son, since they are not on earth any more, still her prayers are always the prayers of a Mother and are
therefore most powerful in obtaining whatever she asks.

At the command of Mary all obey, even God. 

She is omnipotent, for the queen, according to all laws, enjoys the same privileges as the king; and since the son’s power also belongs to the mother, this Mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son.

Therefore, to use the words of St. Antonine, God has put the whole Church not only under the patronage, but even under the power and authority, of Mary.

Since, then, the Mother must have the same power as the Son, Mary became omnipotent because Jesus is omnipotent. Of course, the Son is omnipotent by nature, where Mary is omnipotent only by grace. This is proved by the fact that the Son never refuses the Mother anything she seeks, as St. Bridget learned in a revelation.”

Is this part of the fullness of the truth that is found in the Catholic church?

John- You write-“But the Hail Mary, the distinctive Catholic prayer is nothing more than a repitition of the words of Gabriel, Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you…bleesed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb”
The hail Mary is more than just saying words but it is a prayer to Mary. Again, prayer in Scripture always has God as its object and never a created being. Only God has the power to answer prayer and He has not given this power to any created being.

Lea S- do we agree then that I Cor 7 has nothing to do with church leadership? If you think it does then show what verse mentions it.
We have no evidence that Paul was single. If anything it appears he must of been with the way he includes himself with other apostles who we know were married. See I Cor 9:5.
Jesus also never disqualified a man from being married to be an apostle. We know for a fact the Peter was married. Jesus also never makes celibacy a requirement for leadership nor does He exhort others to follow His example of being celibate.
It seems that if a man was not married with children he could not be a bishop. It doesn’t mean he could not be useful in other parts of the church though. 
Using the church fathers to buttress your case does not help since the fathers can be at odds with your church. The other problem with the fathers is that you would have to demonstrate that the entire church at the time believed as they did.
Finally, do you know the fathers that well?

Look, tradition is fine.  But, why not discard those things that don’t match up with Scripture.  They are a hinder to the real things that build believers up.

No believer prays to dead people in Scripture.  Nobody elevates Mary beyond simple human status and that of a sinful human nature, like the rest of us.  Regarded, yes she is, of course.

Of course we feel tenderly for any mother, let alone one who suffers the loss of a child.  God enabled many in Scripture and many not recorded there to fulfill his purposes. 

The Pope makes a good point on Gal 2:20.  Why not let that be our focus, and not be diverted.  This verse is something on which we can all agree.

Kindest regards,
garyk

Proto:  Everything you say is contingent on Sola Scriptura.  This presents a difficulty for you as the Church predates the New Testament by 3 or 4 decades.  In other words, the Church managed without the Scriptures for the first 30 to 40 years.  There was oral tradition of course but this is not written so not Scripture.  So for a living Church, the Scripture alone is not the sole crierion for what is to be believed but tradition also.  Of course, Scripture is the inspired word of God.

However, there is no Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura.  No where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the SOLE criterion for Christian belief or living.  Thus Sola Scriptura is a flawed basis for a Christian Church and leads to over rigidity.  The Catholic Church is an organic church with a continually developing life and self understanding, Guided by the Scriptures of which she Herself is the original author under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In short:  Sola Scriptura has no basis in Scriture nor can we find one single passage which asserts that Scripture is the sole criterion of authentic Christianity.

John—The only infallible guide we have are the inspired-inerrant Scriptures. It is by them alone we can know the will of Christ and to test all things. I Thess 5:21. Without them we be adrift and depending on men’ ideas that lead to dead ends.
The church has always had the Scripture. The first would be the OT. While the apostles were alive it had their oral teachings to guide them.
What the Roman Catholic church has done is to place itself above the Scripture by either denying specific teachings of the Scripture such as all men are inherit the sin nature from Adam to creating a “discipline” of celibacy for church leadership. You can claim your church “is an organic church with a continually developing life and self understanding” does not mean that all that your church teaches is of Christ. We know this by comparing its doctrines, practices and disciplines with Scripture.
One of the great benefits of Sola Scriptura is that doctrines are derived from the Scriptures which gives the believer a solid ground from which to build his life in Christ. Its gives the believer a standard by which they can compare the various teachings of men to see if they are of Christ or not. You as a Catholic have no way to hold your church accountable since it cannot be held accountable because it claims unable to err. For your church to admit doctrinal error would expose itself to the charge that it decieved. It also means that it cannot be truly reformed to the mind of Christ. For example: Read the Glories of Mary and compare its many statements with the Scripture. Ask yourself if the Scripture portrays Mary this way. Should any fallen human being be exalted like this? Remember: your church gives full support to this. It made the author of this work a saint and a doctor of your church.
The ball is in your court.

Proto: “do we agree then that I Cor 7 has nothing to do with church leadership? If you think it does then show what verse mentions it.”

Wait, what is this?  Here you were arguing the whole time that these verses point to a command for church leaders to be married, and now you backpedal and try to make it look like you don’t even think it’s about church leaders?  See, that’s what it looks like to me.

“We have no evidence that Paul was single. If anything it appears he must of been with the way he includes himself with other apostles who we know were married. See I Cor 9:5.”

There is definitely some evidence.  It’s right there in the Scripture: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.” 1Cor 7:8. 1 Cor 7:5-7 also seems to support this: “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.  I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.”  We don’t know with 100% certainly if St. Paul was single or if he was married at least at one time, but there is more evidence to favor him being single than otherwise.

“Jesus also never disqualified a man from being married to be an apostle. We know for a fact the Peter was married. Jesus also never makes celibacy a requirement for leadership nor does He exhort others to follow His example of being celibate.”

But nor does He command uniform marriage for his apostles.  According to you, He must have, because after all you believe St. Paul commanded it!  However, Christ does acknowledge celibacy as a way of life for those who can manage it: “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” 

I think your main problem right nows stems with an inability to understand the discipline, practice, tradition, what have you, of priestly celibacy.  From this point on, keep in mind that the Church does NOT order anyone to become celibate.  This is not something forced upon people.  Those contemplating the priesthood choose it out of their own free will.  This is key.

“It seems that if a man was not married with children he could not be a bishop. It doesn’t mean he could not be useful in other parts of the church though.”

We already went over the verses from St. Paul that you used to make that case, but remember you just said: “do we agree then that I Cor 7 has nothing to do with church leadership? If you think it does then show what verse mentions it.”  Err, your argument is getting more difficult to follow…

“Using the church fathers to buttress your case does not help since the fathers can be at odds with your church. The other problem with the fathers is that you would have to demonstrate that the entire church at the time believed as they did.”

In a general sense (which I believe it true), or a specific sense that pertains to each and every individual at every single point in time? *wink*

“Finally, do you know the fathers that well?”

Yes, although I can always stand to keep studying them.  Do you know them that well?  I don’t think you’ve pulled any quotes from them yet.

And I have to mention that the book The Glories of Mary was a work written purely as a devotional work.  It is NOT a work of apologetics nor is it something you will come across in the Catechism.

Lea S—you write-“I think your main problem right nows stems with an inability to understand the discipline, practice, tradition, what have you, of priestly celibacy.  From this point on, keep in mind that the Church does NOT order anyone to become celibate.  This is not something forced upon people.  Those contemplating the priesthood choose it out of their own free will.  This is key.”
Not really. I do understand the argument for a celibate priest-bishop-pope. Its not that difficult. The problem lies with how your church supplants the clear teaching of Scripture and has no problem doing so. It reminds me of what the Pharisees did with their traditions and how they used it to nullify the Word of God. See Matt 15:1-9.
I don’t know the fathers that well. Its important history to know.

Even if the “book The Glories of Mary was a work written purely as a devotional work.  It is NOT a work of apologetics” that still does not mean its doctrinally sound. Even devotionals can lead a person astray from “the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ” (2 Cor 11:3). This book does exactly that.
No Catholic can dismiss these works for the mere fact that Rome approves of these works. Agreed?

Would you agree that there is no specific-explicit passage of Scripture that says there is to be a celibate leadership? In other words, celibacy is a requirement for leadership?

Lea S, I see you and all the others are still being taken round in circles by Proto1. Well, he told me I am intellectually unqualified to be on this Website, and I see he says he does not know much about the Church Fathers.  I wish to give him the following and hear his response about the Primacy of the Seat of St. Peter:

St. John Chrysostom is important for a number of reasons.  He’s the author of the Divine Liturgy most commonly used within Eastern Orthodoxy, and his importance to the development of Orthodox theology can be hardly overstated: he’s their version of our St. Augustine.

In the West, we call him a Doctor of the Church, placing in him with only three-two (soon to be thirty-three) other influential theologians.  In the East, they go beyond that, declaring him one of the Three Holy Hierarchs.  He was bishop of Antioch, where St. Peter himself served as bishop (see Galatians 2).  And he would later become Archbishop of Constantinople, meaning that he’s what the Eastern Orthodox would now call the “Ecumenical Patriarch.”  So here’s what the Patriarch, St. John Chrysostom,  had to say:

  It is a prerogative of the dignity of our city [that is, Antioch] that, from the beginning, it received as master the prince of the apostles. In fact, it was a just thing that this city - which was glorified by the name of “Christians” before the rest of the earth - should receive as shepherd the prince of the apostles. When we received him as master, however, we did not keep him forever but rather yielded him to the royal city of Rome. Therefore, we do not hold the body of Peter, but we hold the faith of Peter as we would Peter himself. As a matter of fact, as long as we hold the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.

The other example Leiva-Merikakis pointed out which I found fascinating is from the Byzantine Liturgy—that is, the Liturgy used by all of the Eastern Orthodox churches. In English, Leiva-Merikakis writes:

  For instance, in the liturgy of the Feast of the Apostolic College, observed in the Byzantine calendar on June 30, the day after the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, patronal feast of Rome, we hear Peter addressed as “Peter the first-chosen, the chief shepherd,” and also as “the rock of the faith and the holder of the keys of grace”. Thus, the Greek liturgy already provides an expressive exegesis of our passage.

(Leiva-Merikakis actually includes the Greek, which you can find at page 511 here).
Pope Benedict XVI and
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
(Successors of Saints Peter and Andrew)

I don’t pretend that this information is going to suddenly end the Great Schism, but I do think it’s important to remember how the East used to view Peter.  Leiva-Merikakis quite convincingly shows that centuries prior to the Great Schism, the East (including even the future Patriarch of Constantinople) recognized St. Peter as having something more than a mere “primacy of honor,” that Peter wasn’t simply “first amongst equals.”

Rather, they viewed him as “the Prince of the Apostles,” “the Chief Shepherd,” “the Rock of the Faith,” and “the Holder of the Keys of Grace.”  And these weren’t some stray opinions, but the faith declared in the Divine Liturgy itself (yet another example of the importance of the Liturgy).

In light of Matthew 16:17-19, the specific titles given leave no question as to the Eastern Church’s original belief that the Church was built upon St. Peter, the first-chosen and Prince of the Apostles.  And St. John Chrysostom tells us quite clearly that after serving as Bishop of Antioch, this same Peter moved to the royal city, Rome. That’s virtually everything the Catholic Church asserts today.

With regard to the sinlessness and holiness of Mary, may I humbly tell him:  Common sense tells one that Jesus, being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity - the All Holy God - could not have been conceived of a woman who had the Stain of the Sin of Satan’s Deception, and Genesis and Isaiah tell us so. It follows, as the Greeting of Angel Gabriel states, she is Full of Grace, hence incapable of sinning in her entire life.

Proto1, you have also been going on and on vehemently denying the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.  Here is a Bold Statement from your fellow Lutheran who believes contrary to what you have been hammering us with and hollering to the high heavens that Jesus Christ cannot be present in the Blessed Bread and Wine of the Consecration during the Holy Mass.  Any comments?????

““scredsoxfan2,

We Lutherans receive the Lord’s Supper, as well.

We look at it as sheer gift of God, to us. So the focus is on that aspect of the Communion.

Since Jesus commanded that we ‘do it’, we believe that He is truly in it, and come to us in His body and blood. The Word of promise attached to bread and wine make it so, and not really anything from our end.”“

Proto:  !Thess 5:21 is a genral exhortation to hold onto what is good etc.  It is not a justification for Sola Scriptura.  Logically, for Sola Scriptura to be a tenable position, the Scriptures themselves must unambiguously state so.  And there is no such unambiguous statement to be found - hence Sola Scriptura is self defeating as a first premise.

You make frequent references to the harm the Catholic Church has done throughout history with no acknowledgement of the good - the many saints and scholars found throughout its history.  At the very least, you should acknowledge your debt to the Catholic Church for giving you the New Testament.

Proto

No Catholic is obligated to follow anything that is devotional, approved or otherwise.  Even the Rosary is, stictly speaking, optional to Catholics.

Mary42—Was St. John Chrysostom a leader of the entire church or had some very high position when he wrote? Was he recognized as such at the time? Just because someone writes something in the early doesn’t mean they speak for everyone or anyone but expressing their own opinions. Agreed?
Secondly, is the pope at the same level of an apostle?

JP- you write-“No Catholic is obligated to follow anything that is devotional, approved or otherwise.  Even the Rosary is, stictly speaking, optional to Catholics.”
For a devotional to be Christian it must be based on the truth. Are these devotionals true whether approved or not?

Mary42- you write-“St. John Chrysostom tells us quite clearly that after serving as Bishop of Antioch, this same Peter moved to the royal city, Rome. That’s virtually everything the Catholic Church asserts today.” Is there any evidence that Peter ruled the entire church from Rome? If so, what?

Approved devotionals are based on Truth.  Unapproved ones may or may not be.  At any rate, they are not binding on the Church as a whole.

Your questions are indicating you are not knowledgeable about terminology.  Your question about St. John Chrysostom made me laugh.  “Chrysostom” was a nickname given to him because of his wisdom and eloquence.  It means ‘golden mouth’.  It was given to him either during his lifetime or shortly after his death.  That he is a canonized saint (meaning his name can be used in the canon of the Mass) indicates he was worthy of imitation by Christians.  It does not mean he was infallible, but you can be pretty sure what he wrote and taught would not lead a Christian into darkness.

He is one of the most highly placed and well known saints in both the Eastern and Western Churches (I think that would qualify as the entire Church).  He was in his own day, too.

Mary42- you write-“With regard to the sinlessness and holiness of Mary, may I humbly tell him:  Common sense tells one that Jesus, being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity - the All Holy God - could not have been conceived of a woman who had the Stain of the Sin of Satan’s Deception, and Genesis and Isaiah tell us so. It follows, as the Greeting of Angel Gabriel states, she is Full of Grace, hence incapable of sinning in her entire life.”
You may think that Mary being sinless because of Jesus is common sense but is it biblical? Do the Scriptures teach this? The answer is no for many reasons. The sin of Adam is passed on from the father and not the mother. (Rom 5:12) It was in Adam that the mankind fell. What this means is that Mary would not have passed on Adam’ sin to Jesus since Jesus did not have a earthly biological father.
The angel’ greeting to Mary i.e. “hail favored one” or the less preferred translation “full of grace” does not mean without sin. Rather it has to do with the grace that will be given to her to bring Christ into the world and God’s favor on her. Here is what a Greek lexicon of the NT says about this phrase-“To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharit?mén?, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitó? declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit…” Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)

JP- You are right I’m not that knowledgeable about the church fathers. Evidently you are. Now, did John Chrysostom speak for the entire church at the time? Is he giving the entire church of the time a mandate or pronouncement that must be believe by all? If so, who gave him this authority to speak for the entire church?
Since the Glories of Mary are approved by your church then what is contained in that book is true. Correct?

Proto

I have not seen the book about Mary so I have no idea if it is approved or truthful.  I have read many which are not true.

We Catholics are not infallible! 

I do not know the exact canonical status of St. John Crysostom’s pronouncements.  I do know that he chastised people within the Church when he felt it necessary, so I expect that to say EVERYONE accepted him would be a stretch.  The Truth is never universally accepted.  St. John was, however, in a very important position and his writings were respected in all parts of the church.  We have to remember that when he wrote, the geographical division within the Church was not as profound as it later became.  After his death, he was considered a Saint in both the East and the West.  Could it be said that he spoke for the whole Church?  Well, he wasn’t the Pope, so I expect that could not be formally said.  In a practical sense though, I think it could be said that he spoke for the Church.  That is my opinion, though.  Church Fathers are a relatively new field for me, too.

John- you write-“Logically, for Sola Scriptura to be a tenable position, the Scriptures themselves must unambiguously state so.  And there is no such unambiguous statement to be found - hence Sola Scriptura is self defeating as a first premise.”
The Scriptures do claim to be the Word of God do they not? Do they not claim to be “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;  so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”? (2 Tim 3:16-17) ? Do they not make it possible for us to grow in respect to salvation? (1 Pet 2:2)
Is there anything else that is inspired-inerrant? Does anything else claim to be the Word of God?

Let’s apply your statement “And there is no such unambiguous statement to be found - hence Sola Scriptura is self defeating as a first premise.” to some of the teachings of your church. Where does it say in Scripture that the church of Christ unambiguously was to be in Rome and have one man i.e. the pope be the head of the church?  Where does it say in Scripture unambiguously that Mary was completely without sin and assumed into heaven?

What applies to me applies to you.

Proto1 You miss the whole point.  It is you who is insisting on Scriptural support.  Catholics do not need this as tradidion and Magisterium are also valid ways in which God continues to guide us.  We are not denying that Scripture is inspired - all I am saying is that it is nowhere stated in Scripture that Sola Scriptura is the only criterion for authentic Christian belief.  Therefore your fundamental premise is flawed by its own inner contradiction.

JP- Let me give you a couple of quotes from the Glories of Mary. (You can find it online at http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/glories.htm)
“Therefore, to use the words of St. Antonine, God has put the whole Church not only under the patronage, but even under the power and authority, of Mary.
Since, then, the Mother must have the same power as the Son, Mary became omnipotent because Jesus is omnipotent. Of course, the Son is omnipotent by nature, where Mary is omnipotent only by grace. This is proved by the fact that the Son never refuses the Mother anything she seeks, as St. Bridget learned in a revelation.”

Again, since the Catholic church approves this work, this statement must be true. It must be true that the Catholic church is under the power and authority of Mary and that Mary is omnipotent. Correct?

John- Please define Sola Scriptura? If something is not supported by Scripture is it binding on a Christian?

Proto

Mary is a created being and has only the powers God has seen fit to grant her.  Given her position as Queen Mother (a type from the OT) those powers seem to be considerable.

I do not know if the book you quote is approved by the Church.

Proto

How can the Church, the Pillar and bulwark of truth, be held to a standard (Sola Scriptura) that did not exist for the first 1500 years of her existence and which she did not promulgate?

JP- the book is approved- Here is what it says-
“The Glories of Mary
St. Alphonsus de Liguori   At the command of Mary all obey, even God.
Redemptorist Fathers, 1931
with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur”

JP- did the early church believe all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected?
If you look at some of the early Church Fathers such Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus they taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies.  Their sole appeal for authority was Scripture.
Since this is the case we can conclude that they did indeed believe in sola scriptura. They held to the primacy of Scripture.

Proto My understnding of Sola Scriptura is that only that which is explicitly in Scripture is to be believed by a Christian.  The problem you have got is that this is nowhere stated in Scripture itself so your fundamental basis is self defeating.  Unless you can find such a verse in Scripture. 

Scripture has nothing to say about capital punishment - so is it right or wrong?  Unless you invoke the 5th commandement - “Thou shall not kill” - the only problem is that this does not define what not to kill - e.g. is it wrong to swat a wasp that has entered your living room or at the other end of the scale - is it wrong to execute a murderer?

@Proto

Where do you get that the ECF used scripture as their sole authority for appeal?  I don’t doubt that they used what they had, but as their sole authority?

Scripture, in whatever form it existed at a given time, was AN authority but it was not THE authority.  Scripture itself tells us that when it says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth.

As for “The Glories of Mary”...duh.  The light went on and I am, at least somewhat familiar with the author.

As I said, and as the quote implied…Mary has whatever power she has as a gift from God and not due to her nature.  As the Queen Mother, she has many powers which are supported by the OT in reference to the Davidic Kingdom, which the Angel Gabriel also attributed to her through her son who would sit on David’s throne.

Take Mark’s book, Proto.  I’m sure this is all in there.

Proto1 NOT SO Proto1.  The early Church Fathers rightly make liberal use of the Scriptures to support their teachings but by no means confine themselves to the Scriptures.  They also cite other Church Fathers and in some cases even pagan philosophers!

John- Sola Scriptura is not what you state. Rather it is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. All doctrines that a Christian is bound to believe must be grounded in Scripture because only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant Word of God. This means that they alone are the highest authority. Higher than a church, pope or council.
What this principle allows me to do is to test all doctrines and practices by the Scriptures to know if they are of God or man. Since you reject this principle you have no way to test what your church teaches is of God or not.

John- you claim that your church uses pagan philosophers to support some of its doctrines. Do you have a example of this?

Proto

What did John state?  He simply corrected you.  What YOU state is incorrect in that the Church does not and never did (until some troublemaker named Luther invented it) hold to Sola Scriptura…period.

The Church is the pillar and bulward of Truth.  Scripture tells us that.  THAT is where we are to look for Truth.  Scripture tells us that.  Scripture does NOT anywhere tell us that it, itself, is the sole source of doctrine which is, after all, truth.  It’s not there.  Anywhere.

Sola Scriptura is not scriptural.  It is not a Church doctrine.  It can’t be as it is taught neither by the Church nor by Scripture, but only by traditions of Protestants.

JP- how does Alphonsus de Liguori know that God made Mary protector of the church and made her omnipotent? He is not getting this from Scripture BTW.

Proto

St. Thomas Aquinas’ writing (13th century) is what made Aristotle accessible to the western mind.  He does indeed use Aristotle’s nebulous recognition of truth (ie his believe in The One God) and clarifies it in light of Christian Teaching

JP- how would you know if your church is misleading you or not? We already know it can err by just looking at it history.
Paul did say that the church is the pillar and bulward of Truth. However, we do know that a church can err. Read the 1st 3 chapters of Revelation where Jesus rebukes a couple of churches for holding to error.

Proto

St. Alphonsus does get his ideas from Mary from scripture (see my previous posts) and from Church tradition and teaching.

He did not get it from YOUR interpretation of Scripture though, I’ll grant you that. 

The Catholic Church, as I may have mentioned, does not hold to sola scriptura, nor is there any reason why she should, BTW.

Proto

For heaven’s sake.  Are you trying to be obtuse??  Paul was chastising the people and their actions.  The Church is perfect and cannot err.  St. Paul wasn’t even an apostle…he obviously had the authority to correct.  It is that authority that keeps the Church perfect.  That is the work of the HOly Spirit!

At no point has it ever been said or even postulated that all within the church are perfect at all times.  Even Jesus seems to have goofed when he appointed the apostles who all betrayed or abandoned him in some way or another.  Of course Jesus was perfect, so it only APPEARs to us that He had bad judgement.  The less than admirable behaviour of the apostles served the greater purpose.  Their imperfect selves were tasked with spreading the Good News and building the perfect Church

If Paul hadn’t had to chastise the local churches, we wouldn’t have gotten his scripture writings out of the deal.  You have to see the big picture.

@Proto

This will be my last post for a while.  I apologise for my fit of pique.  I need a nap.

I did think of something else.  I stated that Paul was not an apostle.  He was not one of the apostles named by Jesus, although he is commonly referred to as an apostle.

Do you consider him to be an apostle?  If yes, why?  If no, then how is it he is so influential in building the Church?

JP, the standard by which some idea about God and/or correct understanding of faith are tested is by Scripture.  Otherwise anyone can say anything they want—that is, even any church can say what they want and claim to be correct.

Scripture wouldn’t be any good for “reproof and correction” (2 Tim 3:16) unless it could be relied upon.  It says it is God-breathed.

Read Protos refs to churches in Rev.  Some got off track there.  They were not perfect, and Christ is chastising them for it.

Kindest regards, garyk51188

Roy was thorough in his preparation for this test and he achieved an excellent pass scoring 33/40.

I discussed this result with Roy and he felt that his self confidence had been boosted by this success. Looking to the future, Roy would like to now enrol for the NVQ Level 2 in Warehousing after which he will undertake Fork Lift Truck training and Licensing.    john

Proto1 Its a pity we are confined to chatting on here.  I would love to meet you over lunch where our exchanges could be more cordial.  I do not know which part of the globe you inhabit but I live in Englnd.

I like to think that despite some difference on some fundamentals, we share over 90% of the essential teaching of Jesus and we each try to follow him however imperfectly.  As long as we both remain faithful to God and His Only Son Our Lord Jesus Christ, I am sure we will be looked after.

I saw a hilarious request for “proof” of the docrtines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.  Luckily our Pontiffs have given us just that: “Ifeffabilus Deus” by Pius IX (1854), defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; and “Munificenissimus Deus” by Pius XII (1950) defining the dogma of the Assumption.  These documents are truly authoritative.  Your reading of scripture, Proto1, is not.

Proto’s use of the Church’s book (the Bible) to impugn the Church’s teaching is a little like tearing someone’s arm off his body, and then using it to beat him with.

To hear Proto1 assail the great Saints for their authoritative exploration and development of profound Christian truths, consistent with the teaching of the Church, on the basis it’s not “biblical,” is like witnessing fleas training their trainer to jump.  Morale of the story?  That’s what you get for associating with fleas.

Proto1: If I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.  If I don’t understand it, it can’t be.  If you can’t explain it to me in a way that I will understand it, you’re wrong.  Eg: the protestant metaphysic.

Matt B—exactly what was the pope basing the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary on? Certainly not Scripture nor historical evidence.
Are you the kind of Catholic that if a pope says it I believe it?

JP-  Paul was an apostle. He became one of the road to Damascus and the other apostles recognized he was also.

Matt-JP-John and any other Catholics- do the following quotes make you jittery about Mary?
“1) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Supremi Apostolatus officio. Sept 1, 1883. ASS 16, 1883. 1113: “We judge nothing more powerful and better for this purpose than by religion and devotion to deserve well of the great Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, who is the treasurer (sequestra) of our peace with God, and the mediatrix (administra) of graces… .”
2)Leo XIII, Encyclical, Superiore anno, August 30, 1884. ASS 17, 1884. 49: “... may He hear the prayers of those who beseech through her, whom He Himself willed to be the mediatrix (administram) of graces.”
3) Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196: “... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us—for ‘grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ [Jn 1. 17]- nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.
Pius XI, Apostolic Letter, Galliam, Ecclesiae filiam, March 2, 1922, AAS 14, 1922 186: “She, the Virgin Mother, [is] the treasurer [sequestra] of all graces with God.
John XXIII, Epistle to Cardinal Agaganian, Legate to Marian Congress in Saigon, Jan 31, 1959, AAS 51, 1959, 88: “For the faithful can do nothing more fruitful and salutary than to win for themselves the most powerful patronage of the Immaculate Virgin, so that by this most sweet Mother, there may be opened to them, all the treasures of the divine Redemption, and so they may have life, and have it more abundantly. Did not the Lord will that we have everything through Mary?” Discorsi II, 66: “From her hands hope for all graces.”

Should I be shocked about these statements? Are you?

Thank you, Proto1 for this admission: “JP- You are right I’m not that knowledgeable about the church fathers.” Now, since you are ignorant about the Doctors and Fathers of the Catholic Church Teachings, you have no right to argue against that which you do not know.  Right??

I was hoping at this point, you would at least be humble enough to accept that, though not an Intellectual Giant, I do know my Catholic Faith quite well as I had stated earlier. And whenever I am in doubt about anything, Christ left me this Holy Church to enlighten and educate me.

I am amused you have not commented about your Lutheran Christian ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT.  Note - contrary to what you have been hectoring at us - he EMPHATICALLY says that in the Lutheran Church, you use Bread and WINE.  NOT GRAPE JUICE AS YOU STATED.

Thank God Matt B so accurately concludes about you : “Proto1: If I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.  If I don’t understand it, it can’t be.  If you can’t explain it to me in a way that I will understand it, you’re wrong.  Eg: the protestant metaphysic.” Need anyone say anything more?????

BTW,Proto1, while you are furiously dispatching Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles and bombarding the Catholic Church in these Catholic Websites, the Anglicans - under the Guidance and Inspiration of the Holy Spirit - are on the Grand March returning to Mother Church in their thousands. And under the same Holy Spirit Inspiration and Revelation, they have accepted all the Truths you have been vehemently denying here.  Any comment regarding Christ’s Payer that His Church shall be One as He and the Father are One????

@ Proto

None of the quotations make me jittery about Mary.  In fact it would do well for us to remember that because Jesus came into the world through Mary, we can in fact go to Jesus through Mary.

I think you’re a little jittery about the term mediatrix?  As in the scripture quote about no one being a mediator?

Do remember scripture’s use of hyperbole.  Just as it says we are to call no man Father, then scripture turns around and we hear Paul refer to himself as Father, just as Abraham did.

Well fact is, we are all mediators when we pray for each other.  Mary in this sense is no different except that she’s got a much closer proximity to the goal of our prayers.  She was the first Christian and got everything firsthand.  She had God’s blood flowing in her veins.

No biggy.

Proto1 I am amused you have not commented about your Lutheran Christian ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT.  Note - contrary to what you have been hectoring at us - he EMPHATICALLY says that in the Lutheran Church, you use Bread and WINE.  NOT GRAPE JUICE AS YOU STATED.

Concerning your use of grape juice for Holy Communion.  This is completely unjustifiable Scripturally anfd in tradition.  Even to this day Jewish Seder meals use alcoholic wine.  I am surprised at you Proto1 abandoning your Sola Scriptura because of your narrow bias towards Victorian Temperance movements or US Prohibition “You are setting aside the Law of God for mere human regulations of a relatively short temporality….and don’t come back with it does not say WINE in the SCriptures.  IT MOST DEFINITELY WAS FERMENTED WINE USED AT THE LAST SUPPER.  In actual fact, at the time of Jesus, it would have been extremely difficult to avoid the natural process of fermentation that makes the wine.  WINE is a living organism and as such entirely suitable to become the life giving Lord Himself.  Now that I have exposed you as a fraud - perhaps you will take your vituperations elsewhere as we must focus on saving our souls and those of others in the true Church of Jesus Christ and under the special patronage of His Blessed Mother.

JP,

You said, “None of the quotations make me jittery about Mary. In fact it would do well for us to remember that because Jesus came into the world through Mary, we can in fact go to Jesus through Mary.”

Why?  And, who said so? 

1 Tim 2:5 says Christ is our only Mediator.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

@Gary

I addressed the mediator question in the last post.

Garyk !Tim 2:5 does not mean that Mary cannot be in a co-operative role with Jesus.  Your fatal mistake (as with most Protestant sects) is taking isolated verses here and there from Scripture and using them out of context.  This leads to an impoverishered form of Christianity.  Of course Jesus’ Mother is intimately bound up with his role of Mediator.  Read John 19, where Jesus entrusts his Mother to the beloved disciple “and from that moment, the disciple made a place for her in his home”.  Every true follower of Jesus throughout history has done the same.  I suggest that your faith will be more wholesome than it is at present if you do likewise.

John K,

You said, “!Tim 2:5 does not mean that Mary cannot be in a co-operative role with Jesus.”

To make a proactive statement because you say you can’t rule it out, is no statement at all.

It is an emotional plea to suggest a Christian is “impoverished” without praying to Mary. 

For “reproof and correction” as it says to use Scripture to do, show me a verse that says to pray to Mary.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

@Gary

To “pray” can also mean to ask.  It’s an old form of the word.  Praying “to” Mary is little different than asking you to pray for me.  What difference there is comes from her intimate knowledge of Christ.

Remember what it says about the prayers of the righteous availing much?

Well, Mary is righteous.  If we don’t ask, she can’t pray.

Gary There is not a shred of logic in what you say and I noticed you evaded John 19.  In any case, as a Catholic I do not rely only on Scripture but also on the rich tradition of the Church Fathers and the Magisterium of the Church which has been guaranteed Divine guidance.  “He who hears you, hears me”  Jesus words to the nascent Catholic community 1500 years before Luther introduced “Sola Scriptura” which I have already argued successfully is a self defeating first principle as it cannot be found explicitly stated in Scripture and neither you nor Proto1 have been able to find a single verse to support it.  So your own first principle confounds you.  Much better to row in with 2000 years of the guided Magisterium.

Gary has no answer because there isnt one.  In logic, for Sola Scriptura to be a relible basis, it must find an explicit statement of Sola Scriptura in the Scriptures and both Gary and Proto have failed to find such a verse.

JP,

If you attempt to honor a person beyond their status, is it really an “honor” at all?

Some men threw themselves on the ground in front of the apostles out of “honor,” and these were told not to do it.  The apostles were mere men.

We could say, “well, these apostles were special, so it is good to do that.”  But, that logic doesn’t justify our doing something wrong.  Saying we’re trying to do something “good” but if it is not what God wants, then it is no good at all.

If it is a disservice to God to pray to Mary then it is a major disservice to Mary to do that as well.

No saint would want you to do something you weren’t supposed to do, no matter how much it venerates them.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John K,

I appreciate your POV.  But, saying you rely on tradition is not a magical salvo to make true everything that follows.  It has to be tested against something.

What is for “reproof and correction” allows a beliver to discerne such things.

“For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

I don’t dismiss your sincerety.  You are.  It’s just that we are told not to get carried away doing certain things.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

@Gary

The Protestant tradition of Sola Scriptura fails against itself.

As for honouring Mary…she has no honour or power that God himself hasn’t given her.  She points to Christ.  She reflects Christ (as we all should).  She is not to be given honour that is reserved for God.

And good Catholics don’t do that.

Gary: why should we look for a salvo as uyou describe it “you are not to prepare your defense as the Holy Spirit will guide you at the time”  and “He who hears you, hears me”.  “No disciple is greater than his Master…if they persecuted me, they will persecute me”  “Do not be afraid little flock, It is my Father’s will to give you the kingdom”  Scripture itself has promised us Christ’s abiding presence with us till the end of time.

JP,

These are words.  What honor God gives Mary, He says so in His Word.  But, He doesn’t say pray to her.

Praying to people who have passed is admonished against in the strongest terms.  And, this being the case, it would be a disservice to her to pray to her.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John K,

I agree with God’s Word.  And, you agree with it for the parts of it that you just quoted.  So, there is no division between us in this regard.

We both want to do what is right.  So, now let’s use it to discerne right from wrong.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42- you write-“I am amused you have not commented about your Lutheran Christian ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF JESUS CHRIST IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT.  Note - contrary to what you have been hectoring at us - he EMPHATICALLY says that in the Lutheran Church, you use Bread and WINE.  NOT GRAPE JUICE AS YOU STATED.”
What is there to comment on with the Lutheran’? What is important to know is if such a doctrine is taught in Scripture. We have already discussed it and saw that it does not.
BTW- what kind of wine did Jesus specifically use and how much? If the disciples at the last supper did not finish eating the bread and wine He gave them and they left pieces of bread on the table was that a sacrilege?

You are so right Gary.  We have so much in common - and one thing - in this world as it is - where there is an outright assault on all Christians by a highly secularised state backed up with the so called “certainties” of science, all who follow Jesus need to support one another.  We all need to have “that mind in us that was also in the Lord Jesus, who though He was God, did not cling to His equality with God, but humbled Himeslf taking on the form of a servant”. 

I am not saying that truth is not important, but let us seek the ways that lead to common brotherhood; it is time for our churches to find ways of moving forward together because we are all facing the same formidable enemy.  Yet, He has promised us that He will not abandon us as orphans but will be with us till the end of time.

Kidest regards to you too
John K

Mary42—Let me ask you: Is the church of Christ one and has it always been so?

You cannot commit sacrilege by accident.  Sacrilege is a direct attempt to misuse holy persons, places or things.  I don’t know if anything was left over after the Last Supper - these are facile points and scripture does not tell us anything in this regard.  But have no fear, if there was anything left over from the Last Supper this would not be the sin of sacrilege.

JP—writes “In fact it would do well for us to remember that because Jesus came into the world through Mary, we can in fact go to Jesus through Mary.”
How does this follow? Do we see any exhortations or teachings in the NT that we are to pray to Mary or to anyone else besides the Lord Christ?

John K,

Yes, there are essentials on which we agree.  That is a good thing.

Rom 10:8-13 “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”(that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

We believe in that One Lord and God.  And, for that it says we have been adopted into the household of faith.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John- you write-“IT MOST DEFINITELY WAS FERMENTED WINE USED AT THE LAST SUPPER.”
Where is the proof in the texts? I don’t want your speculations but the facts that it was indeed wine.

GaryK wrote “JP,

These are words.  What honor God gives Mary, He says so in His Word.  But, He doesn’t say pray to her.

Praying to people who have passed is admonished against in the strongest terms.  And, this being the case, it would be a disservice to her to pray to her.”

Well Gary what can I say?  The Catholic Church is not bound by Sola Scriptura, but righ in scripture (it’s in my bible.  Is it in yours?) “Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you.  Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb”.  Interesting.  That is the most common prayer Catholics use to pray to Mary.  They are reciting scripture.  Are we not allowed to do that?

Then there’s “All generations shall call me blessed”.  Yep.  Catholics do.  Orthodox do.  Martin Luther did.  What happened after that?  Why do you disregard scripture?  Oh, wait.  You just disregard Catholic teaching of scripture.  Pity.

Then…I think it’s Revelation…about the angels raising prayers of saints to the throne?  Ringing a bell? 

You are misreading about not praying for the dead.  You should know from scripture that the holy dead are alive in Christ. 

Outta here for a while

John- you write-“In any case, as a Catholic I do not rely only on Scripture but also on the rich tradition of the Church Fathers and the Magisterium of the Church which has been guaranteed Divine guidance.  “He who hears you, hears me”
Where did Jesus promise that He would make it impossible for your church to err? The verse you quote from Luke 10:16 has nothing to do with divine guidance for the church. Just look at the context.

JP- you write—“As for honouring Mary…she has no honour or power that God himself hasn’t given her.  She points to Christ.  She reflects Christ (as we all should).  She is not to be given honour that is reserved for God.”
Your church goes way beyond giving her honor. Just look at some of the quotes I gave by various popes. It does not end there though. It gets worse as you can see from this short list of titles given to Mary. The list is quite long. From “Divine Chaplet To The Blessed Mother Of Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ”

Adam’s Deliverance
Advocate of Eve
Advocate of Sinners
All Chaste
All Fair and Immaculate
All Good
Aqueduct of Grace
Deliverer From All Wrath
Deliverer of Christian Nations
Destroyer of Heresies
Dispenser of Grace
Dwelling Place for God
Dwelling Place of the Spirit
Earth Unsown
Earth Untouched and Virginal
Eastern Gate
Ever Green and Fruitful
Ever Virgin
Exalted Above the Angels
Fleece of Heavenly Rain
Flower of Carmel
Flower of Jesse’s Root
Formed Without Sin

It won’t do to claim that Catholics just pray to Mary (which is never taught in Scripture) but you actually worship her. These titles coupled with various devotionals on her with statements by various popes are all about worship.
Ark Gilded by the Holy Spirit

JP—it is one thing to quote Scripture and another to make it a prayer to someone who has died. You assume Mary and those who have died can hear your prayers and do something about them. Protestants reject not Scripture but those that abuse the texts for the sake of their doctrines and practices.

JP,

Right.  Thank you for the passages.  Yes, Mary is blessed to have born this honor.  Every generation would call her blessed, of course.  I think every Christian would agree with that.

On the “Hail Mary” part, it says, (Luke 1:28-31) “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.  And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.  And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.”

So, this is a dialogue between an angel and Mary.  It is personal—she is troubled by this and the angel encourages her.

Unless I am re-enacting this dialogue for some other reason, it is not a conversation I am having with Mary.  She has gone on to be with our Lord with all the saints/believers.

I am not praying to her.  There are only discouragements in Scripture to do that with people who have passed.  It does no honor to her to do otherwise than God would say.

I love my wife.  Do I show greater love for her if I attempt to do it at the expense of what God would have me do?

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

@Gary

You’ve made a HUGE and erroneous assumption…that Catholics love Mary more than they love God.  That is absolutely NOT to be the case.  We do not in any way supplant our love for God/Jesus with our love for Mary.

To do so would be gravely sinful.  Mary is a created (although uniquely blessed) created being.

We do what Christ would have done…love His mother.

JP- How is it loving Mary when your church attributes things to her that Jesus nor His apostles ever do?

JP,

Yes, those who have gone on to be with our Lord—passed—are alive with Him.  And, then there are those—like the rich man in the Lazarus story—who have passed and have gone elsewhere.  But, for them too, physical death is not the end of it.

So, each are passed, and we are told not to disturb either.

As far as the Rev. passages, at Rev 5:8 there were “...golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints ...” and Rev 8:3-4 “Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand.”

Seeing this, I’m not finding “prayers of the saints” to anyone other than God.  Jesus taught us to pray saying, “Our Father…..”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

JP,

You said, “You’ve made a HUGE and erroneous assumption…that Catholics love Mary more than they love God.  That is absolutely NOT to be the case.  We do not in any way supplant our love for God/Jesus with our love for Mary.  To do so would be gravely sinful.”

Of course, no one would “say” they love Mary more than they love God.  But, if I do anything—even loving my wife—in a way that God says not to do, what am I doing?

I can say I love God more, but if I’m not doing what He says, what am I really—by my actions—putting higher?  Whatever it is, it is not God.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

@Gary…

That’s just silly.  I can SAY I didn’t kill my neighbour, when I have blood all over my hands.  God is the judge.

So if we do love Mary more than God?  God will be the judge.  I already covered that.  To love Mary more than God is a grave sin.  The Church teaches no different.

To SAY that you don’t love the Bible more than God…well God will judge that too.

Sola Scriptura is worshipping the bible over the Church that Christ founded and which IS Christ (“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?”  Saul had never met Jesus in the flesh.  It was Christians…apparently Christ thought they were Himself…that Saul was persecuting).

God will be the judge.

@Proto1:

“Where is the proof in the texts? I don’t want your speculations but the facts that it was indeed wine.”

I hope you will always recollect this question as a reminder to yourself of how much of your own personal interpretive tradition you bring to the texts.

It was wine. As you know, nothing Scripture says about the use of wine makes any sense at all if you think “wine” is really “grape juice”. But, perhaps that is my own personal interpretive tradition. Let’s see.

Does grape juice cheer the heart of man? (Ps. 104).
Does grape juice benefit the sorrowing of spirit? (Prov. 31).
Is it too much grape juice that brings on poverty? (Prov. 21).

We do know from the Synoptics that the cup contained the “fruit of the vine” which our Savior would not again drink until He drinks it new with his disciples in the kingdom of Heaven. Was it fermented wine or not? Can’t tell from that text, perhaps, although we know from Acts 2 that “new wine” - in that context anyway - WAS fermented.

And of course, every reference in Scripture to wine, of whatever kind, is either equivocal or is unequivocally fermented. That is to say, there is no reference to any ‘grape squeezings’ where we know with certainty from the text itself that what is being consumed is NOT fermented (Exactly one exception: the rule for Nazirites in Leviticus, which is so explicit about not even touching anything pertaining to grapes as to emphasize rather than disprove my point). We also know that our Lord was Himself accused of being a drunkard, which could hardly be the case if he had never in His life consumed any alcohol.

You can only require of ‘John’ that he provide a proof text, expecting no cogent reply, if you have already determined (on what Scriptural basis?) that Christians never drink fermented grape juice. Your requirement is unreasonable, and contrary to the plain sense of Scripture and to the lived experience of Christians throughout the ages. You are bringing an assumption to Scripture, not basing your assumption on Scripture.

JP,

Of course, God will judge.  He always will.  But, that is not answer justifying a person continuing to do wrong.

You said, “Sola Scriptura is worshipping the bible over the Church that Christ founded and which IS Christ.”

I don’t worship it.  It says it is for reproof and correction and that it is used to discerne, sharper than a two-edged sword.  It is there for sound doctrine.

What it says a person may not like, but it is like kicking against the goads to disparage following what it says.  That, even if a person tries to say “.... by following it, you are worshipping it.”

This is not a weak justification for wrong doing.  It is no justification.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Oh Dear God why all this furious anger at our beloved Catholic Church?? Why all this vicious and hysterical distortion of our Faith?? Jesus, give me patience!!!!

Proto1, I will try to humbly answer your questions. The Passover Meal Jesus celebrated with His Apostles at the Last Supper was typically Jewish, hence IT IS WINE THAT WAS USED. It is Wine Jews to this day use in their Passover Meal. I did give you the response from your Fellow Lutheran who stated in their Service they use WINE. Earlier you had told David you are a Lutheran Christian.

With regard to Christ’s Church I state - without any fear of contradiction - that She has solidly remained the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church Christ founded on St. Peter, the First Pope.  If She was not there, Proto1, you would not be so furiously attacking Her.  Sadly for you, She is here in the Year of Our Lord 2011. She has been there for the last 2000 years and She - firm and strong under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit - shall remain so until the End of Time as Christ promised.

To Proto1 and your fellow Protestants who are accusing Catholics of worshiping the Holy Mary as God, I say this.  Study our Prayers to Her again without prejudice. And you will - if you are honest - admit that all our Prayers to Our Lady have this Conclusion :  PRAY FOR US.  BUT ALL OUR PRAYERS to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have this Conclusion : HAVE MERCY ON US. WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE MOTHER OF JESUS - WE VENERATE HER. ONLY GOD, AND GOD ALONE DO WE WORSHIP.  Please do not try to tell us what we Catholics do - rather, let us tell you what we do, and why we do it.

Mary42,

No anger here.  There are essentials of faith on which we agree.

Consider Revelation. Christ is giving various churches a discussion about how they are behaving—call it their traditions, if you will.  Even with his admonishments for wrong behaviour, they all still have a “lamp stand,” which is the Holy Spirit.

You say you “pray” to Mary.  Okay, take just that.  Is it right or wrong to do.  Nowhere in scripture does it say do it.  Specifically the instructions say to leave those passed alone.

So, out of respect and recognition for the special blessing Mary was accorded, “tradition” evolves, moving this to a level above and beyond.

Why does it say not to make images as a thing of veneration of things in heaven or earth?  These images made with hands start to become objects in and by themselves for reverence.  Pretty soon people are kneeling before them, bowing to them and regarding the man made thing.

This takes a whole new direction under the cover of “respect” and “honor.”  Scripture simply says, “Don’t do that.”

God, knows those things that are a temptation to get us off track.  He wrote the book on us.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42—I know Catholics claim not to worship Mary but the evidence points in opposite direction. To praise her, give her exalted names that should only be given to God and attributing attributes of deity to her certainly makes her a goddess. Here is another prayer of praise to her:
“LITANY OF MARY

Lord, Father of the Mother, hear us
Lord, Spouse of the Virgin, hear us
Lord, Child of the Daughter, hear us
Lord, all in all to Our Lady, hear us
Mother of divine mercy,
Carrier of the Word,
show us your Son
and hear our plea
Delight of the Trinity, pray for us
Immaculate creation of the Lord, pray for us
Above all the angels, pray for us
Child of the eternal Father, pray for us
Handmaiden of the Most high, pray for us
Vessel of innocence, pray for us
Eager anticipation of rebirth, pray for us
Bearer of good fruit, pray for us
Birthplace of God, pray for us
New mother of mankind, pray for us
First temple of the Church, pray for us
Guardian of truth, pray for us
Spouse of love, pray for us
Faithful wife of paternal protection, pray for us
Heart of a holy family, pray for us
Leaven of heavenly food, pray for us
Conduit of pure grace, pray for us
Practice of virtue, pray for us
Finder of the missing, pray for us
Consoler of the wounded, pray for us
Instigator of miracles, pray for us
Companion in the way of Calvary, pray for us
Mourner in the cross, pray for us
Caretaker of the Body of Christ, pray for us
Hope in the resurrection, pray for us
Reunion in the Lord, pray for us
Perfection of the Holy Spirit, pray for us
Queen of the throne of creation, pray for us
Mantle of all the saints, pray for us
Sure guide in the heart of the Lord, pray for us
Cause of our joy, pray for us”

Or take this from the THE GLORIES OF MARY
  by
St. Alphonsus de Liguori

OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS.
I.
MARY, OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS.
Mary is our life, because she obtains for us the Pardon of our Sins.
To understand why the holy Church makes us call Mary our life, we must know, that as the soul gives life to the body, so does divine grace give life to the soul; for a soul without grace has the name of being alive but is in truth dead, as it was said of one in the Apocalypse, Thou hast the name of being alive, and thou art dead (“Nomen habes quod vivas, et mortuus es”—Apoc. iii. 1).  Mary, then, in obtaining this grace for sinners by her intercession, thus restores them to life.”

As you can see I am not making any of this up. All of this comes from Roman Catholic sources and approved by your church. This is not a this is not a vicious and hysterical distortion of your faith but is soundly grounded in the documents of your church.

Proto1:  What is your opinion regarding alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary.  Although these are not central to Catholic Faith, many such as the Apparations to St Bernadette in Lourdes have been examined by the Church and the Church has found nothing contrary to the teachings of Scripture and Church dogma.  This, however, does not amount to an endorsement by the Church.  What do you think of these alleged apparitions e.g. Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe etc.?

John- what was the message of these apparitions?

Proto1 Lets take the alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary to three peasant children in Fatma Portugal.

The esswential message was for people to abandon their sinful lifestyles and to fast, pray and do penance.  The Virgin Mary told the children that the war (World War 1) would soon end.  However, if people did not do penance, it would be followed by an even more terrible war.  She told them that Russia would spread its errors all over the world but if people prayed Russia would be converted.

The apparitions took place on the 13th day of successive months.  People gathered could not themselves see the Virgin Mary but did witness the three children going into ecstasy.  The Virgin Mary told them that there would be a sign from heaven at the final apparition.  Several thousand people saw the sun dance in a zig zag pattern and then appear as if it was falling to earth.  Then it stopped and returned to its usual position.  You can google this under “miracle of the sun, Fatima”.  The phenomenon was widely reported in the press and witnessed by people within 300 or 400 km of Fatima.  Beyond that, nothing extraordinary was reported.

John- Was there anything in message about the gospel itself since it alone is the power of God unto salvation? See Romans 1:16-17.

Did some research om the messages and a couple of statements stand out:
“Shortly before Jacinta went to the hospital where she was to die, she said to Lucia: “In a short time now I am going to heaven. You are to stay here and say that God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. . . . Tell everybody that God grants graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and that they must ask them from her. Tell them that the Heart of Jesus wishes that by His side should be venerated the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Tell them to ask peace through the Immaculate Heart of Mary; God has placed it in her hands.

“July 13, 1917

“Sacrifice yourselves for sinners; and say often when you make some sacrifice, ‘My Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.’”

After showing the children a vision of hell, Our Lady said to them: “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish throughout the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart….”

This is not part of the gospel but a distortion of it. Galatians 1:6-9 warns of this where Paul writes:
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

It is only by believing in the gospel of Christ that a man is forgiven and granted peace with God.  Romans 5:1-2 shows us how we can be at peace with God-
1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

Peace with God has nothing to do with Mary but in only in what Christ has done for us. These messages of Fatima will deceive people for those who believe them.

John—here is another statement made by Mary in the Fatima message:
“Then Our Lady made known her request for Communions of reparation: “My daughter, look at my Heart encircled with the thorns with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. Do you at least try to console me and announce in my name that I promise to assist at the hour of death with the graces necessary for salvation all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to Confession and receive Holy Communion, recite the Rosary and keep me company for 15 minutes while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary with the intention of making reparation to me.”
http://www.rosary-center.org/fatimams.htm

This is strikes at the core of the gospel. In Ephesians 2:8-9 where we read-
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The message of Mary is one of works and not faith in Christ alone. Agreed?

Proto1 Then there are the apparitions in Lourdes in France in 1854.  Our Lady appeared to St Bernadette.  By the way she is not a Saint just because of the apparitions but because of a very devout life pledged to Jesus and she suffered much with patience and resignation to the will of God.

Anyway, a spring of water appeared there which is still flowing to this day.  Pilgrims flock there every year in their thousands from all parts of the world.  Each person is submerged fully into the ice cold waters while begging God’s forgiveness for their sins.  It is like a renewal of Baptism.  Many miracuous cures have been attributed to bathing in these waters people suffering from incurable cancers, paralysis and many other ailments.  Each purported cure is rigourously tested over 5 years.  Medical evidence must exist to show the prognosis.  If the person is healed and there is no medical or scientific reason for recovery it is declared a miraculous cure.  It is a continuation of the healing miracles of Jesus.  Quite a number of claims for a miraculous cure is rejected - there must be no doubt that genuine healing has occurred and that there is no medical or scientific reason for the recovery.

Regarding the message of Fatima - it did turn out to be true - World War 2 Bolshevik revolution Spread of Communism and the suppression of religious belief including yours - and now, the possibility of the conversion of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union

Proto1 Then there are the apparitions in Lourdes in France in 1854.  Our Lady appeared to St Bernadette.  By the way she is not a Saint just because of the apparitions but because of a very devout life pledged to Jesus and she suffered much with patience and resignation to the will of God.

Anyway, a spring of water appeared there which is still flowing to this day.  Pilgrims flock there every year in their thousands from all parts of the world.  Each person is submerged fully into the ice cold waters while begging God’s forgiveness for their sins.  It is like a renewal of Baptism.  Many miracuous cures have been attributed to bathing in these waters people suffering from incurable cancers, paralysis and many other ailments.  Each purported cure is rigourously tested over 5 years.  Medical evidence must exist to show the prognosis.  If the person is healed and there is no medical or scientific reason for recovery it is declared a miraculous cure.  It is a continuation of the healing miracles of Jesus.  Quite a number of claims for a miraculous cure is rejected - there must be no doubt that genuine healing has occurred and that there is no medical or scientific reason for the recovery.

Regarding the message of Fatima - we had World War 2 as predicted - the rise of communism and the persecution of Christians including your own Church - then the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union and now the possibility of conversion of Russia

John- the message of Fatima is against the gospel of Christ. It doesn’t matter how many people are healed if the message does not save them or turn them to Christ alone. The message is one that exhorts people to trust in Mary and not Christ.

Proto1 That is a very select reading of the message of Lourdes and Fatima.  Turning away from a sinful life is the very essence of the teaching of Jesus “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is close at hand”  Fatima’s message is to repent, do pemance for one’s own sins and to pray for the conversion of sinners.  What is against Scripture in that?  Its message is Christ-centred and where the heart of Mary is mentioned this is simply the heart of Mary spoken of by Simeon in Luke’s Gospel - the heart that would be pierced by a sword that the thoughts of many would be revealed.  Its there in Luke’s Gospel - I can’t understand why you won’t accept it - or is it that you want to pick and choose what you want to believe.

Again, the miracles of Lourdes is neither here nor there, the main emphasis is on the inner healing we all need.  Jesus never worked a healing miracle just for its own sake for example, before healing the paralytic man who was lowered through the roof of the house Jesus first said to him “Your sins are forgiven”.  Enabling him to walk again was merely the outward sign of this inner healing.  Hence, everyone who bathes in the waters of Lourdes does so cofessing their sins and inner sickness to God and praying for inner healing.  Where in the Scriptures are we forbidden to do this?

Proto1 Then there is the apparation of Our Lady at Guadelupe in Mexico in 1531.  On a hill in a desert region a young peasant man named Juan Diego had an apparition of Our Lady who told him to build a church on this exact spot.  The young man went to see the local bishop who was, understandably sceptical.  The bishop told him that he would require some concrete evidence.  So Juan Diego went back to the spot in the desert.  The lady appeared again and told him to look behind him.  There in the desert he found some beautiful roses in full bloom.  He picked these and wrapped them in his sheep skin coat to show the Bishop.  When he got back and opened his sheep skin, the roses had disappeared.  Instead, on the inside of his sheep sfin was the image of the Lady standing on the moon crushing the head of a serpent - the woman of Revelation 12 - promised in Genesis - who would crush the serpent.  The place Guadalupe is a Spanish form of the Aztec word meaning crushing the head and the peasant Juan Diego was of Aztec origin.  Today, the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe is the most visited site in Mexico, year after year.

Proto1 Be very careful of taking verses of Scripture in isolation.  It is not what you interpret Eph 2:8 -9 as meaning but you must look at the whole message.  Eph 2:8 - 9 is asserting that our salvation is totally by the grace of God.  No action on our part could save us.  It is purely by the Divine love and mercy that salvation is offered us.  This is never denied by Catholics whether they have devotion to Mary or not.  However, the corollary of the point you are making is that we are saved by God so just sit back and enjoy it. 

But elsewhere Paul exhorts us to “work out our salvation in fear and trembling”  Why would he say that if your interpretation of Eph 2: 8 - 9 is correct.  No!  Your intrepretation is only half the story.  Although we are saved by grace and not by good works - we need to respond to that grace by good works.  God does not save anyone against their own will.  This is getting dangerously close to the heresy of Predestination and this kind of erroneous understanding is to be found in Calvinism.  Elsewhere, Paul tells us that “he pummels his body and subdues it, lest having preached to others, I myself be lost”  Sticking with Paul, you see that we have some work to do to reach salvation.  It is one thing to, quite rightly, say that we are saved by God’s grace and not by human effort.  But this does not mean that there is nothing for us to do.  Like Paul, we still have to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.  The message at Fatima reiterates that.  It asks for prayer and penance in reparation for our sins.  Being the mother of Jesus, her heart is touched by the ingratitude of man in the face of the grace offered to man in Eph 2: 8 -9.  That the heart of Mary would be hurt isalready there for you in Simeon’s prophecy in St Luke’s Gospel

Proto1, I see you’ve gained a coadjutor.  Thank you for reading into the record dogmatic statements and inspired prayers honoring the Blessed Virgin Mother.  No, I’m not shocked by these.  To my mind, these are completely appropriate expressions of the honor we owe to this most singular vessel.  On the other hand, you and your associates ought to be challenged by them.  You ought to ask, with so much heat, is there any light?  I suggest that your doctinal base, as well as your understanding of scripture, is stripped bare by your protestant heritage.  DesCartes started down this journey when he took the knife of doubt to every commonly held belief.  At the end all he was left with was “I think, therefore I am.”  In this he heralded in the philosophical basis for the protestant age: what I think is the ultimate basis for reality.  As Mark Shea remarked several thousand comments ago, all these holy beliefs in Mary come down from the apostolic age, and have been attested to by countless pontiffs.  If that’s not good enough for you, it’s not because we need to reexamine our understanding of scripture - it’s our book!  It’s rather that you need to reexamine your wholesale rejection of 1500+ years of Christian practice, as sanctioned indubitably by Our Lord.

As a good example of your handicap, you protestants have cut yourself off from the Church Triumphant in recourse to prayer.  That could be fatal to your salvation!  Once again, protestant go-it-aloneism.  “Me and God, and no one else.”  I don’t need to justify the doctinal practice of praying to Mary and the Saints just because you can’t find any proof text in scripture to support it: it’s been the common practice of the Chuch since day 1.  I would only cite that the Church Triumphant is there to help the Church Militant in the distressing vicissitudes of earthly life.  If this doesn’t work for you, perhaps you’re not really in the Church Militant?

The teachings about Mary are an incredibly beautiful expression of the Christian faith, and who we are in it.  This vein is so rich that a combox is nowhere near big enough even to suggest it.  However, your reading of scripture, no matter how much these faithful have attempted to instruct you, does not envision a place for Mary in Christian doctrine.  My answer to you is: you need milk and not solid food.

I would suggest you go back to those wonderful quotes and prayers, while suspending your judgment that these are just deluded Catholics in need of your pity and instruction.  Consider that these popes were put there by the Holy Spirit to guide and instruct the Church.  Consider that these prayers were composed or compiled by the holiest Saints, alive today in heaven.  Consider that the prayers themselves plumb the deepest meditations of scripture, and reflect a divine understanding of sacred texts.  Maybe you’re deluded, with your clapboard chuches and anti-Catholicism; your stripped bare religion, coupled with a literalistic understanding of books you didn’t inherit, but stole; your out-of-a-cookbook religious practices that have no relation to the living breathing Chuch.  Or maybe your faith is just denuded - like those pilgrims of long ago, who came here because even spurious Anglicanism was too “Catholic.”  In any event, your understanding of scripture is not the baseline, or comparison we need to measure up to.  You had better look to the Saints instead.  I know I do.

I wrote some days ago that certain Saints have reached a dizzying altitude of holiness.  Of these Mary is chief.  She is so holy that you should seriously consider not uttering her name.  If the truth were known, your solicitous concern for the dignity of God, when it comes to our celebration of the Saints, is a big sham.  You’re not concerned that somebody rivals God in adoration; your’re concerned that someone outshines you in holiness.  Your deathly fear of alternate mediation has nothing to do with some scripture; you’re afraid of someone holier than you standing between you and the light.  Sola scripura indeed.  You don’t understand the least thing about scripture, mediation, or the Christian life.  You’re still hung up like squabbling children over pecking order.  Grace and peace to you!

Proto1 On this question of good works, read the whole of the letter of James where he speaks of those who say they have faith but have no good works to show for it.  Alongside Eph 2 you need to read the letter of James.  You have a slight tendency to latch onto a single verse or two in isolation.  You need to see the whole of the Scripture to see the full picture.  Note the parable of the Good Samaritan.  The priest and the Levite wre in a hurry to get to the Temple with their Scripture readings.  But it was the infidel from Samaria, a non Jew and despised, who actually did the work of God - not the two religiious Scripture addicts.  I believe that most people have an innate ability to recognise goodness and holiness - and it is not always to be found in those who outwardly appear to be pillars of the Scriptures.  It is not those who say “Lord, Lord” who will enter the Kingdom but the one who DOES the will of my Father.  Notice the emphasis on DOING, ACTION, GOOD WORKS.  So while it is true to say that we are saved by an utterly free gift of God, thats only half the story.  We have to accept that free gift and allow it to bear fruit in good works.  The message of Fatima is to do works of penance, fasting and prayer as part of our repentance and turning away from sin.

Please stop throwing in isolated verses of Scripture.  Read the whole of it.  The heart of Mary is mentioned in Luke on the lips of Simeon.  How dare you say there is no Scriptural basis for the heart of Mary when its there read it.
Again, when the wine runs out at the wedding feast in John 2, the disciples turn not to Jesus but to his Mother for help read it. ITs there in Scripture.  And Jesus first miracle is actually worked through the requuest or intercession of MARY Again its there in Scripture Read it.  And from the cross Jesus entrusts Mary his mother to the beloved disciple.  John didn’t just say Oh this is just piety.  NO ITS NOT PIETY its real “from that moment the disciple made a place for her in his home”  All true disciples ever since have made a place for the Mother of Jesus in their lives.  READ IT ITS THERE IN SCRIPTURE.  Acts 1 shows the early Christian community united in prayer with the Mother of JESUS ITS THERE read it. The place of Mary in Christian life.  Again at the last supper jesus said of the bread and wine…..this is my Body…this is my Blood… not just a memorial but real READ IT its there.  So actually, although Catholics are not sola scriptura - actually all that we believe and practice is there in the Scrriptures.  And about those who have passed…. the Book of Maccabees tells us “it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they be released from their sins.  And dont dare say that Maccabees is apocryphal.  Its been in the canon for1500 years before Luther decide that it didn’t fit in and chucked it out.  So here is a Sola Scriptura advocate Chucking out the Word of God He had no right to do so.  Luther was a man not God.  So READ IT ALL its all there.

John K, There are so many scriptural references to Mary, in both the Old and New Testaments, that to ignore them constitutes a serious impediment to credibility as a reader of scripture, and to the ability to live a truly Christian life.  The protestant reading of scripture is unfortunately tainted by their ideological agenda, much as they claim Catholic exegisis to be.  They “protesteth” a little too much.  What makes this more than an “idle dispute about words,” which the Apostle admonished us to avoid, is that protestant denials about key doctrinal truths imperil their own salvation, give scandal to the innocent, and mislead people away from the truth.  Your recognition that scripture is replete with the praises of Mary (echoed by many in this string) gives the lie to Proto’s claim that “scriptural truth is [protestantism’s] sole claim to doctrinal authority.”  Rather, it is some illegitimate “thought-leader’s” opinionated interpretation of scripture, cut to whatever pattern their ideology demands, that determines their doctrinal authority.  True authority, as bequeathed by Christ to His Church, and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, they do not hold to.  They abhor even suggestions of this fact.  Numerous comments to this effect have met with blank stares.  They can’t even conceive it!  The emaciated victims of nazi concentration camps, when liberated, were unable to handle solid food, because of their prolonged starvation.  I fear this is true of many protestants, who are spiritually starved.  Many, in fact, don’t even recognize their liberation - they meet the allied troops with vacant stares.  They are too far gone.  God help them.

To Proto1 and garyk51188 - my good people, I am a humble Catholic Faithful, I know what I believe, I know why I believe what I believe and I have stated to you, most sincerely and truthfully, that we Catholics DO NOT WORSHIP THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. As she herself so eloquently prophesied in the Magnificant “All Ages Shall Call Me Blessed”, WE VENERATE HER.  Your obstinate insistence that we worship our Holy Mother is your own conclusions.  It is because you have resolutely refused to accept the Truth. Sadly for you, your denial of the Truth does not affect that Truth whatsoever.

May to-day’s Minute Meditation make it clear to you the Truth of our Catholic Faith with regard to the Veneration of the Blessed Mother of our Redeemer.

““Lead Us to Jesus

Mary does not seek attention; she does not want followers of Christ to see her as the focal point of devotion. She is the mother who wishes to lead us to a deeper intimacy with her son. God has given her to us—in order to protect, proclaim, and love us—and she does so perfectly.”“

From the Catholic Daily Minute Meditation

God bless you both

Thank you, John Kinsella and Matt B. for your excellent responses. Proto1 and garyk51188 can continue to obstinately reject the Truth but they have heard it.  And God has noted they have heard it. 

To respond to the issue regarding the Holy Statues and Images of Our Lady, Jesus, St. Joseph and all the other Saints, and in particular the Crucifix, may I ask, garyk51188, this question.  When you are away from your Family and in your Wallet you have the photos of your wife and kids what do you do when you miss them - say when you are falling asleep in a far-away Hotel from home?? Surely, when you take out that/those photos, look at them lovingly, say some heartfelt endearments and even kiss them,is it the Photo/s you are loving, or is it your wife/kids??

Now, I begin with the Crucifix.  I devoutly venerate this Sacramental because it reminds me of the ultimate Price Christ had to pay for my salvation. As for the Statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, his foster father, St. Joseph, the Apostles and all the Saints, these are historical people.  They lived on this God’s earth; there were artists then as there are now with the added technology of photography. And from those Artists, we know for certain how Jesus looked like, we know how His mother looked like and all the others.  So to me, when I stand before the Statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it reminds me of my Heavenly Mother who is alive in Heaven - in her body and soul - and I venerate her. And as you have been informed above - like the she interceded to her Son at Cana - I ask her to intercede for me to her Son, to the Holy Spirit through Whom she conceived my Saviour, to my Heavenly Father - Who created her Immaculate and sinless.  She is powerful.  She is the one singular individual who Satan cannot dare to go near.  He tempted Jesus in the desert.  He goaded the Heavenly Father into punishing Job to test his Faith.  But to Our Lady, Satan runs to the deepest hole in Hell at the mention of her name. And Genesis tells us so.

As you have been told above,garyk51188 and Proto1, denying yourselves the intercession of the Church Triumphant is regrettable. For us Catholics, our Church is divided into Three Holy Groups: The Church Militant, The Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. And so, in our Profession of our Faith - “We believe in the Communion of Saints”. This is the Faith of the Apostles, this is our Faith.

John K,

You said, “Although we are saved by grace and not by good works - we need to respond to that grace by good works.  ..... you see that we have some work to do to reach salvation.”

That is some trouble to say that “we” have “work” to do to be saved.  If this were so men could boast in that, no matter how “little” that “work” is in comparison to Jesus—trying to rationalize it.

Consider the “responding” this way.  If a person is saved in Christ isn’t it the Lord that promises to come an live in that person?

Gal 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ.  It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the One who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

If it is as Paul says, the Holy Spirit in a person, and even though his flesh wars against this Spirit, still good can be done, overcoming the flesh.

But, what or Who is really the author of this “good.”  We know no man can do good on his own.

So, the good I do, if there is any, it is the Holy Spirit.  And, if it is wrong that I do, then yes it is the fleshly spirit in me—- me doing it.

How can a person not “respond”?  He has the Holy Spirit in him.  And, the Holy Spirit is not there having no effect.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John K,

You said, “On this question of good works, read the whole of the letter of James where he speaks of those who say they have faith but have no good works to show for it.”

Right.  If a person’s heart is changed, if he is born again what is the evidence.

Interesting some asked Jesus what a work evidencing faith might be.  (John 6:28-29)  Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”  Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Matt B,

You said, “....protestant denials about key doctrinal truths imperil their own salvation.”

I’d say that Catholics and Protestants agree on the essentials.  We believe in the real Jesus and God.  We believe Romans 10:9-13 “that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ...For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” ...For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”

Even born again, it does not say we are perfect .... that we do not sin.  So, we discuss here how we could be more in line with what the Lord would have us do.

Having said this, and if we do agree, I do not know what you have in mind that would “imperil salvation,” as you say.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “...Your obstinate insistence that we worship our Holy Mother..”

For me, this is a straw man argument you keep using.  If you say you don’t, fine.  Let’s not talk about it that way.

There are enough things that you agree you do—like praying to Mary—to discuss.

Maybe we would agree to this, however.  Whatever wrong we do—imagine anything—isn’t it always about putting something higher than God?  We do what He says not to do, it is ourselves, or someone, or some thing that we give higher regard.  Even for a moment.

If a person were to give Mary some honor that God would say against, what sin would that be in what or who you are putting higher?

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

That you, Matt B. and John Kinsella for your excellent responses above on Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe. I see now we are back to the “Being Saved” and performing good works confusion, yet again. Did Jesus not teach that NOT those who say, “Lord, Lord, will be saved, but those who do the Will of My Father”. And garyk51188, what does He mean - doing the Will of My Father?. God has given us free will to chose to do His Will or reject it.  Yes, Jesus died for our sins.  But, although God created us without our consent, He cannot save us without our co-operation. Once again, St. James is emphatic: Faith without Works is Dead. But, it is true, God gives us the Graces we need to do good. But He cannot force us to do so if we chose not to do so. And what works does Christ tell us will determine one’s destiny on the Last Day?? “I was hungry….. I was naked….. I was a stranger….. etc.”. Surely, we need to begin being honest here.

Thank you,garyk51188.  Believe me this is not a straw man argument I am engaging in.  You are insisting that we Catholics WORSHIP the Blessed Virgin Mary.  I am informing you, humbly that WE DO NOT. We only WORSHIP GOD AND GOD ALONE. If you go back to the Apostles Creed, we “believe in the Communion of Saints”.  The Communion of Saints refers to the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant.  We, The Church Militant pray for ourselves for all mankind and for the Church Suffering.  The Church Triumphant - where Our Lady is the Holiest and Highest, being the Mother of God - intercedes for the Church Militant.  They are with God and their prayers for us are powerful. And like at Cana, whenever Our Lady intercedes for us, her prayers are answered. Why?? Because being in Heaven along with the other Saints, she knows the Will of God and prays for that which is in accordance with God’s Will.

However, since you do not accept the Apostles’ Creed in relation to the “Communion of Saints” let us just agree to disagree and move on.

Mary42,

You said, “Believe me this is not a straw man argument I am engaging in.  You are insisting that we Catholics WORSHIP the Blessed Virgin Mary.  I am informing you, humbly that WE DO NOT.”

<LOL>  I just told you I’m not saying that.  But, you do not answer the question about sin.

As far as interceding goes, 1 Tim 2:5 “...For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus..”

Hebrews 4:14-16 “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John - you write-“But elsewhere Paul exhorts us to “work out our salvation in fear and trembling”  Why would he say that if your interpretation of Eph 2: 8 - 9 is correct.  No!  Your intrepretation is only half the story.  Although we are saved by grace and not by good works - we need to respond to that grace by good works.”
Our salvation is all of Christ. We can do nothing to add it. The “working out” of that salvation is not about gaining salvation or adding to what Christ has done but it is to put into practice what God has done for us in Christ. We are to live out the new nature in Christ in our daily lives.
It is also true that man’ freewill is secondary to God saving. Those who are predestined will be saved. See Eph 1:4-5.
Man’s freewill cannot stop the work and will of God.

Matt B—What exegesis of Scripture are you referring to by your church that comes to the conclusion that Mary was without sin and assumed into heaven? Have you consulted any NT Greek lexicon sources on Luke 1:28? That passage is used to support the idea that she was without sin her entire life and yet that is not what this phrase means. Not even close. What is going on is that the Catholic church is reading into Scripture its doctrines instead of the Scripture determining the doctrine.

Do you believe that all grace comes through Mary? Do you believe you must entrust yourself to her for salvation?

Proto1 On the primacy of God’s saving action in Christ, we are in concurrence.  Again, that we have some work to do does not mean that we can add anything to what is already full redemption in Christ.  But it would be wrong to conclude that we are saved despite ourselves.  Grace is like an invitation - a response is required.  A careful reading of Eph 1:4-5 is required and these two verses cannot be taken in isolation from the whole of the New Testament.  It is clear that Christian life is a daily response to this invitation: “if anyone will come after me, he must take up his cross daily and follow me”.  For 2000 years, this has been the correct understanding of how we are saved in Christ and the lifestyle that this necessarily implies.

Wow, faith vs. works; worship of Mary and the Saints; Christ’s unique mediation vs. praying to the Saints.  Someone cue up Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, and let’s see if we can get grandpa off his chair.

Since even such an august body as the Lutheran Communion has come into agreement with Catholics on the doctrinal relationship between faith and works, I’ll avoid that one completely.  It’s really a bootless argument over words.

The real doctrinal deficiency of protestantism revolves around the whole idea of mediation.  Protestants only recognize the mediation of Christ, whereby Catholics realize the centrality of mediation to the entire Christian life: “where I am, so shall they be.”

Mediation simply means representing God in an incarnate manner to another for the purpose of sharing God’s love and life.  As material man, everything we receive, saving perhaps infused knowledge of God, comes to us through the mediation of some human agency.  Even popular devotion recognizes this: “God has no hands on earth but ours…”  Mary’s principal mediation consists in her bearing the Christ in her womb, accepting this commission from God.  In this way she can be said to have delivered mankind to salvation, no?

For protestants to deny mediation in the face of overwhelming reality is almost laughable.  Their beloved scripture comes to them through the mediation of the prophets, apostles, evangelists etc - down through those Catholic bishops who determined the canon, and the monasterial scriveners who transmitted it through to the late Renaissance, when Luther “discovered” it.

Mediation is the Christian way of life.  Protestants just prove their alienation from Christ by denying it.

As far as Mary and the Saints being alive (or awake) in heaven, what pray tell were Moses and Elijah doing on the Mount of the Transfiguration?  The idea that the dead in Christ are somehow “asleep” somewhere is another gross protestant misinterpretation of scripture, easily attributable to their lack of a valid teaching authority.  How often does the Lord admonish his followers to lie down and sleep?  “Awake O sleepers, and arise from death, and Christ will give you light!”  Alas, I paraphrase.

Proto1 What about the exhortation “to pray for the dead that they may be released from their sins” (Book of Maccabees)?

Proto1 - besides the aforementioned magesterial documents, defining these two dogma, which offer a splendid explanation of the Church’s constant teaching on these subjects, you might look into John Paul II’s more recent homage, I believe it’s called “Redemptoris Mater.”  Mark Shea has offered a nice exploration of OT “types” which foreshadow NT doctines, Marian being some of them.  It’s available on one of the many websites he writes for.  (He’s also offered you a set of books I have to believe cover this.)  Ironically, the Litany of Loretto (you call it the Litany of Mary) enshrines historical Catholic thought and prayer on this subject.  Many of Mary’s most poetic titles are references to OT passages which holy Saints have discerned pertain to Mary.  Finally, I offer you the evidence of my own life, which I consecrated to Mary in 1994.  I never made a better decision, and I recommend it to all Christians.  In Christ,

This is a test.

Proto1, I admire your stamina and your ability to remain genteel and charitable in the midst of various snide comments. The Catholics on this thread should take notice.

Let me go back to Leo XIII’s comments about nobody being able to come to Christ unless it’s through Mary, and only Mary being able to impart knowledge about Christ. If that’s true, then what is the Holy Spirit’s role? Is not the Holy Spirit, according to St. Paul, the fundamental divine element that brings the individual to “conviction of sin” and to the necessity of needing a savior? How, exactly, does Mary do this?

This isn’t a matter of “sola scriptura” vs. the Didache vs. the Church Fathers vs. Tradition vs. whatever. This is a matter of understanding the fundamentals of Christian faith, fundamentals that extend beyond labels of “Catholic,” “Protestant” or “Orthodox.”

Pope Leo XIII’s statement seems to be imparting an essentially divine character to Mary that no amount of devotion can justify. Immaculate conception is not divinity.

Yet the reality is that Mary’s Yes truly was a free cooperation with grace, not the act of an automaton. Mary was, by the specifically-willed grace of God, granted the dignity of being a cause of the Incarnation. Mary had a choice — a terrifying choice. She could have said No to the Incarnation. If she had, we simply do not know what would have happened. But she chose to say Yes.

Mary chose to say “yes” because God knew she would make that choice. Go read the geneologies in Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels. God chose Mary not only because He knew Mary would say “yes,” but also because Mary’s role fulfills several prophecies implied by the genologies—the most important being continuing David’s line, since she was from David’s family and the Messiah had to have David’s lineage.

Suppose Mary chose to say “no”? Whom did God appoint to be Plan B and what if Plan B said “no”? Whom did God appoint to be Plan C, etc.? You can see how absurd this is.

Besides, God promised in Genesis 3 that He would send a redeemer, and He wasn’t going to go back on His committment.

Believing in the Immaculate Conception logically and automatically nullifies the whole idea that the Incarnation was solely and entirely based on her decision, as you seem to imply.

If the Immaculate Conception means anything, it means that God chose Mary to bear the Messiah. Otherwise, what’s the point?

There’s no conflict between human free will and divine foreknowledge in this case.

Thank, you garyk51188. This is what you are asking about sin : “But, you do not answer the question about sin.”  My Catholic Faith teaches thus about Sin: When I desire to do something which I know fully well - without any shadow of doubt - is against the Will of our All Knowing God and with that full knowledge, proceed and do what I decided to do, then I have committed a Sin. My Church also teaches me there are Mortal Sins and Venial Sins. A mortal sin robs me of the Sanctifying Grace and should I die before I have confessed that sin, I go straight to Hell.  However, venial sins do not rob me of the Sanctifying Grace but they weaken it and make me prone to commit mortal sins. They also dull my conscience which reminds me when I am about to offend God. When one dies with Venial Sins and the Consequences of confessed Mortal Sins, one goes to Purgatory where all impurities of Sin are purged before one can enter Heaven. This is the Church Suffering for whom the Church Militant prays for and offers acts of Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy to lessen their stay in Purgatory.

Now asking the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angels and Saints in Heaven to pray for us IS NOT A SIN. For more understanding of this Teaching, kindly refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos.946 -962. To understand fully the Doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding the Holy Mother of God, please read Nos.970 - 975.  In particular, I here quote No.971 for you in full:

“II. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

971 - ‘All Generations will call me Blessed’. The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.  The Church rightly HONOURS the Blessed Virgin with special devotion.  From the most ancient times, the Blessed Virgin has been honoured with the Title of “Mother of God” to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. This very special devotion DIFFERS ESSENTIALLY FROM THE ADORATION WHICH IS GIVEN TO THE INCARNATE WORD AND EQUALLY TO THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, and greatly FOSTERS this ADORATION.(capitals are mine).  The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the Rosary, an ‘epitome of the whole Gospel’ express this devotion to the Virgin Mary”

From the above Quotation, garyk51188, you can clearly see that we do not WORSHIP the Virgin Mary and, therefore, devotion to her is not a sin. On the contrary Mother Church strongly recommends veneration to her to all Her Children. God bless you.

Sorry, garyk51188. The Marian Doctrine Teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church starts from No.963 to No.975. The error is regretted. Be blessed

Mary42,

You mention a couple of things in your previous post.  The business about sin, first.  The question I asked was considering the act of a person sinning.  When they do, what that means versus their relationship with God.  They are putting something higher than God, to rebel against him that way.

As, you say, your Catholic Faith teaches a certain way on various levels of sin.  For believers there is only one unpardonable sin.  That is, as it says, denial of the Truth of the Holy Spirit.

It is true, denying the Truth that is Christ, if one doesn’t have Christ’s blood saving him, then on what would he rely for salvation.

Every other sin, Christ has paid the price, His blood making a believer righteous before God.  Rom 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

Either a person has Christ and is in the family of faith, or he is not.  If a person has Christ, the Lord says He will never—no not ever, no, never—leave us.

Titus 3:5 “...not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,..”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

This is indeed a test.  Our understanding of the faith is a test, not of God’s revelation, but of our hearts.  The more generous and Christ-like our hearts become, the more we understand, accept and LIVE the doctrines of the Christian, Catholic Church.  It’s amazing how someone like Joseph D’ can put his qualifiers and conditionings on this defined dogma - like it’s contingent on his understanding!  The measure of God’s generous love is thankfully not limited by Joseph’s understanding.  However, I do appreciate his honest struggle.  Mary’s role as mediatrix of all grace proceeds simply from her free decision to give birth to Jesus, Our Salvation.  Thereby, through her “yes” the world received the source of Grace.  The discussion of predestination in terms of Mary’s decision is an insult to her and to all of us, and reveals the inherent absurdity of protestant theology.  They simultaneously exalt and degrade human freedom.  In terms of her Immaculate Conception - do you agree that sinful man was incapable of redeeming himself?

Mary42,

Right.  You said, “From the most ancient times, the Blessed Virgin has been honoured with the Title of “Mother of God” to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.”

We read of Christ’s abilities to tend the flock regarding their “dangers and needs.”  There is nothing in Scripture suggesting any human, living or dead, has such a capability.

We know from Scripture that men have a way of confusing the simple things of God.  The Jews, in an effort to be more holy, overlaid rules, regulations and pieties on the foundations of truth.

Seeking to become more holy, they became less holy, even despised for what they were doing to themselves, their faith and those they were teaching and leading.  Christ had harsh words for them.

They had the privilege, knowledge and favor of the Most High God, but what did they do?  What brought them down?

Is it too much to suggest that it is a weakness in man that he tends to do this?  So, on what basis would we discerne.  On what basis would a believer say, I think someone, some teacher or some organization has gone too far—even if it started as something good.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

MattB,

You said, “Mary’s role as mediatrix of all grace proceeds simply from her free decision to give birth to Jesus, Our Salvation.”

I could give a person honor at my house by asking them to sit at the head of the table.  To them this might be the honor rightfully accorded.

If I started asking them to do things they had no power to do, would I be honoring them, or far worse.

To express loyalty and regard for a thing beyond its own bounds does nothing for it other than to denigrate it—that is, if we are really trying to preserve its rightful honor.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “may I ask ... this question.  When you are away from your Family and in your Wallet you have the photos of your wife and kids what do you do when you miss them - say when you are falling asleep in a far-away Hotel from home?? Surely, when you take out that/those photos, look at them lovingly, say some heartfelt endearments and even kiss them,is it the Photo/s you are loving, or is it your wife/kids??”

I understand your point.  And, this one is sentimental regarding those we love.  Yes, I have pictures of my wife, kids and grand kids.  These are blessings to me, every one given by the Lord, for which I am thankful.

Taking your analogy, suppose I did make statues of them.  Suppose in my back yard I erected a shrine around these statues and asked visitors to take their shoes off.  What if I prayed to them, bowed before them and set up rules that honored them.

At what point does the Lord say “you are honoring the created thing, too much.”  If it is “too much” then it is in direct conflict with Him, and it is wrong.

Is it possible for me to regard my family more than God?  Maybe not in what I tell myself.  But, by my actions and decisions anyone else could tell.  And, I would be wrong, no matter what I was telling myself.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary - I’m not honoring Mary by offering her my praise.  Jesus is the one who honors his mother (See Commandment 4).  I’m merely recognizing God’s sovereign will to do this.  You, in fact, are denying God, and substituting your own judgment of what honor is condign to give a mere human being.  God already decided that.  After all, didn’t he became incarnate flesh?

Gary - As far as asking Mary to pray for us, isn’t that the time-honored role of the Queen Mother?  Look at Bathsheba’s role in the court of King Solomon, and how this is institutionalized in the Davidic court thereafter.  Your view of a silent Mary persecuted by the prayers of her adherents is more Islamic than Christian.  Look at Queen Esther, who dared to come before the King.  I’m afraid your deep learning of scripture has addled your brain.  You’ve forgotten that Christ came in the flesh, had a mother and a foster-father, chose favorites among his disciples, laughed and told jokes.  Your savior is just a paper tiger.  A soulless math tutor in an english public school during the years of Cromwell or some other tireless “defender of the faith.”  Sincerely -

Matt B,

You said, “I’m not honoring Mary by offering her my praise.”

Well, yes.  That is honoring her.

No, I do not deny God.  In Christ, He is God in the flesh.  We agree.

Regarding Mary, you said, “As far as asking Mary to pray for us, isn’t that the time-honored role of the Queen Mother? ....your deep learning of scripture has addled your brain…”

“Time-honored” is no justification for anything.  It says that Scripture is “God-breathed” and that it should be used for “reproof and correction.”  If you would disparage someone with a personal insult for attempting to do that I would hope that they not yield to such attempts at bullying.

If you have a point, stand and defend it.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary, if I appear to be brusque, it’s as one brother talking to another.  In this case, I’m trying to convince my brother that what he’s contemplating is irrational, mistaken, even insane.  When you meet Jesus, do you think it’s going to add to your lustre that you politely declined to honor his mother on the grounds that it “detracted from the honor due Christ himself?”  This will be the sign to him that you’ve somehow lost your way.  And this will be the roadmap for your derogation: you followed teachers who believed (falsely) in sola scriptura.  Furthermore, these false teachers led you away from true Christian practices through sophistry with the word of God.  Figure this: if the “Rev.” James Jones could induce his followers to mass suicide under the pretense of the word of God; if “Rev.” Wright of Obama fame can teach race hatred - all justified by the word of God; if historically “word of God”-inspired teachers denied the humanity of Christ, the divinity of Christ, denied his Resurrection, denied his actual death on the Cross - don’t you think this sola-scriptura (unaided by the divinely mandated teaching authority of the Church) is sadly in need of a reality check?  Your attitude towards the Mother of God, the Mother of Divine Grace is such a check.  You’ll know if your christianity is “on right” if you can praise and honor such a good mother.  This is hardly deep theology.  This is just common sense.

Matt B,

You said this is, “one brother talking to another.”  Okay.  And, “... I’m trying to convince my brother that what he’s contemplating is irrational, mistaken, even insane.  When you meet Jesus, do you think it’s going to add to your lustre that you politely declined to honor his mother on the grounds that it “detracted from the honor due Christ himself?” .....your christianity is “on right” if you can praise and honor such a good mother.  This is hardly deep theology.  This is just common sense.”

I see you make an emotional appeal.  First, I have no “lustre” to add or detract from.  I said before that any good I do, it is the Holy Spirit doing it.  Any bad I do, yes, it is definitely me.

The question about Mary is not that we disagree on calling her “blessed.”  It is how much regard is “too much.”

You agree that thinking Mary superior to Jesus would be too much.  So, we would agree there are some bounds.  Scripture says don’t try to disturb the deceased.  Don’t make images of things in heaven or earth to bow before. 

There are bounds which the Word describes for honor and reverence.  I just believe what we do ought to favorably match up with what He says do.

To ascribe powers to something or someone that they don’t have—even if claimed for honor, or love—this doesn’t do them or their memory any good. 

What is “common sense” is to look to what He says is inspired and for reproof and correction and discernement to see what it says about a matter.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

How about when Mary intercedes for the newly married couple at Cana?  What about when Jesus calls Mary blessed for “hearing the word of God, and putting it into practice?”  What about when Jesus, as his last “word” entrusts “his beloved disciple” and by extension the Church, to the care of Mary at the cross?  And do you think it’s a coincidence that Mary is present at pentecost - the only one of Christ’s disciples (the first and best one) to be “overshadowed by the Holy Spirit” already? 

Your problem is not that you read scripture, but that you don’t read it enough.  Moreover, your scripture “guides” are not equipped, or gifted, to lead you to true discernment.  I think if you’re looking for a reproof, you ought to start with the 4th Commandment: “Honor your father and your mother.”  If you are “in Christ,” then Mary is your mother just as surely as God is your Father.  And if you need instruction on keeping this commandment, ask yourself how God himself would keep it.  After of few days of this meditation, you might return to scriptures with new eyes. 

I just got in from the car where Janis Joplin was singing “Take another little piece of my heart, now baby…” on the radio.  It seemed as if Our Blessed Mother was calling out to all her protestant children with this cry.  She does so much for them, but they pay such little heed.  Emotional?  I guess that’s what Jesus means by “be converted with your heart.”

Matt B,

You mention Mary at Cana.  Yes, she asked Chist to help them,they had no wine.  He did.

Matt 8:5-7 “Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.” And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”’

So, here are two examples of people interceding on another’s behalf.  Of the two, Jesus healing the centurion’s servant was probably the more important in matters of necessity.

From each story, do Mary or the centurion have special powers?  Or, taken together, does it show one has to have blood line or parent/child relationship to Christ to be effective in the asking?  No.

Would I pray to the centurion because of what the Bible says he did?

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Matt B- How do you get the idea that Mary is your mother when the apostles never taught such a doctrine? Where does Jesus teach that Mary is the mother of all His followers?

Gary - “Blessed is the one who hears the word of God and keeps it.”  This was Mary’s claim to fame, not any bloodline descent.

Proto - if all you have is a written document, how would you know what the apostles taught?  Is there a written record of the teachings of St. Simon the Zealot, or St. Bartholomew, or St. Matthias?

Matt B,

You said, “What about when Jesus calls Mary blessed for “hearing the word of God, and putting it into practice?”

Luke 8:19-21 “Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You.” But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

Seems He was making the point that if one wanted to be considered close to Him, it would be anyone who kept His Word.

John 19:26-27 “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.”

In His absence it seems perfectly normal for Jesus to provide for her well being by entrusting one of His own to do it.  “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Matt B,

You said, ““Blessed is the one who hears the word of God and keeps it.”  This was Mary’s claim to fame, not any bloodline descent.”

I believe you are incorrect.  But, rather .....

Luke 11:27-28 “And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You! But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!””
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

For that reason, “more than that….”  It is exactly the point.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Matt- there is no writings of any of the other apostles except what we have in the NT.

John- you write-“Proto1 That is a very select reading of the message of Lourdes and Fatima.  Turning away from a sinful life is the very essence of the teaching of Jesus “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is close at hand”  Fatima’s message is to repent, do pemance for one’s own sins and to pray for the conversion of sinners.  What is against Scripture in that?”
Where is penance mentioned in the NT? Would you agree with this definition on penance—“a sacrament, as in the Roman Catholic Church, consisting in a confession of sin, made with sorrow and with the intention of amendment, followed by the forgiveness of the sin.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penance
If you agree with this definition where is this taught in Scripture?

John - you write—“Proto1 What about the exhortation “to pray for the dead that they may be released from their sins” (Book of Maccabees)?”
Who is the one exhorting us to pray for the dead? Was he a priest or prophet of God that said this?

Matt B- you write-“As Mark Shea remarked several thousand comments ago, all these holy beliefs in Mary come down from the apostolic age, and have been attested to by countless pontiffs.  If that’s not good enough for you, it’s not because we need to reexamine our understanding of scripture - it’s our book!  It’s rather that you need to reexamine your wholesale rejection of 1500+ years of Christian practice, as sanctioned indubitably by Our Lord.”

The beliefs that your church has about Mary do not come from the apostles but several centuries later. Take the source for Mary’s assumption: “Catholic historian Ludwig Ott confirms this as the earliest source of Mary’s assumption:

“The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ “

Source: Ludwigg Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209-210.”
These apocryphal transitus were condemned by the church and yet its used as grounds for her assumption. Are you shocked by this?

Mary42- you write—“II. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin.

971 - ‘All Generations will call me Blessed’. The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.  The Church rightly HONOURS the Blessed Virgin with special devotion.  From the most ancient times, the Blessed Virgin has been honoured with the Title of “Mother of God” to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. This very special devotion DIFFERS ESSENTIALLY FROM THE ADORATION WHICH IS GIVEN TO THE INCARNATE WORD AND EQUALLY TO THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, and greatly FOSTERS this ADORATION.(capitals are mine).  The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the Rosary, an ‘epitome of the whole Gospel’ express this devotion to the Virgin Mary”

From the above Quotation, garyk51188, you can clearly see that we do not WORSHIP the Virgin Mary and, therefore, devotion to her is not a sin. On the contrary Mother Church strongly recommends veneration to her to all Her Children. God bless you.”

How would a catholic know if they are giving Mary improper worship? How would they know when they have crossed that line?

Did you have a chance to read my post to you on titles and the Glories of Mary? In light of these things and more on what grounds can you still claim not to worship Mary?

Matt B- where are you exhorted-taught-commanded to consecrate yourself to Mary by Jesus or His apostles?

Mary42,

You quoted, “....the Blessed Virgin has been honoured with the Title of “Mother of God” to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.”

And, you said, “you can clearly see that we do not WORSHIP the Virgin Mary…”

From the quote it says the “Mother of God” gives “protection.”  If she is able to do this, certainly she has the power to protect.  People praying to her to execise this power—don’t people pray to things in heaven, or images made of things in heaven or earth the same way, and to do this God says don’t do it?

Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,...”

This is the second commandment.  Wouldn’t this tell a person if they have gone too far?

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

May I respectfully say this to you garyk51188. I just gave you the Catholic Church Teaching about the Devotion of Our Lady direct from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  And that is my Faith. I know I do not worship the Mother of God.  I venerate her. If you do not want to accept that, God knows I follow the Teachings of Christ’s Holy Church as He demands of me. “He who hears you, hears Me and the One who sent Me”. Remember those words of Christ???...and I daily pray thus:

Act of Faith

O my God I firmly believe You are One God in Three Divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I believe that Your Divine Son became Man and died for our sins, and that He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe these, and all the Truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because You have revealed them, You Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Amen.

Since it is quite clear that you and Proto1 are totally opposed to anything Catholic, I do not need to continue trying to explain to you the Faith of my Fathers.  Continue to believe what you feel is right and let me - and all my fellow faithful Catholics - continue to worship our God, being faithful to the Teachings of Christ’s Church. We need not continue going round in circles. I respect your beliefs and all I ask is that you, too, respect my beliefs, my Faith, my Church and Her Sacraments. And I would kindly request that you do not continue to distort what we believe, how we worship, how we live our Faith and what our Church teaches.  That is not fair nor is it honest.

To Mary42 Mary, it is clear that both Proto1 and garyk have an agenda.  However well intentioned they make 2 fatal errors which leads them into positions that are absurd and illogical.  The great St Thomas Aquinas among others has shown and given a logical exposition on the nature of Christian Truth and how this Truth, coming from God Himself, can never lead us into positions that are against human reason, since God is also the source of our human reason.  This is why so many people who were formerly agnostic or atheist make the step into Catholicism, because they find that it accords with human reason.  However, note that I am not making human reason the criterion for what we believe, what I am saying is that there is nothing that isagainst reason in the the Catholic Faith, although it does contain truths that are super rational (above reason, not against reason).  The two fatal errors Proto1 and GaryK make are:

1.  Limiting God’s power and activity to the written words of Scripture.  Although it is the inspired Word of God, it is not the only Word.  There is Jesus Himself, the Incarnate Word, who, we must remember, wrote nothibg for us Himself.  Instead, there is the example of His life and sacrifice.  So, we have books written by others.  A selection of these early writings was defined as the Canon of the New Testament, a decision of the Catholic Church which all Protestants accept as divinely inspired.  So, Garyk and Proto1 accept that not only is the New Testament inspired, but so was the Catholic Church in defining the Canon of the New Testament.  Now, if the Catholic Church was so inspired in that decision, why not in Redemptoris Mater etc.  It is clearly illogical to hold one and not the other.  But they have to grant that the decision on which books were to belong to the canon of the New Testament was an inspirde decision, otherwise there is no basis for sola scriptura, because there is no other guarantee for their canonicity than the Catholic Church itself. 

Now clearly Jesus appeared to the apostles several times during the forty days between his resurrection and ascension.  But He has continued to appear throughout history: to Paul on the road to Damascus, to John on the Island of Patmos, many others like Francis of Assisi in the 12th century, more recently to St Margaret Mary Alacoque revealing His Sacred Heart, and, quite recently to Sister Faustina, revealing Divine Mercy.  It is not that all of these revelations were not already in Sacred Scripture at least in seminal form, but that at certain times in history, this aspect of salvation required reiteration or confirmation.  However, the Church treats private revelation with extreme caution and applies the acid test that what is alleged to be revealed cannot be contrary to the Scred Scritures or the trdition of the Church, (and also, ultimately, human reason, for as St Thomas has shown, although aspects of the Faith are super rational they cannot be anti - rational).

2.  Building their edifice on Sola Scriptura, they don’t take it far enough.  Just a clever selection of individual quotes here and there and sometimes out of context.  They give interpretations of these texts, but who is the interpreter?  Is that person divinely inspired to interpret the Scriptures?  Instead, they should take the whole of the New Testament and see its overall message.  It is wrong to dissect the Word of God in the way they do.  You must look at the whole picture.  And please note that I have pointed them towards numerous texts in the New Testament that they have conveniently ignored.

Thank you, John Kinsella. You are absolutely right.  Proto1 and Company are on a hidden Agenda. They certainly are not searching for the Truth but, as I stated earlier, their Mission in Life is to distort the Teachings and Doctrine of the Catholic Church and deny God’s Truth.  As an Eucharistic Apostle of the Divine Mercy, I am saddened by the people who come onto the Catholic Websites to attack, denigrade and display their disdain and hate of the Catholic Church. Aware of how Jesus is so passionately reaching out to save mankind through the Message of Divine Mercy, the promulgation throughout the Universal Catholic Church of the Feast of the Divine Mercy, it is regrettable that we have to correct their errors even as they resolutely continue to reject the Truth. But we do have a duty to defend Mother Church and Her Bridegroom, always and everywhere by refuting the untruths being peddled by those who hate Her.

Yes Mary.  I too am involved in the Divine Mercy movement as I know that I need Our Lord’s mercy and forgiveness so much in my life.

The interesting thing about Proto1 and garyk is that they seem to define their beliefs in terms of Catholicism i.e.  to be Sloa Scriptura is to be anti Catholic.  We certainly don’t difine ourselves by reference to any other movement other than the unique revelation in Jesus that has continued down through history. 

By contrast, these people point to the sins of the Catholic Church throughout history.  In this they are being rather selective as they fail to ackowledge the good.  So, it works like this, the Catholic Church is most reprehensible because of all the suffering and sins throughout its history.  On the other hand, the Sola Scriptura movement has nothing but virtue to show for its 500 years of history and it has no record of sin and suffering.  (Lets not mention the 30 years war or the dissolution of the monasteries and the burning of monks at the stake etc).  Their rather eclectic approach to all this is quite unbelievable

Proto1 and garyk:  Can I ask you to simply state what you believe without any reference to the Catholic Church.  I can certainly state my Catholic belief without any need to refer to Protestantism.

Mary:  in a word, if the Catholic Church was not around neither would Sola Scriptura be around as there would be nothing to protest about.  Also there would be nothing to be “sols” about as there would be no Scriptures to read.

Mary42,

You continue to put up straw men.  No one here “hates” the Catholic Church.  No one here “hates” Catholics.  Playing the victim to a straw man is no reply.

Take the 2nd commandment, what do you have to say about it.  Take the quotes you offered for Mary supposedly being called “blessed” by Jesus. These were for a totally different purpose.

If by no reply to these errors and your own frustration to consider what things mean in these regards, you just are saying you are going to do what you want, anyway.  Fine.  That is an honest reply, at least, to simply admit it.

Does God’s grace cover a believer for being obtuse, even for lack of faith, if that were the issue.  It seems it does.  Even Solomon—wisest guy on the planet—caved to his wives pagan traditions and participated in some of them.

You can believe what you want—no problems.  Just don’t go away from our discussion claiming anybody “hates” the Catholic Church.  That would not be true.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Garyk

We are not claiming you hate us.  I am claiming you NEED us.  Without the Catholic Church you would have no one to “ptotest” against.  Nor would you have anything to be “sola” about as there would be no written new Testament.

Johnk,

You asked, “Can I ask you to simply state what you believe without any reference to the Catholic Church.  I can certainly state my Catholic belief without any need to refer to Protestantism.”

I believe in Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, as my Lord and Savior.  (Gal 2:20) “I have been crucified with Christ.  It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.  And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the One who loved me and gave Himself for me.”  (Joshua 24:15)  “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
 

Thank you for asking.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary Your statement of faith seems to echo the words of St Alphonsus Ligouri.  Please read and let me have your response:

“O Bread of Heaven, beneath this veil
Thou dost my very God conceal:
My Jesus, dearest treasure, hail!
I love Thee and, adoring, kneel;
Each loving soul by Thee is fed
With Thine own Self
in form of Bread.

O food of life,
Thou Who dost give
The pledge of immortality;
I live, no ‘tis not I that live;
God gives me life, God lives in me:
He feeds my soul, He guides my ways,
And every grief with joy repays.

O Bond of love that dost unite
The servant to his living Lord ;
Could I dare live and not requite
Such love - then death were meet reward:
I cannot live unless to prove
Some love for such unmeasured love.

My dearest God! Who dost so bind
My heart with countless claims to Thee!
O Sweetest love, my soul shall find
In Thy dear bonds true liberty.
Thyself Thou hast bestowed on me;
Thine, Thine for ever I will be.

O Mighty Fire, Thou that dost burn
To kindle every mind and heart!
For Thee my frozen soul doth yearn;
Come, Lord of love, Thy warmth impart;
If thus to speak too bold appear,‘
Tis love like Thine has banished fear.

O Sweetest dart of love Divine!
If I have sinned, then vengeance take;
Come pierce this guilty heart of mine,
And let it die for His dear sake
Who once expired on Calvary,
His heart pierced through for love of me.

Beloved Lord, in Heaven above
There, Jesus, Thou awaitest me,
To gaze on Thee with endless love;
Yes, thus I hope, thus shall it be:
For how can He deny me Heaven,
Who here on earth Himself hath given?”

St. Alphonsus Liguori.

John K,

The reply was to the statement, “.... and Company are on a hidden Agenda. They certainly are not searching for the Truth ... am saddened by the people who ....display their disdain and hate of the Catholic Church.”

John K, I appreciate you and your spirit about these things.  But, consider this.  It is not so much that anyone NEEDS a thing—Christ promised the church (that “church” not being just the Catholic Church, but those in the family of faith) would survive.  It has.  But, this is His doing.  Man trying to organize things shows he only messes things up.  And, this maybe the worst even when he is showing he is “trying” to be holy.

Yes, there is a tradition.  That “tradition” contains both essentials and non-essentials.  We agree on the essentials, as we discussed before.

Unfortunately, that tradition has evolved to include some things 180 degrees to what God says do.  They don’t get there by accident, and they don’t get there unannounced.  It is always by being “more” holy and “more” reverent that these things seem to arise.  Witness the Jews.

In the sense you are speaking, do we need the Jewish tradtion?  They were the first favored by God.  We love them, even if they are lost for now—God has His plan to bring them back.

Do we love those in the early church and throughout the ages.  Of course.  Do Protestants and Catholics love one another.  I believe they do.  They—we—have unity in the essentials. 

There is only one sin that is unforgivable.  That is not to believe in the first place (the HS testifies to the Truth—it is something we already have not denied).  If this is the case, what sin is it that Christ’s blood fails to cover?  None.  Everything else is completed.  We are bought and paid for.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

Please note that I did not make the statement about “hidden agendas”.  The love of Christ should always characterise what we say and I am sure that no hurt was intended by these words.  However, these words were not mine, please check back a few posts.

Your statement of faith is indeed eloquent and succinct and seems to echo the words of St Alphonsus Ligouri.  Please read and let me have your response:

“O Bread of Heaven, beneath this veil
Thou dost my very God conceal:
My Jesus, dearest treasure, hail!
I love Thee and, adoring, kneel;
Each loving soul by Thee is fed
With Thine own Self
in form of Bread.

O food of life,
Thou Who dost give
The pledge of immortality;
I live, no ‘tis not I that live;
God gives me life, God lives in me:
He feeds my soul, He guides my ways,
And every grief with joy repays.

O Bond of love that dost unite
The servant to his living Lord ;
Could I dare live and not requite
Such love - then death were meet reward:
I cannot live unless to prove
Some love for such unmeasured love.

My dearest God! Who dost so bind
My heart with countless claims to Thee!
O Sweetest love, my soul shall find
In Thy dear bonds true liberty.
Thyself Thou hast bestowed on me;
Thine, Thine for ever I will be.

O Mighty Fire, Thou that dost burn
To kindle every mind and heart!
For Thee my frozen soul doth yearn;
Come, Lord of love, Thy warmth impart;
If thus to speak too bold appear,‘
Tis love like Thine has banished fear.

O Sweetest dart of love Divine!
If I have sinned, then vengeance take;
Come pierce this guilty heart of mine,
And let it die for His dear sake
Who once expired on Calvary,
His heart pierced through for love of me.

Beloved Lord, in Heaven above
There, Jesus, Thou awaitest me,
To gaze on Thee with endless love;
Yes, thus I hope, thus shall it be:
For how can He deny me Heaven,
Who here on earth Himself hath given?”

St. Alphonsus Liguori.

John—you forget that the OT were around before the Roman Catholic church came to be. The Scriptures do not depend on the church but on Christ Himself.

John- you make an error when you write -“1.  Limiting God’s power and activity to the written words of Scripture.  Although it is the inspired Word of God, it is not the only Word.  There is Jesus Himself, the Incarnate Word, who, we must remember, wrote nothibg for us Himself.  Instead, there is the example of His life and sacrifice.  So, we have books written by others.  A selection of these early writings was defined as the Canon of the New Testament, a decision of the Catholic Church which all Protestants accept as divinely inspired.  So, Garyk and Proto1 accept that not only is the New Testament inspired, but so was the Catholic Church in defining the Canon of the New Testament.  Now, if the Catholic Church was so inspired in that decision, why not in Redemptoris Mater etc.  It is clearly illogical to hold one and not the other.”
One error you make here is claiming the church was inspired when it chose which books belonged to the NT. The second error you make is going beyond the teachings of Scripture and invalidate the Word of God by your various traditions.
The other problem you have is that your church has never officially-infallibly interpreted the Scripture. You and other Catholics claim it is the infallible interpreter of Scripture but no such work exist. 

You also write—“to be Sola Scriptura is to be anti Catholic.” is not true in the least. I can see why Catholics hate sola scriptura because it demonstrated that many of the doctrines and disciplines are shown to be unbiblical and non-apostolic. The Marian doctrines were not taught by Jesus or His apostles. There is no mention of her being sinless, prayed to, adored, devoted to or assumed into heaven. Its not about being anti Catholic but about the truth. Its about being honest about the Word of God and honoring it as such.

Proto1 The only point being that Christ did not write the Scriptures nor translate them.  This was done by the early Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  The eventual decision about what books were included in the Canon of the New Testament was also inspired by the Holy Spirit.  However, that is not to say that there was no value to be found in the non canonical books.

John- do you have Traditions that are equal to the Scriptures in authority? If so, what would be some of them?

Proto1:

You forget that the OT was not formally defined, even by the Jews, before the Roman Church came to be. The New Testament makes “scriptural” references to books that are now determined not to have been divinely inspired.

The Holy Spirit inspired all the books now collected into what we call the Scriptures, or the Bible. It is the Church, conforming herself to the will of Christ her Husband, who teaches us authoritatively which books those are.

Proto1
If you deny that the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in deciding which documents to include in the canon of the New Testament, then you have a big problem.  The Church could have been in error about what to include and what to leave out.  What about John’s Gospel.  It is so unlike the other 3 (Bread of Life discourse John 6, Table Talk John 14 - 18; the miracle at Cana; the raising of Lazarus from the dead).  So maybe John should have been left out.  Now, Matthew and Luke have infancy narratives not found in Mark and these infancy narratives are difficult to reconcile with each other. So maybe they should have been excluded.  So we are down to 1 Gospel.

What about the Letters of Paul.  Since Paul was not one of the original 12 Apostles, maybe the Church was wrong to include these.

No, to deny that deciding the canonicity of these 27 documents leads you into very troubled waters Proto.  After all, much as certain of these documents were not to Luther’s taste, he did not dare to exclude them.  He simply relegated them to the end of the New Testament adding credence to his own belief that, however distasteful to him, he accepted that the Church was divinely inspired in deciding the canon of the New Testament.

Proto1:

To answer the question you posed to John ...

Yes. One of them would be the actual content of the Scriptures themselves.

Proto The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.  There are numerous formulations including the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.  It reaches a full exposition in St Augustine De Trinitate.  Now, while the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is implicit in the New Testament, at least seminally, it took centuries before the Church reached a full understanding of this Mystery which is not irrational but supra rational.  This is but one of many examples.  But this does not rob the Scriptures of their very special place in allour lives.  It is not either or but both and….

John K,

Yes, St. Alphonsus Liguori.  What you quoted.  Very nice words he writes regarding our Lord.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Proto1:

“The other problem you have is that your church has never officially-infallibly interpreted the Scripture. You and other Catholics claim it is the infallible interpreter of Scripture but no such work exist.”

You very much misunderstand what the Church means by infallibility, and what she means by “interpretation”.

Christ delegated to His church the preaching of the good news of salvation, and that “good news” is infallible - it must be believed for salvation, because there is no other Name by which we are to be saved. The Church does not and cannot err in this mission, because if it were possible to be mistaken in the message, humanity could not experience salvation and Christ’s purpose in coming would fail. Of course, the gospel gets spread by individual Christians, who can err, which is why the Church is necessary as a corrective to our individual mistakes in proclaiming the good news. The ‘Good News’ was entrusted to the Church.

You seem to think that ‘infallible interpretation’ means that the Church must have produced a final Bible, with a footnote for every verse explaining exactly what that verse must mean. And actually, that understanding, to me, seems consistent with your view that the Bible is the Good News, and functions for you as some kind of catechism. Which it is not. The Bible in its entirety is a part of the good news, and testifies inerrantly to the good news, but the good news is Jesus Christ and all that pertains to salvation in Him.

By the way, to correct an earlier mistake, Scripture does not call itself ‘the word of God’. Where ‘the word of God’ or ‘the Word’ (logos) is used, it refers either to Jesus Christ Himself (the Word of God made flesh, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity), or to the good news of salvation, preached by the apostles. And of course, you can see this for yourself, because in Acts the Beroeans are portrayed as having compared ‘the word’ (logos, the gospel) to the Scriptures to see if they were true. Clearly, this makes no sense if the Scriptures are the word being talked about. And also, no one thinks that as Paul and Silas went about the Roman world proclaiming ‘the Word’ what they were mostly doing was handing out Bibles.

Now, I have no trouble with referring to the Scriptures as ‘the word of God’. It is a convenient way of expressing what we believe about the Bible - that is inspired by God and inerrant. That usage, however, is not strictly ‘Scriptural’; it would be another of those Christian traditions that you either accept or don’t depending on - something.

Richard- are the Marian dogmas part of the good news that the NT tells us about?
Also, what must a Catholic believe to be saved?

Richard- where did the Roman church determine what the OT canon was? Did the OT Jews believe that they had the inspired Word of God before the church came to be?

Proto1:

Jesus Christ commissioned His Church to preach the good news to the nations; He did not strictly commission the New Testament for that purpose. The Marian dogmas are a part of that good news of salvation.

A Catholic must believe the creeds, for starters. A blog post is too small, though, for providing a comprehensive “listing”, and Christianity is more a way of life - Christ’s - into which we must grow than a set of propositions to which assent must be given. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, though.

Judaism had no fixed canon at the time of Christ. You see Jesus appealing to God’s declaration to Moses that “I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob” to show authoritatively that there is a resurrection, because the Sadduccees, unlike the Pharisees, only accepted the books of Moses as authoritative. I don’t think they would have had a doctrine of divine inspiration or inerrancy in quite the sense that Christianity has.

Anyway, as the gospel spread and more Christian teachers wrote about the new way, they appealed for authority first to the (undefined) “law and prophets” and then, also to writings attributed to the apostles and other early Christian leaders. As time passed and there were more Christian writings to appeal to, it became necessary for the Church to make a decision about which writings could be appealed to unequivocally - eventually becoming Scripture - and which might be accounted worthy of study but not authoritative in the same sense as Scripture. Also, Jewish leaders who eventually rejected Christianity tended, in a number of different decisions, to restrict the list of authoritative books to only a set of books that were originally written in Hebrew (Note: this decision was based in large part on a desire to reject the Septuagint, the version in common use in Palestine at the time of Christ, because many passages of Scripture were much more explicitly Messianic in the Greek translation and it was a benefit to Christian preaching). These series of decisions are sometimes known as the “Council of Jamnia”, but there wasn’t a council the way the apostles formed the council of Jerusalem described in Acts. Different regions of the ancient world had somewhat different lists of writing considered authoritative, although no definitive list binding on the Church was published - an individual bishop may have provided a list of books that he would consider authoritative in his diocese - until the Council of Carthage in 397 decreed that, for all bishops in North Africa, the set of books we now recognize as the Catholic Bible would be treated as inspired by God and authoritative for Christian teaching. This decision in North Africa was extended to the whole Church in the Roman world when the bishop of Toulouse wrote to the bishop of Rome in 405 asking for a list of inspired books and received the same set determined by the council of Carthage earlier.
This is a very abbreviated survey. There were earlier very similar lists, including some from the bishop of Rome, upon which the North Africans based their decision. This is the Bible known to all Christians in the west up until the Reformation, and to Catholic Christians today.
This was a distressingly messy process, if you’re someone who thinks that “the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth” means that God will always directly reveal His specific will in an obvious and indisputable way, either to individuals or to the Church as a whole. But Scripture does not provide an authoritative listing, as you know, and this is how we got the Bible we have. The process that gets you Luther’s version is even messier.

Richard- it is heresy to claim the Marian dogmas are part of the good news for the mere fact belief in Mary’s immaculate conception, queenship, prayed to, and supposed assumption is was totally unknown to the authors of the NT and early Christians. To claim that these dogmas are is what Paul warned about in Galatians 1:6-9. It is a distortion of the gospel of Christ.
Where do you get the idea that the Jews had no fixed canon at the time of Christ? Jesus Himself refers to many of its books as Scripture. Matt 5:17-19 shows that Jesus knew what the OT Scriptures were. See also Luke 24:25-27.
What’ messy is what Trent did with the Old Testament Apocrypha. Before Trent it was considered Deuterocanonical i.e. second canon. Trent changed the status of these books and considered them Scripture. Go figure.

Thank you,John Kinsella, for your comments.  After my absence to attend the Weekly Tuesday Eucharistic Apostles of the Divine Mercy Cenacle, I have re-read the Post which has as of now, generated 382 responses. It is clearly evident that all the points Proto1 and Gary - and others - have been vehemently arguing against, are so well explained in that Post. I see they are upset that I said they hate the Catholic Church. I did not intend to annoy them.  But I fail to comprehend why, someone who totally rejects what the Catholic Church has preserved, protected, proclaimed and taught these 2000 Years under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit is doing in Catholic Websites lambasting our Faith and castigating us for our fidelity to our Catholic Church.  Our Faith is our Way of Life and we do not force anyone to believe what we believe. To me, therefore, the logical conclusion is that they do have a hidden agenda. It is such a futile exercise because we shall not change our faith, devotion and obedience to our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and Her Bridegroom.  We Catholics do not go to the other Christian Denominations’ Websites to terrorize them about their Faith and Beliefs.

And thank you, for giving them the beautiful Hymn by St Alphonsus Ligouri which we sing before the Blessed Sacrament during Adoration and at Benediction. It is so regrettable that, even though Gary appreciates the Divine Message of the Hymn, Proto1 and Company have vehemently denied the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament - the Most Central and Apex of the entire Salvation Mystery.  Yet, David gave them the 700 AD Luciano Eucharist Miracle which is earliest of several others.  I would have expected an honest searcher of Truth to arrange to visit this City and see for themselves the ever-fresh Human Heart Flesh and the Group AB Human Blood of Jesus Christ, as the 1970 testing confirmed. But as I have stated, they are not on this Website to hear the Truth but to deny and reject it and, sadly, lead others into errors.

May I, once again, humbly request them to respect our Faith as we respect theirs.

Sorry, Gary but you misunderstand me completely.  I am not putting up straw men.  But I am perplexed why Protestants come onto Catholic Websites to viciously attack and stubbornly reject the Teachings of our Catholic Church - our Mother, our Teacher and through whom we are working for our salvation.  We Catholics do not go onto any Protestant Denomination’s Websites to tear down their Faith or question what they believe.  We never force anyone to believe what we believe. We respect other Denominations’ and Religions’ beliefs and never try to force our Faith onto anyone. Is it too much to ask of those we respect to reciprocate and respect our Faith?

And please, please; we are not pretending to be holy.  We are fully aware that we are miserable sinners incapable of doing anything pleasing in the eyes of God. We kneel before Him to plead for His forgiveness “Seven times Seventy” every day.  Christ left us His Holy Church and She “feeds” us as we strive, through God’s Graces and His Mercy to fulfill His Will and obey His Commandments.  This He does through the Sacraments which Christ established in His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  We take our broken, sinful selves before His Seat of Mercy in the Sacrament of Reconciliation with sorrowful and genuinely repentant hearts and pour out our sins at His Feet.  He forgives and absolves us, pouring His Blessings and healing onto our souls so that we can go and receive Him in Holy Communion worthily.

We daily - again with His Graces and Mercy - “take our cross and follow Him” praying for discernment of His Will and His help so that we can fulfill that Will and live in His Presence.  It is only through His Grace that we can obey His Father’s Commandments because He reminds us - and we believe Him : “Without me you can do nothing”.

In this Spiritual Journey we have recourse to the intercession of our Holy Mother and the Saints in Heaven - The Church Triumphant.  They help us with their prayers which are powerful because they are with God and they know His Will.  On our part, we pray for ourselves and one another and the world and especially for the Church Suffering.  Through our prayers, suffrages, Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy, we help them, lessening their stay in Purgatory. We are able to do all these, in absolute humility, solely by the Grace of God.

Mary42,

You keep missing the point.  This is a discussion among believers, first.  That means we agree on some things.  Let us call them “essentials” of faith.  In this way we are of One Bread and One Body.

Like the churches in Revelation—which relate to the same short comings in churches today—there are practices against what the Lord says do.  What were those practices, then?  What are they today?

Unless we wish to do wrong and put our head in the sand, these things are fair game to talk about.

I understand they are emotional things to you.  And, in that way you give emotional reasons rather than otherwise.  But, emotion doesn’t reveal the truth.  And, if emotion is the only thing, then it is a hinder to finding the truth.

The Lord gives us a standard by which we can test what we do.  Paul says if a person regards one day higher than the other compared to a person regarding all the days as the same, don’t make a big deal about it, if both are doing it to the glory of God.

He says that even though we know all things come from God and are good, if a weaker brother thinks we sin because we eat food offered to idols, then don’t do it.  It is not because the food is bad, it is out of courtesy to offending the weaker brother.

While these are only examples, there is wide latitude for “tradition.”  Just don’t let that tradition overtake the good things the Lord says do.

There is no “error” to examining these things.  There is no “error” to finding what is right and discarding what is wrong.

As we said, even if a believer puts their head in the sand—God forbid—is it a sin for which Christ’s blood has not been shed.  No.  He purchased each and every one of us.  There is no “return by date” on us.  We are His.  We have been adopted into the household of faith.

We are secure.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “We daily - again with His Graces and Mercy - “take our cross and follow Him” praying for discernment of His Will and His help so that we can fulfill that Will and live in His Presence.  It is only through His Grace that we can obey His Father’s Commandments because He reminds us - and we believe Him : “Without me you can do nothing”.”

I agree with you.  We are a family in this—His family.

God Bless,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “We never force anyone to believe what we believe. We respect other Denominations’ and Religions’ beliefs and never try to force our Faith onto anyone. Is it too much to ask of those we respect to reciprocate and respect our Faith?”

I know that.  No one is disrespecting your “Faith”—which is our Faith.  These are core issues on which we agree.  Seriously.

If the question is asked, is there any “church” that is perfect?  It seems they are like people—imperfect.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

I know you mean well, Gary.  And I appreciate your kind and mature approach to issues. But when anyone denies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and expects me to embrace his views; when someone tells me to reject the Dogmas which my Catholic Church has solemnly - under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit - declared, proclaimed and laid down for the Universal Catholic Faithful to believe, then we are certainly not in the same “Household”.  These Divine Teachings are not Beliefs open for discussion or compromise.  “He who hears you, hears Me and the One who sent Me”.  Every faithful Catholic knows we are bound to accept, observe and faithfully obey our Church’s Teachings.  We do not have the luxury of the Protestant Denominations to pick and choose what to believe and what to reject.

Mary42,

You said, “And please, please; we are not pretending to be holy.”

No one is saying that.  It was the piety that led the Jews to add things to their “tradition” that got them far afield.  It is the same temptation today.

Do people believe what they are doing is holy.  Of course.  As relates to the Jews, and any practise that we have that is against what God says do, we can be led astray and still think otherwise.

“Religion” has a way of doing that.  I don’t doubt ancient people who offered their children as sacrifices thought to do it for any other reason than piety.

But, God gives us instruction so we don’t get ourselves into these errors.  Fashioning images of things in heaven or earth to which we would give regard, it is something He knows already what they end of that is.  That is why He says don’t do it.

Praying to the deceased, in a certain justification it seems harmless.  But, considering what His Word says about it, it is really not good.  In fact, it is amazingingly disrespectful.  So, why do it.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “...we are certainly not in the same “Household.”’

As scripture says, certain things are debatable, but they are not essential.  You say you cannot pick and choose.

Regardless of what men say, you believe in the real Jesus and Rom 10:9.  If you are saved—and you are—by these standards, you are saved along with all the others relying on Christ as their Saviour.

Those who are saved include everyone relying on Him as the object of their salvation.  Like the thief on the cross, they don’t even have to belong to a church.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Sorry, pressed the “do not notify” link by mistake.  Just re-activating things.

Thank you, Gary. There may be some people who, due to their level of understanding of the Catholic Faith, may misuse the Sacramentals.  Mother Church, being fully awake to this danger, has given Her Teachings on the Subject in the Catechism of the Catholic Church Under the 1st Commandment.  You can Google this and read Her Teachings in Nos.2110 -2128.  In particular, the subject of Statues and Holy Pictures is covered in Nos.2129-2141.

Be assured, Gary, every faithful and Catholic is fully aware of these Teachings and venerates the Sacramentals appropriately.  I am sure you can now accept why it is absolutely vital to have the Magisterium - The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.  The indispensable Power of the Keys Jesus gave to St. Peter and his Successors, which guides and expounds Her Doctrine to the Faithful on any matter where one may be in doubt.

We also appropriately venerate the Image of the Divine Mercy which Jesus gave us in 1931 through St. Faustina when He also asked the Catholic Church to institute and solemnly promulgate The Feast of Divine Mercy for the Universal Catholic Church.  How I wish, Gary, you would read the Diary of St. Faustina : “Divine Mercy in My Soul”.  You would come to appreciate the unfathomable Mercy our Saviour has poured upon mankind by giving us this Feast which we now celebrate on the First Sunday after Easter - the day He appeared to the Apostles in the Upper Room after His Resurrection.  With this Feast - solemnly promulgated by Blessed Pope John Paul II in the Year 2000 - Jesus has restored the Day of Atonement which God gave His People in the Old Testament (Leviticus Chapter 16)

Proto1:

“...immaculate conception, queenship, prayed to, and supposed assumption is was totally unknown to the authors of the NT and early Christians.”

1) Immaculate Conception: There are too many references to Mary’s perpetual sinlessness in the writings of early Fathers to cite. But you have already acknowledged above that you have little familiarity with their writings. The prophet Jeremiah was consecrated in the womb, and Mary herself had already been “highly graced” when the angel greeted her.

2) Queenship: Mary is the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelations, a vision of St. John the Apostle, by the way, who cared for her after Our Lord ascended into Heaven.

3) prayed to: the intercession of the saints, including Mary, is an obviously Scriptural practice. The New Testament writers routinely prayed for Christians in varying degrees of relationship to themselves, and sought their prayers. I don’t doubt you do the same. The saints who have died and are now in Heaven before the throne of God do the same (well, half of it; I doubt they ask for anyone’s prayers any more). See Revelations again; the elders around the throne offer incense to God, which are the prayers of the saints. Why not just have Jesus Christ intercede before the Father, since He’s doing it anyway? I can’t say I know for sure, but I suspect it’s because Jesus’ disciples - all of us - do what they see Jesus doing, and the Father, knowing that it is good for them, and us, to conform ourselves to the likeness of Christ, allows it and allows it to be effective.

4) Assumption (called the ‘Dormition’ in the Eastern Churches, by the way): is discussed in sermons by Gregory of Tours (died in 593/4) and notably, John Damascene (died some time in the latter half of the eighth century). John refers to an incident that occured during the Council of Chalcedon in 451 when a bishop has to explain why the body of the Blessed Virgin is not available for reburial with honors. There’s also an earlier writing from the fourth century referring to Mary’s assumption.

“To claim that these dogmas are is what Paul warned about in Galatians 1:6-9. It is a distortion of the gospel of Christ.” They would be distortions if they are not true. But they are true. As indicated above, it is certainly not unreasonable that a Christian believe them to be true.

“Where do you get the idea that the Jews had no fixed canon at the time of Christ? Jesus Himself refers to many of its books as Scripture. Matt 5:17-19 shows that Jesus knew what the OT Scriptures were.”

This Sunday, after your church service, run that proposition by your pastor. Let us know what he has to say about it.

“What’[sic] messy is what Trent did with the Old Testament Apocrypha. Before Trent it was considered Deuterocanonical i.e. second canon. Trent changed the status of these books and considered them Scripture. Go figure.”

I know it’s called a second canon. They’re still canonical, hence Scripture. Since you’re talking to your minister anyway, ask him why the difference between the Hebrew canon and the Septuagint canon. Ask him what a knowledgeable Christian in 7th (10th, 14th) century Germany, Britain, Spain, Gaul or Italy would have named as the books of the Old Testament. You will get what I just outlined for you. If not, and you’re feeling charitable about it, ask him what a Catholic would say about it. You will get almost exactly what I’ve just said. Maybe more detail, if he doesn’t have anything else to do. Go to the last service of the day.

Gary, first.  Praying for the dead or asking the Saints to intercede for us Pilgrims on Earth, you either believe or reject the Apostles Creed : “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the ‘Communion of Saints’...”.  As I had stated earlier, our Catholic Church is composed of the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant.  The Church Triumphant prays for us, the Church Militant prays for themselves, one another, the world and for the Church Suffering.  Praying for the dead is in the Books of Maccabees which - as David stated - Luther chucked out, along with others.  These Books are still in our Catholic Holy Bibles and, therefore, what they contain binds us Catholics.

I agree with you.  Jesus died to save all mankind, even those who do not know Him.  Once again our Catholic Church teaches so.  That is: anyone who lives an honest life, observing the Laws of God which are written in everyone’s heart, will be saved.  But Christ has again stated: “To those who are given the most, much will be asked of them”.  My Church teaches me - and I believe and accept Her Teaching - I must live according to what Christ has taught me through Her.  And that requires me to accept and obey all that She teaches me because the Holy Spirit subsists in Her to ensure She does not teach error.

You state: “As scripture says, certain things are debatable, but they are not essential.” . The Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is non-negotiable.  The Catholic Church Dogmas as they related to the Catholics are non-negotiable, too. As I have stated in the preceding paragraph, this is The Act of Faith which I pray daily:

“O my God I firmly believe that You are One God in Three Divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I believe that Your Divine Son became Man and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead.

“I believe these and ALL THE TRUTHS which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because You have revealed them, You Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen”.

So, you can see, Gary, I do not have any option to pick and chose what to believe and what to reject.  I either believe and obey my Catholic Church or - if I want to pick and choose what to believe, I move to another Christian Denomination.  And that is apostacy.

Richard- you write—“1) Immaculate Conception: There are too many references to Mary’s perpetual sinlessness in the writings of early Fathers to cite. But you have already acknowledged above that you have little familiarity with their writings. The prophet Jeremiah was consecrated in the womb, and Mary herself had already been “highly graced” when the angel greeted her.”
Do you read the church fathers? Do you know all their writings well?
Your point here still does not prove she was sinless. Even if a father said she was that would not make it so since the Scripture never attributes her with being sinless in any way. “Highly graced” does not mean she was sinless. Just look up with this means in a Greek NT lexicon.
As for her queenship being supported by REV 12- we find this by a Catholic scholar: “Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
  In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”
The NT writers never exhort anyone to pray to the dead. Not even Peter nor Paul when they mention their approaching deaths exhort any Christian to pray to them after they have died. The other problem you have with this is that you don’t know if the dead Catholic you are praying to is in heaven, hell or purgatory. If he is in purgatory can they hear your prayer and somehow get that prayer to Mary?
As for her assumption we know there is no record of it in the NT. Not even a hint. Here is what is said though about it: “The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”
What you have is doctrine of your church that has no basis in Scripture and no evidence from history.
Why were the deuterocanonical books considered a “second canon”?
BTW- I know the difference between the Hebrew canon and the Septuagint canon. Do you know if the Septuagint of the 1st century contained these deuterocanonical books?

Mary42- If what you write here -“I agree with you.  Jesus died to save all mankind, even those who do not know Him.  Once again our Catholic Church teaches so.  That is: anyone who lives an honest life, observing the Laws of God which are written in everyone’s heart, will be saved.” is true then Christ died needlessly. What you are saying is that a man can keep the Law of God perfectly and not sin. This is absolutely false. The Scriptures clearly teach that no man can keep the Law perfectly. That’s why Jesus came to die for sin and only those who trust in Him for salvation will be saved. What you are promoting is another gospel.

Mary42,

You said, “Praying for the dead or asking the Saints to intercede for us Pilgrims on Earth, you either believe or reject the Apostles Creed…”

I believe in the Apostles Creed.  Scripture says attempting to disturb those passed is wrong.  One can believe both, they are not mutually exclusive.

The Catholic Church is not infallible, nor are people infallible.  God has used fallible people throught history.  Aside from Christ, they are the only ones available.

Scripture gives us a way to discerne things.  Otherwise men would be the ultimate authority.  Christ was the High Priest we alone can come before—no one stands between us and our Saviour.  It is personal.  He lives in a believer.

I know people in the Watchtower.  They say their organization has a direct link to God.  That even though they have falsely prophesied many times, their people even taking drastic personal measures in preparation for certain dates.

When they fail they say, fine, but where are you going to find a better organization than ours (among other churches).  If you leave us “that is apostacy.”  Not good.  But, yes, to them they are infallible.  And, they are so strong in the bullying that they are able to tell their own in effect, “don’t believe your lying eyes” do what we say.

To whom are they accountable if it is not God’s Word.  What does it say about false prophets.  If they were believing God rather than what people say, they would be free.

You are not left without Help.  He has given you His Word to ensure men are accountable.  Otherwise, they, through the rules they create, can tell you to do anything.

In Scriptural speak, we are slaves to Christ, not to organizations or men.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Sorry, Proto1 but I have decided not to respond to you henceforth. Gary, all I can say to you is, please get yourself a Copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and acquaint yourself about what She teaches.  That way, our discourse will be both fruitful and beneficial to both of us and those who are level headed and are seeking the Truth.  Thus far, I truly appreciate your contributions as I am sure other respondents on this Website are.  Be blessed.

Gary, since you believe in the Apostles Creed, you can then understand why the Catholic Church has the 1st of November as the Feast of All Saints and the 2nd of November as the Feast of All Souls Day. In fact, the Feast of All Saints is a Day of Obligation, in that, it is accorded the same importance as the Sunday - the Lord’s Day.  These two Feasts are in accordance with the Doctrine of the Communion of Saints in the Apostles Creed.  On the Feast of All Souls we pray for the Souls in Purgatory. With regard to souls which may be in Heaven or - Heaven forbid - in Hell this is what my Church has taught me. When I offer Holy Masses on the Anniversary of the deaths of my late husband and my son - the 22nd of January, 1994 and 22nd December, 1996, respectively, and the prayers I offer daily for them if none of them is in Purgatory, God shall apply those Graces and/or indulgences to other needy souls whom He chooses. No prayers to God are ever lost.

Mary42—this is the kind of response I get from the cults. Eventually they have to walk away because they know what they believe cannot be defended by Scripture. Thank you for making it clear what your church teaches. This gives everyone an opportunity to compare it with Scripture.

Proto1:

Ok, you asked about support for these four items from “NT writers or early Christians” and I provided evidence that these were believed or practiced by early Christians. This, by the way, is evidence, not bash-you-over-the-head with it proof. It’s what we have for the resurrection, by the way.

Those saints whose intercession we seek are in Heaven, not Purgatory nor Hell. Why would Peter and Paul specifically instruct their audience to pray “to” them after their deaths? Their trust was in Jesus Christ, as is yours, mine, and all the saints in Heaven. It’s not as if I HAVE to seek their intercession, I usually pray to the Father through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. You will have noticed, by the way, that any formal Catholic prayer addressed immediately toward a saint always ends with the phrase “through Christ our Lord”, or some such, because all of our prayers are only possible or effectual in Jesus Christ.

You asked “Why were the deuterocanonical books considered a “second canon”? BTW- I know the difference between the Hebrew canon and the Septuagint canon. Do you know if the Septuagint of the 1st century contained these deuterocanonical books?”

Yes, I do know. They did. Second century Judaism rejected the Septuagint in large part to undermine the preaching of the gospel, due to the rendering in Greek that more explicitly points to Jesus as the Messiah. Not because the Alexandrian Jewish translators added extra books.

Really, ask your pastor these “origins of the Scriptures” questions. He’ll tell you the same thing.

Proto1, all the issues you have repeatedly been rejecting have been explicitly and sufficiently responded to though, for reasons best known to yourself, you have chosen to ignore them. The Liturgy of the Catholic Church during the Easter Tridium, and especially the Easter Vigil Holy Mass Readings and Prayers, cover what you are calling heresy.  No doubt someone else will presently respond to you. I wish you all God’s blessings.

Proto1:

“this is the kind of response I get from the cults. Eventually they have to walk away because they know what they believe cannot be defended by Scripture.”

You do understand, don’t you, that Scripture is not the pillar and foundation of truth?

Mary42,

I am sorry about your husband and son, that they have passed.  It would be the prayer of any believer that they be with the Lord.

As I understand it, you are not praying to them, however.  Nor would we pray to them, or any other Saint in heaven, the Lord allowing us to approach Him directly, neither through those living or departed.

As relates to a person’s position with Christ vis-a-vis salvation, it is a personal thing.  The rich man in the Lazarus example wished his brothers to believe and not come to a place of torment.  He even suggested somebody go back from the dead to warn them.  His answer was that if they didn’t believe the testimony (to the Truth) of Moses and the Prophets they weren’t going to pay attention to anybody coming back, either.

There is something of a watershed between hearing the Truth and believing and not, that is within a person’s capacity to do it.  They make their choice, and they do so in their own lifetime.

There were no second chances for the rich man, nor his brothers.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Richard- the church is to support the Scripture which is the truth that Paul is speaking of. When Paul speaks of the church is he referring to a church at Rome where Peter is supposedly the head? Do you think this is what he means by church?

Richard,

You said, “You do understand, don’t you, that Scripture is not the pillar and foundation of truth?”

Well, that is a mouthful.  That would contradict what it itself says it is. 

(Heb 4:12) “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Proto1:

“the church is to support the Scripture which is the truth that Paul is speaking of”

Christ did not found the Church to be a support of Scripture. If you think that, you have not read very carefully how the Scripture speaks about the church.

“When Paul speaks of the church is he referring to a church at Rome where Peter is supposedly the head? Do you think this is what he means by church?”

He is referring to the universal (“catholic”, in Greek) church. Local churches, recipients of Paul’s and Peter’s and other apostles’ letters are local instances of the one universal Church, the Bride and Body of Christ.

Garyk51188:

“That would contradict what it itself says it is.”

No it wouldn’t. Scripture itself calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth. Hardly a contradiction.

“Hebrews 4:12”

What reason do you have for supposing the “word of God” in that verse specifically refers to Scripture? What says the next verse? “And before him no creature is hidden ...” What is the “him” except Jesus Christ, the Word of God and second Person of the Trinity? And also the new high priest, the entire subject of the letter to the Hebrews?

The “word of God” in Heb 4:12 refers to Jesus Christ, not Scripture. At least, you can’t cite Hebrews there as unequivocally referring to Scripture.

Richard—If the church is not to support the Scripture as truth what then is the truth if not the Scripture? What specifically is the truth that is to be supported?
How do you know that “The “word of God” in Heb 4:12 refers to Jesus Christ, not Scripture.”? Where has your church interpreted this verse?

Thank you, Gary for understanding what the “Communion of Saints” in the Apostles Creed means to us Catholics. You know what I pray for, Gary, every day?  That God will be merciful to me and accord me a Holy Death as He did to my beloved Husband. Wracked by unbearable pains while in Hospital with Cancer of the Liver, after two weeks it was decided he be sent to the Hospice.  Instead, he decided - and I agreed with him - that we go home.  When the Priest came home and celebrated the Holy Mass and my husband received the Viaticum, after which the Priest administered the Final Sacraments of Anointing and Final Absolution, he amazed us by stating that his pain had suddenly gone away.  And it was true.  His face relaxed from then on and he was oh so peaceful. As his strength ebbed and the final day approached, he was absolutely calm without any pain whatsoever. Jesus had answered my prayers and spared him the final agony.  Consequently, he never had to take the Morphine capsules which the Doctor had given me telling me that the final days would be extremely difficult. He died peacefully in my arms early morning on the third day.  That, Gary is the Power of the Holy Eucharist and the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.

Now to respond to your statement on how the Jehovah Witnesses enslave their adherents.  What I meant by apostacy is this.  If I refuse to accept the Teachings of my Catholic Church regarding the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament; first, I am calling Jesus Himself a liar because He emphatically stated, and I paraphrase: “Unless you eat My Body and Drink My Blood you have no life in you”.  “He who eats My Body and Drinks My Blood will have life in him and I will raise him up on the last day”.  He instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper when He said: “Take and eat.  This is My Body….take and drink. This is My Blood….”.

If I deny the Teachings of my Church regarding this Sacrament, the other 6 Sacraments and all that She teaches I am, in essence, rejecting these Words: “He who hears you, hears Me and the One who sent Me.  He who does not hear you, does not hear Me or the One Who sent Me”.  So, Gary, rejecting my Church’s Teachings and all the Truths She teaches me, is in fact, to deny Christ and He Who sent Him. Let me assure you that I do not just obey the Church’s Teachings blindly. Oh no. During my lifetime, I have ensured that I understand what She teaches and why. I have satisfied myself that Her Teachings are Christ’s Teachings and I joyfully strive daily to live My Faith with the help of His Graces through prayers, the Sacraments and Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy. And to ensure I am walking in the Presence of God, I have a wonderful Spiritual Director who is also my Confessor.  He is a very Senior Lecturer in Theology at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa and the Superior of his Congregation.

Thank you, Gary for understanding what the “Communion of Saints” in the Apostles Creed means to us Catholics. You know what I pray for, Gary, every day?  That God will be merciful to me and accord me a Holy and well-provided Death as He did to my beloved Husband of 37 and a half years. Wracked by unbearable pains while in Hospital with Cancer of the Liver, after two weeks it was decided he be sent to the Hospice.  Instead, he decided - and I agreed with him - that we go home.  When the Priest came home and celebrated the Holy Mass and my husband received the Viaticum, after which the Priest administered the Final Sacraments of Anointing and Final Absolution, he amazed us by stating that his pain had suddenly gone away.  And it was true.  His face relaxed from then on and he was oh so peaceful. As his strength ebbed and the final day approached, he was absolutely calm without any pain whatsoever. Jesus had answered my prayers and spared him the final agony.  Consequently, he never had to take the Morphine capsules which the Doctor had given me telling me that the final days would be extremely difficult. He died peacefully in my arms early morning on the third day.  That, Gary is the Power of the Holy Eucharist and the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. That is the Love and Mercy of our Omnipotent God which confirms us in our Faith

Now to respond to your statement on how the Jehovah Witnesses enslave their adherents.  What I meant by apostacy is this.  If I refuse to accept the Teachings of my Catholic Church regarding the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament; first, I am calling Jesus Himself a liar because He emphatically stated, and I paraphrase: “Unless you eat My Body and Drink My Blood you have no life in you”.  “He who eats My Body and Drinks My Blood will have life in him and I will raise him up on the last day”.  He instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper when He said: “Take and eat.  This is My Body….take and drink. This is My Blood….”.

If I deny the Teachings of my Church regarding this Sacrament, the other 6 Sacraments and all that She teaches I am, in essence, rejecting these Words: “He who hears you, hears Me and the One who sent Me.  He who does not hear you, does not hear Me or the One Who sent Me”.  So, Gary, rejecting my Church’s Teachings and all the Truths She teaches me, is in fact, to deny Christ and He Who sent Him. And thus, I will have stupidly walked away from God and deliberately - with full knowledge - cut myself off from the “Vine”. Let me assure you that I do not just obey the Church’s Teachings blindly. Oh no. During my lifetime, I have ensured that I understand what She teaches and why. I have satisfied myself that Her Teachings are Christ’s Teachings and I joyfully strive daily to live My Faith with the help of His Graces through prayers, the Sacraments and Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy. And to ensure I am walking in the Presence of God, I have a wonderful Spiritual Director who is also my Confessor.  He is a very Senior Lecturer in Theology at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa and the Superior of his Congregation.

Thank you, Gary for understanding what the “Communion of Saints” in the Apostles Creed means to us Catholics and your kind words about my beloved late Husband of 37 and a half years.

Now to respond to your statement on how the Jehovah Witnesses enslave their adherents.  What I meant by apostacy is this:  If I refuse to accept the Teachings of my Catholic Church regarding the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament; First, I am calling Jesus Himself a liar because He emphatically stated, and I paraphrase: “Unless you eat My Body and Drink My Blood you have no life in you”.  “He who eats My Body and Drinks My Blood will have life in him and I will raise him up on the last day”.  He instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper when He said: “Take and eat.  This is My Body….take and drink. This is My Blood….”.

If I deny the Teachings of my Church regarding this Sacrament, the other 6 Sacraments and all that She teaches I am, in essence, rejecting these Words: “He who hears you, hears Me and the One who sent Me.  He who does not hear you, does not hear Me or the One Who sent Me”.  So, Gary, rejecting my Church’s Teachings and all the Truths She teaches me, is in fact, to deny Christ and He Who sent Him. And thus, I will have stupidly walked away from God and deliberately - with full knowledge - cut myself off from the “Vine”.

Let me assure you that I do not just obey the Church’s Teachings blindly. Oh no. During my lifetime, I have ensured that I understand what She teaches and why. I have satisfied myself that Her Teachings are Christ’s Teachings and I joyfully strive daily to live My Faith with the help of His Graces through prayers, the Sacraments and Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy. And to ensure I am walking in the Presence of God, I have a wonderful Spiritual Director who is also my Confessor.  He is a very Senior Lecturer in Theology at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa and the Superior of his Religious Congregation.

Richard A,

You said, “The “word of God” in Heb 4:12 refers to Jesus Christ, not Scripture. At least, you can’t cite Hebrews there as unequivocally referring to Scripture.”

Right, Jesus is the Word of God.  Scripture is the Word of God.  It is all the things in that quote. 

2 Tim 3:13-16 “But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, ... you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Men, even religious men need to be accountable to something.  In matters of our faith it is the Word.  As it says in Hebrews, it is sharper than a two-edged sword.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “...rejecting my Church’s Teachings and all the Truths She teaches me, is in fact, to deny Christ and He Who sent Him. And thus, I ... with full knowledge - cut myself off from the “Vine”.”

The imagery is vivid, no doubt.  But, consider it this way.  If one is in Christ, as we have said, Rom 10:9, that believer has been “purchased” with the blood of Christ.  That is, His blood covers every sin, making him righteous before God.

In this way, what sin is it that His blood does not cover?  None.  (I say this as if one were actually sinning to leave some organization.  But, of course they are not.)

Holding fast to Christ and rejecting any organization, one can never be separated from the love of Christ.  Men don’t get to say do this or that and you separate yourself.

As Paul says in Galations, men all to quickly trade their freedom in Christ to be put back into bondage by men.  Men make up their rules, regulations, privileges, self honors and scare tactics if you leave.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Proto1:

“what then is the truth if not the Scripture?”

The ‘truth’ is the gospel, the word of God preached to the nations. The ‘truth’ is Jesus Christ, the word of God, into Whom we have been baptized.

“How do you know that “The “word of God” in Heb 4:12 refers to Jesus Christ, not Scripture.”?”

I just pointed that out. Read verse 13. As I also pointed out, the Catholic Church does not have, or at least has not published, an “official” Bible with the “official” interpretation of every verse. I’m a baptized Christian, I can read the Scriptures. More than one verse at a time, if I have to.

I apologize if that was unduly sarcastic.

Garyk51188:

“Right, Jesus is the Word of God.  Scripture is the Word of God.”

Jesus Christ is called the word of God in Scripture, and the gospel (the good news of salvation preached to all nations) is called the word of God in Scripture. Although Catholics have no problem with referring to it as such, Scripture does NOT call itself the word of God (but then, that’s the problem you have with Catholics, isn’t it? Our supposed willingness to develop usages and practices that aren’t ‘Scriptural’).

You surely do not think that 1) Jesus is the word of God, 2) Scripture is the word of God, => 3) Jesus is Scripture? You can’t use them interchangeably, Scripture did not die and rise to save us from our sins. My faith is not in Scripture, per se, it is in Christ.

Scripture is inspired of God, obviously, but it nowhere makes the claim that it contains “all” truth, certainly not explicitly.

“Men, even religious men need to be accountable to something. In matters of our faith it is the Word.”

Odd. It would seem, according to our Lord, that religious men are accountable to the church. Mt 18:15 - 18.

You have said:
“The Catholic Church is not infallible, nor are people infallible.  God has used fallible people throught[sic] history.”
“Holding fast to Christ and rejecting any organization, one can never be separated from the love of Christ.”
“Men make up their rules, regulations, privileges, self honors and scare tactics if you leave.”

These, and much else, you have used to describe the church. Have you noticed that those are never the terms whereby Scripture describes the Church?

regards,

Richard- Hebrews 4:12 is about the power of the Word of God i.e. Scripture while the 4:13 is about God and His judging us. It is by His word we will be judged. Jesus says as much in John 12:48.
It is true that Jesus also is referred to as the Word of God as in Rev 19:13.
The Scripture is also referred to as the Word of God in Mark7:13, Acts 4:31 and 14:36 to name a few places.
Are you troubled that your church claims to have the only authority to interpret the Scripture correctly and yet has not produced a work that would help all Catholics to know if they have interpreted it correctly?

Richard A,

Regarding you questions on the “Word of God,” Proto1 gave some references.

You said, “...religious men are accountable to the church. Mt 18:15-18.”

This was a believer correcting the sin of another believer.  Dealing with sin in the church.  If they still won’t listen, to bring it to the authorities to adjudicate.

We’ve talked about what the Bible teaches and you said, “those are never the terms whereby Scripture describes the Church.”

Well, I modernize the words to talk about these points.  Yes.  Hopefully on sound scriptural foundation.

For example:  Rom 8:35 “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”

If you have a reply, what sin do you think would separate a believer from the love of Christ?  In other words, what sin is it that Christ’s blood was insufficient to cover for one saved in Him?

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Thank you, Gary for responding to my Post. Unfortunately, we seem not to agree that Christ established His Church to which I belong as His Visible Presence in the world until the End of Time. Matthew 19: 17-19. For these 73 years I have remained in my Church through which I am united with Him.  He is the “Vine” and I am one of His “Branches”.  I remain a faithful Living Part of this Holy Body of Christ where He sustains me with His Graces and blessings through the Sacraments.

Sorry, Gary.  The relevant Gospel Qutation is Matthew 16:17-19. Be blessed

Garyk51188:

“This was a believer correcting the sin of another believer.  Dealing with sin in the church.  If they still won’t listen, to bring it to the authorities to adjudicate.”

Obviously, it means more than that. Eventually, using a process basically identical to that proposed by our Lord in the gospel of Matthew, Paul ends up bringing a question to “the church” - the body of apostles - about the faith: whether it is necessary to be circumcised to be a Christian.

“Well, I modernize the words to talk about these points.  Yes.  Hopefully on sound scriptural foundation.”

What sound scriptural foundations? You talk about the church as an organization of men whose rules and traditions are obstacles to Christ. Mary42 and John K and I talk about the church as the Bride of Christ, who teaches us and leads us to Christ. Which one fits Scripture’s description?

“what sin do you think would separate a believer from the love of Christ?  In other words, what sin is it that Christ’s blood was insufficient to cover for one saved in Him?”

Offhand, if pressed, I’d say blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can’t be forgiven. Guess I’d have to check Scripture to make sure I’m on solid ground with that; if not, I’ll gladly withdraw it.

How is that to the point, though? Wouldn’t it be better to let Mark Shea write another blog on that topic, and discuss it there? I haven’t seen anything posted above that suggests Catholics believe there are some sins that can’t be forgiven in Christ.

As it is, this discussion about the Church is probably only relevant because Mary is understood by Catholics to be a type of the Church, as when she tells the servants, “Do whatever He tells you.”

Mary42,

You said, “...we seem not to agree that Christ established His Church…”

On the contrary.  All believers are His children.  They—we—are the Church.

Rom 8:1-17 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. ... his Spirit who lives in you. ...For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. ... the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children…”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Richard A,

You said, “You talk about the church as an organization of men whose rules and traditions are obstacles to Christ.”

Men and whatever wrong they do or create, by any name, is an obstacle to Christ.  But, it is the men who do this, if they error, whether in the church or out of it.

The Church is the family of believers.  All of them.  Men are always the obstacle.  Believers are imperfect.  Sometimes the wrong men do evolves into a tradition that is wrong.

They thereby get others to error in the same way.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary and Richard,

Two things can get confused here.  Firstly, essentially the blood of Christ has opened salvation to all men.  Not just that, St Paul teaches us that Christ’s sacrifice had cosmic dimensions that would eventually embrace the whole universe.

Secondly,  humans are not robots or automata.  The saving grace offered by Christ looks for a response from each of us.  The sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the one sin for which there is no forgiveness.  The reason lies not in the fact that Christ’s sacrifice is not more than sufficient, but the hardening of the heart of one who continuously rejects God’s love and forgiveness to the point where God has been completely shut out of that person’s life.  Just as practising virtue (I am not claiming that our good works save us!!!) leads us closer to God until we are in total conformity to His will so repeated defiance and refusal to accept God’s grace becomes habitual and, sadly, final.  I hope that not many people get into this state - but due to man’s free will, we have to say that it remains a possibility.

John K,

I agree.  Blasphemy against the HS is that a person denies the Truth that is Christ all the way up to his death.  But, no believer is in danger of this.  He has already accepted the Truth and agreed with it.

Hence, in the previous discussion with another “what sin does His blood not cover in so far as a believer is concerned.”  The answer is “none.

If one denies the HS to his death, Christ’s blood is not there to cover anything.  So, nothing could be forgiven.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Richard—if as you write “As it is, this discussion about the Church is probably only relevant because Mary is understood by Catholics to be a type of the Church, as when she tells the servants, “Do whatever He tells you.”
Why then don’t your leaders follow this advice and go beyond what is written?

Richard A,

You said, “...I haven’t seen anything posted above that suggests Catholics believe there are some sins that can’t be forgiven in Christ….”

Right.  So, if a person is saved in Christ, nobody can rightfully say “you’ve sacrificed your salvation by not being a part of us.”  That is anybody.  Including those who say they represent the “Church.”

And, the point further, even if one argues it is a “sin” to leave—not that it is a sin—even then, a believer is not separated from the love of Christ, His blood having covered that, too.

So, under any circumstance, no man nor organization—even if it claims it represents the body—can rightfully claim a believer is unsaved (that is “cut off from the vine”) based on their belonging, or no.

What the Lord has already given a believer, no man or organization can take away, based on anything you do, or don’t do.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

Yes, the love and supreme sacrifice made by Jesus is more than sufficient to save the whole world.  St Thomas Aquinas speaking on this love of God made visible in Jesus commenting on the outpouring of his blood for us says of this blood “one drop is sufficient to save the whole world”. 

So there is no doubt about the saving power of what Jesus did for us.  That is why, those of us who realise this must devote our whole lives in growing closer to Jesus daily.

I hope that the final sin, that is continued and habitual refusal to accept Jesus love and forgiveness becomes final at death.  So sicere death bed conversion is really possible.  The problemis that God has a plan and a place for us all.  Repeated refusal to cooperate with his grace means that plan has been frustrated.  However, Jesus power to save at any moment, even at death, is absolutely certain.  The dying thief in Luke is a supreme example ” I promise you, today you will be with me in Paradise”.  One of the reasons for the Divine Mercy devotion is the conversion of sinners.  It is to be hoped that all sinneerswill be granted this mercy even at the latest hour.  But because we ought not to be complacent about this Scripture and the Church warns about the very real possibility that continued rejection of God’s love can lead to the hardening of the heart which can become final in death.  But this never means that Jesus witholds his love from any of us.

John K,

Right.  It is the way God is just.  He is able to accept a sinner as being righteous who has accepted Christ as Savior, all because of what Christ did.

We may not be perfect.  But, if we trade anything else as being most important for Christ as our Lord it is like Moses in the desert holding up the serpent and believers fixing themselves on this alone.  Even though the Jews were being bitten by snakes, they lived by keeping their eyes on this emblem and trusting this would save their lives.

John 3:14-15 “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

Yes this is important.  To gaze on the cross of Jesus and realise just how much we are loved by God.  Despite our sinfullness.  This is agreat text.  Togetyer, let us worship god and give thanks for all he has done for us in His only Son Jesus Christ.  The cross is the neasureof all things.

John- you are starting to sound like a protestant. In light of what you have written above why is it necessary or desirable for Catholics to devote themselves to Mary as your church encourages you to do? Take this on devotion to Mary:
“Consecration to Mary
by Father Gabriele Amorth, S.S.P.

It is beautiful to speak of the Consecration to Mary in this Basilica in which a Pope whom we all have in our hearts presented TOTUS TUUS (?Totally yours?) to the world.

But let us deepen the concept of consecration. To consecrate something is to separate it from profane use in order to use it exclusively for worship of God. Therefore, consecration can be made only to God. Why then do we consecrate ourselves to Mary? Because of her role in the plan of Redemption, in which she is always associated to Christ. Mary is wholly a reference to Christ. Therefore, consecration to her has the aim of belonging entirely to Jesus. Saint Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort (1673-1716), the great apostle of consecration to Mary, calls it ?Consecration to Jesus through Mary? (Ad Iesum Per Mariam), and spread that famous short formula: ?I am all Yours and all that I have I offer to You, my lovable Jesus, through Mary, Your most holy Mother.?” From Giving Ourselves Completely to Mary

Why is this devotion even taught and Catholics exhorted to follow if Jesus is more than enough?

Gary
Well when Iwas a schoolboy I went to a Catholic school.  In my class there was only one non Catlolic, a Methodist.  His fatherwas the local Mehodist minister. I was many times in their house.  They were beautiful people.  He is now a dentist, married with a family.  Fromtime to time I am still invited round for a family meal.  They live a beautiful life in the Lord Jesus.

John K,

I like the idea of sending kids to a Christian school.  My hometown it seems you were either Metho-Luther-terian or Catholic.  There was only public or Catholic junior high and high school.

Where we live now, we sent our kids to a Christian school, 6 through 12.  We’ll see what they do with the grand kids.  Pre-school is through their local churches.  But now public for theirs just starting grade school.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Hello, good people.  I see you are still not agreed on how one can deny themselves salvation.  Jesus has spoken about the Sin against the Holy Spirit which shall not be forgiven “in this world or the next”.  What is this sin? My short explanation is Judas vs Peter.  Judas betrayed Jesus, despaired that his sin was so great and heinous such that Jesus could never, ever forgive him.  So, he hanged himself.  On the other hand, Peter denied Jesus three times but threw himself at the feet of Jesus and repented. He was forgiven, hence, confirming this Declaration: “And so I say to you, you are Peter and upon this Rock I shall built My Church, and the gates of nevetherworld…....“I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Whatever you bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven”. And after His Resurrection,Jesus ratifies this Appointment and firmly and finally confirms the Conferment of Peter’s (and his Successors) Leadership Authority of His Church in Three Divine Orders: “Simon son of Jonah do you love Me more than all these? ....Feed My lambs…...Feed My sheep…..feed My sheep….”.  The Sin against the Holy Spirit is to believe that your sins are such that God can never, ever forgive you.

To expound on how a Soul can reject God’s Grace, may I suggest to you, my good people, you Google “Divine Mercy in my Soul” (St. Faustina’s Diary) and read Diary Nos.1485 - 1488.  Christ explains how Souls in various forms of disposition can reject God’s Grace and lose salvation.

With regard to absolute certainty of salvation so long as one believes Jesus is the God, The Second Person of the Holy Trinity and our Saviour and Redeemer, may I humbly say there is a qualification here. Remember even Satan knows and believes without any doubt that Christ is God and trembles. Believing without striving to live by the “keep My Commandments” “take up your cross and follow Me"leaves one open to presume, quite wrongly, that so long as I believe and declare Jesus Christ is Lord I shall be saved regardless of how I live my life. Christ’s emphatic Criteria and the Parameters for Salvation on the Last Day are binding to us all.

Mary42,

You said, “The Sin against the Holy Spirit is to believe that your sins are such that God can never, ever forgive you.”

Sorry, I don’t see that anywhere.  If one believed on Jesus as Lord, and thought about sin the way you say, even that is something for which they would be forgiven, Christ’s blood having paid the price.

As far as Satan believing in Christ, of course he does.  That is, he knows the reality of Who He is.  However, reading Rom 10:9 as we have, it says, “..that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus ....”  That is, you are confessing Jesus as Lord.

Jesus as Lord of our lives, we are no longer slaves to sin.  Satan knows who Jesus is but has never, and will never, allow Him to be Lord over him.  And, that is regardless of the Truth of the HS revealing Christ is really Lord over all.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

garyk51188:

‘Right.  So, if a person is saved in Christ, nobody can rightfully say “you’ve sacrificed your salvation by not being a part of us.”  That is anybody.  Including those who say they represent the ‘Church.”’

Even the Catholic Church is unwilling to say that one who is excommunicated is necessarily thereby damned, so I am most certainly unwilling.

That said, it is clear from the entire tenor of the New Testament that Christ intends that His followers live out their Christian lives in the Church. It is clear from Scripture that Christ gave His church authority to preach the doctrine of Christ and to make determinations about how the Christian life is lived. It is clear, both from Christ’s words in the Gospels and Paul’s words in his epistles that the church has authority to expel brethren who are obstinate in sin or in denying some truth of the Gospel.

Even if we grant that it is possible to hold onto personal salvation while apart from the church, why would a Christian ever actually do it? How is it good for a Christian to order his life around the possibility of accepting the authority of Christ while rejecting the authority of His bride? Or can a Christian accept the authority of the church, while not accepting the authority of the men who have authority in the church?

Everything in the church is about Jesus Christ. Our whole life is based on Christ, or points to Christ.

A simple analogy - not in Scripture - has been helpful for me. Two men working together on a building site are asked what they’re doing. One says, “I’m hauling these bricks.” The other says, “I’m building a cathedral.” It’s the second fellow, obviously, who will avoid burnout because he has the whole vision. Maybe the first fellow will avoid it too, maybe not, although the cathedral still gets built.

I know a lot of faithful Christians whose love for Christ has grown a lot as they have fostered a devotion for His mother. I would not be one of those, particularly, although I believe what the Catholic teaches about her and pray the prayers that are given me to pray. There may be some whose devotion to Mary or some other aspect of Catholic life has become a distraction from proper devotion to Christ; the solution is to point them back to Christ. This shouldn’t be too hard considering Mary herself points to her Son.

Discussions like this come across to me, anyway, and possibly to others, as if we’re being reproved, “Why are you shoving those bricks around when you’re supposed to be building a cathedral?” Honestly, though, that’s what we’re about.

Perhaps I should be clearer about a point above: I do not have a particularly active ‘devotion to Mary’, as most Catholics would recognize it, anyway. I do trust that my love for Christ has grown as a result of myriad other helps He gives in His church and in personal devotions.

Richard A,

You said, “Even if we grant that it is possible to hold onto personal salvation while apart from the church, why would a Christian ever actually do it?”

We use the word “church” two ways.  A believer is part of the “catholic” (not Catholic) church—that is, the whole church, the universal family of believers—just by being a believer.  That universal body of believers—One Bread, one Body—is the Bride.

The other use of the word relates to specific groups of believers organized by location or tradition.  In Revelation Christ address the several different churches differentiated this way.  Identifying them by location, He had positives and negatives to say about their traditions.

The point of all is that those churches organized by location and tradition are governed by mere men and apt to stray from sound behavior.  What holds them accountable is the Word.

If a particular church is teaching things outside of the Word, try to change your church home or find a new church.  No one is suggesting that one should withdraw from the body of believers.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

Sorry, but your explanation of the distinction between Catholic and catholic seems over simplistic.  It is not simply by believing that I am Catholic or catholic.  That position is not supported by the New Testament taken as a whole.  You can quote St Paul “if on your lips you profess….” but you cant just take single quotations.  The necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation is very clear in the New Testament.  The practice of infant Baptism which started to happen quite early in the Church attests to the fact that faith and belonging to the Church are utterly free gifts given in Christ.  You have spoken about the way in which the saving act of Jesus has saved us all from sin.  You seem to imply that salvation is something we do for ourselves, i.e. purely by deciding to believe in the Lord Jesus, my choice.  I can choose to belong to the Church.  Not so.  This is a heretical opinion.  The true understanding of this is that if an adult feels drawn to the Church, thisis already due to the promptings of the Holy spirit in that persons life.  That person may ask to become a Catholic.  After a considerable period of cathecesis, if the adult then consents to this teaching (Do you believe in God…Jesus Christ…the Holy Spirit…the Holy Catholic Church…. and answers “I do”, then they are admitted to the Church by the Sacrament of Baptism.  In the case of infant Baptism, the community makes this consent on the part of the infant, whose cathecesis follows as they grow and mature (home life, schools, Catholic community etc).  This emphasise that the act of believing is not simply a personal choice but that God is the primary mover in this process.  Baptism is how the saving act of Christ is applied to individual people.  A full reading of the New Testament as a whole bears this out as the correct understanding.  People did not just listen to Peter and Paul and then say “right, i believe all that so I am now a Christian”.  No.  It is clear that they became Church members through the waters of Baptism.  When Paul speaks of “by confessing with your lips….” he is doing so with the presumtion that people will be baptised, thereby emphasising that to be a Christian is to accept faith as a free gift from God by joining the Church through Baptism.  It is nowhere suggested in the New Testament that being a Christian is as simple as choosing to support the Democrats or the Republicans.  Faith is not a private choose but a communitarian act.

On the point of different traditions in the early Church…yes this is true and to the present day these exist, but not in the way you are thinking.  These are the Ethiopian rites, Chaldean rites, Syrian, Coptic and others.  Although there are differences in rituals etc. they are in full communion with the Catholic Church because there are no fundamental doctrinal differences.  Regional variations.  The rise of various sects is not in the same position.  These sects are not in full communion with the true Church of Christ because of fundamental doctrinal errors.

John K,

First, (John 6:44) “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…”

Second, (Rom 10:9) “...that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Regarding a believer’s position in becoming one of those in the Body of Christ—that is saved by His Blood—it is a “simple” thing, although not “simplistic.”  Consider the full text of Rom 10 and “But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”(that is, the word of faith which we preach)..”

Salvation is not complicated, it is not far away.  It is not of men or regulation.  It is the object on which a believer relies for his salvation.  That is Christ.  The thief on the cross was saved having nothing but faith.  Faith being everything. 

(Rom 7:4) “Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead….”

The church is the bride, Christ the bridegroom.  The church is every believer.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary, the dying thief did not have the Church because Pentecost had not yet happened.  What you seem to be suggesting is that no visible Church is really necessary and that faith is a purely private matter.  So, is Baptism relly necessary as I am sure the dying thief had not been baptised unless he had received the Baptism of John.

No, you cannot make these quotations from the New Testament in isolation, ignoring the command to “go and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.  This baptism meant initiation into a definite historical Christian community whose continuity throughout two millenia has been the Catholic Church with a large “c”.

John K,

What I am saying is that the dying thief was part of the church, and that the catholic—meaning “whole”—church because he is a believer.  That is what the Bride is.  The “whole” body of believers is the “church.”

One becomes a member by being born again.  That is baptised with that One Spirit into the household of faith.  Christ lives in a person.  That is a new creation belonging to a new family.

Baptism doesn’t save a person by itself.  But, it is a thing the Lord says do.  So, we do that as an outward sign of a circumsized heart.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John, I have just come on line and have read your Responses.  What Gary has been saying all along is that any Christian Church is OK for salvation because they all believe and confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord. In short, this is the popular Doctrine which says: ” I accepted Jesus Christ as my Personal Saviour on such and such a date and now I am Saved!!!!.  He died for me and paid for all my sins - past, present and future.  I need not do anything else and nowhere am I required to perform any good works because by believing in Christ I am already saved. It means God has no Say in this matter.  But we know, John, on the day I die and stand before Him, He has the Final Word and the Casting Vote which shall determine my Eternal Destination.

To prove how wrong Gary, and those who believe like him are, let me paraphrase what Jesus says about this in “My Daily Bread””  “I promised to stand by My Church to the End of Time.  I said that the gates of hell would never conquer Her and that those who believe in Her would be saved.  I NEVER said that Scriptures alone was to guide anyone to Eternal Life. In fact, through My Apostle Peter, I warned everyone that the Scriptures are not always easy to understand;  nor do all men find salvation in them. You can see the proof of this in the numberless opinions and beliefs which separate so many sects from one another.  If I agreed with all of them, I would be contradicting Myself many times. 

“Follow the Light which I left behind Me - My Church.  Those who hear Her, hear Me.  Learn the Truth which I have left in Her care.  My Truth will be a light to you in time of doubt and worry.”

It follows, therefore, as I told Gary earlier that, for example any Christian Denomination which rejects the Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament;  any Christian Denomination which denies the Seven Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ in His Church; any Denomination which denies we are required to strive and obey God’s Commandments very day of our lives; any Denomination that denies that Jesus Christ left One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which has preserved, protected, proclaimed and taught His Truth these 2000 years;  any Denomination which denies the Power of the Keys given to St. Peter and his Successors to govern the Catholic Church through the Magisterium, cannot be living in the same “Household” where I live.  But certainly, Gary will never, ever accept this.  Very sad indeed.

Gary, let us agree to disagree about what Christ meant by the Sin Against the Holy Spirit.  I live in obedience to what my Church teaches me and all faithful Catholics do the same. 

Let us also agree to disagree on this belief you have been harping on all through and which which is contrary to my Church’s Teaching.  Yes, Jesus paid for our sins by His Death. But though God created us without our consent, He cannot save us without our co-operation. And that means we must respond to His Graces and strive to live by obeying His Commandments. The Standards and the Criteria upon which He shall judge us on the Last Day are explicit.  He has given us the Works of Mercy by which He will determine our Eternal Destiny. We must do our part by obeying His Father’s Commandments because He has done His part by fulfilling His Father’s Will.  St. John elaborates : Faith without Good Works is Dead.

Mary—is “My Daily Bread” a Catholic publication?

Mary42,

It is interesting that you paraphrase what was said that, “...any Christian Church is OK for salvation because they all believe and confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord…”

I don’t want to read too much into this, but you said a Church is “OK” for salvation.  Churches don’t give salvation, allow salvation or disallow salvation.  A church home not the object of a person’s faith which saves.  Jesus Christ saves.

A church home is that “address” where a person worships with others in some kind of unison.  It is where one would find a community of believers.  The idea is for a saved person to select that church home on the basis of its preaching sound doctrine.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Sorry, Gary.  I have just stated that we agree to disagree.  Right??? John’s thee Responses above cover the issue issues in question very, very adequately. And those who go wrong with regard to the Marian Devotions - and I may add we have had a few groups in our country - are corrected by the Head of the Catholic Church in that country; that is the Cardinal.  Be blessed.

Mary42,

You further paraphrase, “..I accepted Jesus Christ as my Personal Saviour on such and such a date and now I am Saved!!!!.  He died for me and paid for all my sins - past, present and future.  I need not do anything else and nowhere am I required to perform any good works because by believing in Christ I am already saved. It means God has no Say in this matter….”

I don’t believe you mean to say you have to “perform” good works to be saved.

As far as God having a “say in the matter.”  He has.  He said believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.  God doesn’t hold us in tension, deciding whether we are then “good enough” to be let in to heaven and us not knowing.

He promised our salvation through faith in Christ as our Lord and Savior.  If we have been adopted into the family of faith and cry “Abba, Father” to God, is there anything we can do to cause us to be disowned?  He has His Son shedding His blood to purchase us.  So we are.  In that we are assured.

As far as doing “good works.”  It evidences the HS in us, yes.  And, the HS in us, this is something we want to do.  But, if I do good is it me or the HS that is the author of it?  No man is “good,” only God is “good.”  And, if the HS is the author, on what should I boast?  Nothing.

God made promises evidenced throughout the Scripture.  And, He made those promises come true.  That He keeps His promises does not mean “He has no say in the matter.”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “...I warned everyone that the Scriptures are not always easy to understand;  nor do all men find salvation in them….”

Every nuance, of course.  But, the essentials?  “The law of the Lord is perfect converting to soul, the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple….”

(2 Cor 11:2-4) “...For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!”

There is a simplicity in Christ that those who the Lord draws, they do not miss.  But, you see, even in the early church some leaders were trying to complicate things—put further regulations, laws to it—even then.  Why be surprised for the same errors today?

The essentials are all included, no mystery left out.  Paul says in (Rom 15:19) “I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.”  This is why I say, “we agree on the essentials”—the real God, the real Jesus, the real HS and Christ saving us through faith in Him as Lord and Savior.

What men add to this, as Paul says, “you may well put up with it” and if a person does, is it a sin for which salvation is lost.  Not if Christ’s Blood covers us.  Of course not.

But, then why do it when it is not necessary.  Or, worse, claim that it is necessary to someone new in Christ.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

ary

Your earlier response to my comment about the dying thief.  He didn’t actually confess that Jesus beside him on the cross was Lord.  These words were not on his lips at all.  While we can’t know what he thought about Jesus and who He was, I don’t think there would have been such an articulation or understanding of Jesus.  However, we are heavily into speculation here.

Strictly speaking, the Church only came into being at Pentecost.  So you can’t really say he belonged to the Church in the strict sense.  However, as Paul tells us, Jesus saving act has cosmic implications, “the whole of creation….” which was affected by the sin of Adam is now restored and ultimately will share in his redemptive act.  (Prophecies in Isaiah…the lion eating straw with the ox, the child putting his hand into the cobra’s hole is unharmed, world peace, nations turning their swords into plowshares etc.)  These are all fruits of the Redemption which are now real possibilities but still await full fruition.

In an anticipatory fashion, the dying thief belonged to the Church, but that qualification must be made.  Not just the dying thief, but all the great people of the Old Testament such as the prophets would also be touched by Jesus saving action which is cosmic in nature and is also unconstrained by time, what the poet T S Elioy refers to as “the still point of the turning world.”

Gary, you seem to play down the importance of the rite of Baptism.  Baptism is not just a ritual, “circumcision of the heart” replacing the physical circumcision of the Old Testament and Judaism.  Think about the effect of circumcision - it leaves a permanent mark on the body of males that lasts throughout life.  Baptism is administered on females and males alike and leaves an indelible mark on the soul.  We are reborn with the image of Christ as this indelible mark, “I live no longer (dying) but Christ lives in me (rebirth)”.  The Sacraments are more than simple ritual acts, they bring about the saving act they signify and the Church has consistently taught this.  Sacraments differe from riuals in that respect.  Sacraments also differ from magical rites as it involves the very thing you speak of.  In receiving the Sacrament, the person to be baptised, after a period of preparation, “confesses with his lips that Jesus is Lord” as he consents to tha Creed.  These words you quote from St Paul, imply a Baptismal context.  And this Baptism differed from the Baptism of John as John himself makes clear “I baptise with water….but He (Christ) will baptise you with water and the Holy Spirit”; witness also the Spirit descending at Jesus’ own baptism at the hands of John.  It is clear that Baptism in the early Church was not understood as the kind of ritual “afterthought” that you imply but was in fact the Sacramental application of the saving act of Jesus to the individual recipient.

Baptism meant incorporation into the saving mystery of the Church, the bride of Christ.  One cannot just make a private choice in this matter, it is a public, communitarian act.  It is also belonging, not to a loosely knit community of anyone who chose to acknowledge Christ, but the welcoming of the individual convert into a definite historical community “You did not choose Me, no, I chose you”.  Rememember also the important concept of mediation.  Jesus was fully man, but no ordinary man, He was the Word made flesh, the God-man who alone can be the mediator between God and man.  The Church is the historical continuity of that mediation.

Mary42,

You said, “I live in obedience to what my Church teaches me and all faithful Catholics do the same.”

I appreciate how you say this, but consider false prophets and false teachers warned about for those who follow them.  If this is all their followers did—be obedient to what their “Church” tought them—, where would they be?

Salvation is a personal thing.  It is not something a Church or a Church leader can grant.  Salvation is one-on-one between a person and that object of faith they claim will save them.  If it is not a real “savior,” what power could it possibly have to save anything?  It can’t.

It is personal in that the HS lives inside of a believer.  (John 14:23) “Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.’”

There is nothing more personal than this.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John K,

You said about the thief, “...we can’t know what he thought about Jesus and who He was…”

I would say that yes, we can.  We can either pick it up from what he said, or from what happened to him that would have evidenced his understanding.  Christ said, “And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

On baptism, yes it is a public act evidencing what has already happened to a person.  Witness, again, the thief.  And, we know that people were teaching that a person must be circumcised.  (Acts 15:1) “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”’

Rom (2:28-29) “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.”  (Rom 4:9) “Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.”

It is faith that is accorded for righteousness.  Born again a person’s sins have been washed and a new Spirit resides within—the water and the Spirit.

Kindest regard,
garyk51188

Gary

Agreed, but faith not understood simply as a decision originating in the person.  Its origin lies in the saving action of Jesus and the invitation to respond.  So its not like I make my mind up that Christianity is right and I choose to believe it.  God, in Christ, invites the individual.  The Word is first “heard”; faith is the response to the invitation.  That is not to say that it is a powerfully individual and personal act.  It certainly is this.  Within the Church community, people have been able to live out their personal response.  The Church is not imposing a one best way on everyone.  It certainly has the charge to guard against error.  But the history of the saints down through history, in every century, not least our own century attests to that. 
You are right though, when you say all the essentials are shared between most of the Christian Churches.  But what of Christ’s prayer at the last Supper in John “that they may be one”.  I believe the great gift of the Spirit in the last 100 years or so, has been the growing desire of all who follow Jesus to find the paths that lead to unity.  For you Gary and I, that means searching for how we can find this path that leads to unity, so that Christ’s wish may be fulfilled.  This is a real challenge to us and we must seek this path in humility.

Any thoughts on the point I made about the cosmic dimensions of Christ’s saving act and how it is not time constrained but reaches back into Old Testament as well?  I certainly like the emphasis you put on the simplicity of the Christian faith.  Yes, essentially it is simple.  That said, the role of Christian theology must be to explore its depths, continuously meditating on what has been given to us in Jesus Christ.

John K,

Yes, (John 6:44) “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

It is an interesting way Christ says this.  It is truly Him being manifest in the flesh to retrieve us—those who are His.  (John 6:39) “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.”

John (10:27-29) “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.”

Yes, I agree with you that those who had faith referenced in the OT, their faith was in God—God as Savior, too.  His Blood purchased every one who God drew to Him.

It is amazing imagery.  He is the Good Shepherd.  (John 10:14) “I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own.”  (John 10:11) “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.”

An amazing promise.  Amazing security in Him.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You have your opinion about the unforgivable sin, I understand.  I would be remiss if I didn’t mention another thing to encourage you.

As we said, it is to deny the HS about the Truth that is Christ.  That is to die this way one would not have the Blood of Christ to cover this sin or any sin.  So, of course it is unforgivable.

My point was (1 Cor 12:3) “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.”

There is a dividing line.  Either one doesn’t agree with the HS regarding Christ, or one does.  If one acknowledges Christ as Lord of their life, he has done the opposite of the “unforgivable sin” already.  And, of course, all his other sins are forgiven in Christ Jesus.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

My dear, Gary. Believing and obeying my Catholic Church is not following false Prophets. The Holy Father - the Successor of Peter, in union with the College of Cardinals, the Bishops and Priests in the Universal Catholic Church ARE NOT FALSE PROPHETS. These are Christ’s Words regarding the Authority He bestowed on His Church. “He who hears you hears Me. He who does not hear you, does not hear Me or the One Who Sent Me”. Obeying My Church is obeying Jesus Christ Himself and the Father who sent Him.  I notice in all these responses St. Paul seems to be the Authority. For me, however, the Words of Jesus Christ Himself in the Four Gospels are the Authority and His Teachings as expounded by His Church is binding.  I did state, Gary that we agree to disagree.  I respect your belief and your Faith in your Christian Denomination to which you belong.  On my part, I absolutely believe and totally accept that the Catholic Church, instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, with the Holy Spirit indwelling to guide Her into Christ’s Truth, has preserved, protected and continues to proclaim and teach His Message of Salvation truthfully and without error.  Through Her, the Holy Spirit continues sanctifying Her children through the Seven Sacraments - again instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. The responses from John are so explicit I am at a loss why you continue trying to deny the existence and the authenticity of the enduring One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as “The Church” Christ founded and which is guided by the Holy Spirit.  Mine is the simple, childlike Faith of the “Humble of Heart” whom Christ reveals in the Beatitudes and elsewhere in the Gospels. Christ’s Bride has remained faithful to His Message of Salvation shepherding His Sheep as He commanded. And He has guaranteed that He shall be with Her until the End of Time. God is Truth. Jesus cannot contradict Himself.  Every one of the over 500 Protestant Christian Denominations teach contradictory Doctrines and Beliefs.

One final comment on Salvation and Redemption.  If Jesus’ Sacrifice wiped away all our sins - past, present and future and we need not bother ourselves on how we live our lives once we have become Believers, it is baffling why He had to institute the Sacrament of Reconciliation on the Eighth Day after His Resurrection. We need to accept that even though Jesus died to wipe away sins and reconcile us to God, we still remain prone to sin - and we sin daily - as long as we are alive. So, it was absolutely essential that Jesus give us this Sacrament. And St. John does remind us, anyone who says he has no sin is a liar. Through this Sacrament the Holy Spirit re-unites our Souls with the Holy Trinity by restoring the Sanctifying Grace which we lose when we commit a Mortal Sin and strengthens us when we have been weakened by Venial Sins.

Mary42,

You said, “Believing and obeying my Catholic Church is not following false Prophets.”

No one has said you do.  The point of the discussion was to what are men—leaders, tradition makers, doctrine approvers—held accountable.  The churches in Revelation evidence deviation from what Christ says do.  He criticises them there.  If a believer relied only on what church leadership says do, we have examples of people being misled.

We’ve discussed “essentials” versus “non-essentials.”  That is, what is common to those in the house hold of faith.  Catholic and Protestants share a belief in the real God and Christ.  And, they rely on Christ, the object of their faith, for salvation.

On the promises of what is written, this is a family of believers, that are part of that on flock led by that One Shepherd.  There are differences in the traditions of the churches, of course.  So were there differences in the churches in Revelation.  But, still the Lord left the Lampstands—that is the HS—with them all.

(1 Cor 12:13-20) “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be?  But now indeed there are many members, yet one body.”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “If Jesus’ Sacrifice wiped away all our sins - past, present and future and we need not bother ourselves on how we live our lives once we have become Believers….”

I don’t see how that follows any more than saying, “Okay, I can sin as much as I want, I’ll just go to confession…”  No believer wants to sin.  He has the HS in him and has agreed with it on what is right to do.  This, even though as Paul says, the fleshly spirit wars against the HS every day.

No, no one said we don’t sin after having been saved.  It is just that Christ’s Blood makes us righteous before God for what He did.

Right, I would disagree with you on positionally where a believer is if he sins.  Christ died once for our sins, past, present and future.  His Blood does not ebb and flow on what it covers, or not, as a believer lives his life.  Christ’s sacrifice on the cross marked an end to the “law” for those who believe. (Rom 10:4)

When it says “as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”’ (Rom 1:17) this is our new standard.

If a believer says I have sinned and am no longer righteous before God until I do something.  What is that something?  We can’t do anything for our salvation because Christ did it all.  Must Christ be crucified again?

(Heb 6:1-6) “Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection… For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”

Paul is encouraging believers to speak this way because to re-crucify Christ is impossible.  He says further, “But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.”

This is way, regardless of what mere men say, a believer has security in Christ.  This security cannot be lost, nor can it be gained or regained by things men do.  Neither a believer nor a church person can enable or disable Christ’s Blood from covering every sin a person has.

If they could they would be re-crucifying Christ all over again, God forbid.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

And Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote: a wise old priest said, “You can’t love Mary too much, as long as you love Jesus more.” May I be so bold as to substitute “honour” for “love”? I think you have latreia and hyperdulia expressed therein in a nutshell.

Gary, please, please, I begged that we agree to disagree. Right??? Right.  These are the Essentials of the Catholic Faith for Her baptized children:

“Friendship with Christ, in the Holy Spirit, to the Glory of God the Father:

  Active and frequent participation in the Sacraments, most especially the
  Holy Mass (along with Holy Communion) and Confession
  Active participation in the Liturgical Seasons
  Personal and family vocal prayer
  Personal mental prayer
  Ongoing study of the Catholic faith, and where possible, with the
  Guidance of a Spiritual Director
  Ongoing support for the Church’s work of evangelization (this can take
  many forms)
  Obedience to the Basic Moral Law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) and
  to the Teaching of the Magisterium
  Obedience to the duties of one’s state in life
  Filial devotion to Mary and the Saints
  Some practice of self-denial (ascesis)
  Gradually learning to accept and value suffering (love for our crosses as
  ways to unite us to Christ’s cross)”.

John has very, very explicitly given you the Orthodox, Uniate and Eastern Churches which form the Universal Catholic Church (in response to your repeated reference of different Churches in the Revelation). I have nothing more to add on that.  May I humbly, very humbly say the Essentials of My Catholic Church are what the Protestants reject: 1) The Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. 2) The Three Pillars of the Catholic Church:- a) The Scriptures, b)The Tradition and c) The Magisterium. 3) The Communion of Saints. 4) Devotion to the Holy Mother of God and the Saints. The Protestants ONLY accept the Scriptures AS THE ONLY SOURCE OF SALVATION MESSAGE.

Allow me not to comment on my Church’s Teaching regarding the most essential Sacraments of Healing. If you are genuinely looking Truth on what we, Catholics believe, kindly read the Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos.1420-1470.  Those Sacraments The Apex and the Ultimate Essentials for any faithful Catholic and which we do not agree on. To us baptized Catholics, however, they are indispensable for one’s Salvation.

Finally, let me conclude my responses on this Thread with this analogy. As a grandmother, when I meet - say - a 4 year-old boy or girl with the parents I love posing this question after they are introduced to me: “Who is this? And the child replies: “This is my Mummy/Daddy”.  I then ask: “Oh, how do you know she/he is your Mummy/Daddy?”. The child proudly, clutching the parent’s hand and looking up at their face lovingly replies: “Because she/he is my Mummy/Daddy!!!”.  If I ask that question again, the child looks at me with pity for my ignorance and tells me: “You are stupid Cucu (that is loving nickname for grandma in my language), “Because I know this my Mummy/Daddy”.  This child has no knowledge of the biological rigmarole of how these are his/her Parents.  The child just knows - without any shadow of doubt - that this is his/her Mummy/Daddy.  And that, Gary, is my Faith.  I know my One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church Christ founded.  It is the Church He lives in through the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  It is the Church where the Holy Spirit subsists to ensure She continues to preserve, protect, proclaim and teach God’s Truth until the End of Time. Sorry, Gary, I have to repeat myself and state again that mine is the Simple, unquestioning childlike Faith. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches because God has revealed it, He Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Please respect my Faith as I sincerely respect yours.  Be blesssed

Gary, please, please, I begged that we agree to disagree. Right??? Right.  These are some of the Essentials of the Catholic Faith for Her baptized children:

“Friendship with Christ, in the Holy Spirit, to the Glory of God the Father:

  Active and frequent participation in the Sacraments, most especially the
  Holy Mass (along with Holy Communion) and Confession
  Active participation in the Liturgical Seasons
  Personal and family vocal prayer
  Personal mental prayer
  Ongoing study of the Catholic faith, and where possible, with the
  Guidance of a Spiritual Director
  Ongoing support for the Church’s work of evangelization (this can take
  many forms)
  Obedience to the Basic Moral Law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) and
  to the Teaching of the Magisterium
  Obedience to the duties of one’s state in life
  Filial devotion to Mary and the Saints
  Some practice of self-denial (ascesis)
  Gradually learning to accept and value suffering (love for our crosses as
  ways to unite us to Christ’s cross)”.

John has very, very explicitly given you the Orthodox, Uniate and Eastern Churches which form the Universal Catholic Church (in response to your repeated reference of different Churches in the Revelation). I have nothing more to add on that.  May I humbly, very humbly say the Essentials of My Catholic Church are what the Protestants reject: 1) The Real Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. 2) The Three Pillars of the Catholic Church:- a) The Scriptures, b)The Tradition and c) The Magisterium. 3) The Communion of Saints. 4) Devotion to the Holy Mother of God and the Saints. The Protestants ONLY accept the Scriptures AS THE ONLY SOURCE OF SALVATION MESSAGE.

Allow me not to comment on my Church’s Teaching regarding the most essential Sacraments of Healing. If you are genuinely looking Truth on what we, Catholics believe, kindly read the Catechism of the Catholic Church Nos.1420-1470.  Those Sacraments The Apex and the Ultimate Essentials for any faithful Catholic and which we do not agree on. To us baptized Catholics, however, they are indispensable for one’s Salvation.

Finally, let me conclude my responses on this Thread with this analogy. As a grandmother, when I meet - say - a 4 year-old boy or girl with the parents I love posing this question after they are introduced to me: “Who is this? And the child replies: “This is my Mummy/Daddy”.  I then ask: “Oh, how do you know she/he is your Mummy/Daddy?”. The child proudly, clutching the parent’s hand and looking up at their face lovingly replies: “Because she/he is my Mummy/Daddy!!!”.  If I ask that question again, the child looks at me with pity for my ignorance and tells me: “You are stupid Cucu (that is loving nickname for grandma in my language), “Because I know this my Mummy/Daddy”.  This child has no knowledge of the biological rigmarole of how these are his/her Parents.  The child just knows - without any shadow of doubt - that this is his/her Mummy/Daddy.  And that, Gary, is my Faith.  I know my One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church Christ founded.  It is the Church He lives in through the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  It is the Church where the Holy Spirit subsists to ensure She continues to preserve, protect, proclaim and teach God’s Truth until the End of Time. Sorry, Gary, I have to repeat myself and state again that mine is the Simple, unquestioning childlike Faith. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches because God has revealed it, He Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Please respect my Faith as I sincerely respect yours.  Be blessed

Oh, how I wish I could see more quotations about “WHAT JESUS SAID”.  But sadly, the Gospels where Christ speaks to us directly are given less importance.  But, for some odd reasons, it is St. Paul whose sayings, teachings and exhortations, which can - and often are -  distorted to support whatever views one is putting across, who is given the Prime Place of Authority. Then I often ask myself, since he has condemned homosexuals - and lesbians(as it is rightly done in the Old Testament as well), why do we have some Protestant Churches ordaining Homosexual Pastors?.  Since he has condemned women from speaking in Church, why do we have some Protestant Churches going as far as Ordaining women as Pastors?.  Is it because we only stress what supports our points of view???  These are just thoughts of an old woman who is baffled by why the Words of Christ in the Gospel are given secondary position in relation to St. Paul’s teachings, yet they do not carry the Authority of Jesus Christ Himself whose Words are Alive and Active.  This is the reason why, in all Weekdays and Sunday Holy Masses in the Catholic Church His Words and Teachings are read and proclaimed and form the Central Theme of the Homily. He speaks to us Himself directly and personally to each one of us.

Mary42,

You make and emotional reply.  I understand.  We talk here about “essentials.”  It is important to know what that means.  At least how we define it to discuss it in how we agree or disagree.

How I have been using it is as in “essentials” for salvation.  It seems your use being more for what you feel are essentials for church worship.  If this is the case, it is more a definitional issue than otherwise.

You saw the post that relates to the “simplicity” that is Christ.  There are the “essentials” of salvation and there are other things people claim to be essential, however in some other context.  Rather than get bogged down in debatable secondary issues, as the Scripture says let us move on to more mature things.

It is a matter of semantics, as well.  But, consider, a born again believer, he has the HS in him enabling him to do and doing all things another person might say is “required” for perfection.  However, the implication of being “required” suggests a person could somehow do these things on his own.  And, in this a person achieving his righteous status before God through some part he is doing apart from Christ.

It is important to note what Christ does and does not do.  Because, if we try to claim some thing Christ alone does, as if we can do it by ourselves, this diminishes Him.  And, it is wrong.

It is one thing to say we are “humble.”  But, are we humble enough to acknowledge what Christ, alone, has done through no doing of ourselves.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

“If a believer says I have sinned and am no longer righteous before God until I do something.  What is that something?” -garyk51188
Repent of your sins for he is faithful and just and will forgive them.  Not rocket science, Gary.  No mystery there.  You confuse your tradition/doctrine of OSAS with an aversion to works.  If repenting and seeking forgiveness is a work, ie. doing something, then by all means look at it that way, but it is in your Bible as well.
The sacrifice, once for all on the cross is the same sacrifice that Christ points to before God the Father and which we claim each and every time we fall into sin and separate ourselves from God, and then return in sorrow and repentance into the confessional.  It is the same sacrifice that we participate in at mass in the Holy Eucharist.  If that seems incomprehensible take another example from the evangelical Protestant world.
If I am a preacher in a Baptist Church for example and give an altar call at the end of the sermon, and one or more people come up to the front in response seeking to become Christians, to believe in Jesus, and I lead them in the sinner’s prayer;  are they not re-crucifying Christ by appealing to the cross on which Christ died 2000 years ago?  By your own reasoning that must be so, for each and every person who many centuries after the fact accept that sacrifice as the means of their own personal salvation, by whatever form of prayer that they do so.  Simply because they believe in OSAS and never appropriate that sacrifice again in their own lives specifically and intentionally, the very first time they do it, by your own measure, they are re-crucifying Christ, and the next convert and the next, and so on…  That is all that a Catholic does in the sacrament of reconciliation, repent of their sins, ask forgiveness and appropriate that sacrifice that Christ continually offers to the Father as our High Priest.  (That can be found in Hebrews as well.)  The difference in your doctrine is that you cannot believe that someone could ever lose their salvation (even temporarily), ie. fall from the state of Grace.  If you did, you would recognize that reconciliation is a mirror of what the OSAS convert does initially.

But here are some Scripture verses that explain what is necessary for salvation;
***
Matthew 6:[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. -RSV
***
1 John 3:[23] And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
[24] All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us. -RSV
***
Romans 2:[7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
[8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury… [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. -RSV
***
1 Timothy 2:[15] Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. -RSV
***
Hebrews 12:[14] Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. -RSV
***
Philippians 2:[12]Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;[13] for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. -RSV
***
Ephesians 2:[10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. -RSV
***
1 Timothy 5:[8] If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. -RSV
***
1 John 2:[3] And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments.[4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;[5] but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him:[6] he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. -RSV
***
John 6:[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. -RSV
***
1 Peter 3:[20] who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ -RSV
***
Matthew 7:[21]“Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. -RSV
***
Matthew 10:[42] And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” -RSV
***
2 Corinthians 5:[10] For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. -RSV
***
There are more.

PH,

You said, “John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote: ...“You can’t love Mary too much, as long as you love Jesus more.” May I be so bold as to substitute “honour” for “love”? I think you have ....hyperdulia expressed therein in a nutshell.”

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

The Hebrew word used in Exodus 34:14 was ??? shachah which was defined by Strong’s to mean to bow down.  So, if it is not right for anyone to “bow down” to images or idols of Mary, it is possible to go too far with hyperdulia.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

“It is possible to go too far with hyperdulia” to the Bleesed Vigin you say.

True.  But that implies that it is equally possible NOT TO GO FAR ENOUGH, by abandoning 2000 years of tradition in a Church that received the promise of Christ “behold I am with you always, yes until the end of time”.  Note that Jesus did not say “well apart from a millenium or the odd 1500 years - I will be with you”

Gary, I am not making emotional responses here whatsoever.  As John has just told you - and I quote him here again - what we believe is what the Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has been teaching these 2000 Years.  “.....by abandoning 2000 years of tradition in a Church that received the promise of Christ “behold I am with you always, yes until the end of time”.  Note that Jesus did not say “well apart from a millenium or the odd 1500 years - I will be with you””

The Essentials I quoted above are authentic Teachings in the Doctrine of the Catholic Church.  They are not teachings of mere men.  It is the Magisterium Teaching Authority from Jesus Christ Himself through His Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  And Christ has guaranteed that His Bride shall not teach errors. And these Teachings are binding to the more than 20 Uniate Churches John gave you which make up the Universal Catholic Church.

The Holy Spirit did not abandon the Catholic Church when Luther - and the others - rebelled.  This Church has the Apostolic Succession to guarantee She teaches God’s Truth until the End of Time.  It is regrettable that you dismiss my Faith as mere emotional outbursts of a misguided old woman.  Jesus gave me His Church to ensure I follow Him in the way He intended His Sheep to follow Him.  In Spirit and in Truth.

May I humbly respond to this Statement:  “But, consider, a born again believer, he has the HS in him enabling him to do and doing all things another person might say is “required” for perfection.  However, the implication of being “required” suggests a person could somehow do these things on his own.  And, in this a person achieving his righteous status before God through some part he is doing apart from Christ.”

A Catholic is fully aware that the indwelling Holy Spirit inspires one, through God’s Grace to know God’s Will in any given situation.  However, the Holy Spirit does not take away one’s free will to respond to that Grace or ignore it.  God did not create us to know, love, obey and accept the Salvation Christ won for us as robots.  We are not animals which act on instinct. Our response to His Grace must be totally free and deliberate decision on our part. Only then, is our Faith and obedience to His Commandments genuine.  Being “saved” does not make one supernatural such that one can no longer sin because the Holy Spirit lives in one.  Our human weaknesses, the result of original sin, are still very strong and they make one prone to fall. And all of us are miserable sinners.  But through responding positively to His Grace, by prayer, penance and His Sacraments, God strengthens us to resist temptations which we face daily. This is a daily battle “take up your cross and follow me” until one leaves this world.

John K,

You said to, “It is possible to go too far with hyperdulia..”, “True.  But that implies that it is equally possible NOT TO GO FAR ENOUGH, by abandoning 2000 years of tradition in a Church that received the promise of Christ “behold I am with you always, yes until the end of time”.

Right.  No dispute with “behold I am with you always….”  But, that doesn’t justify anything we might want to do under that banner, either.

If “bowing down” to images or idols of Mary is “too much”—please say if we agree on that—then, what is it that you say we need to do in regards to Mary, if you are saying we don’t go far enough.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Mary42,

You said, “It is regrettable that you dismiss my Faith as mere emotional outbursts of a misguided old woman.”

No one said this, no one even implied this.  You keep explaning important parts of your church worship as “essential.”  Yes, they may be as you view church worship.  But, what I am trying to discuss is that which is “essential” to salvation.

What must one do to be saved.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

LJ,

You said, “The difference in your doctrine is that you cannot believe that someone could ever lose their salvation (even temporarily),....”

That is right.  If Christ saved you, not by anthing you could have done, once saved, how are you going to un-save your self through something you are doing.  What sin is it that Christ’s blood failed to cover?

Many of the quotes you give simply divide the saved from the unsaved in a number of different ways.  And, those things which a person does that shows the HS in him—when our spirit agrees with the HS on what is right to do, even if our flesh wars against that—he wants to do those things that are right.

So, we are looking for that dividing line.  If you think a person can lose his salvation through sin and lack of repentance, once saved, is there an example that would help?

Consider (1 Cor 5:1-5) “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

This is talking about immorality in the church.  Kick the person out who is behaving so badly—unrepentant, continuing in sin.  Even though he is delivered to the calamity of the consequences of his sin, still what about his salvation.

Under the standards you suggest, this fellow separated himself through what he did—i.e., lost his salvation.  And, yet, he did not.  Even he was saved on judgement day.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary,

There is a very rich vein of tradition in iconography running through the history of the Church.  This is even more the case in the Greek Orthodox tradition.  Of course one doesn’t need statues or icons to approach God.  One can walk to one’s destination, or get there more quickly in a car.  But as has been said time and time again on this thread, it is not the image but the reality that underlies it.  I am sure your Bible contains some illustrations.  Maybe not.  In honouring Mary we are following the words of the Magnificat in Luke’s Gospel which is recited daily in Evening Prayer (vespers) the hymn of Mary “henceforth all generations will call me blessed for He who is mighty has done great things for me”  To whom was St Luke referring when he mentions “all generations”?  only Catholics?  To give honour to Mary is to fulfill those words of Scripture - “all generations will call me blessed”  Holy(or blessed) Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen

John K,

You stop short of saying that bowing to a statue or image of Mary is wrong. 

It is true, every generation knows about Mary and regards her for who she was.  Every generation calls her blessed.  But, how does that translate into praying to her?  And, on what basis does one ask a deceased person to do something for those who are living.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

In praying for the intercession of Mary, it is an extension of asking you to remember me in your prayers.  If I were to ask you, I am sure you would, just like we pray for people sick in hospital, or people whose lives are at risk through famine or floods.

In asking the Mother of Jesus to aid us with her prayers to God, I am not asking a dead person, she is very much alive in the Communion of Saints.  Remember Jesus’ answer to the Saducees’ question about who will be husband in heaven to the woman who was married 7 times.  ” He is God, not of the dead but of the living, for in fact, all people whether living or dead are alive to Him”.  Consider also the appearance of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. 

The only difference between asking for your prayers and asking for the prayers of Mary, is that she, who had the unique privilege in the whole of human history of carrying the saviour in her womb and nuturing Him after He was born, must have immensely more intercessory power than you, with all due respects.  So the mistake you are repeatedly making is in regarding Mary and the Saints as dead, whereas, in fact they are very much “alive to God”.

Don’t forget, John’s Gospel, which is rich in symbolism, shows us how the beloved disciple made a place for her in his home as have countless disciples since in 2000 years of history.  The promise that Jesus would be with us always, even to the end of time, can hardly mean that He abandoned us and let us fall into all manner of errors for 1500 years.  No, I don’t think his promise would have allowed that to happen.

John K,

You said, “In asking the Mother of Jesus to aid us with her prayers to God, I am not asking a dead person, she is very much alive in the Communion of Saints.”

Of course, you know I believe in life after death.  Whether heaven, or elsewhere, scripture is complete with references for this.

Certainly God knows this, and still consider how bad it is to try to contact these people—people who have died in the flesh but go on in the afterlife.  He gave serious instructions not to try to contact these people in any regards.

Remember what Samuel said to Saul?  “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”  Saul was unfaithful to God.  He paid the worst consequences.

These things are sacred and they are words from God—twice He says(Exodus 29:4) and (Deut 5:8), “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;...”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

Where in Scripture are we forbidden to communicate through prayers with the Saints in heaven!  Doesn’t Jesus even tell us about the little children whose angels in heaven ever behold God.  Scripture and tradition lead us in a different direction, and Jesus never promised us that he would let us go into error for 1500 years.  That is the logic of what you are saying.

The quotations from Deuteronomy and elsewhere are against idol worship in surrounding pagan religions.  Catholics do not commit idolatry, as they do not worship any idols.  The Church has always used images, The Fish and the Cross itself.  Are these graven images?  Of course not and the Lord who promised to be with us always would surely not have allowed us to be in error for 1500 years.  It just doesn’t make sense Gary!

John K,

First, you keep saying, “Jesus never promised us that he would let us go into error for 1500 years….”

Him admonishing the churches in Revelation that were in error, that is the traditions they had developed—that was what He was doing.  Remember the seven lampstands.  These were the same HS, one for each church, showing the HS resided with them.  What did he say.

(Rev 2:5) “Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”

Having Him say “hell will not prevail” against the church is one thing that is true.  Believers will be saved.  But, as you can see, that doesn’t prevent the various churches (all together called the “church”) from falling into error.  That hell will not prevail is that there will always be some that are faithful to the Lord.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John K,

You mentioned, “...the little children whose angels in heaven ever behold God…”

Yes, in the parable of the lost sheep.  God has his angels guarding over us so we are not lost.  They do his will.

As it says, with Christ, we come boldly before Him in our praise and prayers.  He dispenses what He will to carry out His will.

My life has been saved miraculously several times.  I say, “Thanks God, He has put angels on my shoulders to protect me.”  He has, where ever he has them and whatever He has them do, even if it is them, or by His hand, Himself. All praise and glory to Him.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary,

I have to disagree with the points you make about Revelation 2 and 3.  These asre the seven churches (as you say representing the one church 7 = fullness) most of whom are undergoing persecution for the faith.  John wishes to encourage them to full endurance to the end.  There is no suggestion of error but moral laxitude, mostly sexual.  But they are not in error - why else would they be persecuted.

To the Church at Ephesus ” I know your hard work and perseverance”.  They are actually being tested by false prophets but are standing firm i.e.  Holding on to the true faith.  It is a call to repent mostly from moral laxitude rather than doctrinal error.

To the Church at Smyrna - again he talks about believers being tested but enduring - it is a message of encouragement.  Hold fast to thr true faith even in persecution.

To the Church at Pergamum ” you remain true to my name - you did not renounce yor faith in me”  This is hardly error Gary. He goes on to say “I have a few things to say to you…. dont yield to the practice of eating food offered to idols and avoid sexual immorality.

Thyatira:  ” I know your deeds, your love and your faith”  Where is the suggestion of doctrinal error here.

Philadelphia:  Christians are praised for having kept the faith in the face of persecution.

The hardest saying is against the Church of Laodicea where they are reprimanded for being lukewarm…but this is not error, but moral laxity.

No Gary, I cant honestly find error in these churches that equates to the relativism found today among so many sects.  Sorry.  Read the two chapters.  It just ain’t there and your conclusions are not valid.

Jesus would not promise something and then not fufill it, as he has done throughout 2000 years of the Catholic Church

Gary

“As it says, with Christ, we come boldly before Him in our praise and
prayers. He dispenses what He will to carry out His will.”

As it says where?  Who said this?  Is it from Scripture?

Gary

You are puzzled why I keep talking about the first 1500 years of the Church.  The central point you keep making is that the Church over its first 1500 years developed many practices and errors.  Well, if you are correct what then about the promise of Christ “I am with you always….” and “the Spirit will lead you into all truth”.....but there is no suggestion that we had to wait round for 1500 years before we were led to the truth.  In fact the Last Supper discourse is about keeping true to His name and being one - not divided.

John K,

You said, “The quotations from Deuteronomy and elsewhere are against idol worship in surrounding pagan religions.”

Certainly there were examples of this practice in pagan religions.  But, the invictives were against making idols and bowing to them.  You have said [in effect, and correct me if I am wrong], “...people know these statues are not the real object…”

This may well be true.  Like the people in Ephesus, the silver smith that was complaining that Paul was spoiling his business—he and his fellow tradesmen—was because the people were be giving up buying these idols that were representations of the “real” Goddess Diana.  Yet, this was idolatry, too.  Getting representations of the real thing [at least they believed it was real] and paying it any homage, this was a terrible thing to do.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

You dont seem to get it.  These are about images of pagan gods or goddesses
We are not worshipping pagan idols for goodness sake. They are images of Christ, the Virgin Mary and the Saints And you have misquoted me.  I was talking about the underlying reality behind the image.

So I guess you don’t use the image of a cross?  It represents an instrument of torture and death.  I guess its forbidden by the Old Testament?
Do you use a cross in your worship?  If so do you reverence it or just walk past it without any reference or deference to it?  Do you use the symbol of the Fish?  If so why are these not idolatrous?

“Many of the quotes you give simply divide the saved from the unsaved in a number of different ways.” -garyk51188

Did you have a look at the first one (Matthew 6:14)?  That seems to me rather unequivocal does it not? If you don’t forgive others your sins will not be forgiven.  It doesn’t say that this applies only if you haven’t yet had a conversion experience.

“That is right.  If Christ saved you, not by anthing you could have done, once saved, how are you going to un-save your self through something you are doing.” 
What you did, in order to be saved, was repent and accept the gift of salvation offered to you.  I think it was C.S. Lewis that said the door of our hearts has only one handle, on the inside. 

“What sin is it that Christ’s blood failed to cover?”

Unless you believe that it is not possible for a believer to sin after their initial conversion (getting saved) then we must heed the warnings of Scripture regarding that sin of which the above is one example.  St. John even categorizes sin for us as we find in 1 John 5:16, the distinction between mortal (unto death) and venial sins which we can carry to God in prayer for each other in the Church.  Mortal sin requires something else because it is precisely that sin that separates us from God, as the Catholic Church teaches.

With a cursory glance at 1 John 3-5 up to that point and then again in verse 18 of Chapter 5, many will say, “you see, even St. John says that a believer cannot sin.”  Really?  Go back to Chapter 2 and read what he says about why he is writing this exhortation.  Verse one; “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;”  That is precisely what we Catholics believe and practice in the sacrament of reconciliation.

Losing your salvation is not the fault of Christ or any defect in his sacrifice on the cross.  The loss is always our own fault, our own failure, most often our own failure to ask for his help to overcome temptation.  We may be in a state of grace but unlike Calvin’s theology we still have our free will.  If we then fail to abide in Christ as he describes in John 6:54 and keep his commandments (1 John 2:3 and 1 John 3:24) it is our own doing.  Even St. Paul expressed his concern that he might run the race and still be disqualified at the end (1 Corinthians 9:26-27) Clearly he didn’t believe in the recent innovation/man-made tradition, known as Once Saved Always Saved.  So Christ’s sacrifice did not fail to cover any sin, all that is required is that if and when we have committed it, to repent (truly repent which includes the firm purpose of amendment) of it and ask forgiveness, because we know that he is faithful and just and will forgive.
The Christian life is about striving for holiness, becoming more like Christ every day, a theme that is all through the letters of St. Paul; but it is not about buying an insurance policy, or get-out-of-hell-free card.  When St. Paul says that these three remain, faith, hope and love and the greatest of these is love, why possibly could he speak of hope?  What have we to hope for if it is a done deal, in the bag, so to speak, the end not in doubt?  No, no, no, all throughout the New Testament, in the gospels and in the epistles of St. Paul we are constantly reminded that we must abide in Christ, endure to the end, finish the race, in order to be saved.
And we need all the help we can get, including the intercession of others, the greatest of which is the Queen Mother who is with her son the King as we speak.

John K,

You said, “But they are not in error - why else would they be persecuted. [It is]..moral laxitude rather than doctrinal error.”

Read (Rev 2:14) “But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, ....”

It says it is doctrinal error.  These are serious.  So, serious He says, “....or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.”

The possibility of having the HS removed, if that would happen, that church would have been totally corrupt.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary,

Please read the passage in its entirety: in fact the whole of Ch 2 and 3.  These are churches being persecuted for the faith, correct?  All they had to do was succumb to some parody of the Christian faith to avoid persecution.  John is writing to them to exhort them to hold on to the truth.  I have cited 5 or 6 of these Churches where they are first praised for their fidelity.  You have a tendency to pick out one verse in isolation.  Read what IU wrote again - or better still read the 2 chapters in their entirety and you will see that it is an exhortation to Christians going through tough times to keep the purity of the faith.  Sure, there were weak individuals, apostates who abandoned the true faith faced with terrible suffering and torture.  But as a whole, the Church did remain in the truth of Christ.  You cannot say that the 7 churches is parallel to the Christian Churches today.  No.  They were in unity, as were all the other uniate churches which developed in the next centuries.  There were no doctrinal differences. 

What about my question about the use of crosses in your Church?  Do you use them in worship?  Are they passed by and ignored?  Or do people bow to them?  Whyis this noy idolatry.

Incidentally, tomorrow 8th September, is the feast day of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, a day of special honour (not worship or idolatry) of the Mother of our Saviour.

John—when Jesus promised to build His church and be with believers until the end of time did He promise it would never err?

Re: images.

In the very book of Exodus after God has given Moses the Ten Commandments (and a whole list of ordinances as well) in Chapter 25 he commands the construction of the Ark of the Covenant with this interesting direction;
[18] And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat.
[19] Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends.
[20] The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.
[21] And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you.
[22] There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you of all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.
mmmm…those cherubim sound much like images/statues, as does the bronze serpent that God commanded to be made later on so that those who were bitten by the deadly snakes would live if they looked up to the bronze serpent.
Was God then inconsistent?
Perhaps if we look into the book of Deuteronomy we will find the thorough and repeated explanation of what graven images God was condemning; those of idols and false gods which the people of Egypt and all around the Iraelites were making and actually worshiping, like the golden calf which the Israelites were worshiping when Moses came down from the mountain.

LJ—there is no passage or verse in the Scripture that speaks of the dead helping the living here. The only One who does is the Lord Christ who is the Great High priest who intercedes for us. He alone is sufficient.

roto

The answer to your question is yes.  The prayer of Jesus at the Last Supper is full of this theme “Consecrate them in the truth”.  That they may all be one as you are in me and I am in them.  There were plenty of examples of individual apostasies and group heresies in the eraly church but always recognised as pardies of the Truth.  The Church as a whole did not err.  It kept the Faith.

From the beginning they were consecrated in the Truth as Jesus had prayed and I am sure the Father would not ignore the Son’s prayer for 1500 years.  Indeed ” I have kept them faithful to your Word, and not one has been lost except the one who chose to be lost”  Again indeed ” I pray not only for them but for all who will believe through their word” So, continuity in a historical Church, although there will always be those who stray, but these are recognised as such i.e apostates or heretics. 

No Proto, its hard to get away from the fact of a deposit of Faith from the time of Jesus to this day for which in every century, believers were prepared to lay down their lives.  It is hard to believe that people would put their heads on the block for opinion or contentious matters.  But it is impressive that in every century people have done this in the conviction that they were remaining true to His Word as he prayed on the night that he was about to lay down his own life.

Proto And Gary

I note that neither of you have responded about the use of crosses in your own Church.  Do you use them?  Do you bow to them?  Do you revernce the Cross?  Or just walk past it ignoring it without even a second thought?

How is your use of crosses not idolatry?  How is it different from our use of crossess, and statues, icons and art?

What of St Paul’s exhortation: “Let us glory in the cross….”

“LJ—there is no passage or verse in the Scripture that speaks of the dead helping the living here. The only One who does is the Lord Christ who is the Great High priest who intercedes for us. He alone is sufficient.” -Proto1

You have never asked anyone to pray for you? 
(By the way, glad you are back.  I took a break from this thread myself for awhile and returned to discover it was still alive and well!)
Come, come, Proto1.  I was raised in a tradition that believed much as you do and we never hesitated to ask for the prayers of other Christians.  In fact, we held prayer meetings (a fond memory of my childhood, I do not hesitate to add) in which we interceded for other Christians who brought their needs to the meeting, as well as praying for the lost.  Was that all in vain?  Was it totally unnecessary?  Are we not exhorted in Scripture to pray for one another?

Is it that you believe those who have physically died in the grace of Christ are not alive with Christ right now and are still part of the body of Christ?  Do you really think they will not be there at the wedding feast of the Lamb?  If they are no longer part of the body of Christ, as St. Paul describes for us, they are no longer part of the bride of Christ, the Church, either are they?  But St. Paul contradicts this where he longs to pass from this life to be with the Lord.
Perhaps then you don’t think they could hear us, like another person in the local congregation can hear us ask for prayers?  But if they are still part of the body of Christ and with him why could they not hear us?  Who are the elders in Revelation 5:8 offering the prayers of the saints?  Why should their prayers for others in the body of Christ cease because they are now with Christ?
Yes, Christ is sufficient.  Absolutely.  That is why all prayers for each other and prayer requests within the body of Christ are made in the power of the Holy Spirit of Christ our head and through him our Lord and Savior, to God the Father.
Nothing in asking for the intercession of the saints in heaven takes anything away from Christ because they only can intercede through Christ the intercessor, just as any other brother or sister in Christ can do here.

Yes LJ as we recite the creed we say we believe in the Communion of Saints, which is the solidarity that exists between us and those who have gone before us “marked with the sign of faith and who now sleep in the peace of Christ”. 

They are not then dead but alive.  As Jesus said at the grave of Lazarus ” he is not dead but sleeping” and as He said to the Saducees with their trick question about which of the seven brothers would be her husband in eternity ” to God all men whether dead or alive are in fact alive”.  Now to be dead is to have no activity.  But to be alive is to be very active as in fact the Saints are in their intercessory role in Heaven. 

Proto: we do have conversations btween the living and the dead in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.  The rich man wanted to warn his brothers to avoid coming to hell where he was but could not because of the chasm that existed between Hell and Earth.  But it is clear that Lazarus could as the rich man in hell begs Lazarus to warn them.  Lazarus could, it is implied in the parable, but chose not to as he felt they would not believe weven if one rose from the dead.  I hope Proto and Gary read this and that they also get back to me about the “idolatry” of bowing to crosses in their own Church.

John—there is a empty cross in my church. It is there to remind us what Jesus did for us. It has no power in and of itself. It is not a violation of the commandment because it is not an image of what is in heaven.
  Catholicism goes much further in its doctrines that claim the dead can hear your prayers. In many Catholic churches Mary is given supreme prominence via statutes and prayers devoted to her. Agreed?

John- there are major problems with asking a dead saint to pray for you. It is not the same thing as asking a fellow believer in this world to pray for you. Only believers in this world are to pray for believers here. No where in Scripture are we exhorted to ask the dead to pray for us.
Here is why:
1) You do not the status of the person you are praying to.
2) You don’t if that person is in heaven or hell. Can prayers be heard from purgatory for example?
3) You don’t know what kind of powers if any this person has in the after life.
4) There is no exhortation or promise in Scripture that we are to pray to the dead.
5)  We don’t know specifically who the elders in Revelation 5:8 are. There is no indication in this passage that anyone was praying directly to them.
6) Just because there is one body in Christ does not mean that the “dead” in Christ can communicate with the living here. Scripture gives no hint at this.
7) Both Paul and Peter before they died never exhort anyone to pray to them.
8) Prayers to Jesus and in His name we are commanded in. He alone, is sufficient for all our needs. He alone intercedes for us as our Great High Priest.

John- the rich man and Lazarus is not about prayer. If anything it is against praying to the dead since there is a great chasm between the two.

Proto Is that cross not a graven image?  Don’t people bow to it as they pass it in your Church?  Or are you saying that it might as well not be there as people ignore it. How is that cross not idolatry and crosses in Catolic Churches are?  Come on, you are either against images completely or you are not.

It sounds like you pick and choose what suits your agenda.

No we do not exalt the Virgin Mary above Jesus.  This is a typical polemic of ultra Protestants or else it arises out of ignorance.  Note that it is not jus Catholis who honour Mary, the Orthodox Churches also do and the Anglican Church and I have heard of one Methodist group who practice devotion to Mary. In doing so we just fulifill Luke’s words “all generations will call me blessed” (except some Protestants it seems) and John ” the disciple made a place for her in his home”, as all true disciples have done ever since over 2000 years of the Catholic Church.  Moreover, Acts shows us the disciples united in prayer with Mary.  By the way, today the 8th September is the feast of the Birth of the Virgin Mary.

No Proto, if you pick and choose isolated verses here and there you can argue anything.  Please take the entire New Testament as a whole leaving nothing out and you will find full and authentic Catholicism.

Read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus for a conversation between two “dead” people, one of whom is trying to help his brothers who are still living.  So there is your text about those who have died interceding for us from the very lips of Jesus Himself.  It is amazing what you will find in the New Testament if you take the time.

Proto Again you miss the point.  The dead may be dead from our perspective but to God “all are truly living”.  The point of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is that there is a chasm between the two because one is in heaven abnd the other in Hell.  It is the rich man in Hell who can’t do anything for his brothers but asks Lazarus to go and warn them.  This parable of Jesus does suggest that that is a possibility.  The reason that Lazarus decides not to go to warn them is that he feels that not even a resurrection from the dead would convince them.

Your point is well made about who is where though.  however, a very early tradition, remembers the apostles on their day of martyrdom, so the cult of the Saints quickly grew in the Church.  This became more formalised through the process of canonised saints.  So we can be sure on earth that the canonised Saints are in Heaven, alive, not dead, so they can intercede for us.  It is a matter of faith:  early creeds i believe….in the Communion of Saints.  Isn’t it great to have their company, even though we can’t see them. 

We can of course go to God on our own, noything stopping us.  But it appears that God wants us to go as a community with mutual support and prayer as well as the Communion of Saints who have gone before us.  Thats the whole point of Movember 1st All saints or All hallows Day.

John K,

You said, “They were in unity, as were all the other uniate churches which developed in the next centuries.  There were no doctrinal differences.”

John, not only does this describe things they had drifted away to do in unison, it specifically uses the word “doctrine,” also.  As in (Rev 2:14) “But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, ....”

The “doctrine of Balaam” was not a good doctrine.  Christ holds that against them, because they held the doctine of Balaam.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Proto Again you miss the point.  The dead may be dead from our perspective but to God “all are truly living”.  We are not praying to dead saints.  That is the big mistake you are making.  “Life is changed (in death) not ended”  Surely you believe in life everlasting. 
The point of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is that there is a chasm between the two because one is in heaven abnd the other in Hell.  It is the rich man in Hell who can’t do anything for his brothers but asks Lazarus to go and warn them.  This parable of Jesus does suggest that that is a possibility.  The reason that Lazarus decides not to go to warn them is that he feels that not even a resurrection from the dead would convince them.

Your point is well made about who is where though.  however, a very early tradition, remembers the apostles on their day of martyrdom, so the cult of the Saints quickly grew in the Church.  This became more formalised through the process of canonisation of saints.  So we can be sure on earth that the canonised Saints are in Heaven, alive, not dead, so they can intercede for us.  It is a matter of faith:  early creeds i believe….in the Communion of Saints.  Isn’t it great to have their company, even though we can’t see them. 

We can of course go to God on our own, noything stopping us.  But it appears that God wants us to go as a community with mutual support and prayer as well as the Communion of Saints who have gone before us.  Thats the whole point of Movember 1st All saints or All hallows Day.

John K,

You asked about crosses.  One church I attend has a cross in front.  There is no reverence given to it.  The other church has no markings.

No, no one is bowing to any symbol or statue—there are no statues.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

“John- the rich man and Lazarus is not about prayer. If anything it is
against praying to the dead since there is a great chasm between the two.”

Wrong again Proto.  Do you believe in everlasting life?  The fruit of Christ’s Resurrecetion.?  If so, then its wrong to speak of the saints as dead.  They are very much alive as Revelation tells us before the throne of the Lamb.  Their activity is to praise God but they als intercede for the living.  So it is right that we should ask for their intercession on our behalf.  Indeed, it is a great impoverishment for you to ignore the Saints and their powerfulintercession on our behalf.  The Scriptures nowhere suggest that the Saints are dead.  Wisdom “the souls of the virtuous are in the hamds of God”.  Itsall ther Proto, really, but you must read the whole Scripture and not just disjointed select verses here and there.

John—you are assuming something without any facts. Just because God knows does not mean the dead can be communicated with. That is exactly what you are claiming when you pray to someone who has died. Just because we have eternal life does mean we can communicate with some else who does. Jesus in His parable on Lazarus has nothing to do with prayer. This is one of the problems within the Catholic church when it comes to Scripture. They don’t exegete passages to understand what passages mean.  Instead they take various passages out of context to support doctrines that have nothing to do with the passage itself. This passage on Lazarus is a case in point.
How does your church know who is in heaven?

John—praying to the saints is not about ever lasting but about communication between them and us. That is the issue and as you know Scripture never teaches nor exhorts such a thing. You claim I misread the Scripture and just select verses here and there. That you have not demonstrated. You are the one who is making the claim that we should pray to the dead (of this world) not me. Its up to you to show any teaching or exhortation from the Lord Jesus or His apostles that we are to do so. So far you have not done so.

Proto:  It is ok to speak of exegesis but you must bear in mind that it was the Catholic church which wrote the new Testament in the first place and also decided the canonicity of the New Testament.  The Church was around for quite a few decades before the New Testament was fully written.  It supersededs the New Testament in time.

You are in serious error to disregard the tradition of the Church which was there before, during and after the writing of the New Testament.  There is a long tradition of the intercessory role of the saints in heaven where they not dead but alive - if they are alive to God - they ARE INDEED alive.

i cannot accept your analysis that the Church went into doctrinal error for 1500 years.  That just makes a mockery of the proise of the guidance of the Spirit as well as Chris’s Prayer to the Father to consecrate his apostles and us (those who believe through their word) in the Truth.  It is just not credible that the Father would have waited around for 1500 years before answering the Son’s prayer.

Finally, you use crosses in your Church.  Are not these graven images?  Do you reverence them in any way?  Or are the crosses there but ignored by everyone?

John- It is true the Christ used the church of the 4th century to finalize what the NT canon would be. This has nothing to do with proper exegesis of the Scripture. How long something has been believed or taught is no indication of its truthfulness. The practice of praying to the saints is not grounded in Scripture by any stretch but is based on the speculations of men. Remember that Jesus and His apostles warned that there would be false teachers would come into the church and deceive many. The way you can know if there is a false teaching or not is to compare it with Scripture. Did Jesus or His apostles teach it? In the case of praying to the saints they did not. As I have said there is no hint of an exhortation that we are to pray to them. You cannot claim to believe in the words of Christ and His apostles if you are praying to the saints.
We do not use crosses in my church nor reverence them in any way.

John K,

You write, “..i cannot accept your analysis that the Church went into doctrinal error for 1500 years…”

It seems the way you are thinking what “Church” means and its definition and contexts that is leading to the problem.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

No Proto,

The Chursch is not an airy fairy ad hoc organisation that people can say they belong to it or not.  The Church is a historical reality where membership is clearly defined.

Because something is not explicitly stated in the New Testament is not a valid criterion for any practice in the Church.  I have already pointed out to you that the Church wass around for some decades before the New Testament started to be written.  It managed without the New Testament.  Hence it is invalid and illogical to insist that only what is explicitly stated in Scripture can be accepted.  Do you add “For thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory for ever and ever. Amen” to the Lord’s Prayer? Yes? No? If you do, its not on the lips of Jesus but was added to the Lord’s prayer.

A really good explanation of how doctrine grows and develops as opposed to what is not a faithful development is to be found in John Henry Newman:  The Development of Doctrine.  That will give you a good understanding of the development of the Catholic Church over the first four centuries or so.  Not everything is in the Scriptures Even John says “There are many other things that Jesus said and did but they are not in this book”  and Jesus Himself said “

“you will do even greater things than me”

@John Kinsella, I doubt very much if you will receive any sort of response to your satisfaction from Proto1 or garyk51188 regarding the crosses in Protestant churches.  I was raised there and believe me, in my experience there was never anything remotely like reverence to the fixture in the building.  It was more of an identifier, if you will, of their theological position.  Some evangelical churches do not even have a cross, within or without the building.  In fact, their aversion to the idea of consecrated things for God’s service leads them to treat the building itself as no more really than any other building.  There is consistency there that I will give them credit for, in and of itself.
The closest thing you will find to the Biblical concept of material things being blessed and consecrated for sacred use is in the high Anglican (sometimes called Anglo-Catholic) and perhaps some Lutheran churches.  Part and parcel of the evangelical mindset is a spiritualizing to the point almost of strict intellectualizing of the New Covenant.  For the evangelical Protestant there is a break between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant that encompasses not only law but liturgy and any possible recognition of the integrated physical and spiritual nature of humanity.  (There is a forgetfulness of Christ’s statement that he came not to abolish the Old Covenant but to fulfill it) It is almost Manichean (spirit good/matter evil) in some respects, a dualism between body and soul that makes St. Paul’s teaching on the resurrection and much of eschatology somewhat thin gruel.
Thus, any thought of sacraments as the Holy Spirit acting through matter to effect grace in us is abhorrent, much less the sacramentals or consecrated spaces such as the sanctuary or tabernacle of a Church.
Because their theology is the world of “Sola’s” or the “alones”; scripture alone, faith alone, etc. we can truly say that ours is the fulness of the faith in the Catholic Church, because thankfully the Apostles and their disciples did what they were told and passed it on, taking their authority from Christ seriously.
Not to worry.  Proto1, for one, believes in Sola Scripture, giving a description in a much earlier post when I asked for it, and I am sure would not mind my pointing it out.  Based on that, what we have here then is in the first instance simply a disagreement over the meaning or interpretation of Scripture. 
But remember this John, the SS adherent’s interpretation and demands to show it in Scripture carry no more weight of authority, according to the doctrine of Sola Scripture, than do yours.  As such he is limited because he does not have access to anything other than written revelation, and that of his own selection.  There are a couple of key verses that have been brought out here from the New Testament, the whole of which he recognizes as authoritative.
One such being St. Paul’s exhortation to the Thessalonians to guard the “traditions” whether oral or written (2 Thess 2:15)  But there are other indicators, by our understanding of Scripture (which his doctrine of SS cannot argue with) that the Holy Spirit would guide and keep his Church from error and this until the end of time. (John 16:13, Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15) 
All the SS adherent can say is that we are interpreting the Scripture in error. As you rightly point out, for the rational man, stepping back and looking at the history of the Church, 1500 years of error until suddenly Luther, Calvin, et al finally come along to set things right?  That mocks Christ’s promise. 
So now we have established that our interpretation of Scripture leads us to look to the authority of the Church.  They will often say, where is all of this Tradition, where is it written down?  The first question in response is, why must it be written down?  That is the mentality of the SS working.  They have already rejected the authority Christ set over us, so they cannot believe that authority would be able to keep and transmit the truth.
However, the tradition is available to them in various ways.  The writings of the fathers, the prayers of the Church, the liturgy itself, the encyclicals, the councils, most of all the Holy Eucharist itself.  But even so, the Church has kindly summarized vast parts of the faith in the CCC.  It is all there.
So there you have it, from Scripture alone, to the Scripture’s instruction to look beyond Scripture to the Church, to the Catholic Church.  A natural progression starting from the SS framework itself.
The beauty of it is that neither Proto1 nor garyk51188 have the authority, by their own doctrine, to assert anything other than their own difference of opinion on Scripture.  On the other hand, by the authority that they recognize, we can point to a further authority, which makes all of their complaints about the doctrines they abhor, quite simply well behind the curve.

John- you are incorrect in thinking that “I have already pointed out to you that the Church wass around for some decades before the New Testament started to be written.  It managed without the New Testament.” is not true. Before the NT was written down the church had the OT Scripture and the apostles themselves to guide the church. Even during the time of the apostles we know the letters of Paul for example was already considered Scripture.
The last part of the Lord’ prayer is not necessary to believe this was spoken by Jesus because of the reason you gave. It does not effect the prayer or any doctrine. It is true we do not have the complete and exhaustive teachings of Christ. John alludes to this. No one knows what else Jesus taught that is not recorded in the NT. You certainly cannot base any teaching on it since we don’t know what it was.
I am aware of The Development of Doctrine. With such a theory anything could be claimed. The problem is that when new doctrines are proposed it still has to be properly grounded in Scripture. If it can’t be, then its the teachings of men and we already see this in the Marian doctrines for example.

LJ,

You said, also refering to John K, “.... for the rational man, stepping back and looking at the history of the Church, 1500 years of error until suddenly Luther, Calvin, et al finally come along to set things right?  That mocks Christ’s promise….”

This is not the way either Proto or myself are discussing this.  You speak of it as if it were a franchise, and after 1500 years, by your analogy, Luther, et.al., come and buy it to carry it forward.

Hints that this is not an “exclusive” franchise resonate with the “doctrine”—yes “doctrine”—problems already referenced in the Scripture.

There is the Truth which those in the church “catholic”—universal—are trying to serve.  The Lord places His lampstands, the HS, with those churches (who are a part of the church universal), where they reach some minimum recognition of what they should do vs other things that creep in (by men).

He references such behavior and threatens—or encourages—them that in a particular instance, in a particular church (one of those within the church universal) that for them, individually, them may have HS removed.

This would be a terrible thing.  But, consider how poorly men are behaving in their work—that is leading the church—that it would have to come to this.

The Revelation quotes point to a subset of “essentials” that must be met, regardless of the other traditions men stack on top.  It is those “essentials” that reveal who the “true” church—the universal body of believers—are. 

No one man made organization or address owns the “franchise.”  Believers are that One Bread and that One Body where ever they are.  And, Christ owns them—us—as His Bride.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

LJ and John K,

And, just following the previous discussion a bit.  As referenced in Revelation with the various churches and the various doctrinal problems, He is even willing to put up with our man made nonsense a bit to leave the HS with some who are clearly behaving poorly.

Men mess things up.  Even so, He is True and will preserve us, as He promised.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Sorry, correction.  “Believers partake in that One Bread (which is Christ) and are that One Body where ever and whoever they are.”

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

LP- You state-“But there are other indicators, by our understanding of Scripture (which his doctrine of SS cannot argue with) that the Holy Spirit would guide and keep his Church from error and this until the end of time. (John 16:13, Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15)” Again, you need to exegete these passages to show indeed that this means the church cannot err. John 16:13 is not to a church but a promise Jesus is making to His disciples. Matt 16:18 nor I Tim 3:15 have nothing to do with Christ keeping the church from error. What we do know from Scripture in a number of places that there would be false teachers that would come into the church and deceive many. See Acts 20:28-30, 2 Peter 2:1 coupled with the fact Jesus rebukes a couple of churches for holding to false teachings.
We already know that Catholics cannot claim their interpretations are infallible even by their own standards since the leadership of the Roman Catholic church has never infallibly interpreted the Scripture. You can claim to point to some kind of “further authority” whoever that may be but that authority is not equal nor greater than the Scripture. That’s why we can say any doctrine not grounded in Scripture is not apostolic nor authoritative because it is the teachings of the speculations of men. They carry no weight.

@garyk51188,
“As referenced in Revelation with the various churches and the various doctrinal problems, He is even willing to put up with our man made nonsense a bit to leave the HS with some who are clearly behaving poorly.”
An interesting admission if you would include the man-made doctrines of the Sola’s, the pillars of Protestantism.
The issue, as always, is authority.  To put it bluntly, Protestants of the first generation at least were acting in disobedience to Christ.  There is no other way to slice it.  Successive generations have less moral culpability through the blinders of ignorance, a teaching of the Catholic Church in Vatican II by the way.
We are reminded of Christ’s exhortation to his followers to follow the teaching of those in religious authority, on the seat of Moses, but not their moral example.
Either way, we are not talking about a franchise.  We are talking about the authority of Jesus Christ establishing a real physical Church with a real earthly leadership.  Each and every parish or diocese of the Catholic Church is not a franchise but one part of the body of Christ, as St. Paul teaches.  Is it beyond the realm of possibility that Christ could so order his Church and give the Holy Spirit to protect her from teaching error in faith and morals?  Is God not that powerful?  Is it the Protestant contention that the Holy Spirit does not have that ability or power?
If that is the case the Protestant God is not the God of Scripture at all.  Or perhaps it is simply a question, not of “could” he do it that way, but rather “did” he do it that way?
Ask yourself the same questions about all of the contentious issues, including the point of Mark Shea’s original post here regarding the doctrines about Mary.  Could God have done it that way?  Could Mary have been protected from original sin at her conception by a singular act of the Savior, a gift to his mother?  Could Jesus actually be present body, soul and divinity in the Holy Eucharist by an act of the Holy Spirit through the words of consecration by a priest ordained in the succession of the Apostles?  Could the Holy Spirit fulfill the promise of Christ to protect the earthly head of the Church, the prime minister to whom the King gave the keys, from teaching error in faith and morals?  Do you think any of this impossible for God?
And if you think it all is possible, then you have only left the question, did God design it this way?  Remember, if he did so, and you are not under the authority of Christ’s ordained head of the Church, you are in a de-facto state of disobedience to Christ.  That is how important the question really is.
I have already pointed out that by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura you can have no authority to determine that the Catholic Church is wrong in her reading of New Testament Scripture, even if you reject that it is her book, from the very apostles and disciples of the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of whom all our bishops and priests and deacons are the successors to this day, by the laying on of hands in the sacrament of ordination.
By your own doctrine of Sola Scriptura we have equal standing with you in authority over the reading and understanding of that Scripture.  There can be no equivocation on that.  Either you must accept our standing or you do not believe that Scripture is the authority but that some particular interpretation of that Scripture is authoritative.  You cannot have it both ways.
So your reading is no more valid than ours, no more so than it is more valid than those others who believe in SS but disagree on yes, “essentials” like the necessity of baptism for salvation.
So when you say that any given doctrine of the Catholic Church is in error, I refer you once more to 1 Timothy 3:15, John 16:13 and Matthew 16:18 and by the authority of Scripture ala SS, I tell you that the Scripture itself gives the authority to the Church and promises to protect it from error, so your point is then moot.
You have no more authority than your own opinion to say otherwise.
Then you have to ask yourself, is my opinion the right one?  Who told me what it is that I believe and how can I believe them?  If you wish to claim that you are part of the small-c “catholic” Church while in rebellion against the head that Christ established, you must then demonstrate from Scripture, your only authority, that God through his Holy Spirit is indeed a God of chaos, disorder, fragmentation and disunity of doctrine.
Many evangelical Protestants I know will say that the Holy Spirit will guide and enlighten our mind in understanding Scripture rightly.  Well and good, but we make the same claim, that the Holy Spirit is the guide of the Church and has been since the beginning.  So we are no further ahead.  Either the Holy Spirit is a trickster or some of us have injected our own opinion.  But the early Church concurs, as we have ample evidence, with the doctrines of the present day Catholic Church. 
Some have derided the development of doctrine as a license for anything but the evidence is there for anyone to see that there is doctrinal continuity from day one and any development is based on the original doctrine which still stands.  Nothing has changed.  It is akin to Christ telling the apostles that 1+1=2 and 2000 years later we are talking about the teaching that 2*1=2 and someone yells out that we have made that up.  That is the development of doctrine. 
So either the Apostles got it wrong very early on, or perhaps Luther, Calvin, et al got it wrong.  I know where I stand, and it ain’t with Luther.

You can claim to point to some kind of “further authority” whoever that may be but that authority is not equal nor greater than the Scripture.

That is an assertion on your part Proto1, which disagrees with the authority you claim.  1 Timothy 3:15

LJ Thank you for a very cllear statement of how untenable the SS position is.  You rightly now point out what a serious obligation Proto and Gary have to examine their opinion or that of their pet exegete.  Now that they have entered into this discussion inthis depth, they have an obligation before God almighty to ask themselves could their assumptions be flawed.  You have given them 3 quotations from the New Testament about the promise of inerrancy through the Holy Spirit.  They have dismissed Newman’s Development of Doctrine out of hand and I know that they have never read it.  Were they to do so with an open mind, they would see how, by the 4th century, the Catholic Church was a faithdful development of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.  Other movements in doctrine were not, such as Arianism.  Like plants that have no roots, they eventually die away.  The Truth of the Lord stands firm forever.  To follow the man made doctrine of SS is in fact an insult to Christ and the Holy Spirit for it is saying as you state that God is a God of chaos and confusion.  No the widespread growth of Protestant Churches, some in contradiction with each other, can hardly have been what Christ prayed for at his Last Supper.

Gary and Proto, on this feast of Mary’s Nativity, I pray for you both that you may examine the assumptions on which you base your lives, open yourselves to be consecrated in the Truth, and be led by the Holy Spirit into the True Catholic Church.  I know this may be a painful decision, But I pray that you will have the special care of the Mother of Jesus, to whiom Jesus entrusted John and by extension all future disciples.  God guide you both now.

John- When are you and LP going to exegete a passage of Scripture and show that the authors of Scripture mean what your church doctrines profess? LP gives me John 16:13 as meaning that the church cannot err. Why don’t you or him-her show Gary and me the exegesis of the passage that demonstrates that? Or lets discuss the passages that show that Mary was sinless. If your doctrines are true then proper exegesis of the Scripture will support the doctrine. Can I depend on you to show us your exegesis of Scripture that supports either doctrine?

Proto1 says; “Again, you need to exegete these passages to show indeed that this means the church cannot err. John 16:13 is not to a church but a promise Jesus is making to His disciples. Matt 16:18 nor I Tim 3:15 have nothing to do with Christ keeping the church from error.”
That is your opinion Proto1, on those passages.  Again, by what authority do you give it?  I give my opinion based on the fact that the Church was already given the authority before those passages were even written.
“What we do know from Scripture in a number of places that there would be false teachers that would come into the church and deceive many. See Acts 20:28-30, 2 Peter 2:1 coupled with the fact Jesus rebukes a couple of churches for holding to false teachings.”
Absolutely.  Such as Manicheanism, gnosticism generally (warned of in St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy, chapter 4 when he talks of those who will forbid marriage and the eating of meat) Arianism, Protestantism and so forth.
As the universal Church battled heresies you will note that in the councils they relied on the teaching of the Apostles and the authority of the bishop of Rome.  It’s all there in Church history starting with the heresy of the Judaizers in the Book of Acts being dealt with in the first council at Jerusalem, even before Peter went to Rome.
In that connection we find in Galations 1 St. Paul’s use of the word that has so offended Protestants over the years having read the Council of Trent;
(8)But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
(9)As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
We Catholics have always taken that very seriously.  Amen.

LP- you ask-“Ask yourself the same questions about all of the contentious issues, including the point of Mark Shea’s original post here regarding the doctrines about Mary.  Could God have done it that way?  Could Mary have been protected from original sin at her conception by a singular act of the Savior, a gift to his mother?  Could Jesus actually be present body, soul and divinity in the Holy Eucharist by an act of the Holy Spirit through the words of consecration by a priest ordained in the succession of the Apostles?  Could the Holy Spirit fulfill the promise of Christ to protect the earthly head of the Church, the prime minister to whom the King gave the keys, from teaching error in faith and morals?  Do you think any of this impossible for God?”
Asking a question does not prove that God did in fact do these things.  Its up to you to show by proper exegesis of the Scripture that Mary was concieved without sin or kept from sin.  Or take any of the questions you raise above and lets exegete the passages you use to see if they really do teach what you claim. Are you willing to do this?

LP- Correct exegesis has nothing to do with authority. We can study the Scriptures ourselves since there are so many good tools to do so to understand what the authors of Scripture meant in there original contexts. Can you give me your opinion and the back up for why you think John 16:13 teaches that the church can never err?

In regards to the gospel, what must a Catholic do to be saved or go to heaven?

Yes Proto its simple.  Christ prayed that his disciples should be one, not in a merely human fraternity but One as the Father and Son are one.  The meaning is clear enough.

Christ also prayed that His disciples be Consecrated in the TRuth and I dont think The Father would keep the Son waiting 1500 years.

There are doctrines of the Catholic Faith that are not explicitly in the Scriptures and this is not a problem for a Church that has the guarantee of inerrancy.  Newman has shown how doctrine did in fact develop.  His Development of Doctrine is a book you should study.  The Catholic Church supersedes the New Testament by several decades before the first writings appeared.  You respond to this by saying they had the Old Testament and the teaching of the apostles.  Where was the Scriptural justification for the teaching of the apostles?  There was none as they themselves were creating the Scriptures.  Your mention of the Old Testament bringsa point tomind as well.  The decision not to burden converts with the law of circumcision eh Proto - hear the apostles are going directly against the teaching of the Old Testament (and there was no New Testament around yet).  So SS is clearly refuted by the decision of the Council of Jerusalem - A Council of the Church deciding AGAINST what was in the only corpus of Scripture available the Old Testament.  And even Jesus was circumcised.  How could a Council of the Church make such a decision?  Clearly they were not bound by Sola Scriptura, because this man made false doctrine was still 1500 years down the line.  You see Proto, the Church from the beginning never used Sola Scriptura - they didn’t need that as they had the guarantee of inerrancy in doctrine through the comtinuous guidance of the Holy Spirit, “leading them into all truth”.

Proto1, you keep asking for exegesis of Scripture verses.  But we have already told you what they mean.  You are coming from the pre-conception that the Catholic Church has no authority in faith and morals, and I am coming from the opposite conviction.  Do you really think that going through codified dance of “exegesis”, you from the perspective of Protestant “exegetes” and I from the point of view of Catholic “exegetes” is going to resolve anything other than to say that we still disagree on the interpretation of Scripture?
You are missing the point entirely.  It is your doctrine that binds you, but it does not bind me.  I see abundant evidence in Scripture to realize that the authority of Scripture is in conjunction with the Tradition of the Apostles handed down and the ongoing teaching authority of the Church.  So I have moved on from strictly the authority of the Scripture.
Exegesis or no exegesis, you still stand only on your opinion (or those of your teachers) of the meaning of Scripture, as I do on mine.  So far we are equal.  Your exegesis carries no further authority than you or any other non-Catholic Christian for I know that exegesis by Protestants produces a vast array of results, evidence enough for the lack of authority.
I am under no such constraint.  New Testament Scripture, written by the Apostles and their disciples, is always and only authentically understood in the light of the authoritative teaching of those same Apostles who received that authority from Christ himself, and then passed it on for 2000 years.  That is exegesis. 
So once again, you can demand this or that, but you will never truly understand what Sola Scriptura really entails or how self-contradictory it is, until you realize that you yourself are coming from a tradition, a bias, which no assertion of the authority of Scripture can overcome.  When you assert your exegesis what you are really asserting is the “authenticity” of your exegesis.  I will not play that game, because I am going back to the root and challenging you to examine the very source of your own doctrines, the tradition that was handed down to you.

“Asking a question does not prove that God did in fact do these things.  Its up to you to show by proper exegesis of the Scripture that Mary was concieved without sin or kept from sin.  Or take any of the questions you raise above and lets exegete the passages you use to see if they really do teach what you claim. Are you willing to do this?”
So I take it then you accept that all these things are possible, that God could do them if he so wished?
It is not up to me at all, Proto1 to demonstrate all doctrines from Scripture.  The shoe is on the other foot actually.  You must demonstrate from Scripture that Scripture is indeed the sole rule of faith, the sole authority.  That is your assertion, your presumption.  Tell me where you got that teaching.
Meanwhile, I accept the authority of the Apostles and their successors to teach, including those things that are not explicit in Scripture, in part because I see that authority taught in Scripture and re-enforced in the 2000 year practice of the Church.

LJ- I know what your church says they mean. Now lets exegete the passage and see if this is what the author meant. Like I said, if your doctrine-belief is true the exegesis of the passage will support it. If its not true, it won’t. Are you willing to put the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church to the test of Scripture? So far it appears you are not.

John- you also have failed to exegete any passages of Scripture to support the doctrines of your church in regards to Mary etc. Let’s exegete the passages that are used to support the sinlessness of Mary and see if they indeed do so. Show me and Gary that the Scriptures do indeed teach that Mary was without sin via exegesis of the Scripture. Can you do that? From there we can look at what the fathers said about her etc. Are you up for this?

Proto:  I am not myself an exegete but camn I offer you an attempt at exegesis

In an earlier post, you mentioned that your understanding of the Eucharist is that of a “memorial”.  Jesus: “do this as a memorial of me”.  You statethat it isa simple memorial and its ok to use grape juice but lets not go there again.  You hold this memorial once a month against the Catholic tradition of a daily Eucharist and an obligation on Catholics to assemble for the memorial at least on Sundays - every Sunday - not just once a month.  How Sola Scriptura led you to just once a month heaven alone knows as it is clear that the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist on the first day of tthe week which would have been Sunday to mark it fromthe Jewish Sabbath (Saturday).  Thisis clear in the Gospels, the disciples met on the first day of the week.  Why you don’t celebrate the Eucharist on the first day of every week baffles me as a Sola Scriptura view would call for this.  However, lets not get side tracked.

You limit the Euucharist to a memorial implying remembering a past event.  However, exegesis of memorial leads us to a different view.  The Jewish concept of “zikkaron” was not remembering a past event (such a view of time is quite modern and would have been the view of time prevailing at the time of the Reformation)

The Jewish concept of “zilkkaron” is the making present NOW of a continuing saving event.  Thus the Passover from slavery in Egypt to the promised land was not an event of the past but something that defined who the Jews were now - today.  Thus, to be a Jew is to have “come up out of Egypt”.  Similarly, for Catholics, the Mass viewed as a memorial is not looking back 2000 years but the making present NOW of the saving action of Christ.  It is not a remembering in the modern sense of that word, but the making present NOW of the saving Christ, The REal Presence.

How about that Proto for my attempt at exegesis, which I believe is well founded by modern expert exegetes.

Proto Looking for texts in Scripture to justify Mary’s silessness is futile.  There are OT texts that by application prefigure this but this is too broad an issue for our purposes.

How many times do I need to state that Catholics do not need an explicit Scriptural text as there is the guarantee of Christ that the Church is inerrant in doctrinal matters.  You repitition of the need for Scriptural justification has worn very thin as you cannot explain why the Council of Jerusalem actually departed from the only Scripture they had, what we call the Old Testament, and declared that circucision was no longer of obligation, even given that Jesus was Himself circumcised.  You have evaded answering this question which clearly shows that the Apostles were not bound by Sola Scriptura.  Your position is now defeated and refuted.  Consider coverting to the one true Catholic Church.  I am sure you will find a home there and I am prasying for your conversion over the next few weeks. It will be grreat for us to be brothers at the Lord’s Table.

Proto

This is not about winning an argument. (Although I have, from the Scriptures, demonstrated that the Apostles were not working from a Sola Scriptura position when, at the Council of Jerusalem, they departed from the only Scripture available to them, the Old Testament, and dispensed from the obligation of circumcision, even though Jesus Himself had been circumcised).  Clearly this was not Sola Scriptura.

I alsooffered some exegesis regarding the Real Presence in the Eucharist through exegesis of the concept of “zikkaron”.  You must now be honest, and ask the Holy Spirit where you should now be going given that your funamental premise of Sola Scriptura has been exposed.  As you have entered this controversy so deeply, you have an obligation to seek the Truth. I will pray for you in this venture.

“LJ- I know what your church says they mean. Now lets exegete the passage and see if this is what the author meant. Like I said, if your doctrine-belief is true the exegesis of the passage will support it. If its not true, it won’t. Are you willing to put the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church to the test of Scripture? So far it appears you are not.”
Correction.  Not my Church, but Christ’s.  His body, his bride.
It seems you missed a couple of my posts Proto1.  I will reiterate.  Your exegesis is based on your doctrinal belief system.  Of course your exegesis will not support Catholic doctrine.  We all know that already. 
We also know that the New Testament was written by Catholics through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and assembled by the Catholic Church and signed off on by the visible head of that Church, the Pope.  Because of that we also know ahead of time that any specific exegesis that contradicts the Catholic faith is in error, because it therefore conflicts with the teaching of the Apostles.  This is not a doctrinal discovery process in 2011.  The doctrine has already been taught by the Apostles from Christ.  The Scripture supports it or it would never have made it into the Canon to begin with.
You speak of exegesis as if it were something neutral and authoritative in and of itself.  That is the game I will not play with you.  Again, I challenge you to show demonstrate Sola Scriptura, from Scripture of course because any other way would defeat the doctrine before it begins.  Exegete that, if you will.

Gary and Proto

This is not about winning arguments.  This is a much too serious matter for that.  You have both come onto a Catholic website for whatever reasons.  However, having done so and engaged quite deeply in discussion, you are now faced with a difficult decision.  I have exposed the difficulties of Sola Scriptura from acts, where the Apostles were not bound by a Sola Scriptura position based on the only available Scripture of the Old Testament.  Clearly, they did not feel constrained by the Old Testament: “it has been decided by theHoly Spirit and us….”.  So Sola Scriptura is refuted by the Scriptures themselves.  You must now pray for guidance and I will be praying that the Holy Spirit will lead you both to all Truth.

LJ

Itappears that Proto and Gary cannot respond.  This is far too serious for argument.  Please pray with me that both Gary and Proto will be guided to the one True Faith

John—give me your definition of Sola Scriptura. I want to make sure you understand what it means.

LJ and John K,

You both are failing to address the very issues you raise.  We know what you say you believe.  Fine.  And, yes, God can do anything.  He could have created the “goddess” Diana in Ephesus, too, so that those folks wouldn’t have been pagans.  But, He didn’t.

An open ended question on what God “can” do doesn’t prove anything.  What He says He “did” do is recorded in Scripture.  He says in His own inspired words to believe them and use them for reproof and correction.  What good would they be if not for that?

You also avoid addressing what are the “essentials” of saving faith.  You know Proto and I accept Christ as our Lord and Savior and rely on God’s promises and Christ’s blood for our own salvation.  Proto has asked you.  I have asked you.  Do you believe we are not saved?

No one addressed the fellow in Corinth that the church kicked out for behaving so badly in the sin category that the Gentiles didn’t even have a word for what he was doing.  They were to deliver him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, but he was going to survive judgement day to be saved.

He was not observing anything properly.  Not during his stay in the church.  And, obviously not afterward.  Yet, even He was saved.  Why?  How did this happen?

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

John- so we agree that there is no scriptural support for the sinlessness for Mary? This means this is not a biblical doctrine nor apostolic doctrine. Agreed?

LJ—you brought up questions about what God can do but you did not come even close to showing that He did indeed do these things. Anyone can speculate on what they think God can do but it is a different matter entirely to show that He did. In fact to claim that God did something and yet did not is the sign of a false teachers.
Where in Scripture does is say that Mary was without sin?

John K,

We are debating here.  Debating among friends, I hope.  We should pray for one another.  My prayers are for you two, as well.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

garyk51188,
Absolutely, we are debating among friends.  If we don’t mince words that is a good thing in my opinion because we know where we stand.  If I don’t respond right away to any given post it is likely that I am away from the computer at work or something like that.

Let me summarize what I have seen in reviewing the posts from the top.  Mark Shea has given a very interesting discussion of a topic that many converts from Protestantism find difficult to wrap their heads around and that is the Catholic doctrines of Mary’s role in the Church and God’s plan of salvation.  In my own case my understanding of these doctrines came over time with primarily meditation on the incarnation itself and all its ramifications.  For a complete study of these doctrines Mark Shea has an excellent book on the subject. (Which he offered to Proto1 free of charge several times!)
In the course of the posts the objections from you garyk51188 and Proto1 have centered and reverted back to the Scriptures with the underlying constant premise that if it is not explicit in Scripture, it is not Apostolic and not to be believed.  That premise we know as Sola Scriptura, a doctrine I am familiar with because I was raised with it.  Here’s Proto1’s summary of that doctrine;
“LJ- I thought you knew what the doctrine was since you claim its a tradition of men. Primarily the doctrine has to do with the nature of the Scriptures themselves which are inspired-inerrant Word of God and thereby its teachings are binding on all men. No church, man or tradition is inspired-inerrant. Only the Scriptures are. It alone is the ultimate authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Since the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant all other authorities are subservient to it.”  (And I still claim that it is a tradition of men originating in the sixteenth century.)
By the way, Proto1 came into this discussion at post number 4 beginning with this statement;
“There is so much error here that its hard to know where to begin.”  I will give Proto1 credit for tenacity, if nothing else.
We have been round and round and round again, covering the same issues, the same tangents, ad nauseum but as I said, again and again it comes back for the both of you to Sola Scriptura, a tradition of men of the sixteenth century who could no longer accept the authority of the Church that Christ had established and needed an authority to replace it.  “Show that to me in Scripture.”  That statement right there carries the presumption with it of SS.  “Exegete that.”  That carries the same presumption.
Therefore, as I have said many times in many posts, on a Catholic site, in taking up Catholics in discussion it is disingenuous not to declare your presumptions and demonstrate them, for you are then not debating on the same ground.  I have pointed out those presumptions and in earlier discussions of the subject nothing conclusive was ever demonstrated.  I pointed out also that in the case of Sola Scriptura I, for one, would accept proof from Scripture of that doctrine, because any other source of proof would be self-defeating.  I recognize that.

garyk51188,
In the meantime, any attempts to hold Catholics accountable to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is, as I said, disingenuous, because it assumes a doctrine not demonstrated.
Many here have given various descriptions, myself included, regarding the origin of the New Testament, but with very little acknowledgement from your side of the role of the Holy Spirit in not only inspiring the writers but guiding the Church leaders after the fact in selecting the inspired works and discarding the spurious and heretical.  It is a matter of historical record how it all happened, including the councils that defined so many elements of the faith that Protestants accept without finding them explicitly in the Scriptures.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the Protestant faith in the many monks and scribes who all through the early Church and middle ages faithfully copied the Scriptures before presses were invented.  It strikes me odd that if the Catholic Church got off the rails in that period and started concocting non-Apostolic doctrine, you would think that they would go right ahead and doctor the Scriptures to concur.  Really, how can you be certain that the Scriptures you have are accurate at all?  Everything that any Scripture scholar has in the twenty-first century was preserved by that bastion of error, the Catholic Church.
Sarcasm aside, Sola Scriptura is hardly ever really practiced by its adherents in its purest sense, because each and every denomination and group has its own traditions and those have been passed on, including SS itself.
I invite you to examine that premise and its origins.  It is a self-deception to presume that non-Catholic Christians agree on essentials.  I know for a fact that they don’t.  I was raised hearing the arguments.  That fact alone should be sufficient to question SS.  Proto1 keeps asking for exegesis but until Protestants can agree on their own exegesis it is a hollow demand.  If the doctrine were true there would be no disagreement among Protestants.  They would all be unified in doctrine and we know that the opposite is the case.  They have been fragmenting on doctrine at an exponential rate over the past 500 years.
Proto1 has said that it is not about authority.  Of course it is.  That is all this is about.  If you are seeking the truth that is absolutely what you need.  SS is a statement of authority.  And in the end, as I have pointed out many times here, SS is about the adherent’s own interpretation of Scripture, or more specifically, their tradition’s reading of Scripture.  As Mark Shea put it;
“You are making agile use of the semi-permeable membrane of sola scriptura.  Any tradition you wish to uphold, you say, “Scripture does not deny it!”  And tradition you wish to deny, you say, “Scripture does not unequivocally attest it!”  It’s a “Head’s I win, tails you lose” trick which sola scriptura folk use constantly and either never notice or never admit noticing.  Catholics, however, do notice it and aren’t fooled.  It’s of a piece with the Protestant myth of the Perspicuity of Scripture.”
It has all been said here, all the arguments have been made.  The Catholic position is well covered.  The only thing new that any SS adherent can yet present is proof of the doctrine itself, and it does not seem to be forth-coming.

This is what Sola Scriptura is based on: II Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.”
This is one of the clearest examples of Sola Scriptura in Scripture. Here is another from the gospel of Matthew 15:3-6—And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

The authority, inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures does not come from the church but from God Himself. Only His word is inspired-inerrant. No man, no pope, no council and no church is considered inspired-inerrant.
Notice another thing about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. It never speaks of the traditions of men or of any church that is considered inspired-inerrant. This is why the traditions of Rome don’t have the authority as the Scriptures do. They are not inerrant nor inspired. 
It is a tragic failure on Catholics who are either unwilling or unable to exegete the Scriptures. Hiding behind church authority shows the failure of Catholicism.

Lest you think it is Protestants alone who embrace Sola Scriptura here are some comments by church fathers on this issue:
“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.”

LJ- surely you don’t think the Roman Catholic church is unified completely. I was just talking to the head pastor of a Catholic church who does not believe papacy and believes that women should be priest and married.
On issues there is great divisions among Catholics on various issues such as:
were Adam and Eve historical?  The creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 should be interpreted literally or mythically?    Which brand of predestination we should believe? There are as many as four (the views of Augustine, Aquinas, Molina, and Scotus).

A few hundred years ago the Catholic church taught there was no salvation outside the Catholic church. Today that is no longer true.

There are many examples like this that can be shown that Roman Catholics are just as divided as Protestants.

LJ,

The “heads I win, tails you lose” example is interesting.  It’s catchy but really doesn’t describe the situation.

If you believe Scripture is the inspired Word of God, let’s start there.  Do you believe it?

In believing it, if it says a thing, then you want to follow it, correct? It is a pure measure.  It is in black and white.  It’s authenticity is easily identified. 

You know men can say anything.  And, organized leadership has a way of drifting off of what God says do.  Witness God’s message to the Jews and how they were to conduct themselves.  They knew the real God.  They had His word.  It didn’t prevent them from going astray.  So, why would you be shocked if certain churches go off beam?

What Christ says about hell not prevailing against the church is true.  But, any church cannot claim it has the only franchise, the exclusive franchise—the only place where the HS resides.  Revelation talks about at lease seven different churches with the seven lampstands—this is the HS residing with each one.  (At least seven franchises there.)

For one church to claim it alone is God’s choice, it is sounding like the JWs or the Mormons.  Wrapped in that presumed authority, they can say anything they want to those that follow—good, bad, indifferent.  It is toxic and it uses its bully pulpit to dismiss those who disagree.  “We’ve got the permit from God to operate and say these things.  It is exclusive.”

Fine.  Then what is it you are saying and how does it square with what God says.  It is just a litmus test.  Compare something men say with something God says.  What is so hard about that?  It is simple.  And, scripture, by what it says there, tells us to do it.

It seems amazing that his Word isn’t the first place a person would look to find out the Truth.  Have any tradition you want.  Just don’t let it conflict with what God has already said to do.  Isn’t that plenty of room to get the creative juices going in the tradition department?

Yes, before people could read, those of the church preached God’s Word as they understood it.  Or, dare say, some preached it as they found it convenient to their own purposes.  The common man being able to read, now everyone could hold them accountable to some standard.  They couldn’t shy on anyone because people could go check it out themselves.

We don’t dwell on this because God’s Word is enough to say what to do, but you must know full well how people of your church have tried to manipulate things—tradition—to their convenience.  They have made errors, even at the top.  For you to say every thing the Catholic Church has done—its Popes, its leadership—has been spot on perfect, I don’t think you guys would even say that.

So, I don’t understand how you can just say “we have the franchise we’ve never errored.”  This isn’t even true by your own standards.

Proto makes a good point about divisions within the Catholic Church on what is tradition and not, what is important and not.  How does one declare a “winner” in those circumstances if you don’t use God’s Word.  It’s just my leader’s word against yours, in that case.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Excellent, Proto1, and finally!
But what you have in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which Catholics whole-heartedly endorse by the way is simply an affirmation of the value of Scripture.  Popes over the centuries since the Canon was established have encouraged and exhorted Catholics to read Scripture in clear concurrence with this passage. 
In the document Dei Verbum from Vatican II which I quoted in a much earlier post the Church re-states her belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Yet it falls short of the standard of Sola Scriptura which you yourself pointed out; “It alone is the ultimate authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.”
I notice you state that SS is “based on” this passage.  In other words, the Scripture is not explicitly teaching the doctrine.  But the citation from St. Paul I have mentioned several times in his other letter to Timothy (Chapter 3) is much more explicit is it not?  “[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”  And let us look at the context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. 
You will find that it buttresses what St. Paul said to him in his first letter:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
This the tradition once again, the oral teaching, with the authority of St. Paul, the authority of the Church.
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
If we think about this instruction to Timothy we also have to question just how much New Testament was available to him in his childhood.  Perhaps the gospels, perhaps the book of Acts, likely none of it.  For the most part, the Scripture St. Paul was referring to was the Old Testament, the Septuagint.  So from that perspective we might say that using the passage to demonstrate SS is to eliminate most if not all of the New Testament.
No, this passage is far from sufficient to demonstrate SS.
Your second reference from Matthew is fascinating.  It hardly supports SS.  If you wish to get into the Old Covenant law itself we find it does not support your theory either.  In Deuteronomy we read;
“If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another. .. you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God will choose, and, coming to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you. . . and you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you; according to the instructions which they give you. . . you shall not turn aside from the verdict which they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God or the judge, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-12).
So what is the context of this passage in Matthew?  Jesus is excoriating the Pharisees for a practice they had set up to circumvent the Commandment to honor father and mother, part of which meant taking care of them in their old age.  If they said they had consecrated their wealth to God they could still access it but were relieved of the burden of the care of their parents.  Clearly it was a dodge to avoid their moral responsibilities.  We hear the echo of that in 1 Timothy 5:8.  And Jesus is clearly talking about traditions of men, as he does in other places, but he is not teaching SS by any stretch. 
That would be an inference on your part, something that you have complained about to us Catholics over and over.
No cigar yet Proto1.  Is that all you have to demonstrate SS?  It is pretty thin so far.
Let’s consider a similar passage from Ephesians.  St Paul says;
“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11–15).
From this passage we might by the same logic equally infer the sole sufficiency of the ministry (the Church), for it accomplishes the same ends that he speaks of to Timothy.

“If you believe Scripture is the inspired Word of God, let’s start there.  Do you believe it?”
Check out Dei Verbum, I’ve quoted it already.  Scripture is inspired by God, yes.  Jesus is the Word.  Scripture itself tells us that.  John 1 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”  The Word is not simply a book or collection of books.  The Word is a “somebody,” as a famous Catholic preacher used to say.  That distinction is important, believe me.
“It’s authenticity is easily identified.”
We’ve been over this before.  The authenticity of the Scriptures was declared by the Catholic Church. 
“What Christ says about hell not prevailing against the church is true.  But, any church cannot claim it has the only franchise, the exclusive franchise—the only place where the HS resides.  Revelation talks about at lease seven different churches with the seven lampstands—this is the HS residing with each one.  (At least seven franchises there.)”
What is it with the franchises, Gary?  We have been over this before as well.  Each of those particular churches were a part of the universal Church, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  What did St. Paul have to say to the Corinthians?  Was he not chastising them over and over?  And what does that say?  Just what Christ says to some of the seven, get your act together.  And how does this in any way detract from the teaching authority of the Universal Church?  Did you think I was shocked in some way?  I’m not sure I understand you.
“For one church to claim it alone is God’s choice, it is sounding like the JWs or the Mormons.  Wrapped in that presumed authority, they can say anything they want to those that follow—good, bad, indifferent.  It is toxic and it uses its bully pulpit to dismiss those who disagree.  “We’ve got the permit from God to operate and say these things.  It is exclusive.””
Sorry to sound offensive to you, Gary, but I did say that I prefer not to mince words on these matters, it avoids confusion.  The head of the Catholic Church, as Christ the King’s prime minister, does have the authority over all Christians.  How he exercises that authority is a pastoral matter.  Those in the Catholic Church formally are defacto submitting to that authority, and thereby the authority of Christ himself.  The rest are in a state of rebellion, whether they know it or not, or how they wish to rationalize it.  Those are the hard facts of the matter.
God said, man said, dot com?  Are you serious?

“It seems amazing that his Word isn’t the first place a person would look to find out the Truth.  Have any tradition you want.  Just don’t let it conflict with what God has already said to do.  Isn’t that plenty of room to get the creative juices going in the tradition department?”
Here’s where that understanding of the Word is really important.  Jesus, the Word, commissioned his apostles, taught them what they needed to know, some of which was written down, and promised them the Holy Spirit who would guide them into all truth, to remember all that Christ had taught them.  They carried out this mission faithfully, teaching others and ordaining some to follow in their footsteps as Bishops (Timothy was one such) and priests.  The structure was in place from the beginning, with Peter at the head.  Along the way some wrote down the gospel accounts, and as St. Paul wrote letters they began to be circulated as well.  Meanwhile they met with heresies and successive generations of leadership held councils and defined doctrines as was necessary, always signed off on by the Bishop of Rome where Peter had gone and was executed.  They held the Catholic Church together under persecution and all sorts of problems, holding fast to the Apostles teaching and practices.  As the churches began to read the gospel accounts and the letters in the mass it became important to authorize (canonize) which were legit and which were not.  Eventually this work was complete and the New Testament Canon was fixed along with the Septuagint as the legitimate inspired Scripture.  But during this time there were several councils defining exactly who Christ was and is, defining the Mother of God (Theotokos), the creeds and exercising pastoral authority.
It is important to note here that the authority to define and identify the true Church was always with the majesterium of the Catholic Church.  And there is continuity here right back to Christ, all the way along, continuity of doctrine and authority.  The Church predates the New Testament as we have reiterated over and over and you would know if you glanced at Church history.  With St. Augustine we say that the Scripture has authority because the Church has declared it so.
Why is it so difficult to imagine that Christ would give his authority to men?  “As the Father has sent me so I send you.”
“We don’t dwell on this because God’s Word is enough to say what to do, but you must know full well how people of your church have tried to manipulate things—tradition—to their convenience.  They have made errors, even at the top.  For you to say every thing the Catholic Church has done—its Popes, its leadership—has been spot on perfect, I don’t think you guys would even say that.”
It is amazing, after all of this that you still do not understand the protection of the Holy Spirit as it applies to the teaching authority of the Church.  I don’t know of any Catholic, apologist or not, who would suggest that every leader of the Church was morally good or even pastorally wise.  You confuse impeccability with infallibility in faith and morals.  The doctrines of the Apostles have survived intact precisely because of the Holy Spirit, the promise made by Jesus Christ.  There have been some bad men at the helm, absolutely.  But error of doctrine was never taught by the universal majesterium.  Not once in 2000 years.
Clergy here and there have taught error.  There have been dissenters and heretics here and there from the beginning.  At one point the Arians outnumbered the Catholics.  But in all of those cases they were in a state of disobedience.  I know, obedience is a hard word these days, unless of course we get to define what it is we want to obey.
“So, I don’t understand how you can just say “we have the franchise we’ve never errored.”  This isn’t even true by your own standards.”  Not what I’ve said.  (Again with the franchise.  This is not McDonald’s we are talking about.  It is the body of Christ.)
“Proto makes a good point about divisions within the Catholic Church on what is tradition and not, what is important and not.  How does one declare a “winner” in those circumstances if you don’t use God’s Word.  It’s just my leader’s word against yours, in that case.”
Are you kidding me?  The Church has defined that Adam and Eve are historical.  The question of six day creation versus an evolutionary creation are not defined.  No divisions there.  If a dissenting theologian says something off the wall he is not part of the majesterium anyway.
He points out that predestination is undefined by the majesterium, at least as it relates to Augustine, Aquinas, Molina, and Scotus views on the subject.  And this proves division in the Church?  On the contrary, all are faithful Catholics (Molina I don’t know) and obedient to the majesterium.  Any and all of them would obey were the Church to define such an issue.  How would they define it (pick a winner)?  They would use everything at their disposal, including Scripture and the teaching of the councils, the doctors of the Church, etc.  All of it is part of the deposit of faith.  No mystery there, no starting a new denomination.
Perhaps Proto1 was talking to Father Phleger in Chicago?  There are other dissenters as well.  That doesn’t change one iota the teaching authority of the majesterium, nor the consistent doctrine of the Church.  Sometimes we would hope such dissenters would take the Protestant example and leave to start their own Church.  For some reason they want to remain Catholic.  Go figure.

All of this does not demonstrate Sola Scriptura by the way.

“A few hundred years ago the Catholic church taught there was no salvation outside the Catholic church. Today that is no longer true.” -Proto1

Sorry Proto1, it is still the teaching of the Church.

LJ,

You said, regarding the 7 churches, “Each of those particular churches were a part of the universal Church, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church….”

Right.  As well as I would say as is today.  Only that Holy catholic—universal church—is all the churches preaching the “essentials” of God’s Word.  It does not include only, a church who happens to use the word “Catholic” in its title.  (There are churches that use the word “Universal” in there title.  Do they have singular franchise?)

Yes, you agree as to the validity of God’s Word.  So, considering it inspired and “approved” by the church, it represented doctrine to which the early church leaders agreed.  (If they hadn’t—I say this as if men could control this alone—they wouldn’t have approved it.)

And, if they were not going to allow anything in there with which they would disagree, they were willing to live by it.  Why wouldn’t that hold true today?

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

LJ- Salvation can be gained outside the Catholic church—“Lumen gentium #16 says: “For they who without their own fault do not
know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in
practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain
eternal salvation.” John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions.”

“Lest you think it is Protestants alone who embrace Sola Scriptura here are some comments by church fathers on this issue:”
Proto1, I am impressed that you took the time to research the Fathers.  Well done.  In your studies you might well research so many of the other doctrines of the Catholic Church and find them thoroughly Catholic.

And, you have saved me time by demonstrating quite well that the Catholic Church is indeed not the church of “Sola’s” and never has been.  It doesn’t prove SS by any stretch but it does give classic support to the document I referred you to before regarding Scripture, Dei Verbum.  Scripture has been highly revered in the Church for as long as it has existed.  Again, well done.

However, I am a little surprised that you went outside of Scripture to demonstrate SS.  You realize of course, that it undercuts the premise before you start, by your own definition?

Off to work now, I’ll respond later in full to both you and Gary.  What a lovely day!

LJ- you have not disproved Sola Scriptura. (I’m not even sure you understand what it is since I have never seen you define it). To do so, you need to demonstrate another source that is inspired-inerrant as the Scriptures are. If you can do that, then you will be on your way to disprove that Sola Scriptura is false. Secondly, did Jesus or His apostles ever claim that the traditions of men are inspired-inerrant?

In regards to the unity of the Roman Catholic church and is what is believed is there an official and complete list of the traditions of your church?

LJ- The quotes i gave you clearly show that these fathers held to the Scriptures as the highest authority for Christians. Perhaps you can demonstrate that these same fathers hold traditions or papal authority to the same authority as the Scripture.

Proto:  2Tim3:16-17 is anything BUT a justification for Sola Scriptura - and unless you are going to adhere to LOGIC - there is little else I can do but pray for you.  Those two verses actually argue AGAINST Sola Scriptura as they presuppose other things “in order that the man of God might be complete”.  The verses presuppose that there are other things apart from the Scriptures and he mentions some of these in verse 10 ” my teaching” is one of them - not Scripture, but an authority of “teaching” rather like the Magisterium.  Other things include “my purpose, my way of life, my endurance, persecutions and sufferings” (sounds like a lot of good works in there)

Matthew 15:3-6 is Jesus’ attack on those who use Scripture to evade their human responsibility to their parents.  Not a Justification for Sola Scriptura.  The very opposite.  It shows the need for a Magisterium; here it is the Magister Himself reminding them of the 4th Commandment.  It is a stark reminder of the dangers of exegetes and private interpreters - the very opposite of sola Scriptura and the need for a Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus Himself.

Proto:  your arguments based on these two passages is totally illogical, falsely reasoned and without merit.  LJ has already shown the illogicality of Sola Scriptura as it falls at the very first hurdle - IT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES.

I notice you have evaded my question about the Council of Jerusalem and its departure from the Old Testament teaching on circumcision.  Please explain why they departed from Sola Scriptura in this case?

John- this why exegesis is so important. Lets look at verse 17 again-so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. This verse presupposes nothing else. Remember the subject matter in these 2 verses is the Scripture and what it can do. In regards to verse 10 Paul is referring to his teaching and not some teachings after he died. Only Paul’s teachings that are recorded in the NT are inspired-inerrant.
In the Matthew passage, Jesus condemns teaching-traditions that nullify the Scripture. Celibate leadership in your church is clear example of promoting a tradition above the Scripture.

The council in Acts 15 did indeed use Scripture. See 15:15-21. They also depended on the Holy Spirit to guide them.

Now in regards to Mary being sinless, where in Scripture does it claim this? If you want your church to be like Acts 15 who used Scripture (v28-29) correctly to support their decision what verse or passage supports Mary’ sinless-ness?

I’m still not sure you and LJ understand Sola Scriptura. I have asked you and him-her for a definition. Can you give me one?

Wow, I’ve been gone a while and missed a lot it seems.  I’ve only got a minute, so I can’t go back through everything right now.  For the moment, just a quick question for Proto:

So, Paul’s letters are part of Scripture, and are therefore “inspired-inerrant,” right? (By the way, if you could define how/if “inspired-inerrant” differs from “inspired” and “inerrant”, I’d greatly appreciate it.  You seem to use it as a technical term of art, and I want to make sure I’m understanding you properly.)

Also, Paul’s “inspired-inerrant” letters affirm that Paul’s own teaching is “inspired-inerrant,” right?  In other words, Paul himself, at least (even if no one else) has some form of what Catholics would call “magisterial authority”.

Now, given that we’ve both agreed (multiple times) that the actual canon of Scripture was only fixed well after the Apostles all died, and was determined by the guidance of the Spirit upon the leaders of the early church, by what reasoning do you add the qualifier, “that are recorded in the NT”?  Why doesn’t the passage cited Scripturally (and therefore, inerrantly) affirm the validity of Paul’s other teachings (which may have been given verbally to Timothy or to others, or recorded in documents which didn’t “make the cut” for the NT)?

Furthermore, if we do restrict it only to the teachings recorded in the NT, then what justification do we have for knowing that we picked the right ones to include?

Sola Scriptura is a Catch-22.  If “inspired-inerrant” information is contained *only* in Scripture, then there is *no possibility* that the decisions of the Councils on what *counted* as Scripture was “inspired-inerrant” (because they certainly didn’t consult Scripture to determine what Scripture to consult - that, I think we can agree, would be absurd).  On the other hand, if the Councils were inerrantly guided by the Holy Spirit in their determinations, then there is at least one instance in which an “inspired-inerrant” piece of info (the list of properly Scriptural writings) was gleaned from a source other than Scripture (and Sola Scriptura demands that *no* such information *can possibly* exist).

By the way, my working definition of Sola Scriptura (since you asked the others for theirs) is simply this:
1) All Scripture is inspired and inerrant (or “inspired-inerrant”, but like I said, I’m not clear on the term)
2) Nothing outside of Scripture (and accurate Scriptural exegesis) can ever be an inerrant source of truth

There seems to be a corollary as well - 3) If a source is not inspired and inerrant, then it holds no moral authority over Christians, except insofar as such authority is delegated to it by an inspired and inerrant source (e.g. “render unto Caesar”).  I don’t think I have any issue with 3) though.

I look forward to your response.

Pax tecum

Anthony- inspiration means simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal)—not just concepts or ideas—and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture. Inerrancy means that all that is written in the inspired documents is without error. The reason I add what the apostles taught is found only in the NT is because that is all we have of their writings and teachings. They may have taught other things but we don’t know what that was since we have no written record of it. There are no other inspired-inerrant writings outside the Bible. The church of the 4th century applied a number of tests to determine which books were inspired-inerrant. It was not necessary that those who worked on determining which books were Scripture needed be inspired-inerrant themselves. Such a thing is impossible for fallen men. 
We already agree what the Scriptures are and why they are inspired-inerrant. Its up to the Catholic to show that any traditions or pronouncements are also inspired-inerrant. If they are not, then they are in subjection to Scripture and if they deny or supplant the Scripture in any way they are not binding. If they contradict a teaching of Scripture they are false.

“LJ- you have not disproved Sola Scriptura. (I’m not even sure you understand what it is since I have never seen you define it).”
Proto1, let’s not play games here.  I have been straightforward with you.  This is not about winning at all costs.
I do not have to disprove Sola Scriptura.  It falls of its own weight if you cannot demonstrate it from Scripture.  Period.  It is a sixteenth century novelty that was introduced to provide some sort of authority for the Reformers when they rejected the authority that Christ established.  The definition I have been using is your own.  I told you that it was satisfactory to me as a working definition.  There are two reasons I have accepted your definition of SS.  One, because it is you that jumped on this thread in the fourth post claiming all sorts of error. 
Consistently you have practiced SS in your critiques, a doctrine that does not bind Catholics, and when called on it you acknowledged it.  Therefore, I asked you to demonstrate it from Scripture.  All you could do is “infer” it from the two citations you gave me and I gave you a further citation that, using your own method of inferring, would establish the ministry of the Church in at least an equal status with Scripture.
Your references from the Fathers demonstrate clearly what the Catholic Church teaches in Dei Verbum;
“9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. *Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.*”
The second reason I have accepted your definition of SS is because you included the key phrase: “It alone is the ultimate authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.”  From that you must admit that all doctrines, including SS, must be taught in Scripture to be valid.  But as I pointed out, yours is simply an inference.  That is not anything other than what you have criticized Catholics here for doing in the case of doctrines you don’t agree with when they have given you Scriptural support for those Catholic doctrines.
Again, if you are to presume that a doctrine must be clearly in Scripture (to your satisfaction) to be valid you are using SS.  You have consistently refused to accept references from outside of Scripture on anything until now you throw out some quotes from the Fathers to support SS, defeating your own argument.  Again, for SS to be valid, it must itself be taught in Scripture.  Surely you can see that.  And I can assure you, those Fathers did not teach SS.

“LJ- Salvation can be gained outside the Catholic church—“Lumen gentium #16 says: “For they who without their own fault do not
know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in
practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain
eternal salvation.” John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions.””

Proto1,
Perhaps you forgot to look at Lumen Gentium #14;
“14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation.”

If you wish to really understand how this all works, refer to #845 through #848 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  It gives a very concise explanation.  If you can’t find it online I will post those items here for you.

As well, I would refer you to a Scriptural resource on this topic, Romans chapter 1;
[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
[14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
[15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

LJ-  Where has your church defined what Sacred Tradition is and is there an official list of all the Sacred Traditions? Are these Sacred Traditions inspired-inerrant?

Where is it written that Sola Scriptura has to be proven exclusively from Scripture itself? Where is that said in its definition?

You also claim that “sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known.” If this is true, then we should expect to see the Lord Jesus or His apostles teaching the Marian dogmas. The fact is that we don’t. This means this statement is false since the Lord Jesus nor His apostles ever handed these teaching down to anyone.

Those church fathers I did quote certainly did believe in SS. Those quotes certainly demonstrate that.

LJ- There is no place in Scripture where the Lord Jesus nor His apostles taught the Roman Catholic church is necessary for salvation. The quote that I gave and your quotes contradict each other. In fact the one I quoted is a denial of the gospel itself where it claims a man can be saved without Christ. That is heresy.

BTW- the Romans 1 quote   is actually found in Romans 2:13-16. This has nothing to do with salvation outside the Roman Catholic church.

From garyk51188;
“Right.  As well as I would say as is today.  Only that Holy catholic—universal church—is all the churches preaching the “essentials” of God’s Word.  It does not include only, a church who happens to use the word “Catholic” in its title.  (There are churches that use the word “Universal” in there title.  Do they have singular franchise?)”

*Catholic* does have a meaning for Catholics.  We use it as it was used from the time it was first used.  The universal Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the visible head of the Church.  There are several other churches that use the term in their title, others that use the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed and recite it with the term “catholic” used in the sense that you would like to use it.  But they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and would not even claim that they are, so that by the use of the word as we everywhere and always defined it, they are not Catholic.  Catholic also includes other “Rites” besides the Latin(Roman) Rite, the Coptic Catholics, the Ukrainian Catholics, the Maronite Catholics…to name a few.
From garyk51188;
“Yes, you agree as to the validity of God’s Word.  So, considering it inspired and “approved” by the church, it represented doctrine to which the early church leaders agreed.  (If they hadn’t—I say this as if men could control this alone—they wouldn’t have approved it.)
And, if they were not going to allow anything in there with which they would disagree, they were willing to live by it.  Why wouldn’t that hold true today?”

To answer directly, they are willing to live by the Scripture in conjunction with Holy Tradition as interpreted through the teaching authority of the Church.  But to get the actual words of the Church on the relative authority of Scripture and Tradition take a look at the quote above from Dei Verbum in the my post in response to Proto1.

This is not an “either/or” question.  That mentality comes from being deep in the theology of the “Sola’s” of Protestantism. 

But to return to one subject you seem not to have understood from other posts from Catholics here.  Catholics are not in communion with non-Catholics precisely because of “essentials.”  Probably the first “essential” that prevents most non-Catholics from being in communion is submission to the Christ-given authority of the Church herself, as represented by visible head, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.  Let’s start there.  Those who refuse to submit to the authority of the Church are not Catholic, no matter what it is that they call themselves.  That is the fact, and has been for the past 2000 (rounded off) years.

To put this in context.  You and I were born into this situation and had nothing to do with it’s origins.  Presuming you belong to some sect of Protestantism and are not 500 years old, you are coming at this from the same vantage point in history as myself.
So let us look at the history.  From that we find that Christ started a Church, gave it a structure, a leadership, seven sacraments and most of all the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth thereby preventing it from teaching error and sustaining it against the “gates of hell.”
Along the way, about 1000 years ago, the eastern Orthodox Churches (as they are now known but were once Catholic) went into schism, separating themselves from communion.  (Their sacraments are still valid because their apostolic succession is still valid and the primary barrier to reunion and communion is simply that first essential, submission to the authority of the Pope.)
About 500 years ago, the “reformers” including Luther, Calvin, Swingli also rejected the authority of the Church and many of her core doctrines, setting up SS as their authority (in Germany it was Pope Luther in reality and in Geneva it was Pope Calvin, but that is a whole other study).  They deliberately and in full knowledge of what they were doing, broke communion with the Catholic Church.
So 500 years later the situation persists and you, Gary, are suggesting that we are the same in essentials and what claim has the Catholic Church anyway to this “exclusive franchise” (as if we were retailing a commodity)?  Is that not the gist of it?
You forget that it was your ancestors in faith that broke the communion to begin with and left, as did mine, by the way.  If you would like to return to communion, you are very welcome to do so.  I personally would rejoice if you did so.  That is precisely what I did.  To be in communion you must accept the “essentials” of the Catholic Church founded by Christ.  That is how it is done.

It is not a question of the Catholic Church competing in some “franchise” war like McDonald’s and Burger King and declaring herself exclusive.  The Catholic Church is now, always was, and always will be the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  That is just a matter of historical fact, not an assertion.
Any other Christian ecclesial communion is a “johnny-come-lately” to put it bluntly, regardless of how they rationalize it, and a descendant of dissent and disobedience.  It can’t be any plainer than that.  What you do with that fact is entirely up to you, but it needs stating once in a while.  The Proto’s of the combox world tend to enjoy blurring the picture, muddying the water, so to speak, it seems to me.

“LJ- There is no place in Scripture where the Lord Jesus nor His apostles taught the Roman Catholic church is necessary for salvation. The quote that I gave and your quotes contradict each other. In fact the one I quoted is a denial of the gospel itself where it claims a man can be saved without Christ. That is heresy.

BTW- the Romans 1 quote   is actually found in Romans 2:13-16. This has nothing to do with salvation outside the Roman Catholic church.”

First, my apologies for the missed chapter.  When I was reading it online I thought I was still in Chapter 1.
There does seem to be a contradiction doesn’t there?  Many Catholics have misunderstood the teaching as well, so you are not alone.  I will give you the CCC explication I mentioned as I take it you haven’t followed up.  In the meantime, as you are the resident exegete, give us your reading of Romans 2:13-16.  I have to hit the sack but will return with great expectations tomorrow night.
From the CCC;
*845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”*

God bless, you, LJ. All of us Catholics on this Thread have repeated ourselves times without number to categorically state the Facts as you have so explicitly and equivocably put them especially in these Two Responses.  But be sure Gary and Proto1 will never, ever accept this God’s Truth + Laudetur Iesus Christus +

Proto Once again I ask you to apply LOGIC in your arguments.  Here is a quotationfrom Genesis 17

“This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.  You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.  Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.  Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant”

There you have it Proto - note “an everlasting Covenant”.  Does your Church pratise circumcision?  This “inspired-inerrant” passage makes it clear does it not.  The LOGIC of Sola Scriptura means you should circumcise every male member of your Church.

On the other hand, I belong to the Catholic Church where it is clear from Acts 15 that we are not bound by Sola Scriptura.  Paul, Barnabas, James and the others at the First Council of the Church make it plain that it is not following a Sola Scriptura approach but the Holy Spirit “it has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by us…..”  Proto you are here reading the decisions of the First Council of the Catholic Church and you know there were other such Councils throughout its history.

You keep asking for a Scripture text on the sinleessness of Mary stating that there is none.  So?  That is not a problem.  We do not follow Sola Scriptura.  We follow the Holy Spirit “leading us to all Truth”.  That is how the Church is able to give guidance on medical ethics covering situations that had not arisen or been anticipated in the Holy Scriptures.

Proto I think you have been well answered by LJ and others on here.

On the question of Mary’s sinlessness, there is not an explicit statement of this in the New Testament that I am aware of.  But we have the Magisterium of the Church which from the beginning had the guarantee of the guidance of the Holy Spirit “leading us to all truth”.  However, Mary’s sinlessness is certainly implied in the New Testament, for example in Luke where no less a figure than the Angel Gabriel declares “Hail so highly favoured, The Lord is with you, of all women you are most blessed”.  Proto, who are you to disagree with the Angel Gabriel.  But its there in the New Testament for all to read.  Please read it carefully.

LJ,

You said, “About 500 years ago, the “reformers” including Luther, Calvin, Swingli also rejected the authority of the Church and many of her core doctrines, setting up SS as their authority ....So 500 years later the situation persists and you, ....are suggesting that we are the same in essentials and what claim has the Catholic Church anyway to this “exclusive franchise” ....To be in communion you must accept the “essentials” of the Catholic Church founded by Christ.  That is how it is done….It is not a question of the Catholic Church competing in some “franchise” war like McDonald’s and Burger King and declaring herself exclusive.  The Catholic Church is now, always was, and always will be the Church founded by Jesus Christ…”

It is an interesting point.  If you believe as you state that the Catholic church has the only franchise.  Is there every any threat to ever forfeiting that franchise?

John K was mentioning the doctrine of Balaam.  It is interesting to research what exactly this was.  It goes back to the Numbers (23:17-24:25).  Balaam was a priest that knew right from wrong.  His superior, Balak, was jealous of the Jews asking to pass through his land and wanted to find some way to subvert them—this all according to asking God to have a hand in it.  For pleasing those in this world and money, Balaam devises plans to cause the Jews to commit idolatry so God would be angry with them.

You know why Luther had a problem with Rome.  He was there, walking on his knees up and down the Pilate’s steps that Christ walked (so said, transported from Jerusalem to Rome)—this was supposed to bring forgiveness of sins—and he thought why this and all the other “cures” for sin being sold in Rome were effective in place of what God had already said was the way to salvation.

One example, a rep from the Church, Tetzel, was selling indulgences.  Luther objected to a saying attributed to Johann Tetzel that “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory [also attested as ‘into heaven’] springs.”

It was the incredible wealth of Rome, building magnificent earthly structures on the income of the superstitious—that income being raised for various practices that were either supposed to protect them, their loved ones—living or dead—or forgive them of their sins.  It had reach horrible dimensions.  This was idolatry for profit.

How is this different from what Balaam did?  Numbers is a study in the error of Balaam, the way of Balaam and the eventual doctrines of Balaam.  It is a model of spiritual infidelity.

If they claim to be of Christ and practicing things like this, wouldn’t Christ rightly say they risk the HS being with drawn from them as a church?  You have seven churches in Revelations.  Christ threatening to remove the HS from one of them, this would be serious loss of franchise.

Kindest regards,
garyk51188

Gary

I object strongly to your continuing to use the word franchise in this connection.  It is disingeuous and, to be frank, I find it offensive. 

We are talking about Truth and the Holy Spirit here.  Mercantile language is not appropriate.

Despite all your objections, it comes down to this.  There are many Christian Churches, some of them holding contrary views and teachings.  Only one can trace itself back to Christ and the Apostles and that is the Catholic Church.  The others cannot.  They go back to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or others.  That is it.  These “reformers” did more than reform.  They destroyed the unity of the Church against Christ’s prayer and desire that all his followers would be “one”.  This included the abandonment of essential beliefs and doctrines which are still held faithfully by the Catholic Church to this day.  This is a historical fact.  You cannot blur the seriousness of what these “reformers” did.  It was not just reform but disobedience and disunity.

There were undoubtedly abuses in the Church and these needed correction and were corrected by the Decrees of the Council of Trent.  Many of these abuses resulted from ignorance and perhaps as you say, superstition.  But consider Europe of 500 years ago.  Printing was very new, no internet etc.  Many people could not read or write.  The Black Death had wiped out millions of people and many of these were priests who themselves caught the plague as they ministered to the dying.  So, the vetting of priests and their education was not always what it should have been.  The Council of Trent addressed this very issue with the introduction of the seminary for the education of candidates for Holy Orders.

Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did more than reform abuses.  They departed doctrinally from the teachings of the One true Catholic Church and in doing so destroyed its unity.  Many of their followers were Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians etc by default rather than convistion.  The principle of “cuius regio, eius religio” meant that whatever religious stance was taken by the prince or ruler of a locality, became by default the religion of the people.

This is history, factual Gary, not a spin on things.  Now that through debate you have gone this deeply into the matter, there is an obligation on you to explore this further with an open mind and to seek the truth in sincerity.  I will pray for you in this endeavour.

John- are you willing to admit that the doctrine of Mary’ being without sin is not grounded in Scripture and not something the Lord Jesus nor His apostles taught?

John- you write-“There were undoubtedly abuses in the Church and these needed correction and were corrected by the Decrees of the Council of Trent.  Many of these abuses resulted from ignorance and perhaps as you say, superstition.  But consider Europe of 500 years ago.  Printing was very new, no internet etc.”
How could all these abuses and superstitions happen if your church claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err in matters of faith and morals?
Tracing a church back to the apostles is not a sign that a church is true nor teaches truth. Go back again to Revelation 2:14-16 where the Jesus rebukes the church of Pergamum for holding to error. If the church was guided by the Holy Spirit and can trace it roots back to the apostles (as I’m sure this church could) how is it that it fell into error?
Are you willing to be open minded and seek the truth about your church and see that many of its claims cannot be sustained?

John- Did you look at the context of Genesis 17? Is this a command for the church or for Abraham and his descendants?
Thank you for admitting your church does not follow the Scriptures. That much is clear with your doctrines and practices. It is impossible for your church to be led by the Holy Spirit since it refuses to adhere to the Scriptures which come from the Holy Spirit. This is why no Christian church can be in unity with Rome.

Proto Desist!!

You are not clever enough to try to pull that one on me.  What I said was that it was not explicitly stated in Scripture although the Words of the Angel Gabriel are quite strong aren’t they? “Of all women you are the most blessed and blessed is the fruit of your womb”.  There it is for you Proto.  Mary cannot be in sin if the Angel addresses her as blessed.  The same word is used for Jesus in the womb.  Its There.  Read it. St Luke Read the first 2 chapters.  what more do you need.  Now Proto its time for you to examine your prejudices and open your mind and heart to the Holy Spirit that he may lead you to all Truth.  We cant go on forever debating it.  But you have gone deeply into Catholicism.  You are now obligated to examine “Could the Catholic Church be the One True Church?”  Could the claims of that Church be True?  Whatever your answer, no other Christian Church can honestly make this claim.  I will pray that you will be led by the Holy Spirit towards all truth.

By the way, you have not answered my question about circumcision and the council of Jerusalem.

Proto

You state “Tracing a church back to the apostles is not a sign that a church is true nor teaches truth”

Then what is?  This is an incredible statement to make!  It makes a complete mockery of Jesus promise “behold I am with you always, even to the end of time.  Proto Sorry you are so wrong and I pray that you will find the truth

You are wrong about Genesis 17 also.  Does it not state that circumcision is for all time.

Now Proto, it was the Catholic Church which wrote the New Testament.  So I think it does have a certain responsibility for it and its correct interpretation.

Your lack of logic is appalling.  Your quotation from Rev 2 about the Church at Pergamum conveniently omits the previous 2 verses where the Church at Pergamum is praised for its fidelity to the faith.

Proto, stop doing this.  Just picking snippets here and there and omitting what does not suit is not an honest way to proceed.  And I notice you have dodged a few issues as well.  I will pray for you.

LJ- you asked about Romans 2:13-16 and what it means. The context of chapter 2 is judgment. Briefly, the Jews have and know the Law of God and are accountable to it. The Gentiles on the other hand do not know the Law of God in the way the Jews do but are still held accountable to the Law of God which is written on their hearts. It is their consciences that bears witness to the Law that is written on their hearts. (verse15) In verse 16 we see that all men will be judged by Christ and will be held accountable to the Law of God.

How is this not a denial of the gospel i.e. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

compared with:

-“847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ an