Ohhhh….them is fightin’ words….I feel some intense discussion comin’ on!  lol

Nice, Mark.  Going to send this one to my Evangelical friends.  I am a revert, after nearly 40 years as a Reformed Protestant, and I have many friends from that life who love to argue on these points.

Mark,
Worship also involves the heart. How do you know that in their hearts they are not worshiping Mary? Worship is more than just outward performance but is a matter of the heart.  After all, just look at all the devotional material on her and statements made by the RCC about certainly do point to worship. For example, note this prayer to Mary:
“O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.”

This kind of prayer certainly does point to worship.

Erik, to understand that prayer, you need to understand the unique enmity the Blessed Virgin Mary has with the Devil, as evident in Scripture from Genesis through Revelation. Thus, St.John the Baptist, greatest of prophets, in his mother’s womb leaped upon seeing her, and his mother, St.Elizabeth now filled with the Holy Ghost eliciting her praise. In her humility, the Blessed Virgin praised God in the Magnificat, and made it known that all generations would call her blessed demonstrating the perpetual veneration the Catholic Church has always and everywhere since the days of the Apostles shown her.

This veneration is only honor, and differs essentially from adoration or worship. Finally, in the Old Testament, we see another example, Abraham venerated by bowing down to the Angel he met, but here it was the Angel that venerated her, saying, Hail, full of grace. God has willed to dispense His grace through her intercession, as He willed to give her at the Cross to St.John as his Mother, and as the Apostle would write, also to all of us as our Mother in the order of grace, which sufficiently establishes this divine intent to dispense His grace to us through her.

For some reason reading this made me think of a grumpy old lady in a fast food joint shouting “Where’s the beef!”...

“How do you know that in their hearts they are not worshiping Mary?”

How do I know that you are not secretly a reptilianoid sent here from another world as part of a scouting party, preparing the human population to be eaten?  Oh sure, you *say* you’re not, but it seems to me that you are and my perception trumps all.

The way I know that Catholics do not worship Mary is, a) when I asked, “Do you worship Mary or believe her to be God?” they looked at me funny and laughed and b) when I got to understand Catholic Marian theology I b) found out why they looked at me funny and laughed.  Here’s the theology in a nutshell: Mary is God’s greatest creature and our Mother, so we should honor her accordingly.  But she’s not God and so worshipping her as such is a sin.  If you are seriously worried that a Catholic worships Mary as though she were God try asking them if that’s what they do.  And don’t go around presuming they are both grave sinners and majorly stupid.

One final point: in older devotional works you will sometimes find the word “worship” used in reference to Mary.  Be aware that this is because the term used to mean “Honor”.  So judges are still called “Your Worship” in England and older forms of the marriage vow said “With my body, I thee worship” to one’s spouse.  “Worship” now tends to be synonymous with “the adoration due to God alone” in English.  Seizing on some older devotional work as “proof” that Catholics equate Mary with God is like seizing on an older work in English where some character declares that they feel “gay” to prove that the character was homosexual.  Words change in meaning.  It’s what languages do.

Xavier,
How would a Catholic know if they are “properly” venerating Mary and not worshiping her?

Do Catholics also believe that in Mary they place—“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.”?

BTW- You do realize that there is no record of the apostles venerating Mary don’t you?

“How would a Catholic know if they are “properly” venerating Mary and not worshiping her?”

How do you know you are properly honoring your mother and not worshiping her?

The prayer you cite basically means the Catholic trusts that Mary, as his mother, will pray for him.

And yes, the NT does record veneration of Mary.  That’s why John takes the trouble to record the words, “Behold your Mother” (they are meant for *us*) and it’s why Luke records Gabriel’ act of veneration (“Kaire, Kecharitomene!”) and Elizabeth act of veneration as well.  And Mary herself says that from now on all will call her “Blessed”.  So what are you waiting for?

Veneration is quite common in the Old Testament. We even see another son of David highly venerate his mother Bathsheba, the Queen of Israel. So much more Jesus Christ, who is a most noble Prince and will not be amused, at those who dishonor His Mother. Every Queen is honored, even worldly ones, so much more the Mother of the King of Kings. She is also typified by another Old Testament image, the Ark of the Covenant. Honoring the Ark did not detract from the worship owed to God, but irreverence toward it was punished by death!

The Holy Ghost was pleased after the Blessed Virgin’s fiat that God the Word should become incarnate in her. As by Eve came death and every curse upon humanity, so by Mother Mary comes life and every grace that God wills to give us, for the one listened to the holy Angel and the other to the fallen one.

What you have said about Catholics adoring and worshiping the Eucharist was true for all Catholics when I entered the Church in 1949. Sadly that is no longer the case. When I attended Mass then, I could tell by the obvious respect of everyone that they believed God was truly there.  Then we had a council that Pope John XXIII called for renewal.  I am still waiting for something I can call renewal.  Now when I go to any Mass, I don’t doubt that, except for the daily Mass I watch at EWTN, the estimates that only 25 percent of Catholics there believe in the Real Presence are unfortunately accurate. When I can again see that almost every Catholic there is properly dressed and obviously believes in the Real Presence it will be a recovery not a renewal.

BTW Erik: There is indeed a record of the Apostles venerating Mary.  If you were to read the account of Mary’s death in The City of God by Ven. Mary of Agreda that has approval of the Catholic Church, you would know how much when they were called from all over the world to be present at her death. 

Bob, under what circumstances would a visionary account that has been approved by the Church convince someone who does not believe in the Church?

For you Erik.  In the book I mentioned for you Almighty God is quoted as saying to Mary: “We pace into thy hands the helps and blessings of our grace for distribution; nothing do We wish to be given to the world which does not pass through thy hands;and nothing do We deny, which Thou wishes to concede to men.”  This should help you understand the reference to the Mother of Perpetual Help

Jared: For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.  For those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible

Bob:
If that proverb were true then the entire mission of the Church is a waste of time and the whole project of bearing witness to the faith and educating people (instead of just barking “shut up and believe”) has no meaning at all.

For those who don’t believe, the problem, very often is that they have not received a reasonable explanation to a reasonable question.  Jared asked a reasonable question.  You punted the answer with a proverb that is very popular these days, but deeply unCatholic and profound opposed to any use of the intellect.

The Catholic intellectual tradition is not “I believe so I don’t need to understand” but “I believe *so that* I can understand”.  It is therefore important to ask why, in bearing witness to somebody like Erik, they should be expected to trust a private revelation that even Catholics are not bound to buy when he does not yet believe even the public revelation Catholics *are* bound to buy.  In addition, it is worth asking how prudent it is to introduce the confusing subject of private revelation into a conversation with somebody who already believes that the Church wantonly ignores scripture and just makes stuff up.  Almost surely, that misperception is bound to be strengthened by talking as though pious literature is a form of public revelation and not, as it is, a devotional aid that Catholics can take or leave with no compulsion from the Church.

If “Eucharist is, in fact, Jesus Christ fully present.” then this would mean that bread and wine is literally God. We know this is not true because the bread and wine do not possess any characteristics of deity. To say the Jesus is fully present would mean that there would also be human qualities of Jesus in the bread and wine. This we know is not true.

I’m a new convert and was recently telling my story to my uncle, a longtime Catholic.  I must have said this aloud: “Yeah, and I used to think that Catholics worship Mary…” Just then my 16 year-old cousin started laughing so hard that he was gasping for air.  He literally thought that idea so SO RIDICULOUS that he nearly choked to death.  I’ll never forget his reaction!

Bob: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.  For those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.”

So…evangelization is pointless? All converts really believed all along and needed no explanation? Uh…huh.

Erik: How do “we” (royal we?) know this?

If “Eucharist is, in fact, Jesus Christ fully present.” then this would mean that bread and wine is literally God.

No.  It would mean that the substance of the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, fully God and fully mean while the accidents (i.e., everything perceivable by the senses) are those of bread and wine.  In short, it looks, smells, tastes, feels and appears to be bread and wine in every way, but is not.

We know this is not true because the bread and wine do not possess any characteristics of deity. To say the Jesus is fully present would mean that there would also be human qualities of Jesus in the bread and wine. This we know is not true.

You need to actually learn what the Church teaches about the Eucharist before trying to refute it.  At present you are refuting something the Church does not teach.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/meditations-on-the-rosary-the-institution-of-the-eucharist#ixzz1yPUJIgG5

As St.Thomas Aquinas says, “I believe all the Son of God has spoken; Than Truth’s own word, there is no truer token”
.
When God says, “Let there be light”, there is light. When God says, “This is My body”, without an iota of a doubt, it is most truly His body. Only the divine light of true faith can cause men to acknowledge this. The Jews were scandalized then as unbelievers now, even some of His disciples walked with Him no more just as some Christians today do not yet confess this, when as we see in John 6, He spoke to them of this mystery. Only His Apostles, and especially their head, stood firm as he said, and as the Catholic Church alone says today, “Lord to whom shall we go - you have the words of eternal life”
.
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day”, the Redeemer said amd that no one at all may doubt, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you”

Erik,

If “Eucharist is, in fact, Jesus Christ fully present.” then this would mean that bread and wine is literally God. We know this is not true because the bread and wine do not possess any characteristics of deity. To say the Jesus is fully present would mean that there would also be human qualities of Jesus in the bread and wine. This we know is not true.

That’s what they said about Jesus.  We know He is not God for He possesses none of the characteristics of deity.  God cannot be human, right? 

It seems like you’re telling God what He can and cannot do based on what you are able or not able to perceive.  To look at Jesus, you’d never know that He was God.  He was just a guy from Nazareth.  And yet…

To look at the Eucharist you’d never know that it was God.  It’s just some flat bread and a little wine…and yet…

Things are not always as they seem.  Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it isn’t true.  That’s what those who believe in Scientism do.  Claim that things they can’t “See” are false.  And I have the feeling you would be one of the loudest declaimers of that idea.

It’s not a matter of opening ones eyes to “see” the Eucharist for what it is.  Rather, close your eyes, and open your heart.

I think that part of the miracle of the Eucharist is that the bread and wine remain in appearance bread and wine for the sake of our human sensibilities. Could we actually take a piece of flesh and eat it? Our Lord Jesus did offer bread and wine to His apostles and said take, eat and drink, for this is my Body, this is my Blood. Then Jesus gave the apostles the power to offer the same down through the ages—to our very day, to us. If Jesus says it is so, it is so.

The bread and wine are physical manifestations of something for which there are spiritual parallels. When Jesus told his disciples to avoid the leaven of the pharisees he was refering to the teachings of fallen men, and more than that: their character. This is why we eat unleavened bread: because if the Spirit leavens the bread then you won’t question the Eucharist; you’ll know it plain as day. There are many things in the physical world which are Eucharistic when looked at with eyes to see.

Mark,
I understand what the RCC teaches about the Eucharist. What I am addressing are the implications of it. If Jesus meant what your church teaches then it would mean:
1) Jesus had a new nature of bread and wine before He died.
2) The apostles did not understand Him literally. We know this by their reactions. If they understood Him literally that would have meant some kind of cannibalism. Rather they understood Him in a metaphorical sense since He spoke like this quite often.
3) The Lord’s supper is an reenactment and interpretation of the Passover. Just as in Exodus the Passover meal points to freedom from the bondage of the Egyptians so now the Lord’s supper points to the freedom for His followers from sin etc. When they eat it they are to remember what He did for them to gain their freedom.

Understanding the OT Passover and its significance is essential to understanding the Lord Supper. In the OT Passover it is not said that the Lord God is literally in the Passover meal. Rather it is a symbol for the people.
Jesus is the lamb of God but He is not literally a lamb. This is how we should understand the Lord’ supper.

mk,
We know Jesus is God in the flesh because of what He did. He did only what God could do.
“To look at the Eucharist you’d never know that it was God.  It’s just some flat bread and a little wine…and yet…”

If Jesus is now “some flat bread and a little wine” then you are faced with a number of problems with this. One is that these physical objects display no characteristics of deity or even being alive. It won’t do to assume some kind of Greek philosophy somehow tells you something that the Scripture never does. There is no need for Jesus to be literally in the bread and wine since the Scripture already speaks of various other ways that Christ is present. Take Col 1:27—“to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
Or take the promise that Jesus made where He said that where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, He is there.
There is no place in Scripture where it is said that Jesus is present in an inanimate object such as bread, wine etc.

Jesus is not “present in an inanimate object such as bread”, the bread was changed by the power of His word to become His body by the power of His word, just as His creative word made light. There is no bread anymore, it is gone, it has been changed, His word is powerful and His word is effectual, the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, as those who have the eyes of faith and believe His word can see. This is like the sacrifices of old, where the Lamb was eaten by the people.
.
Thus, Saint Paul says “Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?” to explain why we who are many are united in Christ. The Eucharist is the source, the centre and the summit of this unity, and for that reason it has always been attacked impiously by heretics, the gates of hell trying if they can to divide the Church, just like the mystery of the Trinity, heretics who tried to scrutinize it more than they should have, and did not submit humbly to the teaching of the truth, and perished in their folly.
.
Thus, St.Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St.John the Apostle, just around the turn of the first century A.D. says of such heretics, “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”

Erik: They did understand him literally, and you can see it in the reaction of all those around him.  If he were just speaking metaphorically, as you claim - why would ANYONE have left or said that this teaching is too hard? Only his most faithful of disciples remained - tradition has it that the institution of the eucharist is the point at which Judas gave in to his doubts and decided to betray Christ for the money.  When Christ saw them leaving, He didn’t stop them and say, “Wait, guys, you misunderstood - I was using allegory here”.  No, He went even further, telling them that unless they were willing to chew his flesh, they would not have life within them and could not inherit eternal life. Unfortunately, this is a problem most Protestants have. You fail to take in the entire context of a passage, fail to envision the scene as if it were happening in front of you, and so you miss important details like this - which, of course, causes you to miss out on what is really meant and really going on. 

Our God is so humble that He is willing to take on the meekest form possible - that of inanimate bread and wine - in order to become one with us.  He trusts us to see past the appearance, to treat him with the reverence and respect He deserves.  He is willing to take the risk of being spilled, discarded, thrown in the trash, mocked, and mistaken as nothing in order to feed us with His own life. All the food that we eat, except for the Eucharist, comes from a dead thing.  No dead thing can ever give you eternal life.  It can only keep death away for a little while longer.  Only one who is Eternally Alive can, when consumed, give eternal life to the one that eats and drinks of that one.

Why did Jesus do this while He was still alive? To make that very point - that what we eat and drink is living, not dead.  This is also why He repeated that very experience with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus. Remember, that it was only after the breaking of the bread (a Eucharistic symbol) that they recognized Him as Jesus.

Erik: Are you not familiar with the words “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” - John 6:51

Erik, I suggest that you find a Catholic Church nearby which has Eucharistic Adoration available. Go. Sit for an hour.  Do this once a week for six months.  See if your feelings about the existence of the True Presence have not changed.  It would be a great surprise to me if you could sit at the feet of Christ one hour a week for six months without your heart being caught on fire with love for Him.

Xavier,
On the night of the last supper you claim that Jesus did something to change the bread… “the bread was changed by the power of His word to become His body by the power of His word, just as His creative word made light. There is no bread anymore, it is gone, it has been changed..”
This would be a miracle and when Jesus did a miracle there were signs that it did indeed happen. What were the signs at the last supper that the bread and wine were changed? Did the apostles who were there notice anything different in the bread and wine?

Brandy,
In John 6 is there any mention of the Lord’s supper? Does Jesus say anything about waiting until the Passover and I will show you how to eat My flesh and drink My blood?

Jesus spoke many times in metaphorical ways. This is important to understand. If the literal interpretation leads to an unbiblical or absurd implications then we know that the metaphorical-symbolic interpretation is the correct one. In the regards the Eucharist doctrine of the RCC we don’t see the apostles holding to this kind of interpretation. In fact, the Lord’s supper is mentioned only briefly in one of Paul’ writings.

I didn’t mean to start a firestorm nor cast any aspersion against Jared for asking the question, by merely quoting what Franz Werfel said at the close of the Song of Bernadette.  Concerning private devotions and apparitions, the statement is quite applicable.  In a sense when you consider that those who don’t believe will be condemned, it may have merit there as well.  It has very little to do with evangelization.  I thought we were talking about visions

Erik, yes, it was supernatural, but His word is sufficient proof of the change. If He says, “This is My body”, it is His body. We are obliged to believe this not by sight, nor by our senses for it is necessarily imperceptible to them, but by faith in what He has said. The Jews refused to do this, and so they walked away in John 6, perhaps to their damnation. But St.Peter stood firm and confessed true faith. That Christ allowed them to walk away necessarily proves that the literal interpretation is the correct one.
.
Your talk of “implications” is like the Arian talk of the “implications of the Trinity, that is of trying to rationalize a mystery they could not accept on faith. First believe, then you will slowly begin to understand, for God Himself will teach you. So it is with the holy Trinity, so it is with the Eucharist.
.
This is also why St.Paul says that the Lord’s Supper is a communion with His body and blood, but also that those who eat of the Holy Eucharist without discerning the body are condemned.

Erik,

By what authority do you make these claims?

Xavier,
Do you believe that doctrines should come from careful exegesis of the Scripture? Jesus said He was the door. Should we take that literally He is a door? Or that He is the vine. Should we believe literally that He is a plant? Of course not. 
Exegeting the Scripture will lead to a correct understanding of what He meant.

Yes, I do believe in the necessity of an exegesis, and I think I’ve already shown this with various other Biblical citations in support of my own, but I think the problem is your exegesis is fundamentally rationalistic. That is, you think there is no way Christ could have meant it literally, and therefore are unwilling to believe it no matter what. I am willing to consider the possibility He did not mean it literally, but I find that possibility easily discounted by a sound exegesis. For the sake of this discussion, I will give here a slightly lengthy one of five verses.
.
51"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world.” - By these words, the Savior expresses clearly the doctrine of the Eucharist as being linked to the purposes of His Incarnation. The “bread that came down from heaven” to give life to the world, and the bread He says so clearly which He will give is His flesh.
.
52 “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” - Here the unbelieving Jews begin to murmur and rationalize in their folly and to their destruction
.
53 “Then Jesus said to them: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” - With every possibility of checking and correcting the literal interpretation here, if that was what He intended, Christ does the exact opposite. He confirms beyond an iota of a doubt that the literal interpretation is precisely what He intends His listeners to take away. If they disbelieve, it is their fault. If they believe, it is His grace. But let it never be said that He was not clear enough.
.
54 “He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. ” - The Redeemer speaks of the rich graces He intends to give men through this great mystery or sacrament, and in addition pledges to them an increase in sanctifying grace and a pledge of eternal life in the general resurrection on the last day.
.
55 “For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.” This cannot be more clearer, this simply cannot be. Again, there is no wiggle room at all left for doubt anymore, that Christ truly intends us to eat His body and drink His blood, so entire is His sacrifice, so pure His love.
.
56 “He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in me, and I in him.” Happy the soul that abides in Christ, for that soul will bear much fruit. Again, the sacrament is here shown to be an efficacious and superabundant means of grace.

There’s a difference between exegesis and “eisegesis,” which literally means to “insert” one’s own “presuppositions, agendas, and biases.” I think brother Erik here is guilty of “eisegesis.”

Rafael,
Can you give me an example where I have been guilty of eisegesis?

Exegesis literally means “to draw out” what the Gospel writers were saying, which involves extensive scholarship into history, tradition, culture, intention, etc… When it comes to this, history, tradition etc… are on our side. What you are doing is inserting your own interpretation of what the scriptures mean. You cannot back up your claims with either tradition or history. The Early Church Fathers - and Jesus himself back up the claims of the Catholic Church.

Your authority to exegete is self-appointed, therefore making your scholarship eisegetic. We follow Jesus, who established a Church and who appointed a head. If you can make a compelling argument as to why I should abandon His Church and follow you, then I will.

Xavier,
It is true I want to know what Jesus meant. I hope everyone does and to do that we must exegete the passages in question.
What is the context of John 6? Did Jesus intend that He be understood literally when He was speaking to the Jews about eating His flesh and drinking His blood? I see nothing in the text that warrants that conclusion for the mere fact it would mean cannibalism. Is He referring to the last supper? Again, the supper would not be held until months later. The best interpretation is that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is a figure of speech to believe in Him. Notice also throughout this chapter that Jesus equates believing in Him for eternal life. Nowhere in the supper account does Jesus mention the idea that eating the bread at the table or drinking the wine leads to eternal life. See verses 47-51.

Rafael,
Your answer did not answer my question. Who gave you the authority to interpret the Scripture? Any time you read the Scripture you must interpret it so you can understand it.

That’s funny, because I asked you the same question in my post at 12:45. So why don’t you go first…

[Your authority to exegete is self-appointed, therefore making your scholarship eisegetic. We follow Jesus, who established a Church and who appointed a head. If you can make a compelling argument as to why I should abandon His Church and follow you, then I will.]

Rafael… I like your style!  LOL

The Eucharist being under the appearance of bread and wine is readily understood when viewed from the perspective of Contemplative Prayer. The withdrawal of sensible consolation takes place when the contemplative is being called to a deeper spiritual life.  When the two disciples on the road to Emmaus recognized Christ at the breaking of the bread, He disappeared.  Before Pentecost, the Ascension of Christ took place.  All of this is consistent with the withdrawal of the sensible consolation of Christ in His human Incarnation.  This set the stage for the work of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost.  The early Church needed to give the Holy Spirit their undivided attention during Pentecost.
Pentecost and Contemplative Prayer are both works of the Holy Spirit. Because the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist in a non-sense perceptible form, the Eucharist is completely compatible with every stage of Contemplative Prayer, including the times when the contemplative is undergoing the withdrawal of sensible consolation. In the Eucharist we have the hidden Christ, the wholly interior Christ. I’m not sure if it is possible to develop an understanding of the Real Presence without some form of an interior spiritual life.

Rafael,
What authority do I need to make my claims? Where in Scripture is it said that someone needs someone’ authority to interpret Scripture?

“What is the context of John 6?”
.
The context of John 6 is Christ going to provide a sign even greater than His feeding of the five thousand, where He reveals to men food that endures unto everlasting life.
.
“Did Jesus intend that He be understood literally when He was speaking to the Jews about eating His flesh and drinking His blood?”
.
1. Yes, as repeatedly demonstrated. He says it plainly, “My flesh is food indeed”, “My blood is drink indeed”
.
2. He proves it is literal because He allows the Jews to walk away and does not call back or correct them. Otherwise, they perished unnecessarily.
.
3. If it were metaphorical, the meaning of the metaphor “eat one’s flesh” means to vex or oppress greatly. Jesus would be saying “He who vexes me greatly has eternal life”. This is a slam dunk, the verse isn’t metaphorical, and all concerned understood that. The early Christians understood that, only after 1500 years, did the erring “Reformers” impiously fall into unbelief of this truth of faith.
.
“Is He referring to the last supper? Again, the supper would not be held until months later.”
.
That is why Jesus said, I “will” give. At the Last Supper, Christ said that this, in the Chalice, was the same blood shed for the remission of sins. To believe in Him is to believe in His word and do as He says and take and eat and drink and have life. But if you eat without discerning the body, St.Paul says you are condemned, he says that as often as we eat and drink, we proclaim the death of the Lord. He says also that we who eat of the Altar partake of the Sacrifice, he says that Christ our Pasch has been Sacrificed so let us keep the feast with unleavened bread, he says the cup of blessing we drink is communion with the blood of Christ. No doctrine at all in the entirety of revelation is so manifestly clear.
.
” I see nothing in the text that warrants that conclusion for the mere fact it would mean cannibalism. “
.
That is because you are being rationalistic, hence you are not properly disposed to receive the knowledge of this heavenly mystery, if you were, you would ask it of God humbly and He would show you sacramental communion only enhances the life of Christ in us, unlike worldly cannibalism, as He said, “He who eats of me will live because of Me”. I’ve said my piece, this is my last reply, you will be in my prayers.

“What authority do I need to make my claims? Where in Scripture is it said that someone needs someone’ authority to interpret Scripture?”

I agree with you 100%: You can’t find anything in Scripture that says you need to prove claims with Scripture.

Erik,

It won’t do to assume some kind of Greek philosophy somehow tells you something that the Scripture never does.

Are we reading the same Scriptures? 

There is no need for Jesus to be literally in the bread and wine since the Scripture already speaks of various other ways that Christ is present.

So….now you’re saying that you have some inside knowledge that the rest of us don’t?  God can ONLY be present in one way?  Seriously? 
You’re right tho, there is no NEED for Jesus to be present in the bread and wine…God doesn’t NEED anything.  But He desired it.  WE are the ones that NEED it.

It always amazes me how you can take some things that are so obviously metaphorical (6 days to create the earth) and read them literally, and then jump through hoops to say that something obviously meant to be taken literally, was only meant metaphorically.

Read the Bread of Life discourse, then note that Jesus was born in “The House of Bread”, in a “manger”, that He demands that we GNAW on His Flesh, that the first thing He does when He reappears to the apostles is to “BREAK BREAD” just as the last thing He did before dying on the cross to also to “BREAK BREAD” giving the commandment to DO THE SAME.  Then note that the apostles “BROKE BREAD” at every gathering, that ONLY the ordained were allowed to bless the bread and that the Early Church Fathers and the Didache make it clear that they believed this bread was the TRUE PRESENCE of Our Lord….Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

You claim that we are saved by Faith alone and yet you are unable to believe the MAIN POINT of Jesus’ command…DO THIS, AND REMEMBER ME.  You can’t believe that He would appear to us, to feed us, under the species of Bread and Wine yet you expect others to believe that He could appear to us in Human Flesh. 

Personally, I like to to read Scripture as it is written.  Exegesis not eisegesis.  We let God tell us what to think through Scripture, we don’t approach it thinking we already know and then twist passages to agree with our preconceived interpretation.

This IS my BODY. 
DO THIS in MEMORY of ME.
Amen, I say, UNLESS you eat of the Body of the Son of Man, you will NOT have life WITHIN you.

Do you have any idea how often BREAD is mentioned in Scripture???

http://www.learnthebible.org/bible/concordance/18223?page=10

There are 10 pages of mentions from the Old Testament…this link will take you to page 10 and you can read all of the quotes from the New Testament.  Bread and Water and Wine…

Baptism and the Eucharist.  Over and over and over…*sigh*...I’ll give you credit.  It take real tenacity to insist that your understanding is right when it is so clearly not.

Mk,
The main issue is that the RC understanding of the bread and wine have changed into Christ even though there is no physical evidence to support this. Starting from the Lord’s supper itself in Scripture there is no reason to think that happened. How could Jesus as a man be in a piece of bread when He had not yet gone to the cross to give His life for us? Or take His statements about His blood—This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20). If we take the literal view, that means the cup is a covenant. This can’t be. The way to understand this is metaphorically-symbolically.
I never made any claims about the 6 days of creation. It would be an interesting discussion though.
If Jesus meant His teaching in John 6 to be taken literally then you have cannibalism. He makes no reference to any later event such as the last supper. Note also, even in John’ gospel is there no reference to John 6. No reference at the table that by eating the bread and drinking the wine they would gain eternal life.
You claim that the “BROKE BREAD” at every gathering.” That is not true. In Acts 15, the first council of the church there is no breaking of bread. When Paul mentions the Lord’s supper in I Corinthians 11:23-34 (which is the only time he mentions it in his writings) there is no mention who is supposed to do it nor their qualifications.
I wish Roman Catholics would study the Scriptures. John 6:26-71 is not about the Lord’s supper but about Jesus being greater than Moses.  Jesus compares Himself with Moses with the incident of the manna in the desert and how it kept the people alive for 40 years. Jesus uses this incident to teach them that just as the manna sustained them in the desert, so belief in Christ would lead to something greater i.e. eternal life.  Note also that the Passover is not mentioned in this passage. If it were then that would be a tie in to the Lord’s supper. This is another reason to reject the idea this has something to do with the supper.
Bread was a major source of food for the people of the Old Testament. It literally sustained their lives. Just as people physically ate it to sustain their physical lives they are now to eat and drink Christ by faith. Eating and drinking are metaphors for belief. It is by faith in Christ alone that we gain eternal life. Eternal life is never gained by eating and drinking something physically.
Here are a couple ways the Scripture uses metaphorical language along the same lines in John 6:
“Psalm 34:8 “Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good.”

John 4:14 “Whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst.  But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”

What this shows is that it is best to understand what Jesus taught in John 6 and the Last supper in a metaphorical sense. It avoids all the problems you have to contend with.

The main issue is that the RC understanding of the bread and wine have changed into Christ even though there is no physical evidence to support this.

Oh Erik, please, there is no physical evidence that Jesus was God, that there is a Trinity, or a million other things.  We walk by FAITH and not by SIGHT.

“The main issue is that the RC understanding of the bread and wine have changed into Christ even though there is no physical evidence to support this. Starting from the Lord’s supper itself in Scripture there is no reason to think that happened. How could Jesus as a man be in a piece of bread when He had not yet gone to the cross to give His life for us?”

What kind of mindset would lead you to tell God what He can and cannot do.  “Oh, sure, creating everything out of nothing, neat! Continuing to love us no matter how much we screw up, amazing!  Taking on human nature so He can suffer a terrible death for us, rise for us, and found a Church…not a specific one, mind you…for us? Beautiful.  Being truly present in a form we cannot recognize, before his death?  Nah, that’s out of his league.”

Mk,
Jesus stilling the storm on the sea, the feeding of the 5000, the casting out of demons, raising the dead and His own resurrection are all evidences that Jesus is God incarnate. His enemies understood He was making claims to deity when He forgave sins—The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” Luke 5:21. His claim to be doing work in His Father’s name was a claim to deity: John 10:
25 Jesus answered them, “ I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me.
26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
30 I and the Father are one.”
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

No doubt Jesus was making claims to be God and the Jewish leadership understood this.

Jared,
This is not about what God can or cannot do but what did Jesus mean by what He taught. Exegeting John 6 and supper accounts shows that it does not mean what you have been told it means.

“Jared,
This is not about what God can or cannot do—”
“How could Jesus as a man be in a piece of bread when He had not yet gone to the cross to give His life for us?”

Your words, Erik. 

“—but what did Jesus mean by what He taught. Exegeting John 6 and supper accounts shows that it does not mean what you have been told it means.”

So, let’s look at your claim that the whole Bread of Life Discourse was about Jesus fulfilling Moses’s role.  Makes sense, calling Himself the Bread from Heaven.  But then, He starts talking about His flesh being true food and His blood true drink.  As far as metaphors go, this one is a dud.  Had Jesus simply used food as a metaphor for truth, it would have been fine, but then he starts using Himself-as-food(-as-metaphor?).  Calling to mind that Jews were not to eat the flesh of animals with blood, Jesus could not have chosen a more shocking and disgusting metaphor.  What’s more, it loses the connection with Moses.  Jesus isn’t simply bringing them Bread from Heaven, He’s saying He IS The Bread from Heaven. 

The crowd, understandably, is shocked.  Now normally, when a disciple doesn’t get the meaning of a parable or a metaphor, Jesus explains it.  However, He repeats Himself and increases the intensity of His speech.  (In Greek, John goes from the normal word for eating to the word used to describe how an animal eats. Something along the lines of “Gnaw”).  The crowd decides they don’t want any of this, and they leave Him…perhaps forever, and Jesus does nothing to stop them.  Why wouldn’t He explain His metaphor? 

Now, are you sure that His true meaning was *finally* figured out after a millennium-and-a-half?  Or, are you rejecting what our savior said, just like the crowd?

Jared,
  It is true that Jesus is the bread from heaven that will sustain them forever. However, we both agree this is not literal bread or manna like in the wilderness. The connection He makes between Himself and Moses is not broken with His telling them that He is that bread that comes down from heaven. Those that ate the manna still died while Jesus is saying that those who faith in Him will never die in His promise of eternal life. 
No doubt this was and is a stupendous claim for a man to make. It is even a greater claim to say that eternal life can only come about by believing in Him. This no doubt was part of the reason if not the only reason people left Him. For Him to say He is like Moses but even greater, would have been a major shock since Moses was considered to be the lawgiver and deliverer of Israel.  Jesus was claiming something even greater than Moses. 
As for not pursuing those who left Him, He knew who would not believe (v64) and John 2:24-25.  Only His true disciples stayed. Verse 67-69.
Just because something is believed for a long time does not mean it’s true.  You also will be held responsible for understanding the Scripture correctly.  I didn’t see anything in your interpretation that would lead one to think this is about the last supper.

Erik,

So what you are saying is that God needs to satisfy your criteria.  He is not free to do as He pleases?  Unless you are able to see proof, His word isn’t good enough? 

Well, it’s good enough for me.  It was good enough for Paul.  It was good enough for every Christian up until the 1500’s.  Your saying that Paul, the Apostles, Peter, and every Christian who came after was wrong?  And You are right?  Really?

And it’s not even the Catholic Church.  The Orthodox Churches believe the same thing and that is even AFTER they split.  Luther didn’t believe in TRANSubstantiation, but he DID believe in CONsubstantiation.  How is it possible that you can claim that you know better than 2,000 years of Traditon.  That simply floors me.  And you base your disbelief on men who had NO AUTHORITY to claim otherwise, AND you base your disbelief on the fact that God did not act in the way you think He should have…ie, left you proof!

What you have given me are examples of where there is proof, substantive evidence that Jesus was God.  It is a HUGE leap in logic to say that therefore EVERYTHING that Jesus did MUST have the same evidence.

It’s the same thing you do with “Faith Alone”.  You say, see, right here it says that you must believe.  And then you make the cosmic leap to therefore Believing is the ONLY thing you have to do.

Yes, we must believe.  But where does it say that that is ALL we have to do? 

Leaps, leaps and more leaps.  And after all that leaping you are still unaware of the Truth.  Stand still and quite leaping.  Look at His words, and quit demanding “evidence”.  The evidence is in your heart.  Believe, then understand.  I just don’t see what separates you from the Pharisees.  You claim to love and know God and then you completely ignore His single most important words.  THIS IS MY TRUE FLESH.  TAKE.  AND EAT.

Mk,
  You are confused. This is not about what God can or cannot do but what does the Scripture mean. The New Testament writers do not teach what your church is teaching about this. I have shown that John 6 is not about the last supper. I have shown you the problems of a literal interpretation of the Lord’s supper that means that Jesus is now in the bread and wine. If your church was right you would have answered my challenges.  Telling me what you believe or what the Roman Catholic believes is not the same thing as showing it to be true.  Only good exegesis of the passages can tell us what Jesus meant in these passages.  No one taking the Roman Catholic position on this has been able to show their position to be true via an exegesis of the passages.  All that has been offered is what the Roman Catholic church tells you what to believe.
Not sure what you mean by “The evidence is in your heart.  Believe, then understand.” Subjective feelings does not prove something to be true.
BTW- another reason the understand the bread i.e. “THIS IS MY TRUE FLESH.  TAKE.  AND EAT” metaphorically is that human flesh is not literally bread.

PS- we should be better theologians than those of the past because we have more tools, training and experience than those of the past.  We have things available to us that they never had. The sad thing is so many do not take advantage of it.

“I didn’t see anything in your interpretation that would lead one to think this is about the last supper.”
                                   
During this discourse, Jesus said “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”  During the Last Supper, he blesses bread and declares “Take it; this is my body.”  Both events have a connection between bread and the Body of Christ.  You can deny that it is meant to be literal, if you wish, but you cannot deny this link between them.
                                   
“For Him to say He is like Moses but even greater, would have been a major shock since Moses was considered to be the lawgiver and deliverer of Israel.”
                                   
True enough.  The problem is, the account mentions two specific things that caused the crowds reaction:  Jesus claiming to be from Heaven and Jesus saying to eat His flesh.  Surely, if Jesus claiming to be greater than Moses was a major reason (or even the only reason) that they left, it would have been specifically mentioned as well.
                           
“Just because something is believed for a long time does not mean it’s true.” 
Correct.  The Eucharist was as true at the Last Supper and during the Acts of the Apostles as it is today.  However, as was noted by others, this is what all Christians believed until the Reformation.  If the first generation of Christians, who actually spent time with Jesus during His ministry, and the second generation, who studied under the Apostles, believed this should we not?
                         
“You also will be held responsible for understanding the Scripture correctly.”
And thank you.  You believe what you are writing, so thank you for sharing what you believe to be the truth.  I actually find your reading of John 6 to be very interesting…I’ve never seen a protestant ignore the “Eww” factor of it before.  However, you have a lot of work to do if you want to support your claim. 
                                         
First, you need to show why Jesus would suddenly start talking about His flesh and blood if the point was to say He is greater than Moses.  (The Bread from Heaven parts would fit your claim easily enough, but He moves away from that and continues to intensify His speech).  Secondly, you’ll need to show that, despite how the account is written, it was really the implication of Jesus being greater than Moses that bugged the crowd. Good luck ;)

“If the first generation of Christians, who actually spent time with Jesus during His ministry, and the second generation, who studied under the Apostles, believed this*, why shouldn’t we*?”

My kingdom for an edit button >_>

Here is an exhaustive compilation of the Biblical citations, from Genesis to Revelation, that establish the true doctrine on the Holy Eucharist.
.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html
.

test

Erik:

In the first thousand years of the Church you simply cannot find anybody who regards the Eucharist as “just a symbol”.  Everybody understands it as the body and blood of Jesus.  The reading of Scripture you regard as “self-evident” (essentially Zwinglian) is an extremely late and obviously divergent view from what *every* apostolic Church—not just Catholic, but Orthodox, Coptic, Chaldean, Indian—*every* apostolic Church understood Jesus to mean.  That view is traceable not only back to people like Ignatius of Antioch, who heard John with his own ears, but to the plain meaning of Scripture itself: “This is my body.  This is my blood.  If you receive unworthily, you are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  This bread is my flesh, etc.”  Indeed, even many early reformers such as Luther and the Anglicans are much closer to Catholic belief about the Eucharist than your crackers and grape juice “symbolism” view.

So, what you are asking me to believe is that *everybody* everywhere in the ancient Church—north, south, east, west, across the entire ancient world from India to Spain and from Scotland and Norway down to Egypt—all of them—were so massively stupid that they could not grasp that Jesus was obviously speaking symbolically and they—all of them—stupidly concluded that this obviously symbolic language really meant that it was the body and blood of Jesus. You are asking to believe that you are 2000 years smarter and have just figured it out, along with a tiny minority of fellow Protestants. 

I’m also to believe that the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history, including people who heard the apostles with their own ears, made such a bone-headed and illiterate blunder with no record of anybody ever saying, “Dude, Jesus was just using a figure of speech.  Learn to read!”  And all this happened without these same bone-headed Christians ever declaring that Jesus had a doorknob for a nose, or that Jesus was covered with wool because he was literally a Lamb, or that Jesus was made of asphalt because he was the Way. In short, you are asking me to be believe all Christians everywhere were massively stupid about the Eucharist (until you came along) but no Christians anywhere were massively stupid about all the other symbolic things Jesus said.  They could figure out that Jesus not literally a door, a road, or a shepherd, but they could not understand that the bread and wine were just symbols.

Excuse me if I think your stupendous arrogance is blinding you to the possibility that you haven’t thought things through clearly, Erik.  The simple fact is, if Jesus and the apostles wanted to teach a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist they could and would have done so very easily.  Indeed, it is was in their interest to do so since, as John 6:66 makes clear, the doctrine of the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of Jesus was massively offensive.  But they did not.  And the proof of that?  The fact that nobody, anywhere, understood the Eucharist to be a symbol once the apostles were done founding the first generation of Churches.

Think again, and abandon the amazingly vain supposition that wisdom was born with you, Erik.

Erik,

Do you understand what “COMMUNION” means? 

We are ONE BODY.  And the way that we are ONE BODY, is to share in HIS BODY.  And the way that we share in HIS BODY to become ONE BODY is to consume Him.  When we ALL take COMMUNION, Jesus is literally IN us and that unites us in a way that nothing else can.  We are in HIM,  He is IN US.  We are all ONE.

Look at what Paul says:

1st Corinthians 5:8
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

1st Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

1st Corinthians 10:17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1st Corinthians 11:23
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

1st Corinthians 11:26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

1st Corinthians 11:27
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1st Corinthians 11:28
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Can you show me anywhere at all where Paul says
“But let a man examine himself, and so let him walk through the door and hold the vine”?

Can you show me anywhere at all where Paul or anyone says:
“For we being many are one door, and one vine: for we are all partakers of that one door.”

Can you show me anywhere at all where anyone at all says:
“Wherefore whosoever shall open this door, and or cling to this vine of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”

No.  Can you show me where the apostles or anyone, anywhere, ritually walked through doors or collected vines?  Of course not.  And yet we have here a number of passages that CLEARLY show that something of SERIOUS MATTER is taken place.  So serious in fact, that to do it wrong meant DEATH.

We don’t see that with doors and vines, do we?

So the question you need to ask yourself, if you truly want to be a Christian and follow what Jesus said, is:

WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG?

Because if you ARE wrong, then you need to decide whether you are a follower of Christ at all.  Look at HIS WORDS.  Open your heart and let the TRUTH in.  Otherwise, it might, just might, be possible that you are not following HIM at all, but yourself.

Amen Mark!

You are confused. This is not about what God can or cannot do but what does the Scripture mean.

Someone is confused all right…this is not about what Scripture means but about what JESUS SAYS.  There is no interpretation needed.  Which is why you have gotten it wrong.  There is nothing to PULL OUT.  It is as plain as day and as clear as glass. 

Where did anyone say to Jesus “You are a door?  This saying is hard” and then leave Him?  When did anyone say “What???  You’re a PLANT??? Crazy talk…I’m outta here”  And yet, they did say “Gnaw on your flesh?  Drink your blood?  No Way!”

I have shown you the problems of a literal interpretation of the Lord’s supper that means that Jesus is now in the bread and wine.

mmmmmmm….no, you haven’t.

Telling me what you believe or what the Roman Catholic believes is not the same thing as showing it to be true.

mmmmmmm….yes, actually, it is.

The New Testament writers do not teach what your church is teaching about this

mmmmmm…yeah, they do. 

we should be better theologians than those of the past because we have more tools, training and experience than those of the past.  We have things available to us that they never had. The sad thing is so many do not take advantage of it.

So you ARE saying that everyone got it wrong until you came along…oh those silly apostles, oh that fool Paul, oh that knucklehead Augustine…if ONLY they had had Strong’s Concordance they would have KNOWN that Jesus was only toying with them!  If only they had the technology we have today, they would NEVER have thought that Jesus actually meant what He said.  Silly us.

mk,
You are assuming that the apostles believed as Mark has written—“the substance of the Eucharist is Jesus Christ, fully God and fully mean while the accidents (i.e., everything perceivable by the senses) are those of bread and wine.  In short, it looks, smells, tastes, feels and appears to be bread and wine in every way, but is not.”  Where in any of the apostles’ writings do we even see a hint of this?
No one can read anything without interpreting. We interpret to understand. Words must be interpreted in context and understanding what Jesus meant in His teachings can be very difficult. Even those whom He taught personally had a difficult time in understanding Him even though it was “as plain as day and as clear as glass” as you wrote.
You did not respond to how in a literal fashion that flesh is bread.  Along the same lines, how can a cup be a covenant (Luke 22:20)  How can a cup which Jesus said “ the cup which is given for you “is the new covenant” in my blood” be understood literally?
Here are a number of major problems with the Roman Catholic understanding on this issue:
1) It means that Jesus has 4 natures: Deity, humanity, bread and wine.
2) It means that the bread and wine is God.
3) It means that you worship an inanimate object since there is no signs of life or deity in the bread or wine. No intelligence, no awareness, no communication from the bread and wine.
4) It means that Christ work on the cross is not finished but needs multiple sacrifices throughout time. This is a denial of Heb 10:10-14

As I said before, just because something has been believed for a long time does not mean it’s true. There are countless examples of this kind of thing throughout history.  Even your own church has erred on important matters such as the inquisitions, killing Joan of Arc, and picking bad popes to name a few examples.

“1) It means that Jesus has 4 natures: Deity, humanity, bread and wine.”
 
Nope.  Complete misunderstanding of Transubstantiation.  The substance is no longer bread and wine.
 
“2) It means that the bread and wine is God.”
 
Closer to truth, but considering it’s no longer bread and wine after the consecration, then one is still off.
 
“3) It means that you worship an inanimate object since there is no signs of life or deity in the bread or wine. No intelligence, no awareness, no communication from the bread and wine.”
 
Why do you expect the Eucharist to start talking?
 
“4) It means that Christ work on the cross is not finished but needs multiple sacrifices throughout time. This is a denial of Heb 10:10-14”
 
Nope.  The Grace from the crucifixion is not bound by petty things like time and space.  One sacrifice for all time.

Jared,
1- If Transubstantiation is true, then that means Jesus has another 2 natures for a total of 4 natures.
2- The bread and wine are still bread and wine. If we were to look at a “before” and “after” of the bread and wine under a microscope we would see no difference.  Saying words over the bread and wine does nothing to change the bread and wine. (words of consecration).
To say that the bread and wine is God is to make it an idol. It is idol worship.
3- If the bread and wine is now God because of the consecration we should expect to see some kind of manifestation of the change. Since your church claims that Christ is literally in the bread and wine we should see Him manifesting Himself such ways as by communication, awareness or intelligence. The fact this kind of thing does not happen counts against any real change in the bread and wine. This alone shows the superiority of the symbolic view.
4- At the mass, is Jesus being sacrificed to the Father again?
5- Is a priest necessary for a mass to be valid?

Erik,

1) It means that Jesus has 4 natures: Deity, humanity, bread and wine.

Read Jared’s answer.  Jesus didn’t “look, sound, smell or taste” like God either.  And yet He was. To all appearances, He looked like an ordinary human being.

2) It means that the bread and wine is God.

This is because you do not understand the word “Substance”.  What is it?  is not the same question as “What does it appear to be?  Did you know that the word for “daily” in the Lord’s Prayer exists nowhere else in literature and that St. Jerome translated it as “super substantial” ... Give us this day our super substantial bread.  The first half of the Greek word means something like “over and above”.  Our bread which is a substance over and above bread…

You have mentioned before that Greek Philosophy has no place in Christian thinking but you are wrong.  St. Paul took on the Greek philosophers and held his own with them. Why wouldn’t Jesus speak to us in language we understood?

3) It means that you worship an inanimate object since there is no signs of life or deity in the bread or wine. No intelligence, no awareness, no communication from the bread and wine.

That’s because you don’t believe.  I suggest you do as someone else suggested and sit in front of the Eucharist for few weeks.  I assume that you have spoken to atheists before.  And they have said to you that they do not believe in your Jesus because there is no sign of intelligence, no awareness, no communication from this invisible entity.  And you have said in return that there is much intelligence, communication and awareness…if only they believed.  It is the same with Our Lord in the Eucharist.  He is not a magician and does not do parlor tricks.  His affect on us is not the same as your affect on someone would be.  But trust me, He affects those who receive and adore Him in the form of bread and wine.  In unbelievable POWERFUL ways. 

4) It means that Christ work on the cross is not finished but needs multiple sacrifices throughout time. This is a denial of Heb 10:10-14

Only if you don’t understand Hebrews.  Which you obviously do not.  It is not multiple sacrifices.  It is the same sacrifice and we enter into it at each and every Mass.  Jesus is BOTH the offerer AND the offered.  His sacrifice is frozen in time or better yet outside of time.  It can be accessed at any time.  EVERY HIGH PRIEST MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER.
Jesus, as the only HIGH PRIEST left, offers Himself to us continually.

Think of a perpetual game of double dutch.  The ropes keep going round and round and round…never ending.  And every day, we Christians jump in and participate.  Then we jump out again.  But the ropes never stop turning, world without end.  Jesus is perpetually offering Himself to the Father, day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute.  And at every Mass, we “jump into” that perpetual offering.  It is not a RE offering, but a PERPETUAL offering. 

As I said before, just because something has been believed for a long time does not mean it’s true.

Nobody said it did.  It is not because it has been believed for a long time, but because it was believed from THE BEGINNING.  Jesus said it, the apostles believed it.  THAT is why we still believe it 2,000 years later.  As Mark said, do you really think that every one in the first 1500 years was an idiot and that only YOU understand what Jesus meant?  How do you know Jesus really died for our sins?  It can’t be because He says so.  If that were true, you’d believe in the Eucharist, because He also said “THIS IS MY TRUE FLESH”...No.  You believe, because the He said it and the apostles believed it.  It is the apostles belief that caused YOU to believe, because it is THEIR belief that caused HIS words to be recorded.

I have already shown you where Paul CLEARLY states what he believes.  You twist his words and you have twisted Christs.  YOU need to answer MY questions…where do we see ANYTHING, ANYWHERE and ANYTIME that shows us that the vine and door metaphors were taken literally?  Answer that question and we can move on.

Meanwhile, here is another source that states what the apostles believed about the Eucharist…the Didache, or apostles rule book…

On the Lord’s day, when you have been gathered together, break bread and celebrate the Eucharist. But first confess your sins so that your offering may be pure. If anyone has a quarrel with his neighbor, that person should not join you until he has been reconciled. Your sacrifice must not be defiled. In this regard, the Lord has said: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice. I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is great among the nations.

and

Do not let anyone eat or drink of your eucharist except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For the statement of the Lord applies here also: Do not give to dogs what is holy.

Now you need to answer MY question before I respond to any more of yours.

Erik,

4- At the mass, is Jesus being sacrificed to the Father again?
5- Is a priest necessary for a mass to be valid?

No and yes.

1- If Transubstantiation is true, then that means Jesus has another 2 natures for a total of 4 natures.

No.  It doesn’t. Stop telling Catholics what they believe and *find out* what they believe.  You are refuting a straw man.  After the consecration, there *is* bread and wine there.  Only the appearance.

2- The bread and wine are still bread and wine. If we were to look at a “before” and “after” of the bread and wine under a microscope we would see no difference.  Saying words over the bread and wine does nothing to change the bread and wine. (words of consecration).

No.  They are not.  That is the whole point of the doctrine, to explain how it is that the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, but only retain the appearance of bread and wine.  “Appearance” means “everything evident to the sense”.  Looking through a microscope is an exercise of the senses and will still yeild the appearance of bread and wine.  Nonetheless, says Jesus, this is my body.

To say that the bread and wine is God is to make it an idol. It is idol worship.

The worship of Jesus Christ is not idol worship.  The Eucharist is Jesus Christ, according to Jesus Christ.

3- If the bread and wine is now God because of the consecration we should expect to see some kind of manifestation of the change. Since your church claims that Christ is literally in the bread and wine we should see Him manifesting Himself such ways as by communication, awareness or intelligence. The fact this kind of thing does not happen counts against any real change in the bread and wine. This alone shows the superiority of the symbolic view.

No.  We shouldn’t.  Blessed is he who has not seen and yet has believed.  That said, google “miracle+Lanciano”.  Now and then God has done a Eucharistic miracle to remind the faithful that what Jesus promised is true.  You are simply making your demands the measure of all things. There’s no real difference between your demand that God do something visible in the Eucharist and the atheist’s demand that the risen Jesus appear to him or he will not believe.

4- At the mass, is Jesus being sacrificed to the Father again?

No.  The Mass is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

5- Is a priest necessary for a mass to be valid?

Yes.

Argh.  Stupid computer: “After the consecration, there *is* ***NO*** bread and wine there. “

1.  You are not arguing with Catholic doctrine here.  You are arguing with your misconceptions of Catholic doctrine, and as long as you refuse to actually understand Church teaching, you will never make a sound argument.  Because of this, responding to you is a pointless endeavor because you aren’t really arguing against the Church, but your own perception.
2. See #1
And, yes, the words do cause change.  Jesus said them at the first Mass and commanded the Apostles to do the same in memory of Him.  When God speaks, He can cause change. “Let there be light…Your sins are forgiven…Take it; this is my body.”  Go ahead and deny that the Church’s belief is true if you wish, but to say it’s impossible is to, once again, say God’s not powerful enough to do this.  Cut that out.
3. See #1
4. No.
5. Yes.

Now, if you wish to continue this discussion, you need to understand what the Church actually teaches instead of arguing against the image in your own head, and you need to accept that God is not limited in any way.
His sacrifice is not limited by space or time, which is why we don’t sacrifice Him again at every Mass and why He was present in the Eucharist at the Last Supper.  As long as you persist arguing the way you are right now, you will not make an intelligent argument against the Church.
Then, you need to support your own arguments.  If you’re right, Scripture, history, and 1st Century Jewish culture should back up your arguments.  If all you can do is attack my view, which can be defended quite easily by Scripture, history, and 1st Century Jewish culture, why should I take yours seriously? 
Or, you can continue arguing the way you have been so far, in which case I’m through here. If you continue to arrogantly tell the Catholic Church what it believes, or if you continue to use arguments that require the power of God to be limited by petty things like physics, then do not expect another reply from me.

Church: The Eucharist is not bread a wine, but the body and blood of Jesus, according to his own word.
Erik: So then, you’re saying the Eucharist is bread and wine.
Church: No, I’m…
Erik: So since you believe the Eucharist is bread and wine, you’re saying God is bread and wine.
Church: No. I’m saying that there is no brea…
Erik: So you teach that the Eucharist is God, Man, bread and wine.
Church: What?
Erik: Man!  I am *hammering* you with my brilliance!  It’s amazing nobody for 2000 years thought of this till I came along.
Church: Er…
Erik: No need to thank me. I was obviously born for this hour, to lead the Church out of this amazingly simple mistake they’ve been making for two thousand years.  Now let me tell you what you believe about the Trinity.  You’re never gonna believe it!

I would highly recommend reading the writings of both Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda… but one *should* first understand the
following:

[How should such writings be treated today? The answer to this is two-fold.

just as The Passion of The Christ can lead to a fruitful personal meditation on the sufferings of the Lord, without being historical in all its details.]

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/emmerich.htm

Mark,

:)

This is nothing to what Erik sounded like on the “A Friend of mine is a Protestant” thread! 

I think he’s just young.  And passionate. But he doesn’t listen and he doesn’t answer questions.  Just keeps saying the same things over and over.  You’d think that 850 comments he’d have learned something about what we believe.

He does to Catholicism what he does to Scripture…approaches both with a preconceived understanding and then stubbornly refuses to accept that it might be him that is wrong and not Scripture or the Church.  *sigh* and he lectures us about exegesis and eisegesis.

Christ was given a few pieces of bread and He made it sufficient to fill 5000 men with several baskets left over. Christ told them to draw water and serve it to the guests, and they obeyed, and it was changed to wine. All this is to show that such things like changing the substance of water and returning superabundance are completely within His ordinary power and intent. So if we walk by faith and not by sight, we will not trust our senses, but only His word.

Can any RC here show me from the NT where the office of the priest is mentioned?

You mean besides large portions of the book of Hebrews?  The letters to Timothy speak of presbuteros, from which get the word priest.

Notice that you are changing the subject rather than acknowledge that you have been making straw man arguments, Erik.  That’s dishonest.  Why would anybody waste more time answering your questions when you change the subject don’t acknowledge the effort they took to answer your previous questions. I know I won’t bother any further.

Mark,
Hebrews is about the OT priesthood and the High Priesthood of Christ. The fact of the matter is that is that there is no sacramental office of a priesthood in the NT. Paul, who is the only one who speaks of the structure of church never mentions a priest as an office. The priesthood is essential to the RC understanding of the Eucharist. Without it, there is no such thing as a mass in the NT.

Erik:

The Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus is precisely what is conferred on the apostles by Jesus and it is what they confer on their successors, the presbyters.  Sorry, but you are again arguing, not with me but with the entire Christian Church everywhere for 15 centuries till some Protestants decided to chuck the priesthood a few centuries ago.

Erik,

Perhaps NOW may be a good time for you to move to another Catholic site?  I think your gig is up!  LOL

Catholics follow the Biblical model, of Bishops, presbyters and deacons. The Lutherans and others simply have “pastors” making no proper distinction whatsoever between the orders, and the Bible plainly contradicts them.
.
All of this is analagous to the old Testament - deacons to Levites, presbyters to priests and bishops to high priests. And so the good God has done as He has said (Isa 66:21), taking of the Gentiles to be priests and Levites in the new covenant.
.
Again, it is shown by the plain words of the Apostle that the two terms presbyter and priest are largely synonymous when he says in Romans 15, “Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”
.
And so the prophecy of Malachi is fulfilled. God receives no sacrifice from the Jews, while in every Gentile land from east to west from the rising to the setting of the sun a pure offering, a clean oblation is made
.
This prophecy is fulfilled and has been fulfilled in all ages by the Catholic Church and in her alone.

Mark,
Where did Jesus confer the Melchizedek priesthood onto the apostles? What chapter and verse gives you this idea?

I don’t believe in sola scriptura.  There are lots of things Christians, including you, rightly believe without a chapter and verse proof text. Scripture bear implicit, not explicit, witness to the priesthood just it bears implicit, not explicit witness to the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception.

And you are still dishonestly changing the subject. So since you have no interest in the answers to your previous set of questions, I will not bother wasting my time with you any more.

Christ made His Apostles priests at the Last Supper when He commanded them to offer the sacrifice of His body and His blood always in proclamation of His death until the end of time (cf. 1 Cor 11:26) saying “Do this in memory of Me”
.
He confirmed and ratified the power He gave them when He said after the Resurrection that He was sending them out in the world just as the Father had sent Him with the power to forgive sins. ” If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23)
.
St.James confirms this power resides in the priests of the Church, and St.Paul tells Titus to continue to ordain priests in the towns of Crete, and tells Timothy to hand down succession he had received from him by the laying on off hands. St.Jude speaks of the heretics who in his age had followed in the rebellion of Korah, Korah of old who had rebelled specifically against the priesthood in the time of Moses.

Korah was also clearly a type of the heretic Luther who also rebelled against the Church and the priesthood to his own destruction.

Wow Erik,

I see you took me at my word.  Rather than answer my questions, you’ve chosen to dismiss me. Will you do the same to Mark and Xavier?

I guess this means you concede that we are right?

Xavier,
You wrote that “Catholics follow the Biblical model, of Bishops, presbyters and deacons.” The problem with this is that your church forbids married men from being a bishop in clearly opposition to I Tim 3:4-5 where one of the qualifications is to be married. If you are a married Roman Catholic man you are disqualified from being a bishop because you are married.

Your use of Rom 15:16 is not about an office of priest in the church. Paul did not consider himself officially some kind of priest as its used in the RCC. “The verb here means that Paul was willing to make sacrifices as did the priests of the OT. However, the servant (doúlos [1401]) of Christ, as Paul so often called himself (not using the term “priest”), should imitate the priest of the OT only in that he must sacrifice for the cause of Christ (Rom. 1:1; 2 Cor. 4:5; Phil. 1:1).”
Zodhiates, S. 2000, c1992, c1993. The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers: Chattanooga, TN

Xavier,
You claim that Christ at the last supper made the apostles His priests. It is true that all Christians are priests to God. See I Peter 2:9. What I’m looking for is the office of a priest that is part of the structure of the NT church. In all descriptions of the offices of the church there is no mention of a sacramental priest whose job is to lead in worship. There is no mention that the qualifications of this office a person is to be celibate.

BTW- where is that passage that says “St.Paul tells Titus to continue to ordain priests in the towns of Crete”? Please keep in mind that an elder and priest are 2 different offices. 

Mark,
I didn’t ask you if believed in Sola Scriptura. I asked you a simple question about where did Jesus confer the Melchizedek priesthood onto the apostles?
To answer that question requires an answer from Scripture. The fact of the matter is that Jesus never did such a thing.

Certainly, Catholics follow the Biblical model while Lutherans follow an innovated novelty. Tell me, why aren’t there Bishops, presbyters and deacons among the various Protestant groups?
.
The alleged problem disappears when we consider that Christ Himself, and St.Paul were both celibate, the latter even expressing his wish that if possible he would have all be like him, and Our Lord saying the same.
.
Another point you don’t realize is that the office of the presbyter is precisely the office of priest, even as the office of the Bishop is the office of the high priest and the ministry of the deacon that of the Levite. This is proved first of all by analogy with the three orders of the Old Testament, as I said above, including the passage from Isa 66:21 which speaks of New Covenant times. It is proved secondly from Rom 15 that all presbyters like St.Paul are ministerial priests.

It is proved thirdly from the Last Supper where Christ specifically told them, not every single disciple, not women for instance, but only His male Apostles making them true ministerial priests, to perpetuate the offering of His memorial sacrifice for all time. On this point, it must be said again that your “word study dictionary” is likewise heretical. Mal 1:11 proves that the Gentiles in every place will offer a true Sacrifice to the glory of the great God of Israel, and 1 Cor 10:17-18 confirms the existence of the true Sacrifice in the New Covenant and specifically says it must be eaten. Finally, as a fourth and last case, the point already being sufficiently made, it is proved by the priestly power to remit sins granted by Christ to His Apostles in the upper room and also exercised by St.Paul later as he tells us in persona Christi. St.James also describes in his epistle the sacrament of extreme unction or annointing of the sick as one of the priestly functions of presbyters who are to be expressly called for, saying that sins must be confessed and will be forgiven.
.
Considering in addition to this that St.James gives the most precise refutation of Luther’s other well known heresy no wonder Luther hated St.James and wanted to remove the book from his heretical copy of the New Testament.
.
Even in the Old Covenant there was a ministerial priesthood (among the ordained) who offered propitiatory sacrifice and a royal priesthood (among all the people) who offered spiritual sacrifice like hymns and prayer. The Lutheran heresy was to confuse and conflate the two, and Protestantism has never recovered from this unhappy confusion, countless thousands of Christians being thereby being deprived of the sacraments to this day.
.

Xavier,
  Did Jesus ever command that to serve in His church one had to be celibate? Did Paul? No.  In fact we know with certainty that Peter was married. The qualifications for church leadership are found in I Timothy 3.  Isa 66:21 does not say there will be an office of priest in the New Testament. The office of the priest as we see in the Roman Catholic church is different than the priesthood of all believers. The priesthood of all believers is mentioned in the New Testament while the office a priest as a position in the church is not.  In fact there is no record in the New Testament of any priest leading worship or hearing someone’ confession and giving an absolution.
Romans 15 does not prove that “all presbyters like St.Paul are ministerial priests”. It does not prove anything like that. In fact you will not even find an official interpretation by your church that shows what you claim.
Mal 1:11 is not about an office of priesthood in the New Testament. Just look at the context of Malachi.
What is the point that Paul is making in I Corinthians 10? 
It is true that Jesus gave His apostles to forgive sins but that is based the preaching of the gospel and a person believing in Christ that results in the forgiveness of sins. One thing we don’t see in the New Testament is an apostle hearing someone’ confession and forgiving them like we see in the Roman Catholic church.

You wrote—“ On this point, it must be said again that your “word study dictionary” is likewise heretical.”
Where is the support for this statement that proves this scholarly work is incorrect?  Just because you don’t like the definition does not make it heretical.

James also is not speaking of some kind office of priest. The   presbyters were not priests like a Roman Catholic priest is.  James also is not promoting some kind of sacrament for healing.  The word for anoint here means to rub with oil. It is not a religious or sacred word. (aleipsantes). If James meant it to be for some kind of divine healing by using oil he would have used the word chrio.

If anyone is conflating 2 different concepts it’s you.  You are asserting that there is an office of a sacramental priesthood in the New Testament when it is not mentioned in any list of offices in the church nor are there any examples of it being shown by anyone in the New Testament. This is a later development in church history.

Erik,
Priestly celibacy is canon law, not Church doctrine.  Peter’s marriage is not a theological problem.

Priestly celibacy is canon law, not Church doctrine.  Peter’s marriage is not a theological problem

Erik,

You already know this as I went over it ad Nauseum in the other thread. 

You’re losing this argument for 2 reasons.

1.  You only ask questions and never answer them which is why Mark and I are refusing to answer anymore until you give us the same respect. 

and

2.  Because you continue to read Scripture incorrectly and then use these misinterpretations to prove points that do not exist.  ie: it says IF you are already married you should not REMARRY.  It does not say you should or must be married.  In addition Paul claims it is better if you DO NOT marry.  OR You need Faith to be saved, therefore, you ONLY need Faith to be saved.

Mk,
  Most of what you write towards me is sarcasm and i don’t care to engage people who do this. But in case i’m wrong, why don’t you give me 3 of your questions that you want me to respond to and lets go from there.

BTW- no one here is obligated to answer any questions including mine. If I choose to answer some and not others then that is my prerogative just as its yours.

Mk,
If the qualifications for a bishop are one who manages his own household well and keeps his children under control (I Timothy 3:4-5) then that man must be married with children.  Your church nullifies the Scripture here by requiring its leaders not be married with children.
When Paul speaks of it being better not to marry he is not speaking of church leadership but giving his opinion that to be single would mean that those in that condition could give undivided attention to Christ while those who marry are divided in their interests. I Corinthians 7:29-35

It is true that we are saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8-9

Jared,
What is the difference between canon law and Church doctrine?

In regards to Peter being married he would be disqualified from being a leader in the RCC today if he was a RC all his life.

Erik, basically canon law is the Church’s rules while Church doctrine is the Church’s beliefs.  Canon law can changes; Church doctrine doesn’t.

...ignore that “can”. >_>

I can show you a trillion infinitely more scholarly works that will refute every impious and heretical assertion of that book. I’ve already answered, you just ignore the questions that are inconvenient to you.
.
“In fact we know with certainty”
.
Actually, you don’t know anything with certainty. You don’t even know with certainty that there should be 27 books in the New Testament canon, because only the authority of the Catholic Church determined this. This is what makes your whole system refuting, and you base everything on its false premises.
.
1. Both Christ and St.Paul clearly speak of the superiority of the celibate life as a mark of discipleship. The Church also has the power to bind and loose given to her by Christ (Mat 18:17-18) and to excommunicate self-condemned heretics who refuse her judgment. In her wisdom, she chooses in the Latin rite to ordain priests only from men who’ve chosen the monastic life. In other rites, Catholic priests may be married.
.
2. St.Peter said he left wife to follow Christ. Obviously, in the second generation of Christians, it were better that such men make a prior commitment rather than form families and then leave them.
.
3. You still haven’t told me why your peculiar Protestant sect doesn’t follow the Biblical model, but I doubt you ever plan to.
.
4. You also distort the plain meaning of the powers Christ gave His Apostles. Christ gave them the full and personal power to retain and to remit sins, but you stick with Calvin’s heretical and unheard of interpretation of John 20
.
5. Malachi speaks of a sacrifice offered by the Gentiles in every land. Where is it? St.Paul says the Eucharist is the source of Christian unity, and he says in eating of the Sacrifice we like the people of Israel participate on the Altar.
.
6.Isaiah most certainly proves the existence of ministerial priests or “offices” as you like to say because it talks about “priests and Levites”. This proves it is talking about ministries, not a simple royal priesthood. Rom 15 does prove presbyters are priests and this is the Church’s teaching as well. You simply don’t know what you are talking about now.
.
7. Points 4 and 5 are important because priestly power primarily consists in offering propitiatory sacrifice and in forgiving sins. If this is proven, the Christian priesthood is proven. Moreover, St.Paul says he forgives sins in persona Christi. This also proves that he, a presbyter, was a true priest.

Xavier,
We know with certainty that Peter was married. See Mark 1:30.  We also know with certainty which books belong in the New Testament canon. Do you know how the church of the 4th century determined which ones belonged and why?

1- Where did Jesus and Paul teach “the superiority of the celibate life as a mark of discipleship”?  Your church may use the “Latin rite to ordain priests” but as I have shown that there is no office of a sacramental celibate priesthood in the New Testament.  Where it does deny the Scripture (I Timothy 3) is with its bishops.

2- Where do you get the idea that “St. Peter said he left wife to follow Christ”?

4-Where is the official Roman Catholic interpretation of John 20:23 to mean what you claim it does? Even if the apostles had this power, where does it say that they passed it on to priests?

It looks to me that you are doing a lot of private interpretation in your last 4 points.  Can you point me to the official interpretations of these passages so I can see if they line up with what you are saying?

“We also know with certainty which books belong in the New Testament canon.”

Yep! Why? ;)

Erik,

Where in Scripture do we see Jesus holding up a vine or a door and saying “THIS” (meaning the object He is holding) IS MY BODY?

Since you are either unable, unwilling or have the attention span of a gnat and simply forgot, to answer my question, I will repeat it and continue to repeat it until you do…

Where in Scripture do we see Jesus holding up a vine or a door and saying “THIS” (meaning the object He is holding) IS MY BODY?

Mk,
John 15:1-“ I am the true vine….” No need for Jesus to hold up a vine or a door to make His point since they knew what these things were.

Erik,

Do you or do you not accept what Scripture tells us as true????

You have been given Scripture passages that show EXPLICITLY the office of the priesthood, celibacy for the disciples and the institution of the Eucharist.  And AGAIN, all you do is show passages that say COULD and claim that they say MUST.  How can you call yourself a follower of Christ and His Sacred Word and then ignore what He says???

We are not saved by Faith at all.  We are saved by GRACE.  Do you have to BELIEVE that?  Yes.  Is that ALL you have to do?  No.

Erik,

Mk,
John 15:1-“ I am the true vine….” No need for Jesus to hold up a vine or a door to make His point since they knew what these things were.

So your answer is NOWHERE?  Finally we agree on something.  Now WHY doesn’t He hold up a door or a vine and say “THIS IS MY BODY”?  Because, it ISN’T His body and BINGO, you’ve gotten one passage right.  This IS a metaphor!

So don’t you think, that maybe, just possibly, given all the talk of Manna in the OT, the daily sacrifice, The ENTIRE chapter of John 6, Pauls words and the early Churches practice…that THIS particular claim, that THIS IS MY BODY while holding up a piece of bread was NOT the same as the vine and the door????

Why would He spend SO MANY words, iterating and REiterating, over and over and over….THIS IS MY BODY….TRULY, AMEN I SAY TO YOU, SO BE IT, THIS IS MY TRUE FLESH, WHOSEVER BELIEVES, HE WHO GNAWS ON MY FLESH WILL HAVE ETERNAL LIFE>...why would He spend so much TIME on a metaphor???

He doesn’t do this with the vine.  He doesn’t do this with the door.  No one says…“What?  Walk through some door?”  and walk away…but they DO say…

How can this man ask us to EAT HIS FLESH????  Just like you, they GOT IT WRONG!  The saying was too hard and because THEY didn’t understand, the DISMISSED JESUS’ WORDS.  You are guilty of the same darn thing.  PRIDE, my friend.  The pride of the Pharisees.  You know better than Jesus.

And where are those Pharisees now?  Gone.  That’s where.  And yet, 2,000 years later the Eucharist is STILL HERE.  Whether YOU get it or not. 

Mk,
  There is no sacramental priesthood in the New Testament nor that celibacy is a requirement for church leadership. See I Timothy 3.  It is your church and you that is reading into the texts its doctrines to try to make Scripture say something it is not.  Simple to prove this:  show one verse in Scripture on church leadership where celibacy is a requirement.

There was an office of the priesthood in the Old Testament but that is not carried through as an office in the New Testament.

What is grace?  Did grace die for your sins?

Do me a favor Erik…You like Scripture, right?

So just for giggles, read John 6, right now, all the way through and PRETEND like it you’ve never read it before.  Think outside of your box.  Open your mind and just for this one time, read it as if Jesus meant the words literally.  Throw away ALL of your preconceived notions.  Take into account that everything in the OT is FULFILLED in the NT and that Jesus Himself draws the parallel between the life saving Manna (miraculous bread that fed them physically) and the Living Bread of the NT. (miraculous bread that will feed us spiritually.  Think of how they are clamoring for another miracle like the loaves, and how Jesus says I’ll do you one better, I’ll give you a miracle that will blow your socks off!  I, God, will become Bread, Living Bread, and I will continue to feed my people FOREVER.  And he who EATS this BREAD, will LIVE.  Unlike those who ate the Passover lamb and lived to see another day (OT…) you will eat THIS lamb, and live FOREVER (NT..fulfillment of OT)...

Can you try this???

The Bread of Life Discourse. 22* The next day, the crowd that remained across the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not gone along with his disciples in the boat, but only his disciples had left. 23* Other boats came from Tiberias near the place where they had eaten the bread when the Lord gave thanks. 24When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. 25And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” 26Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life,* which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”l 28So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” 29Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.” 30So they said to him, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?m 31* Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written:n

66As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. 67Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” 68Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”d 70

And now look at the language used in John 15…

If you do not remain in me, you are LIKE a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

Do you see the word LIKE in there????  THAT is metaphorical language.  You do not see that in John 6.

Erik,

There is no sacramental priesthood in the New Testament nor that celibacy is a requirement for church leadership.

For the love of everything that is HOLY, READ WHAT WE HAVE SAID!  You are SO DANG FRUSTRATING.  How many ways and times can we say it.

Celibacy is a D.I.S.C.I.P.L.I.N.E NOT a DOCTRINE.  There are Catholics in other rites that DO MARRY.  It is a choice.  It is Canon Law.  It is NOT A MUST…it is a “WE CHOOSE TO DO IT THIS WAY AT THIS TIME FOR THESE REASONS”

And YES, there IS a SACRAMENTAL PRIESTHOOD.  Why do you ignore Scripture?  It’s the only thing you CLAIM to believe and yet you totally trash it!  Unbelievable!

Simple to prove this:  show one verse in Scripture on church leadership where celibacy is a requirement.

You make me tired.  I don’t know why any of us has wasted one minute of our time.  You are blind and deaf.  Not because you don’t believe what we believe but because you don’t READ what we WRITE or LISTEN to what we SAY. It’s the same way you read Scripture.  With one eye closed and cotton in your ears.

Quite frankly, it’s rude.  And not very Christian like.  People are taking the time to answer you and explain and you don’t even have the courtesy to read what they have said…

Shame on you.

Mk,
  Here is another reason Jesus is not in a piece of bread: He already dwells within us via faith in Him. Colossians 1:27 is a clear expression of this where it is written—to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Or take John 14:
16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
Romans 8:
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
As you can see from these passages Christ is in us and His Sprit dwells in us for the purpose of conforming us to Christ.  Eating the Eucharist does not gain you more of Christ or any supernatural benefit.  Things physical can do nothing to nourish the soul.  Colossians 2:20-23
Note also that the Passover meal was a symbolic meal for the purpose of reminding the people what God had done. Jesus takes this same story and uses the same meal to remind His followers what He will do that weekend.

Here is another reason Jesus is not in a piece of bread: He already dwells within us via faith in Him.

It’s not EITHER/OR, it’s BOTH/AND.

I’m not responding anymore until you’ve read John 6.

And I’m not responding at all if you continue not to read what we have written.  You’ll notice that nobody else is responding at all.  Why do you think that is???

Note also that the Passover meal was a symbolic meal for the purpose of reminding the people what God had done.

No, actually it wasn’t.  It was a re entering the passover.  Ask any Jew.  It is not simply remembering, but a MEMORIAL.  Which is what the Mass is.  Once again we have the fulfillment in the NT (The Mass and re entering the Sacrifice on Calvary) of something in the OT (The Passover, a memorial, a re entering a time in the past) Jews actually believe they are THERE, not just remembering it.

We recall the Exodus in our minds, verbalize it in the telling of the Haggadah, digest it in the form of matzah and wine. As we passover the centuries, memory—those faded visages of past that generally constitute our only answer to the tyranny of time—becomes experience, and history is made current and real.

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1985/jewish/Remembering-the-Future.htm

This is exactly the same thing we do in the Mass…it becomes experience, and history is made current and real…we re enter the double dutch game, we re enter calvary.  OT fulfilled in the NT.

Mark and Xavier,

This is from the Jewish site I posted above…I got a chill…we might have to “take them on” and explain that it isn’t “in the future”, it’s right here and now.

Thus on the latter days of Passover, our transcendence of time enters a new, heightened phase: it is one thing to vitalize memory to the point of actual re-experience, but quite another to make real an event that lies in the future, especially an event that has no parallel in the history of man. Yet in the closing hours of Passover, we enter into the world of Moshiach. Having vaulted over millennia of past on the seder nights, we now surmount the blank wall of future, to taste the matzah and wine of the ultimate redemption.

Hah!  My captcha is TRUTH26!  lol

Mk,
It does not change the fact when you call Celibacy is a D.I.S.C.I.P.L.I.N.E NOT a DOCTRINE” that it changes the fact that your church invalidates the Scripture by doing this. Jesus warned about making traditions more important than the Scripture in Matt 15:6.

There is no SACRAMENTAL PRIESTHOOD in the NT. There is no office of priest in the NT. We do not see any graces coming through eating the Lord’ supper or a priest hearing confessions.  If you knew Scripture well you would know this.

Here is an interesting quote on celibacy for priests:
“The first written mandate requiring priests to be chaste came in AD 304. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all"bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics” were to"abstain completely from their wives and not to have children.” http://hnn.us/articles/696.html

What this tells us that within 3 centuries corruption was already beginning.

mk,
Where did Jesus or His apostles say that “The Mass and re entering the Sacrifice on Calvary”? 
Hebrews explains what the death of Christ is about and it never says anything about what you wrote here.

“A memorial is an object which serves as a focus for memory of something, usually a person (who has died) or an event.” wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial

“Exodus 12:11-14 - Speaking of the lamb that was slain and eaten in the feast, Moses said, “It is the Lord’s Passover.” But was this literal? No, the literal Passover was God’s act of passing over the firstborn of the Israelites, not slaying then when He slew the firstborn of the Egyptians. The eating of the lamb was an annual feast to remember God’s act of passing over the firstborn. But Moses said of the lamb, “It is the Passover.”

This language is typical in memorials and is exactly what Jesus did in the Lord’s Supper. This example is especially useful, because Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper when He and His disciples were keeping the Passover. The disciples were familiar with the language of the Passover. So when Jesus said, “This is my body. This is my blood,” they understood that it was not literally His body and blood - they saw Him literally sitting in front of them. He was instituting a memorial of His body and blood.”

Oh please Erik,
We’ve shown you numerous times that celibacy was fine.  JESUS was celibate for the love of ... So was Paul.  Once again, it’s not either/or.  YOU are the one that says it is.  I’ve shown you a dozen times that the passage you keep quoting to say that priests (which don’t even exist as far as you are concerned) should be married actually says that they should be married ONLY ONCE.  What a surprise you ignored or didn’t read it…any of the times I’ve written it.

As for the Sacramental priesthood…I wouldn’t even waste my time explaining it to you.  It would take much research to draw the connections from the OT to the NT.  If you were someone else, I would be happy to do it.  But given your history of not reading comments that we have spent much time and effort to post, I won’t be wasting my time.  If you really want to know, YOU do the research.

Jesus didn’t have to SAY it.  He DID it.  He said the words DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME…those are words that meant something to a Jew.  Given that He said them on Passover, THE MEMORIAL FEAST, only a fool wouldn’t make the connection.

mk,
Even if a man (leader-bishop) were to be married only once that still would mean your church invalidates the Scripture on this issue. Your church forbids married RC men from being bishops.

Let me encourage to study the Scripture. Not just your favorite verses but the whole books. Get into the background. There are a lot of great resources out there. You will be surprised and probably shocked when you compare Scripture with RC doctrines. Same goes for church history.  Good luck.

Jesus also warned about interpreting Scripture without an authority.  Why do you think He spoke with authority and ALWAYS explained what Scripture meant? 

Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.i

You are like that Eunuch…struggling to understand things that are way above your pay grade.  You simply don’t have the authority to interpret Scripture.  Not in the sense that you think you do.

What “Church” do you actually belong to anyway?  That is if you don’t mind my asking.  I assume you don’t, unless you are ashamed to say?

Erik,
Let me encourage to study the Scripture. Not just your favorite verses but the whole books.

So far all you have proven to us is how much you don’t know.  Same quotes over and over, out of context, misinterpreted…and you have the chutzpah to tell us to read the WHOLE THING?  You guys threw books OUT of Scripture!  lol.  How does one read the WHOLE BOOK when you’ve removed books that don’t back up your perceptions???

I assume you’re giving up?  Haven’t got any answers left?  Used your small arsenal of quotes and now don’t know what to say? 

I want you to understand something that we have all been saying to you Erik.  Okay?  It’s not that we don’t like you.  We don’t even know you.  It’s that we don’t like the dishonest way you make your points.  It’s disrespectful not to read our responses, and to claim to know what we have said when clearly you don’t have a clue.  It’s frustrating.  We’re trying to have an adult conversation with you and all you do is talk in circles.  If I was the only one saying this, it could be taken with a grain of salt, but NUMEROUS people, including the author of this thread have confirmed what I am telling you.  I know I have been hard on you, and I’m sorry if I came across as too hard.  I’m hoping that this experience will teach you something.

First, instead of telling people what they believe, ask them.
Second, when someone takes the time to respond, read the response.
Third, when asked a question, answer it.
Fourth, don’t argue in circles.
Fifth, do your homework.  There is more to this than simply quoting the typical protestant responses that we have all heard before and are quite able to refute.  You also have to KNOW what those passages mean in the context of the entire book.
Sixth, if you don’t know or understand, admit it.  Don’t try to sound like you do know.  It only makes you less credible. 
Lastly,  learn some humility.  Be willing to admit that you just might be wrong.  Listen!  You might learn something.

What you don’t realize is that some of us have studied Protestant thinking and many are ex protestants who know every “Trick” in the book.  You’re not telling us anything new.  Mark is a perfect example of this.  Do you honestly think he hasn’t heard every one of your arguments before?  Do you think he didn’t do some heave soul searching before he realized you guys are wrong and the Catholic Church has gotten it right?

You will be surprised and probably shocked when you compare Scripture with RC doctrines.

I am surprised and shocked by the Church everyday.  Truth has that effect on a person.  Each day I learn some new and wonderful tidbit that I didn’t know the day before.  She never fails to surprise and delight me.  Thanks for noticing.

As for contradicting Scripture by choosing celibacy…lol…So Jesus contradicted Scripture?  Really?  THINK, ERIK, THINK!

Mk,
Where did Jesus warn about interpreting Scripture without an authority? Jesus was also challenged with this kind of question in Mark 11:27-33.
It is true that Jesus did spend a lot of time explaining what His teachings meant and still His disciples struggled. Who wouldn’t?
It is not an issue of needing an authority to interpret Scripture but being taught correctly what the Scriptures mean. The primary responsibility falls on the pastor-teachers, elders and bishops. Paul exhorts Timothy to pay careful attention to his teachings in I Tim 4:15-16. In Col 3:16 we are to have the word of Christ richly dwell in us. For that to happen you must read and study the Scripture. That sadly is lacking in the church. I know quite a number of RC’ and I don’t know one that does and that includes a priest.

  Do you think Jesus held the people responsible for knowing and understanding the Scripture correctly?

One thing that has always perplexed me. Your church claims to be the only church with the authority to properly interpret Scripture and yet there is no such definitive-offical work on the interpretation of Scripture. This is mind boggling to say the least. It leaves its own people without any way of knowing the interpretation of countless verses and passages of Scripture. It forces you and the others to present their own private interpretations instead of your church’.

Yes I belong to a church but which one I go to is a private matter.

Yes I belong to a church but which one I go to is a private matter.

Wow, so you’re perfectly fine with coming here and bashing ours but you won’t even disclose your own?  Are you embarrassed?  Ashamed?  What?  Why would anyone profess to be a Christian and then refuse to divulge what Church he belongs to?  Bizarre.

The Church doesn’t interpret Scripture the way you mean.  The Church teaches what Jesus taught the apostles and that includes a lot more than just the Scriptures.  You know this.  We’ve been through this.  We understand Revelation through Scripture, Sacred Tradition and The Magesterium.  None can be understood without the other.  Since you don’t accept 2 of them, it is not possible for you to understand Scripture.

lololol…Mark 11:27-23

Jesus is basically saying “I know who MY authority is.  Do you know who YOURS is?”  Since they didn’t, Jesus refused to discourse with them further.  That’s exactly what we are saying to you!  Too funny.  We know who OUR Authority is.  It is the Authority GIVEN to the Church, the UNIVERSAL (CATHOLIC) CHURCH…GIVEN by Jesus.  Do you know who YOUR authority is?  Where in Scripture does it say YOU have been given any authority?

mk,
Again, where does the Scripture say I need some kind of authority to interpret Scripture?
If your church has authority to interpret Scripture why haven’t they done so infallibly?
All I’m getting from you and the other RC’ is their private interpretations. Go figure.

Mk,
Tell me about this sacred Tradition. What exactly is it and can you give me an example of it?

Erik,
You’re methods are not effective.  Repeating your arguments is not the same thing as supporting them.  You claim that the priesthood came after the time of the Apostles…or, at least, the time recorded in the New Testament. 
Several replied by showing you that the presbyters were priests.  Your response is basically “nuh-uh!”.  Childish.  If you wish to actually support your arguments instead of repeating them, you need to actually find information to back up your word.
In this case, it should be easy enough to do…we’re all in agreement that the priesthood does currently exist, right?  That means it had a beginning.  If that beginning is later than the New Testament years, you should be able to find a primary source that confirms this.  You will fail, of course, and hopefully you will start to wonder why.

Heh. “Private interpretation”. The Lutheran religion was founded on private interpretation, on the insanely wicked idea that God left His Church in the deepest darkness for 1500 years only to send a bunch of mutually and self-contradictory boorish men as supposed reformers. This impious opinion makes the coming of Luther more glorious than the advent of Christ for the world. Yet, modern Protestantism has anyway contradicted Luther on so many points and he would fly into one of his characteristic rages if he saw them in their wild fancies make it up as they go along.
.
“We are compelled to concede to the Catholics that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them, we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
.
Martin Luther, commentary on St. John.
.
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.”
.
Martin Luther, bearing witness to his own folly and divisions.
.
Here was the man who turned the once great and glorious empire of Christendom into a sorry house divided against itself in the eyes of a world, a scandalous spectacle.
.
We are giving you the Church’s teaching, Erik, we don’t believe in Protestant fictions like private interpretation. It’s just that you don’t know it. Here are two direct canons from Trent, one of the greatest of the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, called to defend the ancient and Apostolic Faith against the heretical innovations of the “reformers”.
.
Session 14, CANON III.—If any one saith, that those words of the Lord the Saviour, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and of retaining sins in the Sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them; but wrests them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the gospel; let him be anathema.
.
Session 22, CANON II.—If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema
.
I highly recommend reading the entire Council and the in-depth explanations given there, rather than random Protestant sites on the net from which most of your responses come verbatim.

Erik,

mk,
Again, where does the Scripture say I need some kind of authority to interpret Scripture?
If your church has authority to interpret Scripture why haven’t they done so infallibly?

Again, if you aren’t go to bother reading my responses, there’s not much point in this.  I’ve already answered this question.  6:10pm

As to the question about Sacred Tradition…I answered that, in depth, on our last thread.  If you really want to know, YOU go look it up.

Here is a clue to help you understand how to know what Scripture means…

Everything in the NT is a fulfillment of the OT.  Therefore, every time you read something in the NT you need to figure out what it is referring to in the OT.  NO ONE read the Scriptures in the OT without an authority to help them understand.  There was Moses, then there was Peter/the Pope.  There was David, then there was Jesus.  There wsa manna, then there was the Eucharist.  There was the Ark of the Covenant, then there was Mary.  There was Adam, then there was Jesus.  There was the mark (circumscision) then there was the mark (Baptism).  There was the OT 3 tiered priesthood, now there is the NT 3 tiered priesthood. There was the Passover, then there was the Crucifixion.  There were the daily sacrifices of numerous offerings, now there is the daily sacrifice of ONE offering.  There was the 10 commandments, then there was the beatitudes.

In the OT there were authorities who studied Scripture and had AUTHORITY to teach them.  In the NT there is the same.

If you interpret Scripture to say something and you cannot find it’s correlation in the OT, OR if your interpretation negates something in the OT (does away with it as opposed to replaces it with something new)then you are interpreting it WRONG.  The OT basically deals with things on an earthly plane while the new elevates everything to a Spiritual plane.  It takes the old and brings it home, it does not ABOLISH it. 

Therefore, it stands to reason that if in the OT there was an AUTHORITY that studied and taught Scripture, there will be the same in the NT.  And there is.

And they were astonished at his doctrine : for he taught them as one that had Authority, and not as the scribes.  Mark 1:22<i>

<i>He summoned the Twelve and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal (the sick).

And even if I should boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for tearing you down, I shall not be put to shame.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.  And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

So we see that Authority WAS given to the apostles, and they were “sent forth” (Which my the way is what the word “Mass” means).  IF, there was a succession of Authority in the OT (and there was, new leaders/teachers replacing the old) then it stands to reason that there would be the same in the NT especially given the fact that we see where the Authority was FIRST given.  The apostles were given Authority directly by Jesus, and that Authority was handed over to successive generations, just as it was in the OT, until Jesus’ return.

It would make absolutely NO SENSE for Jesus to have left us without an Authority.  And He didn’t.  He founded His Church on Peter as the head, the apostles as the governing body (ministerial priests) and the successors of each for all time. 

And Moses said , Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works ; for [I have] not [done them] of mine own mind

“Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them. Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go.”

CLEAR Succession…Authority handed from one who was given it directly by God, to the next who will replace him…

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”

And who does Jesus “SEND”?

Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Do you see that?  Do you?  As you sent me, I send them.  NOTE CAREFULLY, that there is a difference between THEM and those that listen to THEM.  In other words, there are those who are given AUTHORITY and those who will listen to them.  2 different groups.  Jesus prays for those whom He SENDS and those that heed what the ones He SENDS will teach.  The Teaching Authority of the Church, and you and I.

In other words, Jesus is praying for the the Bishops and those who submit to their AUTHORITY.

I’m willing to bet money that your next question is “Where does it say that anyone has Authority?”  lol.  Or “Where does it say that this authority is passed on”...Seriously,  I’ll bet money on it.

So let’s look at it:

</i>And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him; and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses. And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face; </i>

Here we see that the “laying on of hands” was how the Authority of God was passed from Moses to Joshua…notice that Moses, like the apostles, say God face to face, and then his authority was passed to Joshua, through the laying on of hands, even tho Joshua did NOT see God face to face.  Even Paul, who SAW God, was ordained with the laying on of hands by an Apostle.  He was not given authority when He saw Jesus, face to face, but ONLY AFTER the apostle LAID HANDS ON HIM.  Ordination!

  So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.”

Not that Ananias was not one of the original Apostles and yet claims that he was “SENT” by Jesus…how is that possible, if Jesus was no longer there?  It can ONLY be possible IF he was “SENT” by someone ELSE who had the Authority to do so…and THEN Ananias LAYS HANDS ON PAUL, and now Paul is “Sent”.  It was in the LAYING ON OF HANDS by someone with Authority that caused Paul to have the Authority to TEACH AND SPREAD THE WORD.  It was ORDINATION…Not even coming face to face with Jesus was enough.  He had to be ORDAINED, just as Joshua was ordained by Moses.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.

LAID THEIR HANDS and SENT them off.

Are you seeing a pattern yet?  Jesus has the authority of the Father.  He gives that authority to the apostles.  They are SENT.  Subsequently, they LAY HANDS ON OTHERS and SEND them. This is the sacrament of ORDINATION.  This is where authority is passed from one who has it, to the next.  APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.

Do you see that?  Do you????  IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH!  CHOSEN and SENT.  LEADERS AMONG THE BROTHERS.  What set them apart?  Why aren’t YOU sent?  Would you be considered a leader among brothers?  Or are you just one of the brothers?  What makes someone a LEADER?  What does it mean to BE a leader?  Could it mean having “AUTHORITY”????  And how did the leader GET that AUTHORITY?  By the laying on of hands and being SENT!

And here Paul warns NOT to make just anybody a priest. 

Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins.

I could go on, but since I doubt you’ve gotten past the first sentence, I’ll quit now.

This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.

Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind,

In other words “Since we have heard that some Christians, like Erik, who were NOT given Authority to do so by us, (who were not SENT) are teaching stuff that is upsetting you (Sola Scriptura, Faith Alone, OSAS). 

Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God,
who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.

QUALIFIED as MINISTERS.  Authority given by God to some, but not all.  Not SELF GIVEN authority, which you claim, but SPECIAL authority, from God Himself.

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you,
and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work.

Respect those in AUTHORITY.  Those who are OVER YOU.  Where is that Authority found today?  How can you prove that those you claim have authority, actually do?  Where did their authority come from?  How do you know?

Xavier,
Have you ever studied church history and the state of the church before the Protestant Reformation?

Mk,
  In regards to your response to my question” Again, where does the Scripture say I need some kind of authority to interpret Scripture?
If your church has authority to interpret Scripture why haven’t they done so infallibly?”
You answered with this—“ Again, if you aren’t go to bother reading my responses, there’s not much point in this.  I’ve already answered this question.  6:10pm”
Here is your answer at 6:10pm—“ Jesus also warned about interpreting Scripture without an authority.  Why do you think He spoke with authority and ALWAYS explained what Scripture meant? 

Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
This does not answer my questions.  Where did Jesus warn about “interpreting Scripture without an authority.”?????
I know Jesus spoke with authority and explained the Scripture. I’m asking you where does it say specifically that a Christian is forbidden to interpret the Scripture?
You did not answer the second question here but it looks like you tried to here where you wrote:

“The Church doesn’t interpret Scripture the way you mean.  The Church teaches what Jesus taught the apostles and that includes a lot more than just the Scriptures.  You know this.  We’ve been through this.  We understand Revelation through Scripture, Sacred Tradition and The Magesterium.  None can be understood without the other.  Since you don’t accept 2 of them, it is not possible for you to understand Scripture.”

I agree your church teaches a lot more that what the New Testament teaches. That’s why so much of the teachings of your church is non-apostolic.

It’s the Sacred Tradition part that is problematic. Do you know all the Sacred Traditions of your church? Has your church defined infallibly what these Sacred Traditions are?

Tell me how you use Sacred Tradition to understand a specific passage of Scripture such as Matthew 5:8?

Erik,

That’s why so much of the teachings of your church is non-apostolic.

That statement is ludicrous.  I just wrote 2,000 words showing you the apostolic succession and how it continued after the apostles, to those that they sent, down to today.  How in the world can that be non-apostolic.

THINK Erik!  THINK!  If the Scriptures are the last word on revelation then there IS NO APOSTOLIC anything.  The Church ended when the last apostle died.  Period.  If nothing that came after Scripture can show that the apostles handed down Truths that are not in Scripture, then NOTHING was handed down. 

But we know this isn’t true because we have EXTRA biblical sources that said the Church went on….either we take them at their word, or there IS NOTHING LEFT.  Sacred Tradition can be seen in what the apostles did!  AFTER Scripture.  How did they LIVE OUT the Faith.  What did they believe.  There is no list of Sacred Tradition(S).  Because it isn’t a “Bunch of Traditions”.  It’s what the apostles believed and did.  They celebrated MASS.  That is a Sacred Tradition. 

And it’s not that our Church teaches a “lot more” than what is in Scripture….it’s that it explains and furthers our understanding of what IS in Scripture by looking at what the apostles and their successors DID post Scripture and what the AUTHORITY of the Church taught.

Is this really that hard? 

They said Mass.  They honored Mary.  They believe she was assumed into heaven.  They went to sacramental confession.  They canonized Saints.  They confirmed believers.  They acknowledged a hierarchy of Authority within the Church.  They elected a head of the Church.  They defined teachings and declared heresies.  They held councils.  They threw people like you out of the Church for being heretics.  They ordained priests…ALL of this is part of Sacred Tradition and Authority.

I must have asked you a thousand times on the last thread and you NEVER answered me.

I’ll ask again and expect the same disrespect I got then. 

WHERE and WHEN did YOUR Church begin.  Prove it! (Silly question I know since you won’t even say what the heck your Church IS…could be Hindu for all I know). 

Mk,
I understand that the church has the responsibility to teach the Scripture to the people. That is one of the responsibilities of the pastor-teacher (Ephesians 4:11).  Teachers in the church have a grave responsibility to teach correctly. (James 3:1)  Christians also have a responsibility to know and understand the Scripture so as to:
1) Grow in salvation- I Peter 2:2
2) To do the will of God- James 1:22-25
3) To guard against false teachers- 2 Peter 2:1—this is something your church has failed at. It has made some of these false teachers canonized saints and doctors of the church. Alfonso Ligori is one such example.
The church does have a responsibility to teach the Word of God correctly. When they do not, no one is bound by its false teachings. That is the problem you have. It has taught falsely in regards to the Marian doctrines, indulgences and the papacy to name a few errors.

Mk,
  Who gave you the right to interpret these passages of Scripture?

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
And who does Jesus “SEND”?
Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Do you see that?  Do you?  As you sent me, I send them.  NOTE CAREFULLY, that there is a difference between THEM and those that listen to THEM.  In other words, there are those who are given AUTHORITY and those who will listen to them.  2 different groups.  Jesus prays for those whom He SENDS and those that heed what the ones He SENDS will teach.  The Teaching Authority of the Church, and you and I.”

Yes, I’ve studied it, which is why I know the usual Protestant and secularist revisionism of it is being more and more discredited.
.
Historian Paul Legutko of Stanford University said the Catholic Church is “at the center of the development of the values, ideas, science, laws, and institutions which constitute what we call Western civilization.”
.
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/0895260387
.
Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are closely linked together by the divine institution of Christ in the Church. Scripture itself speaks of the necessity to hold firm to Tradition and to obey the Church.
.
A secular analogy would be as follows - the written Word is similar to the written constitution of a country, the patristic and conciliar tradition of the Church may be compared to the political and legal tradition of the Church, especially of how the founding fathers and those who followed them read and understood the constitution of the country, and finally the Magisterium is similar to the Supreme Court, whose prerogative it is to authoritatively pass judgment on the meaning of the constitution and its relevance to a particular case. In addition to all this, more than any secular country, an unfailing faith divine guidance was promised to the Church for all time in the Gospel, which to disbelieve is to call Christ a liar.
.
So, as an example of Sacred Tradition, we would show you how the earliest Bishops of the Church, including men who knew the Apostles in person and received the knowledge of the true faith from their lips and at their feet, like St.Ignatius of Antioch, St.Clement of Rome, St.Polycarp of Smyrna understood Sacred Scripture from the earliest time. I gave a quote from St.Ignatius above on the holy Eucharist, who after laying down the Catholic doctrine that it is truly the flesh of the Savior, warns Christians not to enter the conventicles of heretics, who deny this truth of the faith. He goes on immediately to say,
.
“You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it.
.
Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid”
.

I’m asking you where does it say specifically that a Christian is forbidden to interpret the Scripture?

*head bang*

A Christian is not to believe or do ANYTHING that goes against what the AUTHORITY teaches.  The AUTHORITY did not teach Sola Scriptura.  That is a heresy.  The AUTHORITY did not teach Faith Alone.  That is a heresy. The AUTHORITY did not teach OSAS.  That is a heresy.  The AUTHORITY did teach that bread and wine become God.  Refusing to believe it is a heresy.  The AUTHORITY did teach sacramental Confession.  Baptism as salvific.  Mary’s Immaculate Conception.  Refusing to believe this is HERESY.

Follow me now Erik…it’s not all that complicated. 

In SCRIPTURE, Jesus gave HIS OWN AUTHORITY to certain members of the Church, the Apostles, telling them that what they bound on earth would be bound in heaven…with me so far?  He NAMED AN AUTHORITY…a group of men that would speak in HIS STEAD in His absence…got that?  Then, those apostles passed their GOD GIVEN AUTHORITY on to others.  Whatever Jesus bound on Earth His Father honored.  Pass that Authority to the apostles.  Apostles pass it on to the next generation.  AUTHORITY.  To BIND and LOOSE.  And that Authority, which came from Jesus, in Scripture, tells us that whatever the Church Leaders (Pope/Bishop) did, it was with that same AUTHORITY.  An AUTHORITY that Paul tells us we MUST listen to.

Therefore, when an AUTHORITY, (Pope/Bishops) tell us something, it is the same as if Jesus were here today, telling us.  Jesus->apostles->bishops/pope….Teaching AUTHORITY.  This is why when you say that “IT ISN’T IN SCRIPTURE”, we say but the AUTHORITY to declare it IS IN SCRIPTURE!  And that AUTHORITY, not the men, but the AUTHORITY that the men represent, is Divinely PROTECTED by the Holy Spirit. 

What the Church Teaches IS Infallible.  Why?  Because JESUS gave the CHURCH the AUTHORITY to DO SO!

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/meditations-on-the-rosary-the-institution-of-the-eucharist#ixzz1yp4sg0k3

Mk,
  The Marian doctrines, the papacy and indulgences were never taught by the Lord Jesus or His apostles. For something to be apostolic it must be taught in Scripture. These doctrines are not taught in the New Testament nor were they believed by the New Testament church.

In regards to the papacy consider this:
“In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6).

There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18).

Erik,

WHERE and WHEN did YOUR Church begin.  Prove it!

Perverse, faithless and heretical. Here is St.Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in the second century. Read carefully.
.
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority—that is, the faithful everywhere—inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.
.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.
.
From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
.
So the Papal succession in the Holy Roman Church from the earliest times is clearly laid down, starting from St.Peter and St.Paul who was with him, an early heresy of the Gnostics is controverted, and the rule of true faith is shown. Read carefully - St.Peter through St.Linus through St.Anacletus through St.Clement all the way down to Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI there have 264 Popes of the holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Mk,
No wonder you have problems. You wrote—“ A Christian is not to believe or do ANYTHING that goes against what the AUTHORITY teaches.” This goes clearly against what the Scripture teaches.  You are not to listen to any false teachers in your church. 2 Peter 2:1 is one such exhortation.  Paul in Galatians 1 warned against those who promoted a false gospel—
“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!

As you can see we are not to believe a church leader cannot err. There have been popes who have erred. The church was in error before the Protestant Reformation.

Xavier,
Your statement here is not supported by historical facts.

“So the Papal succession in the Holy Roman Church from the earliest times is clearly laid down, starting from St.Peter and St.Paul who was with him, an early heresy of the Gnostics is controverted, and the rule of true faith is shown. Read carefully - St.Peter through St.Linus through St.Anacletus through St.Clement all the way down to Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI there have 264 Popes of the holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

I gave this quote to Mk and its applicable here also:
“In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6).

There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18).

Don’t be daft. Do you know who St.Irenaeus was? Didn’t you read the second century document I quoted expressly and precisely laying out the historical facts of the Papal succession? You dare to quote St.Jerome against the Catholic Church? Such idiocy. Here is the letter of the Saint to Pope Damasus. He would flee from the Protestants and their heretical confession, and their unjust and wicked appeals to his name.
.
“Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!

This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters.
Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus, 376 A.D.

“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!

No Duh Sherlock…the Church has NEVER taught anything that is contrary to Scripture.  You might be too dense to see it, but that is WHY we have that AUTHORITY.  There is a world of difference between CONTRARY to Scripture and not explicitly IN Scripture.  A difference that seems to be too grandiose for your brain to comprehend.

Hey Erik,

Here’s a question you havent’ seen before.  Oh wait, no, I’ve been asking it for over 4 weeks now…

WHERE and WHEN did YOUR Church begin?

We have shown, diligently and impeccably, the history of OUR Church and where we get OUR Authority from…You won’t even tell us what CHURCH you belong to.  Perhaps you can manage to show us the lineage of your Church without naming it?

“Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,”

Yeah, exactly.  Before attachment to PERSONS…as in “I follow Paul.  I follow Barnabas.  I follow Luther”...the Church was ONE, UNITED and governed by the common consultation of the BISHOPS.

Basically, Jerome just called you a heretic.

Xavier,

Excellent work.

mk,
Erik clearly isn’t interested in an intelligent discussion.  He routinely tells us what Catholics believe, refuses to actually support his arguments, and treats himself as his own magisterium.  I would say it’s like arguing with a brick wall, but that would be insulting to walls. 

Erik, I’m going to issue one more challenge to you, which you will most likely ignore. 
“For something to be apostolic it must be taught in Scripture.”
The Biblical Canon is not taught in Scripture, and the Bible was not compiled during the Apostle’s lifetime.  According to this statement, the Bible is not Apostolic and, therefore, is not true.  How, without Sacred Tradition, can we have Sacred Scripture?

Jared,

I agree.  It’s like the scene of a bad accident. I just can’t turn my eyes away.  I keep hoping he’ll learn from the things we’re saying.  It’s not that he won’t agree we are right….that’s not the problem.  He has the right to disagree and stick to his guns.  It’s the way he does it that I take umbrage with.  He doesn’t answer questions, read what we write, think critically…heck, He claims he belongs to the one true Church and won’t even tell us what that Church IS…lol.  His reasoning skills are those of a 14 year old, he rinses and repeats the same 10 Scripture passages, cannot grasp simple concepts that would actually further the conversation (ie: If Jesus appointed an authority, and Paul tells us we must listen to said authority, and that authority is the Church, then we must listen to the Church), makes statements that 4 year old could refute…

And yet, I just can’t seem to walk away.  I suppose that means the problem is with me, not Erik.  What’s even more twisted is that this has been going on for almost a month now.  The difference is that on the last thread there was actually a very eloquent protestant that overshadowed Erik’s shortcomings.  I didn’t see how very weak Eriks arguments are until it was Erik standing on his own.

Erik clearly isn’t interested in an intelligent discussion.

The thing is, I don’t think it’s that he isn’t interested so much as he is incapable.  I think he is really young and stretching his wings.  Perhaps with time and maturity he’ll get better at this.  Hope springs eternal.  Of course, if I’m wrong and he’s a 54 year old man, then he’s doing the Protestants more harm than good!  ;)

“A priest is then the same as a bishop, and before party-spirit in religious matters arose by the devil’s suggestion, and it was said among the peoples: ‘I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ the Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. But after each of them came to think that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to be placed above the others, and that to him the whole care of the Church should belong, and thus the seeds of division should be destroyed.”

Context, my friend, context…

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num53.htm

“The thing is, I don’t think it’s that he isn’t interested so much as he is incapable.  I think he is really young and stretching his wings.  Perhaps with time and maturity he’ll get better at this. “

After a while, I figured he was just trolling, but if he’s been doing this for a month, then you’re probably right.

By the way, how do you format posts on this site?

Xavier,

Here are some short quotes by Roman Catholic scholars on the papacy.
Devout Catholic historian von Dollinger reminds us of the following facts:

    “  Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these three texts, yet not one of them who commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!

      Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together (Cited in Hunt D. A Women Rides the Beast. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (OR) p. 146).”

“ALTHOUGH CATHOLIC TRADITION, BEGINNING IN the late second and early third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome’s first bishop…He often shared his position of prominence with James and John…However, there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 25,29). “
“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…“Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).”

Mk,
Here is a paragraph what you wrote about Sacred Traditions-“But we know this isn’t true because we have EXTRA biblical sources that said the Church went on….either we take them at their word, or there IS NOTHING LEFT.  Sacred Tradition can be seen in what the apostles did!  AFTER Scripture.  How did they LIVE OUT the Faith.  What did they believe.  There is no list of Sacred Tradition(S).  Because it isn’t a “Bunch of Traditions”.  It’s what the apostles believed and did.  They celebrated MASS.  That is a Sacred Tradition.”

This is absolutely amazing. You have no way to know what the apostles said or taught outside of the NT. You have no proof that any apostle celebrated mass. Keep in mind that your speculations and imaginings are not facts. So don’t present them as some kind of sacred traditions when there are no facts to support them. That is disingenuous to do so.

There are different words for elder-presbyters-bishop and priest.
The word for elder-presbyters is presbúteros while the word for bishop is epískopos , overseer, bishop.
The word for priest is hierateías.

Hope this helps

Jared,
You wrote about challenging me on what is apostolic—-
“Erik, I’m going to issue one more challenge to you, which you will most likely ignore. 
“For something to be apostolic it must be taught in Scripture.”
The Biblical Canon is not taught in Scripture, and the Bible was not compiled during the Apostle’s lifetime.  According to this statement, the Bible is not Apostolic and, therefore, is not true.  How, without Sacred Tradition, can we have Sacred Scripture?”

The canon of the NT is the result, the fruit of the writings of the apostles or those closely associated with them in a single volume we call the NT. All of the writings have their source either directly to an apostle or one closely associated with one.
We know who wrote most of the NT by various quotes from the early Christians such as Papias.
I’m still trying to figure what this Sacred Tradition is. Mk failed in showing any facts associated with it. May be you can do better. I hope so.

Mk,
When Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of His apostles (Matt 18:18) to what were they to bind and loose? What examples can you give me of the apostles binding and loosing?

Erik,
Yes, but why do you believe that makes them inspired?

I’ll give you a hint…it starts with a “T”.

Jared,
That is not entirely correct. There are a number of reasons to believe they are inspired-inerrant Word of God. They are inspired-inerrant because God is the ultimate author of Scripture. 

Do you believe that your Sacred Traditions are inspired-inerrant?

Jared,

I use html codes <eye> </eye> for italics (obviously the letter “i”, not the word) Cap B for bold and if you double or triple space between paragraphs, you get a break between them…much easier on the eyes.

Erik,

This is absolutely amazing. You have no way to know what the apostles said or taught outside of the NT. You have no proof that any apostle celebrated mass. Keep in mind that your speculations and imaginings are not facts. So don’t present them as some kind of sacred traditions when there are no facts to support them. That is disingenuous to do so.

Are you kidding me???

We’ve quoted from the disciples of the apostles…from the Didache written by the apostles…we have other writing BY apostles…St. Paul celebrates Mass IN the NT for heavens sake!  Just because something didn’t make it into the Canon doesn’t mean it didn’t exist or should be discounted! 

lol…Dollinger was a HERETIC. He rejected the teaching of the Church.  This is hardly the definition of a “Devout Catholic”...by that definition YOU are a devout Catholic…THINK ERIK, THINK!

Oh Erik,

Do you hear yourself?

I’m still trying to figure what this Sacred Tradition is. Mk failed in showing any facts associated with it. May be you can do better. I hope so.

I gave you several examples of Sacred Tradition.  You might not have liked them, but I gave them.  There are no “FACTS”...I told you it isn’t a list in some apostolic notebook!  Read, Erik, READ WHAT WE WRITE.

Mk,
You gave me several examples of what you think are sacred traditions. You gave no facts to support these assertions. You showed no official documents from your church that these are the sacred traditions. How does a RC interpret Scripture with sacred traditions when there is no facts from sacred traditions to guide you? How does that work?

Mk,
You wrote -“No Duh Sherlock…the Church has NEVER taught anything that is contrary to Scripture.”
This is patently false. There are a number of things your church teaches that is contrary to Scripture.  Things such as:

1) The denial that a man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Canon 32 of Trent:.” If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.”  This is a denial of Eph 2:8-9
2) Mary being without sin is a denial of Romans 3:23 and 5:12
3) Purgatory is a denial of I john 1:7—but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
4) The sacraments are necessary for salvation: “Are the sacraments necessary for salvation?
According to the way God has willed that we be saved the sacraments are necessary for salvation
(John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions # 462, 1119)”
If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation…and that without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain from God, through faith alone, the grace of justification…let him be anathema (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919), Canon IV, p. 119). “

This is a denial of a number of passages of the Scripture such as John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10 and Eph 2:8-9

I could go on but these points alone point to the fact that the RCC has erred.

I’m still trying to figure what this Sacred Tradition is.

Forgive me for thinking your plea is disingenuous and that you are actually laboring to avoid figuring out what Sacred Tradition.  If you really wanted to know, you could just go to the Catechism, which tells you what Sacred Tradition is.

If you are still unclear, you can find the same idea in germ form in Acts 2:42: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”  That is, Sacred Tradition is the common life, teaching and worship handed down to the Church by the apostles in union with Peter.  The task of the Church in union with their successors, the bishops, is to conserve and more deeply understand that Tradition, which is handed down in both written (Scripture) and unwritten form.

If you like, I can send you my book _By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition_.  Just email me your snailmail address and I’ll send you a free copy, Erik.

Mk,
Just because Dollinger was excommunicated does not mean his work on the papacy was wrong. I also gave a few other RC scholars that support the history that there was no pope in Rome in the first few decades-centuries. Did you read that??????

Erik:

Go here to find five examples of Sacred Tradition most Protestants accept.

The stuff you cite depends, as usual, on your telling Catholics what they believe rather than finding out what they believe.

Mark,
Thanks for the offer. I will get it from amazon.

Mark,
Thanks for pointing me to your article on Sacred Tradition. I didn’t see anything in your article that showed these sacred Traditions are official Sacred Traditions of the RCC. Did I miss something?

Mark,
How many RC’s do you think could name 2-3 Sacred Traditions approved by your church?

Erik,

Just because Dollinger was excommunicated does not mean his work on the papacy was wrong. I also gave a few other RC scholars that support the history that there was no pope in Rome in the first few decades-centuries. Did you read that??????

Please Lord, give me patience…

He was excommunicated BECAUSE of what he wrote about the Popes!

Now you’re going to tell us who is and who is not a devout Catholic!  Unbelievable!

Hey Erik, Can you give me the lineage of YOUR Church?

Erik,

Not one of those examples is contradicted by Sacred Tradition.  Not if you take the passages in context and understand what they were actually saying.  Sure, if like you, you take them out of context and infuse them with your own personal interpretation, you could say that they contradict Sacred Tradition…but I’m assuming that you mean they are not contradicted by what Scripture ACTUALLY says.  And they aren’t.  I could claim Scripture says anything I want and prove that Jesus didn’t even exist.  But that would be a dishonest reading of Scripture.  Just as yours is.

You know Erik, it has occurred to me that the reason you cannot conceive of someone being born without sin is that you don’t believe that Jesus actually removed sin.  You think He only “hid” it.  Given this heretical belief, it is no wonder that it doesn’t make sense that Jesus could have removed Mary’s sin at conception.

You don’t believe anyone’s sins can be removed.  Yet another heresy.

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

See?  Wash them away.  Gone.  Kaput.  Baptism.
Not hide them, cover them up, disguise them or hide them behind Jesus.  But wash them away.

This is what was done for Mary.  Washed her sins away with Grace…Overflowing Grace.  Pure.  Clean.  Fresh.  New.  At conception.

But you’ll never understand this because you have no clear understanding of what Jesus did on that Cross, or what Baptism is/does. 

An “AHA” moment for me.  Your premise is messed up. Therefore your conclusions cannot help but be equally messed up.

</i>I could go on but these points alone point to the fact that the RCC has erred.</i>

And therein lies the rub.  We have the God Given authority.  You have none.  Our Authority teaches that this is true.  So who do you think is actually in error?  The Authority of Jesus, or you?

Thanks for pointing me to your article on Sacred Tradition. I didn’t see anything in your article that showed these sacred Traditions are official Sacred Traditions of the RCC. Did I miss something?

Yes.  You missed “remedial politeness and honesty” somewhere in your early childhood. Dude, I pointed out to you five examples of what you asked for. It’s not super hard to understand that the canon of scripture, monogamy, the sanctity of human life at conception, the dogma of the Trinity, and the fact that public revelation closed with the death of the apostles’ are basic Christian teaching.  Instead of saying “Thanks”, you are now playing a childish game of demanding that I go hunt up the exact Catechism quotes documenting these obvious features of Catholic tradition.  There’s only one problem: You are an inconsiderate jerk who is intellectually lazy and is only pretending to seek information and I am not your personal servant.  So, google the catechism and find the info yourself.  I have more important things to do then play dumb games.

Mk,
Its not about what a person can conceive but what does the Scripture teach. The Scripture never comes close to teaching Mary was without sin. It never makes her an exception to inheriting the sin of Adam that all men inherit from their parents. It is a heresy to claim Mary was without sin when Scripture says all men have sinned unless of course we are speaking of the Lord Jesus. He alone is the only exception because He had no human biological father.

How many RC’s do you think could name 2-3 Sacred Traditions approved by your church?

414,236,334

How many trolls on this thread named Erik have not the slightest interest in understanding the things they pretend to want information about and ask stupid, unserious questions like the one above?

mk,
Did you read what the other RC scholars wrote about the papacy not being in existence from the beginning in Rome? Have these RC scholars been condemned as heretics?

Mark,
If you don’t know something and there is no basis for it then just say so. No need to get snotty about it. This is a terrible way for you to treat your number 1 fan.

Mk,
You wrote this in support of Mary being without sin.
“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

See?  Wash them away.  Gone.  Kaput.  Baptism.
Not hide them, cover them up, disguise them or hide them behind Jesus.  But wash them away.
This is what was done for Mary.  Washed her sins away with Grace…Overflowing Grace.  Pure.  Clean.  Fresh.  New.  At conception.”

Since the NT is all we have on Mary where in Scripture what you claim taught in Scripture? There is no record of her being baptized etc. No record of her conception. Nothing about this on the lips of the Lord Jesus. With this kind of thinking anything can be proved. The cults do this kind of thing all the time.
Making things up like this is what false teachers do to support their teachings. 

“That is not entirely correct. There are a number of reasons to believe they are inspired-inerrant Word of God.”
Being written by the Apostles and their friends is a very good reason to treat them as historically accurate sources.  However, it is no reason to take them inspired by God, unless Catholic Tradition is correct.
   
(Thanks, mk!)

[Mark,

Thanks for the offer. I will get it from amazon.]

Why?  Seems a bit odd to refuse that offer if you are serious?

Oh yeah… I forgot.  You (and your friends) are *still* playing that silly and devious role-playing game here.

Wish some other posters here would finally understand… zz-zzz-zzz-zzzzz-zzzz….

C’mon mk, etc..etc… you’re way too smart to continue this crap… stop playing the game!!!

Ed,
You need to stop being afraid and give them some help.

Erik,

My point was not to prove Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but to show you that given your heretical view of Baptism and The True Effect of Jesus’ death, no amount of Scripture could show you that her Conception could be Immaculate.  NO ONE’S sins have ever been removed by Jesus’ death, so how could I expect you to understand that Mary’s were.

It’s not the idea of her sinlessness that is the problem, it’s your idea that NO ONE’S sins are removed that is the problem.  You don’t understand what Jesus did, so your certainly not going to be capable of understanding what He did for her specifically.

Hey Erik, where did YOUR Church originate?

You need to stop being afraid and give them some help.

Trust me Erik, ED is fearless.  You mistake timidity for the notion that ED thinks you are beyond help. 

Mk,
You are not speaking the truth when you claim Mary was without sin. There is no Scripture, no verse that says Mary was without sin.  Its not that I“ don’t understand what Jesus did, so your certainly not going to be capable of understanding what He did for her specifically.” but that you are claiming something about the Lord Jesus that you have no proof of.  This is deceitful.

Since the NT is all we have on Mary

wrong again…

No.  Erik, it IS because you don’t understand what Jesus did.  Your premise is wrong.  So everything that uses that false premise as a foundation is also wrong.  Our sins are REMOVED, not hidden.  Baptism WASHES THEM AWAY.  Until you understand that, you won’t be able to understand anything about what Jesus’ death and Resurrection accomplished.

but that you are claiming something about the Lord Jesus that you have no proof of.

But I DO have proof Erik.  Jesus gave HIS authority to the CHURCH, the CATHOLIC CHURCH, and THEY said it was so.  They aren’t CONTRADICTING scripture, they are simply passing along Sacred Tradition.  God’s Authority=Jesus’ Authority=The Churches Authority.  If the Church says it is True, it is True.  Because God said so.  THAT, my friend, is SCRIPTURAL.

False Premise No 1:  If it ain’t in Scripture, it can’t be true.
False Premise No 2:  Even tho it is in Scripture, you deny the Authority of the Church
False Premise No 3:  Our sins are hidden, not removed.  Jesus blocks God’s view of us. 
False Premise No 4:  Baptism is symbolic, not salvific
False Premise No 5:  The Eucharist is symbolic
False Premise No 6:  Once Saved Always Saved
False Premise No 7:  Faith alone saves us.

Now all of these premises are wrong, therefore every argument you make based on them will also be wrong.  Fix your premises, see the light.  Stick with the lies, you get more lies.

Mk,
  You remind me of the Mormons who make the same kinds of claims you do about its church not erring.
No Christian church can make things up and say its true. This is what false teachers claim. Its false because there is no proof of it and its not scriptural because the Scripture never made such a claim for her.
No church is infallible. Jesus never promised that the church could never err but did warn of false teachers. Both Peter and Paul warned that false teachers would come into the church and deceive many. We know this has happened in your church and some Protestant churches. 

BTW- what else do we know of Mary outside the NT? Are you referring to the Apocrypha gospels that the church condemned?

Mk,

You’ve gotten *too* impressed with yourself… time to stop… it’s making you look bad…

Ed,
You are the one that is looking bad. At least Mk is willing to defend his/her beliefs while you do nothing.

Hey Erik, where did YOUR Church originate?

Good question.  Given how quickly new churches come around, his church could be younger than some of us.  Probably best for him to keep it secret.
 
Hey, Erik, here’s another question you skipped over.  You claim that the priesthood is not present in the New Testament.  If the Catholic Church is not the true faith, then we are a heresy that one.  Please, using a primary source, show when the Catholic faith was a tiny heresy.  Show true Church fathers who fought against us.  Show me when the Catholic Church began.

Jared,
Its difficult to be precise to know exactly when the RCC began since it has added so many things to the faith. One thing we do know is that what we see in the NT is not Roman Catholicism because there is no such thing as a pope, the Marian dogmas, indulgences, celibate leadership, indulgences, treasury of merit and purgatory in the NT. These doctrines and practices are unique to Roman Catholicism and took centuries to develop.

Alrighty then.  Later, Erik.

Thanks Mk. Loved your point about Dollinger. LOL!
.
Erik, your problem is you don’t admit the points were you are clearly wrong, but immediately change the subject. I was hoping you were merely deceived by others, but now it appears you are not merely ignorant of but unwilling to know the truth. Please look into your own conscience and resolve before the Lord to love truth above all things and to pursue it wherever it leads.
.
1. Do you agree you were completely misled in trying to wrest St.Jerome’s words? Do you acknowledge now that he professed his firm faith and his humble submission to the Chair of Peter?
.
2. Do you agree that St.Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century gives the complete list of Roman Bishops from St.Peter to his own time, thirteen in all? He also said it is necessary for every Church to be in agreement with the Roman Church on account of its preeminent authority.
.
3. Do you agree that even earlier, St.Ignatius of Antioch in A.D. 107 to be exact said “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”? He also said the Roman Church “holds the presidency over the brotherhood in love”
.
4. Do you agree that even earlier, before St.John the Apostle had passed away, Pope St.Clement of Rome wrote a powerful letter to the Church of Corinth which clearly shows the mark of authority the Roman Church was universally held to possess?
.
I’ve shown the first three of these quotes above, I’ll give the fourth if you want.
.
Tell me no if you like, but at least be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge these create a problem for your position.
.
Again, honest Protestant scholars admit these lists, though they try to explain it in different ways consistent with their own ideas.
.
Your other attempted explanation that St.Peter alone was not uniquely the Bishop of Rome, and the claim that the Petrine texts of Holy writ were not understood in the same sense they are now, is disproved by
.
1. The fact that all the Fathers refer to the Chair of Peter in Rome, not the Chair of St.Paul nor give any hint of a divided episcopate.
2. The express testimony of several ancient authorities, contrary to the heretical claims of Dollinger and above, state that St.Peter was uniquely the Bishop of Rome, and that his Chair is the Rock on which the Church is built.
.
Some quotes, from St.Augustine backwards, (Tertullian and several earlier witnesses omitted)
.
a. St.Augustine, ““If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman Church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?”

and “Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. That is the rock against whom the gates of hell do not prevail”

b. The poem against Marcion the heretic, “In this Chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. “

c. St.Cyprian, “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18Ð19]). ...On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.

Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
.
Indeed! If he abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is built, can he be confident that he is still in the Church?

ED,

I’m not sure what you mean…I may be doggedly sticking to this battle, and that may be a fool’s errand, but it’s my time and if I choose to spend it honing my skills, why is that anyone else’s concern?

Every ridiculous thing that Erik throws at me, is an opportunity for me to practice.  Every time I have to look something up, or search Scripture, or read the Church Fathers, I deepen my faith.  I learn.  I expand.  It might not make one iota of difference to Erik (nothing will) but it definitely feeds me.  Commenting on these blogs isn’t always about “the other guy”.  Often it’s about challenging myself. 

It forces me to practice the virtues of Patience, Charity and Perseverance.  It teaches me humility as my “mighty words” often have no affect.  It allows me to meet some truly awesome fellow Catholics (Jared, Xavier) and sometimes some really awesome atheists or Protestants.  It teaches me to step into someone elses shoes and come out of myself.

Erik may not be challenging intellectually, but he does test my ability to be a representative of Christ and that can never be a bad thing.

Peace

Erik,

These doctrines and practices are unique to Roman Catholicism and took centuries to develop.

Some of them (the Eucharist, The Mass, Confession…were there from day one.  Others took a 100 years or so to truly be expressed fully.  And a few took up to 300 years.

But your heretical views didn’t come onto the scene for 1500 years.  They didn’t “develop”, they were invented.

Since you didn’t bother to read the link that our host provided, I’m going to try to come at his points from a different angle.

Can you answer these questions…

1.  Do you believe that abortion is wrong?

2.  Do you believe that in the year 300, the point at which you claim that the Church had gone off the rails, the Canon of Scripture was proclaimed and accepted. 

3.  If you agree that the Canon is true, and that it was given to us by “a Church”, do you also agree that the “Church” that gave us these Scriptures, whatever you want to call it, was the valid Church at that time?

4.  If it WAS the valid Church, then what was it called, and would you say that everything else it claimed at the time was true?

5.  If it was NOT the valid Church, then why do you accept the Canon?

PLEASE, Erik, answer those questions.  They’re are not “personal” and are crucial to the heart of the argument.

ED,

If the commentary here is too banal for ya, you might want to step over to the Archibald thread…wow!  Erik, I double dog dare you to do the same.  It will give you an idea of was critical thinking looks like… ;) The comments over there compared to the comments here…like the difference between brain surgery and fingerpainting!

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/scientists-say-the-silliest-things

Ed,
Your right.  At pat-archbold/scientists-say-the-silliest-things it sure looks like a lot of smart people. Just like the ones here. Wow

Mk,
In answer to your 5 questions:
1) Yes
2) I did not say what year the church went off the rails. “Some claim that, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[21] and that, by the 5th century, the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
3) Depends what you mean by a “valid” church.  What is the criteria for a “valid” church?
4) I don’t know everything else that the church taught at the time. Do you?
5) I accept the canon because of the “tests” that were used to determine the canonicity of each book of the New Testament.

Erik,

ED didn’t suggest that link, but whatever…

This is what we have been trying to teach you tho Erik…It’s no so much the position that you’re taking (although that is wrong too) as the way you take it.  Read the comments over that and notice that the commenters read what others have written and then point by point make intelligent refutations of each argument.  They don’t repeat the same things over and over, they don’t skim each others answers and they answer the questions put to them. 

This is critical thinking.  This is intelligent debate.  What frustrates us about you is not what you are defending, but the way that you defend it.  I’m more interested in getting you to argue better than in trying to sway to a Catholic view.  Can you understand that?  It’s what everyone here keeps telling you. 

I give you kudos for keeping at it as it’s the only way that you’ll get better, but you’ll only get better if you learn from what others are telling you. 

For instance when Xavier points out that an honest debater concedes points that are irrefutable.  When we point out documents that clearly show that the early Church believed in “such and such” and you stubbornly claim that these documents don’t exist…or that the very scripture you use came from Church you deny exists…or when Mark and I give you examples of Sacred Tradition and you claim we didn’t.  There is a difference between saying “I don’t understand” or “Could help me understand further” and saying “You’re wrong” when it isn’t even an issue that can BE right or wrong.  It’s simply stating facts.  We say “Here are examples of Sacred Tradition” and you say “No they aren’t”, or you claim that someone is a devout Catholic and we point out that he was excommunicated and you say “So what, he’s still a devout Catholic”...it just makes you look incompetent.

Your response should have been “Oh, I didn’t realize, I was mistaken” or you could have responded, “Well, he may have been excommunicated, but does that mean he didn’t have a point?” (To which, of course, we would have responded “No he could not have been right because he was not submitting to the Authority he is bound as a Catholic to obey)...but instead, you keep saying that he is devout.

Can you see what we’re trying to show you?  We’re actually trying to help you.  To better equip you to move forward…

Xavier,
  You did not deal with these Roman Catholic scholars who have written on the papacy. It is you who is not being honest:

“The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this about Peter,
...we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).”
If you don’t have precise information about Peter then you can’t claim he was pope in Rome.

“We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…“Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).”

Here we have a quote that shows that there is no reason to think an apostle ever took on the role of a bishop.
“A “bishop” is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it likely at all, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 14).”

It is this evidence that you deal with and show that this is not true.

In regards to your comment about Clement, he never claims to be a pope or the supreme leader of the entire church. 

Okay.  Thank you for answering each question.

1.  Abortion is wrong.  Can you prove that from Scripture?

2.  Well, I’m not asking some people, I’m asking you for your opinion.  Would you agree that at least until the Canon was established, that the Church was intact and authentic?

3.  Depends what you mean by a “valid” church.  What is the criteria for a “valid” church?  You tell me.  We’ll go with your definition.

4.Let’s not jump the gun.  First let’s determine whether there WAS a Church, whether it was the Church Christ established and then move one to what it “taught” and did.

5.  What were these tests, and who performed them.  For instance, if I want to know if a plane was in good condition, I would need someone that I trusted to make that determination, right?  I wouldn’t ask a plumber to check out the plane.  So the test is only as valid as the person who makes the criteria for the test…

Now here is another tip on how to debate.  I posed questions, you answered them (good job), but your answers raised more questions…a good debater will answer the subsequent questions.  A lazy debater will change the subject. Which do yo want to be?

Mk,
I have to admit you are one the most con-descending person I have ever encountered.
  In regards to examples of Sacred Traditions, you only gave what you thought were Sacred Traditions. You assert what you think is true but you don’t offer any facts to back up what you claim. What I asked for was what your church officially calls a Sacred Tradition. Neither you nor Mark nor anyone else has produced this.
The problem I see with you is that you don’t understand Scripture well or church history. This is why this discussion is so difficult with you. You assume your church is right even when the facts show otherwise.

Erik,

Re your comment to Xavier…no one here is claiming that the office of Papacy was called such from the beginning.  The entire heirarchy evolved.  That is true.  BUT, Peter was the head of the apostles and it is clear from this that a “head of men among men” is a valid interpretation of what Jesus wanted for his church.  If you read the quote that you gave, IN the CONTEXT, with the surrounding paragraphs, you will see that as the Church grew, it became evident that leadership was needed. When there were 12, Peter led.  This offset the disagreements that would inevitably emerge.  If a leader was needed for 12 (and Jesus apparently thought one was) then how much more necessary when there were THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of Christians being added everyday?  Out of NECESSITY, and in compliance with Scripture, a Leader was chosen.  Did they call him the Pope?  No.  But can we know that He was ordained by one of the apostles or one whom the apostles ordained?  Yes.  Because we already know that Paul says to be careful whom you ordain (thus proving that some WERE set aside and given very specific special ministerial positions BECAUSE of that ordination…laying on of hands and sending)...

So…Jesus forsaw the need for leadership.  Peter was chosen.  Then as the Church grew it became apparent that an office of leadership would be needed.  The Pope (leader) in conjunction with the Bishops would then decide on matters of discrepancies among the Churches.  It was THIS leadership that gave us the Canon. 

I mean for heavens sake, in the first 100 years there was no difference between Jews and Christians.  They were still the same group.  Obviously as the numbers grew, the Church would have to change and evolve to accommodate the dissensions that arose.  It is perfectly Scriptural as Jesus foresaw all of this and right off the bat appointed one man to lead.

This is what is meant by “there is no clear distinction…etc”  Not that having a Pope was wrong, but that it took a bit of time to iron out the kinks.  Whether Clement was called a Pope or not, he clearly had a leadership role, and his ordination can still be traced to Apostolic Successio…even if we don’t know WHICH Bishop ordained him.

Mk,
I don’t look at this as a debate but as a discussion. If this was a debate we would be forced to stick to a topic. No one is doing that here. A discussion allows for more freedom to discuss a wide variety issues which is what is going on here.

Erik,

I have to admit you are one the most con-descending person I have ever encountered.

I’m sure it has seemed that way…but look at it from our point of view.  If I were to go over to Pat Archibolds thread, and give arguments like you give, don’t you think that those guys would sound condescending to me?  They would have to come down to my level to answer my arguments…because clearly I could not rise to theirs.

Your arguments are weak.  That is simply fact.  You obfuscate, stall, refuse to answer questions, use erroneous sources, use wiki like it’s Gospel, don’t understand half of what you copy and paste, skim answers, don’t think critically…this is what makes a poor debater.  This isn’t my opinion…it is what is. 

I can tell you right now that if I went to France, the French would have to condescend to me because my French is pitiful.  Condescending is not always a bad thing.  In this case, I am trying to help you be better at this.

And it is not only me who has tried to tell you these things.  At least 6 people have told you the same things.  We have all had to condescend to you, because your debating skills are way below those who comment here. 

Mk,
Jesus never established some kind of papacy. Peter was one of the leaders of the church but he was never deferred to as a supreme leader. We know this from the writings of the apostles. They never appeal to him for anything. Even Peter in his letters never exalts himself to the supreme leader of the church. It is your church that has perverted the Scripture to support its claim to supremacy.

Note this quote on how ancient leaders viewed the bishop of Rome:

“Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word [‘universal’]….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).”

Erik,

I don’t look at this as a debate but as a discussion. If this was a debate we would be forced to stick to a topic. No one is doing that here. A discussion allows for more freedom to discuss a wide variety issues which is what is going on here.

You are the ONLY one here that does not stick to a topic.  Don’t you see that?  You’ve been told it by EVERYONE here!  Even in a discussion, you answer questions that are asked of you.  You don’t dodge them and change the subject!  But that is exactly what you do.  Why do you think that most of the people have dropped out of this “discussion”?

They never appeal to him for anything. Even Peter in his letters never exalts himself to the supreme leader of the church.

They appeal to him EVERY time.  And he has the last word!  But no, He doesn’t Lord it over them, because that would be to miss the point!  Being a leader in the Christian Faith is the MOST humbling of experiences, not the most exalting!  Why do you think Jesus washed THEIR feet.  To teach them that with their special office must come humility.  To lead is to follow Him.  To be first is to be last, voluntarily. 

Whose name is first whenever they list the apostles.  To whom did Jesus give the keys?  Who is the rock on which the Church was built?  Who speaks to the crowd at Pentecost?  To whom does Paul go when the issue of eating unclean foods, or circumcision arises?  Paul speaks his peace, and Peter listens (as a good leader should) but it is PETER who makes the final decision.  The fact that he finally concedes to Paul does not negate the fact that Paul submitted to Peter’s authority.  It could have gone the other way and none of us would be eating shellfish today!

Mk,
Who was it that brought up this:
“False Premise No 1:  If it ain’t in Scripture, it can’t be true.
False Premise No 2:  Even tho it is in Scripture, you deny the Authority of the Church
False Premise No 3:  Our sins are hidden, not removed.  Jesus blocks God’s view of us.
False Premise No 4:  Baptism is symbolic, not salvific
False Premise No 5:  The Eucharist is symbolic
False Premise No 6:  Once Saved Always Saved
False Premise No 7:  Faith alone saves us.

Can you answer these questions…

1.  Do you believe that abortion is wrong?

2.  Do you believe that in the year 300, the point at which you claim that the Church had gone off the rails, the Canon of Scripture was proclaimed and accepted.

3.  If you agree that the Canon is true, and that it was given to us by “a Church”, do you also agree that the “Church” that gave us these Scriptures, whatever you want to call it, was the valid Church at that time?

4.  If it WAS the valid Church, then what was it called, and would you say that everything else it claimed at the time was true?

5.  If it was NOT the valid Church, then why do you accept the Canon?”

These are all different subjects brought up by you.

In discussions like this one, no is obligated to answer any questions. There are no rules like that here.

<i>Note this quote on how ancient leaders viewed the bishop of Rome:

Not ancient leaders, Erik, ancient SCHIMATICS!  Right up there with Dollinger.  Using your logic, you should be Orthodox!  And note that 80% of the Churches that split at that point have come back.  And the ones that didn’t?  Now have THEIR OWN POPE!

This is what I mean when I say you don’t even understand the sources you cite!

Who was it that brought up this:

You know it was me…what is your point?  I, MK, am not calling you a heretic, the CHURCH is.  Who do you think decides what is heretical?  If not for the Church, there would BE no heresies, as it is the Church that defines what is heretical and what is not!

All of those premises have been declared heresies by the Church.  To believe them is to be a heretic.  To be a heretic means to believe things that are not true.  If your premise is not true, then the whole house of cards falls…

Erik, I answered very precisely F.A. Sullivan’s claim, though now I’m beginning to think you didn’t even understand his point. He claims there was a collegial government in Rome shared by both St.Paul and St.Peter. I answered this by showing two things, that (1)The Roman See is referred to as the Chair of Peter by all the Fathers (2) Several ancient authorities expressly say St.Peter alone was the first Bishop of Rome.
.
I asked you four very specific questions, you only addressed the fourth. Why? Because to address the first three you would have to admit all the scholars you cite are misleading you, but now it seems you want to be misled. I’ve answered everything and more you’ve tried to throw at me, and this despite the fact that you change topics at the speed of light when pinned down on one point. Why can you not give them an honest attempt?
.
A couple of minor things. The Catholic Encyclopedia means that we don’t know how many years exactly St.Peter was in Rome, though the fact of his death there was widely known to the Christian community.
.
See the Catholic Encyclopedia here brilliantly make the case for the Roman primacy.
.
“We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See. The proof will fall into two parts:
.
that
1. St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
2. that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.
.
St. Peter was Bishop of Rome
.
It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, “Chronol.”, I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city (e.g. Lightfoot, “Clement of Rome”, II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703). It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain. In considering this point, it will be well to begin with the third century, when references to it become frequent, and work backwards from this point.”
.
The same Encyclopedia contains a beautiful refutation of your claim about St.Clement
.
“The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his “Epistle to the Corinthians”, written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. “If any man”, he says, “should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger” (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them “render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit”.
.
The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as “the first step towards papal domination” (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men’s minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.”

Mk,
In the first council in Acts 15, it is not Peter who decides but James. Acts 15:16. Jesus did give Peter the privilege to be the one to open the kingdom of God up for the people in Acts 2:14-36.
Peter did not exercise any authority over Paul. They were co-labors in advancing the gospel. Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. When Paul wanted to check out his gospel that he got directly from Christ he went not just Peter but others who were of reputation. Gal 2:2.

Can you give me the reference to this-“To whom does Paul go when the issue of eating unclean foods, or circumcision arises?  Paul speaks his peace, and Peter listens (as a good leader should) but it is PETER who makes the final decision.”

Xavier,
  It appears then that Roman Catholic scholars today do not agree with those quotes. You assume the Roman Catholic scholars are wrong while it could also be that your sources are wrong. You only assert it. Don’t know how to resolve that here.

In regards to Peter being the supreme leader in Rome, there is no evidence for it.  For example: do we have any encyclicals from Peter to the entire church? Do we have any record of Peter making any decisions about anything in Rome? I know your church makes claims about Peter being there but it’s going to take more than just being there to show he was the supreme leader of the church.

Mk,
I was making the point that you also change the subject. I’m not worried what your church thinks of me. If anything, it considers me not a heretic but a “separated brethren”. Correct?

Erik, these men I’ve quoted, you can look them up in any reference work, or even Wikipedia, St.Ignatius of Antioch, St.Irenaeus of Lyons, St.Clement of Rome, St.Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias, St.Jerome are the same men who tell us who wrote the Gospels, what books belong in the Bible, where and how the Apostles were martyred etc.

This is part of ecclesiastical history, it is no more in doubt than it is in doubt who were the first five presidents of the united states. Take an objective look at the evidence for yourself, don’t rely too much on scholars who, like I’ve said, are misleading you. But I’m happy that your last response is much more reasonable.

Xavier,
Help me out. You claim that “Erik, I answered very precisely F.A. Sullivan’s claim, though now I’m beginning to think you didn’t even understand his point. He claims there was a collegial government in Rome shared by both St.Paul and St.Peter.”
Here is the quote—We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded…“Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?”...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).”

He says nothing about Peter or Paul being there and is saying this went on for decades. There was no papacy in Rome at this time.

Regarding what you asked Mk, though he is very competent to answer, here are the words of St.Augustine that addresses the same,
.
“But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.”
.
Thus, in her magnanimous goodness the Catholic Church allows that several of the baptized who did not impiously choose the separation themselves, but through no fault of their own have been separated from her communion may be in good faith.
.
To them apply the words of the Redeemer, “And other sheep I have also who are not of this fold. Them too must I bring that there may be but one flock and one shepherd”

Erik, I’ll be very glad to.
.
Here is the Wikipedia entry on St.Ireneaus.
.
“St. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, then a part of the Roman Empire (now Lyon, France). He was an early church father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp,[1] who in turn was a disciple of John the Evangelist.
.
Irenaeus’ best-known book, Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies (c. 180) is a detailed attack on Gnosticism, which was then a serious threat to the Church, and especially on the system of the Gnostic Valentinus.”
.
Here is a copy of this work online, Adversus Haereses,
.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
.
And the particular chapter I cited for your reference
.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
.
Do read it if possible, at least the sole chapter above, the second link, it will clear all your doubts. The Apostles warned us from the beginning of men who would break from our communion or who would dare to form churches on their own other than the one the Lord had founded and given specifically to their care. Those “scholars” then and many scholars today, because they must give some sort of explanation for their very late origin, resort to all sorts of theories to try and wish away the historical reality.

Xavier,
I agree that the apostles warned of false teachers deceiving. However, that warning includes your own church which has allowed false teachers to teach in your churches. No church is guaranteed protection from error. I wish it were so but its not. In fact we already see various churches being rebuked for error by the Lord Jesus in Rev.
Another reason to reject the idea that the church cannot err is pope Honorius who was condemned as a heretic for teaching error.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
This would be impossible if Christ promised that the church could not err.

In regards to scholarship, this is a growing field of knowledge. Just because someone said something in the earlier centuries was true may be found later not to be based on more evidence.

One of the major problems with the papacy is that it is never mentioned as part of the structure of the church in the NT. Not one writer refers to it as an office or that it is to be passed on.

I’ll check out Irenaeus.

Mk,
You wrote in regards to my comment.. “They never appeal to him for anything. Even Peter in his letters never exalts himself to the supreme leader of the church.”

and you responded with this:
“They appeal to him EVERY time.  And he has the last word!”

Since all that we have of Peter is found in the NT can you show me 2-3 examples where the apostles appeal to Peter? Chapter and verse please.

Yes, and the Apostolic Church has always anathematized such false teachers, so they are prevented from polluting the flock. The Church which Christ founded is invested with His authority (which is why it was competent to settle the canon of Sacred Scripture), teaches in His stead (He who hears you, hears Me), is visible, knowable and approachable, is capable of judging in any and every matter between two Christians, and he who refuses her judgment is a heretic (Mat 18:15-18)for the powers of hades cannot prevail against her, and in her truth is always protected, for she is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15)
.
Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Pope meticulously documenting and rigourously proving with unimpeachable arguments, from Scripture and history, that Christ intended His Church to be a perfect society subject to a sovereign single earthly head.
.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

On John 21:15-17

“The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock — the sheep and the lambs alike — in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, “Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep” indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): “Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron”.
.
Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter ... That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.”
.
Also talks about Isaiah 22, Sobna and Eliachim, the power of the keys denoting both authority and succession as well as plenary jurisdiction over the kingdom, Luke 22, Christ promising an unfailing faith to Peter and specifically designating him as the source of strength for the brethren whom he is to confirm in the faith.

Xavier,
It is not true that “the Apostolic Church has always anathematized such false teachers, so they are prevented from polluting the flock.”.
Take St Alphonse Liguori who wrote The Glories of Mary. What he wrote in that work is heresy but your church endorses it.  There are others who also say heretical things about Mary:
“St. Bernardine of Siena adds: “No sooner had Mary consented to be Mother of the Eternal Word than she merited by His consent to have dominion over the whole world and over every creature.”
St. Arnold the Abbot declares further: “Since the flesh of Mary was no different from that of Jesus, how can we deny to the Mother the same royal dignity we find in the Son? . . . So I would consider the glory of the Son not as something shared with His Mother, but as her glory too.”
Our Blessed Lady once said to St. Bridget in a revelation: “I am the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of Mercy. I am the joy of the just and the door through which sinners come to God.

But if Jesus is the Father, Mary is the Mother of our souls. She gave us Jesus and, with that gift, gave us supernatural life. Later, when she offered the life of her Son on Calvary for our redemption, she gave us birth in the life of grace.” http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/glories1.htm

These are blatant false statements about Mary and in fact are heretical.  I could site dozens of other things said about Mary that are false yet your church endorses.  There are things that we could discuss besides this. This stuff is very bad but the denial of your church that a man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone is a denial of gospel itself.

There you go again. Changing tack at the speed of light, as if nothing else was discussed before this. This discussion has come full circle, I’ll cite my first post to you, which you pretty much ignored at the time, other than ask an unrelated question.
.
“Erik, to understand that prayer, you need to understand the unique enmity the Blessed Virgin Mary has with the Devil, as evident in Scripture from Genesis through Revelation. Thus, St.John the Baptist, greatest of prophets, in his mother’s womb leaped upon seeing her, and his mother, St.Elizabeth now filled with the Holy Ghost eliciting her praise. In her humility, the Blessed Virgin praised God in the Magnificat, and made it known that all generations would call her blessed demonstrating the perpetual veneration the Catholic Church has always and everywhere since the days of the Apostles shown her.
.
This veneration is only honor, and differs essentially from adoration or worship. Finally, in the Old Testament, we see another example, Abraham venerated by bowing down to the Angel he met, but here it was the Angel that venerated her, saying, Hail, full of grace. God has willed to dispense His grace through her intercession, as He willed to give her at the Cross to St.John as his Mother, and as the Apostle would write, also to all of us as our Mother in the order of grace, which sufficiently establishes this divine intent to dispense His grace to us through her.”
.

Xavier,
Is there any statement that says that Clement of Rome was the supreme leader of the entire church? Did any leaders of the church at Jerusalem or Antioch recognize Clement as the supreme bishop over the entire world?

St.Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch in the late first century and he himself addresses the Roman Church as the “Church which holds the presidency over the brotherhood in love”.

St.Clement in dealing with the Church in Corinth clearly lays claim to make an authoritative decision under divine protection, and it was humbly submitted to. This is all the more striking given that St.John was still alive, and Ephesus where he was was closer to Corinth.

Xavier,
I’m not changing the topic but giving an example of a false teacher that you claim your church protects you from.  Alphonse Liguori is a heretic of the highest order. He and the others have written lies about Mary that has been forced upon your church. No grace comes through but only through the Lord Jesus. See John 1:17.  This is why your church is guilty of error. It promotes doctrines that were never taught by the apostles. It makes things up and calls it truth.
I know Roman Catholics claim they don’t worship Mary but the evidence shows otherwise in its documents, devotionals and statutes of her.
If you knew the Scripture well you would know that no writer of the New Testament ever comes close to saying anything about grace coming through her. No apostle ever venerates her.

Xavier,
Those statements by Ignatius and Clement still do not prove the papacy. You are going to need to show something much stronger such as an acknowledgement by other churches such as in Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople that the bishop of Rome is the supreme bishop over all other bishops. This is a difficult task to prove historically but one that is necessary if you are going to claim that:
1) Peter was the supreme head of the church
2) That his successor (if he had one) was also recognized as such.

No, it’s precisely because we know the Scripture well that we do not buy your innovated and heretical doctrines. St.Alphonsus Ligouri was a brilliant and eminently holy man. The Blessed Virgin is written of by all the holy men in Scripture, but in a wistful and mysterious way. No one who lacks humility will ever find her.

St.John the Apostle saw her crowned in Heaven, lost in mystical contemplation of her beauty and glory, as he records in Scripture.

Very easy. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, received by the whole Church, including the Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople. “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors”

Mk,

I’ll probably regret this but here goes…

You already know I admire and respect you from previous posts… but *lately* you appear to be *unable* to stop yourself from *endlessly* commenting here. 

Seriously, why is that?

Addiction?  Pride?  Something else?

Yes, yes… I’ve read your personal reasoning for this… but ALL that can be done without these *endless* comments to these devious game-playing children.

Do you realize that you’ve spent enough time here @ NCRegister writing to Erik (and his devious friends) to have written a good Catholic answer book for teenagers which could have helped many struggling kids with their faith.  (Hint!) 

Mk, pease consider this advice:

Ban yourself from the computer (or at least this site) for at least 2-weeks and spend more time with your family and friends just enjoying the life God has given you.  Then (after much prayer) go talk to your pastor/bishop and find out how you can apply your excess time and obvious talent to help them.  I’m sure they can find a *worthy* challenge for you.  [wink]

Let silly Erik (and his devious friends) go find a new soapbox somewhere else…

NOTE: (Hope this post hasn’t offended you *too* much mk.  You should have seen the first draft!  LOL)

ED,

No offense taken.  I’m sure you know, because we cross paths often, that I don’t come here for many weeks at a time.  I have been recovering from an illness for the last month and am pretty much left with nothing much else to do.  (Nothing serious…first a horrendous tooth infection that went into my bone, then an even worse condition caused by the antibiotic used to clear that up).  I would like nothing better than to be off camping, or at the zoo with the grandkids.  However, at this time, being near a bathroom seems to be of highest priority.  And so, I have actually been grateful for the challenge of our friend Eric.  I actually have quite a full life and can’t wait to get back to it. Unfortunately, there are times when God has other plans. 

6 more days of treatment, and I’ll take that 2 weeks off.  Wouldn’t want to chip for a trip to the East Coast, would you?

Xavier,
  Let’s see if Alphonsus Ligouri is truly a holy man or a heretic. We can do that by looking at what he has written and compare it with Scripture. In this way we can determine if he is what you think he is or what I think he is.
Here is one small example of his writings. It is part of a prayer called
“PRAYER OF CONFIDENCE IN MARY”
Most Holy, Immaculate Virgin and my Mother Mary! To thee who art the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the world, the Advocate, the Hope, and the Refuge of sinners, I have recourse today, I who am the most miserable of all.
I render thee my most humble homage, O great Queen, and I thank thee for all the graces thou hast conferred on me until now, especially for having delivered me from Hell, which I have so often deserved. I love thee, O most amiable Lady; and for the love which I bear thee, I promise to serve thee always and to do all in my power to make others love thee also. I place in thee all my hopes; I confide my salvation to thy care.”

Let me ask you a couple of questions about this in regards to there truthfulness:
1) Is Mary the Refuge of sinners?

2) Is it Mary that delivers one from hell?

Xavier,
You wrote that “St.John the Apostle saw her crowned in Heaven, lost in mystical contemplation of her beauty and glory, as he records in Scripture.”

Is this a reference to Rev 12? If so, this is not as straightforward as it looks. There are many RC scholars who doubt this is Mary for good reasons.

14 But Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice, and addressed them: “You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. 15 In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. 16 But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel:

h But Peter got up and ran to the tomb, bent down, and saw the burial cloths alone; then he went home amazed at what had happened. Luke 24:12

(note they did not go in, but ran first to get Peter, deferring to his authority)

who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!  Luke 24:34 Jesus appeared to Peter FIRST)

Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John;* you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).  John 1:42

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19

(</i>Note that it is two DIFFERENT Authors that speak of Peter being named “ROCK”. </i>) 

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”

  He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”

  He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.  John 21:15-17

(Note that Jesus does not say this or anything close to this, to any other disciple…between the above quotes and this it is clear that Jesus has singled Peter out)

(Here Peter seems to be prophetically speaking of the Protestant (and other heresies…this passage also addresses your question of where does it say that we should not interpret Scripture without an authority)

<i>(Note:  After much debate among the Bishops, IT IS PETER who STANDS UP and rules…)

So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed.

Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly.

Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock.

And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 3
Likewise, you younger members, 5 be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for: “God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble.” 1 Peter 5:1-5

(Note that while Paul addresses crowds and individual leaders of particular Churches, Peter is addressing the college of Bishops as a whole and as their leader.  This passage also answers your assertion that if Peter were the leader he would exalt himself.[Even Peter in his letters never exalts himself to the supreme leader of the church.”])

It would take way more work than I am willing to do to show you the dozens upon dozens of passages where the disciples seek out Peter, or Jesus addresses Peter and Peter alone, or speaks for the group…

Now you have successfully changed the subject yet again, without answering MY questions…so I will put them to you again…

1.  Abortion is wrong.  Can you prove that from Scripture?

2.  Well, I’m not asking some people, I’m asking you for your opinion.  Would you agree that at least until the Canon was established, that the Church was intact and authentic?

3.  Depends what you mean by a “valid” church.  What is the criteria for a “valid” church?  You tell me.  We’ll go with your definition.

4.Let’s not jump the gun.  First let’s determine whether there WAS a Church, whether it was the Church Christ established and then move one to what it “taught” and did.

5.  What were these tests, and who performed them.  For instance, if I want to know if a plane was in good condition, I would need someone that I trusted to make that determination, right?  I wouldn’t ask a plumber to check out the plane.  So the test is only as valid as the person who makes the criteria for the test…

Mk,
What translation are you using? I know it’s hard for you to focus on more than one topic at time but that is the nature of discussions. Ed may be right.  You may need to take a long break.
In regards to your questions:
1) Abortion is not mentioned in Scripture per se. It’s wrong because it breaks the commandment i.e. thou shall not murder.
2) Let’s say the church at the time determined by various tests which books would make up the New Testament canon.
3) You define what a “valid” church is since you brought it up. To do that, you will need to know a number of things such as what was its structure and doctrines. That could be quite complicated.
4) There was a church in the 4th century.  Was that church faithful to all that the Scripture taught is another matter all together.  I haven’t read anything about the church in the 4th not being orthodox.
5) I accept the canon because they were able to determine that certain books were written by an apostle or one associated with one. Another test was the book accepted by the people of God? Does the book tell the truth about God? Does the book come with the power of God? These were some of the tests that were used to determine canonicity.
I don’t know the names of the people who performed these tests. Do you know?

PS- I don’t dispute Peter being one of the main leaders in the NT church. However, there is no evidence that he alone was looked upon as the supreme head of the church.

You wrote—”(Note that while Paul addresses crowds and individual leaders of particular Churches, Peter is addressing the college of Bishops as a whole and as their leader.  This passage also answers your assertion that if Peter were the leader he would exalt himself.[Even Peter in his letters never exalts himself to the supreme leader of the church.”])”

Where is the evidence that “Peter is addressing the college of Bishops as a whole and as their leader”? Chapter and verse please.

2) Let’s say the church at the time determined by various tests which books would make up the New Testament canon.

No.  Let’s not say that.  Let’s answer the question that was asked.  Squirrel.  What were these test, who performed them, and who came up with the criteria?

Abortion is wrong.  It is not explicitly in Scripture.  But we believe it.  Why?  Because it is Sacred Tradition.  Not because of “Thou shalt not murder”.  A fetus was not considered a human being until the 3rd month of pregnancy by the Jews.  Therefore it would not be considered murder.  No, we know it is wrong because the Church has always taught that it is wrong.  Sacred Tradition.  You believe this, because the Church believes it.  This was what Mark was showing you with his link.

Let’s say the church at the time determined by various tests which books would make up the New Testament canon.

The “Church at the Time”...okay, now what Church would that be?  And why do you trust it?  How do you know that they weren’t wrong?  That some books got put in that should have been left out and others got left out that should have been put in?  And saying they “tested” them, without telling me what that means, is futile.  It is also futile, because unless you recognize their authority to PERFORM those tests, the tests are useless.  Do you recognize that authority?

4) There was a church in the 4th century.  Was that church faithful to all that the Scripture taught is another matter all together.  I haven’t read anything about the church in the 4th not being orthodox.

Well, if everything you have read tells you that until the 4th century there is no reason to doubt the orthodoxy of the Church, then we can look at what the Church up to that point believed and did…right?  We can say, the same Church that gave us Scripture and authority do so, believed such and such.  Because if you say that they were in error on something, you also put into doubt their authority to choose the Canon.  You either accept the authority, or dismiss it.  But you cannot claim it had authority here and not there.

Also, there were many books that were believed to be written by other apostles but were not put into the Canon, so that alone is not a criteria.

Another test was the book accepted by the people of God?

So now you’re saying that the Canon was chosen by popular vote?  That’s a criteria for the inerrant word of God?  Who were these so called “People of God”?  And how did these “people of God” gain access to the letters and Gospels?  How did they read them when they were illiterate and spoke languages other than what the books were written in? 

Does the book tell the truth about God?
Well, I don’t know…isn’t that what these tests were supposed to determine.
If the only way to know the Truth about God was to read the book, how can you say that determining if the book was Truthful was done by reading the book.  Talk about a circular argument.  You’d first have to KNOW what was True to determine if the book contained this Truth, but you can’t know the Truth without reading the book!  What you are saying it that the book is True because it contained the Truth…huh?

I don’t know the names of the people who performed these tests. Do you know?

Yes Erik.  I do know, as they were the Leaders of the Catholic Church…

Here is a detailed and lengthy article on how the Canon was chosen.  It evolved and was only canonized (that’s a Catholic word btw) after much discernment and debate. Augustine, Jerome, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Sardina, Philaster of Brescia, to name a few. I’m sure Mark or Xavier could give you a better rundown than I as history is not my forte.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Was that church faithful to all that the Scripture taught is another matter all together.

THINK ERIK THINK!

How could the Church be faithful to all that the Scriptures taught if the very same Church hadn’t yet canonized said Scripture?  And how could they not be faithful to it when THEY are the ones that determined what they were to be faithful TO?

That’s like saying that I have made ten rules that my children must obey.  And you decide whether these rules are legitimate based on whether I believe them or not!  I MADE THE DANG RULES!  How could I NOT believe them???  THE CHURCH DETERMINED SCRIPTURES…HOW COULD THEY NOT BE FAITHFUL TO THEM????

Where is the evidence that “Peter is addressing the college of Bishops as a whole and as their leader”? Chapter and verse please.

Good Gravy Gomer, it’s right there!

1 Peter 5:1-5

What translation???  Use any translation that you want!

Mk,
2)  Where does your church say that abortion was a Sacred Tradition? What document of your church says this? Asserting this won’t work this time for you. 
If you read further down you would have seen the tests.
I believe abortion is wrong not because your church says so. It has never crossed my mind to consider what your church thinks on the matter.  The fetus is a human being and to destroy it for unjust cause is murder.
Did the church at the time refer to itself as the Roman Catholic church? Was that the title of the church back then? Again, asserting that it was will not work here. You will need to produce a document of some kind to show this.
If you really want to know how the New Testament canon was determined and its history I can recommend some excellent books.

4)  What do you know of the church of the 4th century? 
  Church authority does not have to be infallible to determine what is true. It can be right on some things and wrong on others.  The primary reason these other books were not included in the New Testament canon is that they failed the apostolic test.
Was the book used by the various churches in the past centuries?  The gospels were in use by all the churches and had wide acceptance.
To determine if a book was telling the truth about God they could compare with the Old Testament and what it said about God. If a book contradicted something about God in the Old Testament it was rejected.
Remember, that the church in this period was not the Roman Catholic church.  Keep in mind that Roman Catholicism has distinctions that sets it apart from other churches.  For example, Augustine did not believe in papal infallibility, indulgences, or the Marian dogmas. These things did not exist back then and its disingenuous to claim he was a Roman Catholic.

Mk,
You claim that ““Peter is addressing the college of Bishops as a whole and as their leader” 1 Peter 5:1-5.”

Here is what I Peter 5 says:

5 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,
2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;
3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.

Peter is not addressing them as their leader but as an equal. He uses the term “your fellow elder and witness”. There is no hint of superiority here. If anything, he points them to the “Chief Shepherd” in verse 4.  No hint that he is somehow in higher position than the others. He is also not addressing “the college of bishops as a whole” but “to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,..” I Peter 1:1

The reason I asked which translation you were using is that there different words in your translation than in mine. Some translations are better than others.

Mk,
Your church is not entirely faithful to the Scripture. It denies so much of it such as the gospel. It denies married men from leadership. It supplants its traditions in the place of the Scripture.

[Wouldn’t want to chip for a trip to the East Coast, would you?]

NO WAY… but I might be tempted to pay you a few bucks to stop playing this never-ending game with Erik!  ;)

But seriously mk… I hope you feel better soon.

Take care young lady!

It forces me to practice the virtues of Patience, Charity and Perseverance.  It teaches me humility as my “mighty words” often have no affect.  It allows me to meet some truly awesome fellow Catholics (Jared, Xavier) and sometimes some really awesome atheists or Protestants.  It teaches me to step into someone elses shoes and come out of myself.

Thanks, mk!  Right back at you :)

You have an excellent way of looking at these types of discussions.  I tend to lose my patience and it quickly becomes, at best, a near occasion of sin.  In the future, I’ll try to think more like this!

For example, Augustine did not believe in papal infallibility, indulgences, or the Marian dogmas. These things did not exist back then and its disingenuous to claim he was a Roman Catholic.

It’s moments like this that I wish Mark hadn’t left the conversation.

I don’t know why I keep trying to enlighten you on what the Catholic Church is, since it is obvious to everyone that you already know.  Here I was, foolishly believing that Augustine, a Father of the Church was actually Catholic…

And oh that pesky Apostles Creed (One Holy CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church), written in 390 and that annoying Nicene Creed ([But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.] written in 325. 

So sad that these men didn’t have you around to set them straight! 

And, hmmmmmm…Constantine sure could have used you…I mean, there he was declaring that a Church that didn’t even exist, was now the state (what state?  Oh, that’s right, the ROMAN STATE, you know, as in Roman Catholic Church?) Church.

Let’s see if Augustine agrees with your assessment, shall we?

“Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins - for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?”

(Nature and Grace 36:45)

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42).

Oh and look!  Luther AGREED with Augustine!

But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.” (Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, trans. and ed. J. Pelikan. Concordia: St. Louis, Volume 4, 694) 

“For already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back from there. The case is ended; would that the error may end likewise!”  St. Augustine/Sermon 131

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

As for indulgences, if one believe in the Sacrament of Confession, then one believes in indulgences, for an indulgence is simply the remission of temporal punishment for sins.  And Augustine DID believe in the Sacrament of Confession.  Luther’s complaint was not that indulgences existed, but that they were being abused. 

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins”  St. Augustine.

So you’re wrong on all counts Erik, again.  What a surprise.  Why don’t you try telling what YOUR Church believes for a change instead of constantly telling US what WE believe?  Oh that’s right, you’re Church is so important that if you told us what it was, you’d have to kill us! ;)

These things did not exist back then and its disingenuous to claim he was a Roman Catholic.

Spit my coffee out on that one!  lol Augustine wasn’t a Roman Catholic….hahahahhahahahah….good one.

And of course, now you’ll say that he wasn’t even a Christian, because he was a Roman Catholic Priest, Bishop and Father of the !@#$% of Babylon. 

Erik, you slay me.

Yeah, lol. Augustine wasn’t a Roman Catholic. LOL. St.Augustine said, “I would not believe in the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church”.
.
And “Because by Christ’s favor we are Catholic Christians”
.
And “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held”
.
Erik, just answer this. How come St.Ignatius at the turn of the first century A.D. referred to the Catholic Church if it was supposedly founded many centuries later?
.
You can’t answer when the Catholic Church was formed. But we can tell you the name, the date and the place of your founder no matter what group it is, that is, if you can ever muster up the courage to actually tell us your denomination’s name.
.
And yes, Rev 12 does indeed refer to the Blessed Virgin, though Protestants are extremely uncomfortable in seeing the incomparable description of her glory from the pen of the Apostle. Protestants cannot possibly believe the Child is anyone other than Christ, for He rules all nations from God’s throne. It also proves that the Mother of God is the Mother of all Christians, and that the Devil bears a special enmity for she who is blessed among women, the Woman full of grace, who will be a cause for the serpent’s head to be crushed.

Xavier,

What Erik fails to realize is that his Church is a “denomination” of SOMETHING.  Perhaps he belongs to a denomination of Buddhism?  Christian Science?  Islam?

Or maaaaaaaybe, it’s a denomination of *gasp*, the Holy Roman Catholic Church??? NO!  Say it isn’t so!

Xavier,
Catholic and Roman Catholic are not the same things. Catholic means universal. Roman Catholic is a sect within Christianity. When “Ignatius at the turn of the first century A.D. referred to the Catholic Church” that is not the same thing as Roman Catholic.  Many of the things you believe were not believed by the early Christians.
Roman Catholicism has beliefs and structure that makes it unique. What sets it apart from the rest of Christendom is:
1) The papacy
2) Marian dogmas
3) Indulgences
4) Purgatory
5) Its gospel.
6) celibate leadership
7) Must confess to a priest to be forgiven
8) Uses an alter for worship
9) Repeats the sacrifice of Christ
10) The sacraments are necessary for salvation

Xavier,
Here is what some of the best Roman Catholic scholars say about Revelation 12 being Mary:

“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.”

Good one Erik…

So if he is right about Mary is he also right about Scripture not being inerrant?  Once again, you choose an author who is controversial and claim he is one of the “best”.

Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of Scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith

He is a theologian.  That means this is his “opinion”, not doctrine.

Mk,
If an “indulgence is simply the remission of temporal punishment for sins.” then this is a denial of Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”

How could there be any “temporal punishment” left at all if Christ has paid the price for our sins in full?

Since there is supposedly a “treasury of merit” that is limitless why doesn’t your church use it to set its people free from the temporal punishment for their sins? Why don’ they use it to empty out purgatory?

Ancient Christians who taught that Mary had sinned:

“ (215 AD Tertullian) “God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God” (The Soul 41:3).

Clement of Alexandria “ The Word Jesus Christ alone was born without sin.”

Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”

Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.):

1) “ The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate.”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.)

2) “It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all.” (Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671)

Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “ She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)

When the immaculate conception was first presented in the year 1140 it was opposed by Bernard of Clairvaux also Thomas Aquinas adamantly taught Mary was a sinner. This is something we need to deal with.

Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”
Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).
.N.D. Kelly comments:

“Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)”

No, that’s not true. If you read the book I showed you, you would know that the Fathers call the Catholic Church that Church which had succession from the Apostles and whose capital and centre was Rome.
.
Who is the son of the Woman in Revelation 12? A few orthodox Catholics (not like Brown, essentially a rationalist liberal in his thought) believe the son who rules all nations to be a Pope, so they think the Woman might be the Church. But this interpretation cannot be consistently held by a sincere Protestant. The Protestant would be obliged to say that the Son was Christ, so if he is sincere, he must concede that the Mother can only be Mary. But because of their hatred for the Mother of God, they avoid this necessary conclusion like the plague, thus being completely illogical and revealing their bad will.
.

Mk,
Brown makes an well reasoned and biblical-historical case against Mary being the woman of Rev 12. The facts of the passage don’t fit Mary.

Xavier,
Are you aware that in the early centuries that there were 3 centers for the church? First was Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome. These were the major centers. It took time before Rome won out.

Here in the second century is St.Irenaeus on the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God, Mary most holy, purest of the pure, blessed among women, full of grace, delight of God’s heart, who loved Him as her Son with a tender and maternal love, Queen crowned with 12 stars, enemy of the devil.
.
““In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin.
.
And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race… And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”
.

Yes, I’m very well aware of early Church history, thank you, and I already showed you the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus explaining the fact that Peter’s primacy in the Roman Church was known and revered by all and in every age since the Apostles. But you don’t know the facts. There were actually 3 major ones, which later became 5, and still these sites are held as important today for their antiquity and there are Catholic patriarchs of these places. That includes in Jerusalem and Antioch.
.

Xavier-Mk,
If Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 then you have a problem with Mary being sinless. Part of the curse of the fall was that the woman would experience pain in childbirth. Here is what the Lord said to Eve because she ate—“…. To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;….” Genesis 3:16
The woman in Revelation 12 is in pain to give birth—-“ 2 and she was with child; and she * cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.” Verse 2.  If this is Mary, then this shows she was a sinner because pain in childbirth is part of the curse of the fall.
Can’t have it both ways. If Mary is the woman of Revelation 12 then you lose the sinlessness of Mary.

There you go again. You answer me first and then I’ll answer me. Who is the son? Tell me that and then I’ll tell you who is the Woman, and how it all fits together.

Xavier,
  Why don’t you tell me what your church officially says the woman of Rev 12 is? I want to deal with the official interpretation of your church.

You can’t answer because you know the moment you answer you are trapped so you dodge yet again. The Church teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Woman who is in body and soul in heavenly glory and who there is crowned Queen over all things.

Xavier,
If you are right then Mary sinned because she experienced pain in childbirth. Pain in childbirth is part of the curse of the fall.

Your reasoning is also quite ridiculous. Here’s the proof. Death was also caused because of the fall as was suffering. To follow your argument, since Christ suffered and died, he couldn’t have been sinless. Patently absurd.
.
Christ and Mary were the New and True Adam and Eve, unlike our first parents who disobeyed God, Mary is the Mother of redeemed humanity, i.e. of Christians.

Xavier,
Christ willing laid down His life.  If He had not, then He would not have died. Mary on the other hand did die.

The very fact that Christ could die disproves your argument that being under the causes of the fall proves one to have been a personal sinner. That is a false argument you made, based on an incorrect premise.
.
Christ and Mary are the New Adam and Eve, and like Eve, Mary was created without original sin. But where Eve disobeyed, Mary obeyed. Therefore, she was called full of grace by the Angel, for where grace is full, sin is no more.

“Do not cast your pearls before swine.  Do not give what is sacred to dogs.”  A word to the wise.

Xavier,
Christ did not die for any personal sin that He was guilty of. That is why He willing laid down His life by His own authority otherwise He would not have died. There is even a tradition that Mary did die. The wages of sin is death. Rom 6:23

Did you know that Stephen was full of grace (Acts 6:8). Should we believe he was sinless to?

Erik,

You cannot know Jesus by reading a book. You might know ABOUT Jesus by reading what he said and did. But, you cannot KNOW Him - intimately - by reading the Bible. That’s like saying that I know Mark Shea because I’ve read things that he has written about himself. Yet, that is the claim you’re making. You claim to know Jesus because you’ve read the Bible.

Jesus tells us that the ONLY way to know him intimately - on a personal level - is by consuming Him (body, blood, soul, and divinity). Before there was the Bible, there was the Eucharist. The Word of God is not a book: It’s a person. And worshiping the Bible is akin to Idolatry. The Bible is NOT God: It’s the inspired word of God. God did not deliver a book to us: He delivered a person - in the flesh!!!!

Erik,

You’re going to a restaurant and looking at the menu (Bible), but you’re missing out on the banquet (the mass, the Eucharist) - you’re not eating!!!!

Erik,

You’re NOT pro-Christian: You’re ANTI-Catholic. 2 different things. It’s better to have a theology that is FOR something as opposed to theological foundation that is against something. ALL non-Catholic Christian theology is based on being against the Church. Heal your anger brother! You’re trying to destroy something because you don’t like what it’s stands for. So, you need to defame and trash it in order to prove yourself superior. That’s pretty sad. And that’s what causes disunity among Christains. And that’s why we have 33,000 different “versions” of Christianity. That’s “diabolical” (to divide).

Amen Rafael and Amen Xavier (and I hear you Mark).  I’m gonna sit back and watch for awhile…Erik is so incapable of rational “discussion” that I just can’t go round and round.  I’d LOVE it if you’d take over for awhile.  Or just send him on his way.  I LOVE conversation, but that implies both parties are listening.  I just can’t take any more nonsense like:

1) The papacy
2) Marian dogmas
3) Indulgences
4) Purgatory
5) Its gospel.
6) celibate leadership
7) Must confess to a priest to be forgiven
8) Uses an alter for worship
9) Repeats the sacrifice of Christ
10) The sacraments are necessary for salvation

Seriously?  Our Gospels are different?  We repeat the sacrifice of Christ?  Celibate leadership?  How many ways and times can you explain the same thing to someone before you realize they are not interested in what you have to say.  Rafael, my friend, you hit the nail on the head.  It’s all about being against something…not about being for something.

I wonder Erik, do you love Jesus?

mk,

I applaud you for your incredible education and research in the faith. Over these last dyas, I have been marveled at you guys and your efforts and have learned so much from watching you and Xavier, Ed, Mark, and others defend the faith and draft some incredible counter-arguments. After all, apologetics is not about apologizing: it’s about DEFENDING of the faith, which is what the word “apologia” means. We have NOTHING to feel sorry about, but EVERYTHING to be HAPPY about because our JOY is in Jesus!

Rafael,

Viva the Eucharist!  ;)

Erik,

One of the biggest criticisms of Christians by the Roman Empire before they converted was that the Christians “ate their deity” - they “ate their God.” They were accused of “cannibalism.” By the way, that was BEFORE the Bible. They - the early Christians weren’t martyred because of the Bible: they were martyred because they refused to stop celebrating mass…

mk,

Amen! And a “thanksgiving” (eucarisitia) to you and your efforts.

Rafael,

:)

Erik,
I just happened to come across this site and wow.  I have to applaud you how well you have engaged these catholics.  Reading through all these comments helped me to see how weak the catholic faith is.  keep up the good work. God bless.

Rafael,
How well do you know the Bible and church history?

One of the biggest criticisms of Christians by the Roman Empire before they converted was that the Christians “ate their deity” - they “ate their God.” They were accused of “cannibalism.” By the way, that was BEFORE the Bible. They - the early Christians weren’t martyred because of the Bible: they were martyred because they refused to stop celebrating mass…

Neat!  I didn’t know about this

Jared,

That’s why Justin Martyr wrote this apology:

CHAPTER LXVI—OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

In response to accusations by the Emperor that we were eating flesh and blood.  (cannibalism)

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/269/first_apology_of_st._justin_martyr.html

Tony,

Reading through all these comments helped me to see how weak the catholic faith is.

Were you wearing a blindfold???

Mk,
How does one love Jesus?

mk,
Thanks for sharing!  I definitely need to read more from Church Fathers.
Two nights ago, I read through an epistle written by St. Polycarp (which is especially cool because St. John the Evangelist is my Confirmation saint).
I didn’t get much of the context from reading it, but a local priest had done something wrong, and St. Polycarp was basically reminding Deacons and Priests on their place in society and commending the good that had been done there. 
So, right there in the early second century, we have a man who studied under one of the Apostles writing a letter that relies on the Hierarchy of the Church!

Rafael,
You wrote:
“Jesus tells us that the ONLY way to know him intimately - on a personal level - is by consuming Him (body, blood, soul, and divinity).”

Jesus nor His apostle never taught this.

Erik,

“How well do you know the Bible and church history?”

Before the Bible there was the Church and their history. The Church did not come from the Bible: the Bible came from the Church. The Bible is not a self-help book or a “how-to” manual as to how to start a church. The question is not how well I know the Bible and Church history, but rather how well the CHURCH knows the Bible and Church history. And I trust Jesus’ Church.

The Bible is OUR book. Jesus is the High Priest of our Church. No other denomination can make that claim.

Rafael,
The OT which is part of the Bible predates the church. The Bible belongs to all Christians. It is only in the Bible that tells us the truth about Christ and how we are mature in Christ. Jesus is the High Priest for all who believe in His name. Your church does not own Christ.

Erik

“Jesus nor His apostle never taught this.”

According to you. But, you can’t ignore - or invent - your own history. Don’t hide behind your anti-Catholic bias. You’re real issue - and intent - is to thwart Church authortity on ALL matters of faith and morals because - according to you - if you can “prove” they’re wrong on one matter, what else will they be wrong on?! You can’t stand that Jesus established One Church with One Authority. You’re part of the problem, not the solution.

You remind me of these liberal judges that try to make the Constitution of the United States a “living and breathing” document by legislating law from the bench that violates the intent and sprit and letter of the Consitution.

You can’t have it both ways: It either is what the Church claims it is, or it’s not. You’re obviously part of the latter side.

Rafael,
You made a claim about Jesus being “... that the ONLY way to know him intimately - on a personal level - is by consuming Him (body, blood, soul, and divinity).”

Where did Jesus say this? Where in the gospels does He say this? If its not in the gospels then you are doing the very thing you accuse me of i.e. inventing things.

Erik,

“The OT which is part of the Bible predates the church. The Bible belongs to all Christians. It is only in the Bible that tells us the truth about Christ and how we are mature in Christ. Jesus is the High Priest for all who believe in His name. Your church does not own Christ.”

Before there was an OT, Jesus WAS!!!! Before the New Testament, Church history. Truth is a person, not a book. Jesus is the High Priest for ALL - even those who don’t believe in Him. There’s only ONE Christian Church. And you’re not in it. By the way it’s not my Church: It’s Jesus’ Church!!!! And you’re being very disobedient by rebelling against it.

Erik,

“Where did Jesus say this? Where in the gospels does He say this? If its not in the gospels then you are doing the very thing you accuse me of i.e. inventing things.”

The Bible confirms what went on for 300 years before the Canon was established. 

Erik,

“Where did Jesus say this? Where in the gospels does He say this? If its not in the gospels then you are doing the very thing you accuse me of i.e. inventing things.”

Let me ask you something: you’ve been misinterpreting and taking scripture out of context since we started this back over a week ago. What makes you think that you’re going to do any better now? You’re like the Pharisees and Sudduccees that were always trying to trap Jesus by quoting scripture and when He would give them answers they didn’t like, they accussed Him of blasphemy and heresy, etc… This is a perfect example of how Jesus IS the Word of God. He is the fulfillment of the OT. And in your blindness and zeal, you are going to miss the Messiah.

Rafael,
Do you want to have a discussion or are you going to continue to lecture me?

Erik,

“Do you want to have a discussion or are you going to continue to lecture me?”

What discussion? How can you have a discussion when you continue to deny the basic truths of the faith and history? As far as lecturing, you are the one that keeps trying to lecture us about what is legitimate Christian scholarship. Remember: you came here. And after we’ve given you ample evidence to challenge your assertions, you continue to be in denial. You can’t even concede when someone has made a VERY valid point - or points. You’re trying to separate the Bible from Christian history and tradition. And that’s not going to work. We accept the Bible as the inspired word of God. But, we also know that the Bible just didn’t fall out of the sky. The books were put together through the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit BY A CHURCH! You can’t change history. And if you call into question the evidence of the early Christian writers (aside from the Gospel writers, because they weren’t the only ones that wrote about the early Church) then it’s not possible to have a discussion.

I will tell you that I genuinely believe you love Jesus and His teachings. I believe you are sincere in your commitment to your faith. But, to try to create doubt in us not sincere in your request for “discussion.” I’d rather talk about what we have in common. We BOTH love Jesus. We BOTH love His teachings, the Bible. And I think if you were to explore deeply the teachings of the Church, you will see that you actually have more in common with it - at least in the basic morals (no adultery, no stealing, Trinity, Jesus is Messaih, etc…). At a time when Christians need to stand firm and united together because of the global attacks against ALL Christians, it hurts the Body of Christ to be challenging each other about who’s more Christian. That we may disagree on some basic fundamentals, OK. But, most non-Catholic Christians believe that we are a) not Christians and b) “the largest cult”. The attack against the Catholic Church with this HHS mandate should unite us all. Glenn Beck, a Mormon, said “we are all Catholic now,” regarding the fact that the attack against the Freedom of Religion that the Church is exercising is an attack against ALL Christians. The Catholic Church is the target because it’s ALWAYS the target.

If we can agree on this, I think then we can room for a discussion. But, remember: in order for their to be a discussion, we have to accept the basic truths. Otherwise, then it’s pointless. If I try to debate an atheist with the Bible, they could care less. But, the arguements of history, natural law, moral law, far outweigh the use of the Bible (although the Bible does affirm what we’re saying, too). But, the support of the Bible against an atheist is pointless because they don’t accept the Bible. At least you and us accept this. But, you also can’t ignore history, my brother. And we love you and accept you as a Christian and wish for you growth in your faith. And all we’re saying is that there is more to your faith than what you realize. Your faith is not yet complete. And we’re not trying to take away from your faith: we’r trying to ADD to your walk with Jesus. Again, you have the Great Menu. But, you’re missing out on the feast!!!!

I’m happy to continue if you are.

Rafael,
Great.  Then let’s get back to some questions.  Lets deal with your assertion—“How can you have a discussion when you continue to deny the basic truths of the faith and history?”
There are some things we do agree on but it’s the different doctrines of your church that separates it from Christianity.
What basic truths of the faith am I denying?  Surely you are not going to say that the Marian dogmas are basic truths of the faith are you?

Erik,

“There are some things we do agree on but it’s the different doctrines of your church that separates it from Christianity. What basic truths of the faith am I denying?  Surely you are not going to say that the Marian dogmas are basic truths of the faith are you?”

When it comes to Bible exegesis, I defer to others who are more knowledgable than I in these matters because I’m not a Biblical scholar. When it comes to scholarship, I trust those who have been around it far longer than I have. So, I’m probably not the best person to discuss particular dogmas. Just because I can read the Bible does not mean that I am qualifeid to accurately interpret it. I do understand, however, that when dealing with scripture, you have to take several things into account: language (accurate understanding of Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic), intent of the writer (allegory, poetry, literal, etc…), historical implications regarding, culture, Christian anthropology, etc…
The English translations are so poor. For instance, in the Our Father where Jesus says “give us this day our daily bread,” scholars have done extensive research on this and have determined that the word for “bread” in the original text does not mean like the bread you buy at your grocery store. The word in Greek is “supersubstantial” which has a deeper meaning. And because there is nothing finite, Christian tradition has understood it to mean that it was His body. So, it fits with the early pracitices of Christianity because they would have daily mass. And so it was the intent of Jesus for us to receive Him daily.

There are some great scholars who I can refer to you in regards to Marian doctrine, which is supported by BOTH history, Christian tradition, and scripture. But, if you’re only looking to scripture alone, you’re going to have a difficult time.

Just checkin’ in.  Great job Rafael.  Tho I gotta warn you.  Erik’s idea of discussion is he asks all the questions, and answers basically none of them.  So when he asks you if you plan on lecturing him, keep in mind that he’s pretty much a. taken away the option of questions and answers b. makes all the rules of conversation and c. doesn’t address the heart of what you say, only his 4 or 5 main sticking points.  And when you spend paragraphs, PARAGRAPHS, I tell you, explaining it to him, he changes the subject after only glancing at what you painstakingly written.  I’d stick with the lecture route.

ED,

I went to a water park with my grandkids, spent the night out in the country and am now about to go see a movie with my eldest son.  See?  I just needed to feel better.

Erik,

Thanks for giving me something to do while I was recuperating (even tho it was totally fruitless.  ;)

(Still chucklin’ over Augustine not being a Roman Catholic…lol…I think that one deserves a prize)

Rafael,
Not sure why you think the English translations of the Scripture are so poor.  Actually the translations we have today such as the NASB and the EVS are some of the best because they are based on the best manuscripts we have today. Never in church history has there been a better time to know the Scripture.  Roman Catholics claim the Scripture came from there church yet they don’t know it. It’s a sad situation.

Don’t listen to mk too much. She is bitter that our discussion didn’t go the way she wanted them to.  I suppose I would be too if what I thought was the truth was not exactly as I have been taught.  She did her best but it was not enough to carry the day. I don’t blame her for bowing out.

BTW- are you aware that the Marian dogmas are a late development in the history of the church?  You would think that such a major doctrine of the Roman Catholic would have solid scriptural support but in reality doesn’t.  It’s quite amazing.

Mk,
I don’t expect you to respond now that you have bowed out but I do hope you read this on Augustine:
This is what conservative priest and Roman Catholic apologist Peter Stravinskas wrote about Augustine in a conservative Catholic magazine:

“Despite Augustine’s tremendous influence, several of his opinions never gained acceptability in the Church. Among them, we can list the following theories: that God would condemn unbaptized infants to hell, simply because of the inheritance of original sin; that God would justly condemn adults who had never had the chance to be presented with the Gospel, again, due solely to original sin’s hold on them; that some people would suffer eternal damnation for no other reason than God’s lack of interest in saving them! As we reflect on these Augustinian positions, we must recall the fact that just because someone is a saint or even a doctor of the Church does not make his entire body of teaching acceptable; only the Church’s Magisterium can decide what is and is not consonant with Her understanding of the truth of Christ.” (Envoy, September/October 1998)”
We also know Augustine thought that Mary sinned.  These beliefs are against the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. I guess it comes down what is the definition of a Roman Catholic.  Must a person believe all that the Roman Catholic church teaches to be a Roman Catholic?  Makes one wonder.

mk,

Thanks for your praise and for your recommendations. Your research was superb. I will attempt to follow the trend. I’m glad you’ve had a great recovery.

Erik,

Sorry for the delay.

“Not sure why you think the English translations of the Scripture are so poor.  Actually the translations we have today such as the NASB and the EVS are some of the best because they are based on the best manuscripts we have today. Never in church history has there been a better time to know the Scripture.”

Not exaclty sure I agree with this. The Spanish translation is actually a better translation. Being fluent in Spanish, I can tell you that the Spanish scriptures give you a different perspective and thus closer to the Latin - more than what I get from the English translation. In fact, when I want to get a deeper understanding, I read the Spanish Bible. This is why the English mass is returning to the Latin translation, whereas the Spanish mass did not require a change ;)

“Roman Catholics claim the Scripture came from there church yet they don’t know it. It’s a sad situation.”

What other Church is there????

“Don’t listen to mk too much. She is bitter that our discussion didn’t go the way she wanted them to.  I suppose I would be too if what I thought was the truth was not exactly as I have been taught.  She did her best but it was not enough to carry the day. I don’t blame her for bowing out.”

I think that’s a matter of opinion. I don’t think she’s “bowing out,” just taking a break. But, I think she did a marvelous job in her research and was charitable in her attempts to bring light to Catholic teaching. Truth is not subjective: It’s objective. We cannot create our own truth. Imagine if I try to re-tell the history of this country according to how I THINK it should be or how I think it occurred. I would have to prove with facts that my assertions were true. If I began trying to say that George Washington was not the first president and tha the Founding Fathers of this country really meant something else, I would have to prove that. But, there’s something called the Federalist Papers that confirm the writings and beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution of the United States affirms it. Also, there are individual writings by Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, etc… that also give us a look into the minds of these great men.

“BTW- are you aware that the Marian dogmas are a late development in the history of the church?  You would think that such a major doctrine of the Roman Catholic would have solid scriptural support but in reality doesn’t.  It’s quite amazing.”

Remember that it doesn’t say anywhere in Scrpiture that in order for something to be valid it needs to be in scripture. Also, Jesus never said that you have to read the Bible. The word Trinity does not appear in scripture. And yet that is a MAJOR dogma. I think the error you keep making - in all humility - is that you keep using the Bible as your ONLY source of authentic Christianity. And that’s not even Biblical because it does not say anywhere in scrpiture that the Bible is the final authority. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, it says that “the church” is the final authority. And I think, too, the you have rules out the possibility that the teachings of the Church are possibly 100% true. Remember: Truth is not relevant. There cannot be 2 or 3 or 4 versions of the same Truth. That’s one of the major probelms we’re having in society because everyone wants to the right to THEIR truth - even if they are wrong. But, you have to the righto to be wrong, too. 

Rafael,
  The criteria or standard for the translations of the Bible are either Hebrew (OT)  or Greek (NT). These are the original languages. 
This is what the translations are to be compared with for accuracy.
Latin is not the standard because that is not what the writers of Scripture wrote in. 
I hope you are right about mk. There is still much to discuss. 

It is true that “it doesn’t say anywhere in Scripture that in order for something to be valid it needs to be in scripture.” However, if its not in there, then its not apostolic nor biblical but the doctrines of men. It is true that the word Trinity is not in the Bible but it can be supported by various passages of Scripture. The Marian dogmas, indulgences, papal infallibility and purgatory cannot.

I do not think Roman Catholicism is authentic Christianity. It has many doctrines and practices that are not in Scripture and were unknown to the early church. Things such as the papacy, indulgences, purgatory and the Marian dogmas come to mind.
The Scripture are the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine because only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. The church is not nor are the popes. Only the Scriptures are God-breathed. Are Sacred Traditions are said to be so?

Since you brought up Truth, how do you determine if a doctrine of your church is true? What is your criteria?

BTW- Jesus certainly did want His followers to know the Scripture. See John 14:21-23. To keep His commandments you must know the Scripture. You are to have His words richly dwelling in you. Col 3:16. Again, you must know the Scripture well to fulfill this command.

“Despite Augustine’s tremendous influence, several of his opinions never gained acceptability in the Church. Among them, we can list the following theories: that God would condemn unbaptized infants to hell, simply because of the inheritance of original sin; that God would justly condemn adults who had never had the chance to be presented with the Gospel, again, due solely to original sin’s hold on them; that some people would suffer eternal damnation for no other reason than God’s lack of interest in saving them! As we reflect on these Augustinian positions, we must recall the fact that just because someone is a saint or even a doctor of the Church does not make his entire body of teaching acceptable; only the Church’s Magisterium can decide what is and is not consonant with Her understanding of the truth of Christ.” (Envoy, September/October 1998)
 
St. Augustine was wrong on each of those accounts.  That does not mean that he wasn’t Catholic; it just means he was wrong.

Jared,

He was wrong, yes, be he was certainly not speaking ex cathedra.  He was “musing” about some tough questions.  It was his opinion, and he never meant it as fact (Btw, I’m not challenging what you said, just expounding on it.  The last line of the article that ERIK himself put up says it all…

only the Church’s Magisterium can decide what is and is not consonant with Her understanding of the truth of Christ.” (Envoy, September/October 1998)

It seems he skipped right over that part.

And you were spot on, dealing with Erik’s dodge of yet another issue…he accusation was not that Augustine was not right about everything, but that he wasn’t Catholic, and the passage he put up had nothing to do with that.

Rafael,

Thank you.  I tried.  Again, Erik confuses frustration about the way he “discusses” with the topics being discussed.  There are much better arguments and people who are better able to make them out there…my point is not that there is no reasonable arguments (albeit wrong) for Protestantism.  My point is that Erik is not making them.  He perceives (mistakenly) my snarkier comments as attacks on him, when they were actually attempts to help him become better at what he is trying to do…speak for his Faith.  As a result, Protestantism comes off as far from accurate and Erik comes off as a weak conversationalist.  Both end up on the losing end.  I’d like to see him hone his skills and perhaps become better at defending what he believes, even if it is wrong.  He thinks it’s right…he should be able to express this more adequately.

Jared,
How much wrong can a person be and still be Roman Catholic? Remember: Augustine not only was against the beliefs of the RCC but knew nothing of the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit etc.
This is why its absurd to claim that the early church was RC. It doesn’t fit the facts. 
It reminds of some RC politicians of today such as Pelosi who is firmly for abortion and yet considers herself to be a good RC in good standing. Go figure!

Mk,
Here is what the great RC apologist Robert Sungenis say about ex cathedra statements in regards to what RC’ believe. Its quite enlightening:

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

http://galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/features/Refutation_of_David_Armstrong’s_Teaching_On_Galileo.pdf

There was no such thing as a “ex cathedra” in Augustine’ time.

Erik:

Clues for the clueless: Bob Sungenis is not a “great apologist”.  He is a massively marginalized fringe kook who has been told by his bishop to stop using the word “Catholic” to describe his “ministry”.  You only reveal your ignorance by making him some kind of spokesman for the Church.  He’s just a layman with a keyboard and a modem.

And what exactly makes him so “great”, Erik?  You’re saying so?  lol…

Mark,
Is Bob wrong about what he wrote?

PS- isn’t there a number of RC’ told to stop using the word “Catholic” to describe their ministries? In other words, its not just him but others?

Mark,

Erik, reveal his ignorance?  You mean he’s been wrong on some issues???  Oh my.

Anyone who agrees with me is great. :)

Erik:

I don’t have a dog in this fight.  You are a troll and I take Jesus’ advice not to cast pearls before swine.  So if you want to go on looking stupid and arrogant, that’s fine by me.  I just thought I’d do you the favor of informing you that getting your information about the Church from Sungenis is like getting your information about geography from the Flat Earth Society.  If you want to continue, knock yourself out.  You’ve already said so many dumb things about the Catholic faith one more won’t really make a difference.  Proceed.

“And you were spot on, dealing with Erik’s dodge of yet another issue…he accusation was not that Augustine was not right about everything, but that he wasn’t Catholic, and the passage he put up had nothing to do with that.”
 
Thanks!  Yeah, I’m pretty much done attempting to discuss or explain the Church with this troll.  I’ll keep reading the conversation, though, because I’m learning a lot from you, Xavier, Rafael, and Mark. 
 
Erik,
Keep prolonging this if you wish.  I’m with Mark on this one.  You are an easily entertained troll (and a boring one at that), so I’m not going to continue discussing these matters with you.  However, when you make a new stupid claim (such as “St. Augustine said stuff that isn’t in line with Catholic teaching; therefore, the early Church was not Catholic.”), I will correct you.  And when you ignore the correction and continue to re-define the Church so she’s easier to argue against, you will not get any more attention from me until the next new stupid claim.  Pax.

Mark,
You denigrate a fellow RC by telling me that “he’s just a layman with a keyboard and a modem” and not a spokesman for the RCC. How are you any different? Did the RCC appoint you its spokesman and if so when? Go figure!

Jared,
You wrote this “However, when you make a new stupid claim (such as “St. Augustine said stuff that isn’t in line with Catholic teaching; therefore, the early Church was not Catholic.”),..”

Can you show me this quote?

What I did say is that the NT church and the early church was not Roman Catholic. I suspect you are confused about the word “Catholic” means Roman Catholic. They are not the same things.

Hope this helps.

Earlier Erik stated that he agreed with the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. I wonder, Erik, do you stand by that assertion?

If I began trying to say that George Washington was not the first president and tha the Founding Fathers of this country really meant something else,...

Sort of like claiming the “Right to bear arms” also means you have the right to two legs and a torso?  ;)

You denigrate a fellow RC by telling me that “he’s just a layman with a keyboard and a modem” and not a spokesman for the RCC.

I’m stating a fact.

How are you any different?

I’m not.

Did the RCC appoint you its spokesman and if so when?

No.  It did, however, appoint me a witness when I was baptized and confirmed. All Catholics are bound to bear witness the Faith.

Mark,
Does bearing witness to the Faith involve calling people names? Is this what your church teaches you?  I certainly don’t see you and the other RC’ here fulfilling I Peter 3:15.

Erik,

Do you or do you not believe all the words of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed?

Erik,

I believe Mark actually said that you “LOOKED” arrogant and stupid.  This implies you are appearing as such by choice, not nature.  You’ve posted 3 articles by three authors whom you claimed were awesome, well respected Catholics in good standing.  One was a heretic, one was excommunicated, and one was asked by his Bishop to cease writing false teaching.  Instead of apologizing, as a real man would, you continue to insist that you know our Faith better than we do.

So no name calling here…“looking” like is not the same as being. Take mine and Marks (and others) here advice, and you could stop looking arrogant and stupid…continuing saying things like Augustine wasn’t Catholic, The CC’s Gospels are false and that the early Church didn’t believe that Baptism is salvific or that bread and wine become the True Body and Blood of our Lord, only confirms Marks’ observations. 

There are arguments to be made that the Early Church got it wrong, but there are NO arguments to be made that they did not believe what they believed.

Feel free to prove him wrong by BEING humble and informed and rational.

BTW, Erik, do you or do you not believe all the words of the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds?

Mk,
Where did I say Augustine was not a catholic? What I said he was not a Roman Catholic. There is a difference as I have repeatedly pointed out. You are being disingenuous again by not reading my comments correctly and accusing me of something I never said.
Don’t see any problem with the Nicene creed. One problem with the Apostles creed—“He descended into hell”. There is some dispute if Christ really went to hell. See 2 Peter 3:19.

BTW- even a heretic can tell the truth as I have shown you with those quotes. The issue is not if they are heretics or not but are they telling the truth. Sungenis was telling the truth.

As for my comments about the gospel I did not say that was about the 4 gospels but that Rome teaches a false gospel. It is not the gospel that apostles taught.

Mk,
Is your reference here to Bob Sungenis by Mark—“one was asked by his Bishop to cease writing false teaching”? I hope not because that is not what he wrote. Here is what he wrote about him (in very derogatory terms) “He is a massively marginalized fringe kook who has been told by his bishop to stop using the word “Catholic” to describe his “ministry”.

He didn’t say anything about false teachings. If I’m wrong about this can you show me the person you are referring to with your statement?

Thanks

Erik,

Sorry for the delay again.

“The criteria or standard for the translations of the Bible are either Hebrew (OT)  or Greek (NT). These are the original languages. 
This is what the translations are to be compared with for accuracy.
Latin is not the standard because that is not what the writers of Scripture wrote in.”

I understand what you’re saying. But, the English translations come from the Latin vesrions, not the Greek and Hebrew. 

“It is true that “it doesn’t say anywhere in Scripture that in order for something to be valid it needs to be in scripture.” However, if its not in there, then its not apostolic nor biblical but the doctrines of men. It is true that the word Trinity is not in the Bible but it can be supported by various passages of Scripture. The Marian dogmas, indulgences, papal infallibility and purgatory cannot.”

Thank you for at least consenting a point to me. I would disagree with you however on the claim that something is not apostolic if or bibilical if it’s not in the Bible. Take for instance contraception. Explain to me, if you will, why ALL Christian denominations stood together on the opposition to using contraception until 1930? The only remaining Christian organization that still holds to this 2000 year-old practice is the Catholic Church.

“I do not think Roman Catholicism is authentic Christianity.”

Yes, your bias was been revealed a long time ago, which is why I feel that your claims are not authentic either because you are already pre-determined in your positions. By way of comparison, “modern science” has a bias against religion. So, if there is truth to be found within religious writings, they will either avoid it or chalk it up as biased (which is ironic because that’s what they are). And a scientist is supposed to be objective in their search for truth - even if that means that you discover something in a place where you are at odds with. If find it funny, too, that you keep quoting dissident Catholics and yet not quote Catholic converts from Protestantism. 

“It has many doctrines and practices that are not in Scripture and were unknown to the early church. Things such as the papacy, indulgences, purgatory and the Marian dogmas come to mind. The Scripture are the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine because only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. The church is not nor are the popes. Only the Scriptures are God-breathed. Are Sacred Traditions are said to be so?”

Without being a theologian I know that what you’re saying above is incorrect because there are Bibilical AND traditional arguments to support these. 

“Since you brought up Truth, how do you determine if a doctrine of your church is true? What is your criteria? BTW- Jesus certainly did want His followers to know the Scripture. See John 14:21-23. To keep His commandments you must know the Scripture. You are to have His words richly dwelling in you. Col 3:16. Again, you must know the Scripture well to fulfill this command.”

Truth means that it applies to EVERYONE, whether they agree or believe in it. Take for instance the law of gravity: IT applies to everyone and if someone chooses not to follow that law then they will have a lot of accidents. Jesus is still everyone’s Savior and He is still God - even if people don’t believe in Him. In other words, His position as being one with God does not cease simply because one chooses to not believe in Him.

As for your reference to John 14, He uses the word “teachings,” not Scripture. And for reference to Col, the words used there are “Christ’s teachings.”

Whenever Jesus and the New Testament writers refer to Scrpiture in their teachings/writings, they are talking about the OT because there was no NT because it hadn’t been written yet. Jesus never wrote anything. So, all teachings were done ORALLY even after 325. People did not have their own copy of the Bible like you and I have because the printing press had not yet been created. And even after the printing press was created by Gutenburg in 1440, the only ones who were able to afford a copy of anything were the wealthy because it was too expensive for anyone else - especially the poor (and the first book printed on the Gutenbeurg press: the Bible). Not to mention people were also illiterate. So, they depended upon others to read to them - especially the poor. And so the ORAL reading of Scrpiture at mass still continues to this day because it is the preferred method of communicating the Gospels - not personally reading them. And guess who preserved the writings up until the time of the printing press? Catholic monks!!!   

Erik,

There is no difference between a Catholic and a Roman Catholic.  Here’s the very first line under the heading of “Roman Catholic Church” from your favorite awesome, highly respected and in good standing source, Wikipedia:

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,

If Augustine was Catholic, he was Roman Catholic as there is no difference between the two.  Are you going to make up definitions now?

The head of the Catholic Church resides in Rome, hence “Roman” Catholic Church. 

So yeah, saying Augustine wasn’t Catholic makes you “look” arrogant and stupid.

Look, here is a quote from highly respected, awesome and in good standing protestant writer:

As he celebrated the Mysteries of the Holy Mass, I made a resolution, actually two of them: to enter more deeply each day into the Mass and into this ministry that he has to pray for him. But the second resolution was to share with my brothers and sisters in Christ about our Holy Father, and how Christ has graced us with an incredible family, with the Blessed Virgin Mary to be our own spiritual Mother, with Pope John Paul II to be a guide and a spiritual father-figure to lead all of us in worshipping our heavenly Father, with saints as brothers and sisters, to know ourselves as God’s family, but most of all, with the Holy Eucharist to know ourselves around the table as a household of God, His own children. What privileges we have; what graces He’s given!

As for my comments about the gospel I did not say that was about the 4 gospels but that Rome teaches a false gospel. It is not the gospel that apostles taught.

I’m sorry…?  There are more than 4 Gospels?  And the Catholic Church teaches them?  How is this different than saying that the Catholic Church teaches false Gospels…?  There are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Those are the Gospels in my bible anyway.  Don’t know what you have. 

I’m confused.  You believe in the Nicene Creed, except you reject that Jesus descended into the dead.  You do understand what a creed is, right?  That the whole point of writing one is to clarify exactly what you believe?  That to throw out a part is to throw out the whole?

Tell me, do you also throw out this part:

“One Baptism for the Remission of Sins”?

I think you confuse “Latin Rite” with Roman Catholic.

Hi Rafael,
Do you know what manuscript family the Bible you use is based on?
How can something be apostolic-biblical if it’s not in the Scripture?  In regards to contraception I have not studied that so I can’t say.
In regards to Roman Catholicism not being authentic Christianity is not based on my bias but on my study of Scripture and church history. These things influence my views. You also have a bias that Roman Catholic is authentic Christianity. If my “claims are not authentic either because you are already pre-determined in your positions.”  then this applies to you also.
I am not quoting dissident Roman Catholics all the time.  I have quoted Roman Catholic scholars who are not considered dissident from what I can tell.

Science as a discipline of study should have no bias. The bias may come from those who practiced it and think that science is against Christianity. I actually think that scientific discoveries support the existence of God since naturalistic forces alone cannot account for the complexity and design in the universe.

Do you read and study the Scripture?

Mk,
You wrote—“ The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church)” (Wikipedia) but if you had read on you would have found—“ However, many others use the term to refer to other churches with historical continuity from the first millennium………… Those churches not in communion with the Holy See which consider themselves to be “Catholic” define the word as meaning an adherence to the ancient Catholic beliefs and practices, absent any more recent addition of a requirement for union with the Holy See.” As you can see the term is used in different ways.

In regards to the adjective “Roman”—“ applies more properly to the diocese, or see, of Rome than to the worldwide Communion of Catholic Churches that is in union with the Bishop of Rome. Indeed, it strikes some Catholics as contradictory to call the Church ‘Catholic’ and ‘Roman’ at one and the same time. Eastern-rite Catholics, of whom there are more than twenty million, also find the adjective ‘Roman’ objectionable. In addition to the Latin, or Roman, tradition, there are seven non-Latin, non-Roman ecclesial traditions: Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syrian (Chaldean), West Syrian, and Maronite. Each to the Churches with these non-Latin traditions is as Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, not all Catholics are Roman Catholic.” Wikipedia

Mk,
  Sorry but it is not correct to say that “If Augustine was Catholic, he was Roman Catholic as there is no difference between the two.”

There are major differences in what you believe as a Roman Catholic and what Augustine believed. I have already pointed out these differences.  Saying that Augustine was Roman Catholic is like saying that Mark Shea is still a Protestant.

In regards to my comment about the Roman Catholic church teaching a false gospel is in regards to salvation.  Let me ask you: what must you believe to be saved?

Mk,
You wrote—“Tell me, do you also throw out this part:

“One Baptism for the Remission of Sins”?”

This would be true so long as repentance and faith in Christ precede baptism. Baptism without faith in Christ is useless. It does nothing.

Mk,
You wrote:
“Look, here is a quote from highly respected, awesome and in good standing protestant writer:

As he celebrated the Mysteries of the Holy Mass, I made a resolution, actually two of them: to enter more deeply each day into the Mass and into this ministry that he has to pray for him. But the second resolution was to share with my brothers and sisters in Christ about our Holy Father, and how Christ has graced us with an incredible family, with the Blessed Virgin Mary to be our own spiritual Mother, with Pope John Paul II to be a guide and a spiritual father-figure to lead all of us in worshipping our heavenly Father, with saints as brothers and sisters, to know ourselves as God’s family, but most of all, with the Holy Eucharist to know ourselves around the table as a household of God, His own children. What privileges we have; what graces He’s given!”

This person is no longer a Protestant.

To quote you Erik,

even a heretic can tell the truth as I have shown you with those quotes.

Since you have shown time and again that facts don’t matter and that “your opinion” is the sole criteria for truth, I am standing by my statement.  Scott Hahn is a awesome, well respected author in good standing with the Protestant Church.  And you can’t prove otherwise.  You want to stick to your claim that the authors you quoted are well respected Catholics?  Then you set the bar and I am maintaining that Scott Hahn is a Protestant in good standing.  If other protestants don’t agree with his take on the Faith, then THEY must be wrong, not Scott Hahn.

I didn’t ask you about being saved…I asked if Baptism is done for the remission of sins.

There is NO difference between what Augustine believed and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches (on matters of Doctrine) and you have decidedly NOT shown otherwise.

You do realize that not only was he a Roman Catholic, but he was a Roman Catholic Priest/Bishop?  That’s might cool trick if what you say is true, as the ROMAN Catholic Church is not in the habit of ordaining men who aren’t in communion with the Church.  Crazy Talk.

As I said, you simply don’t know what “Roman” Catholic means.

Mk,
The great Scott Hahn is a Roman Catholic and not a Protestant. He is an apostate. If he teaches things that are not supported by Scripture then they are not apostolic nor biblical. It is the Scripture that is the standard of truth and not other Protestants.

I asked about being saved. Again, what must you believe to be saved?

Methinks you don’t understand the term Roman Catholic. Here again is what I wrote you above said:
“Eastern-rite Catholics, of whom there are more than twenty million, also find the adjective ‘Roman’ objectionable. In addition to the Latin, or Roman, tradition, there are seven non-Latin, non-Roman ecclesial traditions: Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syrian (Chaldean), West Syrian, and Maronite.  Each to the Churches with these non-Latin traditions is as Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, not all Catholics are Roman Catholic.” Wikipedia

Augustine did not believe in papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences nor the Marian dogmas to name a few things that separate you from him. 

Mk,
Do you think Mark would approve of Scott Hahn?

Why would that make a difference?  I’d say that Mark’s personal opinion of Scott Hahn’s presenation could go either way, but I doubt that he would Scott Hahn is teaching anything that goes against Church Doctrine.  Within the parameters of the Doctrines of the Faith there is much that we do not know and are free to speculate on without being apostate or heretical.  For instance, limbo.  Or whether or not there were actual people called Adam and Eve.  Or whether there truly was a parting of the Red Sea (could have been the tide/whatever)...Scott Hahn does not challenge Dogma, Doctrine, the Papacy/Authority of the Church.  But that doesn’t make him a Schismatic/Heretic/Apostate.  The authors you cited challenged Doctrine.  That’s the difference.  So if Mark could say that he doesn’t care for Scott Hahn, but as of now, he could NOT say that Scott Hahn was a heretic, apostate, schismatic or excommunicated. 

Because of this, on matters of Doctrine and/or Dogma, Scott Hahn is at this time, a reputable source. But he is not infallible and can hold many differing opinions on lesser matters.

There are major differences in what you believe as a Roman Catholic and what Augustine believed. I have already pointed out these differences.

You are just flat out wrong, Erik.  On matters of Dogma and Doctrine he believed everything I believe and I believe nothing that he did not believe.  Limbo is not a Doctrine.  One is not required to believe it.  Never were.

Purgatory IS Doctrine.  You must accept it to be in communion with the Church.  I see no evidence that Augustine did not accept this, or the Immaculate Conception (I’ve already proven that he did), Transubstantiation, or any of the other things you claim he didn’t accept.  INCLUDING the papacy.  You’ve have not shown one iota of evidence that proves otherwise.

Period.

What do you think “Roman Catholic” means and on matters of doctrine how do you think the other Catholic Churches differ?

“Eastern-rite Catholics, of whom there are more than twenty million, also find the adjective ‘Roman’ objectionable. In addition to the Latin, or Roman, tradition, there are seven non-Latin, non-Roman ecclesial traditions: Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syrian (Chaldean), West Syrian, and Maronite.  Each to the Churches with these non-Latin traditions is as Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, not all Catholics are Roman Catholic.”

Yes, this is true if you are trying to show that the Roman Catholic Church is the umbrella heading of certain rites, but if by Roman you mean in communion with Rome, that is a different thing altogether.

ALL of the Catholic Churches, Roman/Latin, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc….are in communion with Rome and accept the Pope as head of the ENTIRE Catholic Church.  Having said that, each of the rites has it’s own customs and traditions (NOT Sacred Traditions) but they do not disagree on Doctrinal issues.

Since I assume that when you say that Augustine was not Roman Catholic you are claiming he did not believe what Rome taught as true, you would be wrong.  If you mean he did not belong to the Latin/Roman RITE then you could be right, but I would have to do some research.  But it wouldn’t matter.  ALL Catholics, whether Roman/Latin Rite, Byzantine Rite or whatever, accept the Pope as their Patriarch.  So did Augustine.  Which is why I don’t understand why you keep harping on he didn’t belong to the ONE HOLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH.  Because there is ONLY ONE True Church and they all believe the same things (doctrinally) no matter which RITE they belong to.

Which means that no matter which Rite Augustine belonged to, your statement:

Augustine did not believe in papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences nor the Marian dogmas to name a few things that separate you from him.

is patently FALSE.

NO Rite did NOT believe these things and ALL Rites DID believe them. 
As a matter of fact it is from the Eastern Rite Churches that we (the Latin Rite) got the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary.

So I don’t know what your point is by claiming Augustine was not a Catholic the same as me…

Erik,

“Do you know what manuscript family the Bible you use is based on?”

I looked in three different Bibles and they all said the same thing. In fact, the Spanish version is even more telling: it says “my words” in John.

“How can something be apostolic-biblical if it’s not in the Scripture?”

I’ve pointed out several things that are apostolic yet not in the Bible. And don’t forget that the Bible itself does not say that it has to be in the Bible.

“In regards to contraception I have not studied that so I can’t say.”

Let me inform you: All Chrsitians accepted that contraception was evil and wrong until 1930. And there is NO Biblical foundation for the decision to START using contraception. So, I find it interesting that ALL Chrsitians who pride themselves and claim authority ONLY from scripture would be acting in such a manner that is not supported by scripture.

“In regards to Roman Catholicism not being authentic Christianity is not based on my bias but on my study of Scripture and church history. These things influence my views.”

And all I can speak to that is that there are more than one versions of Christian history. And all of them can’t be right: Only one version is correct. But the facts that I have pointed out - particularly about people not having copies of the Bible until well after the 1500s - should be enough proof that people depended on the Church for exposure to the Gospels and to the Eucharsist because it was BOTH scripture AND Eucharist - not one or the other. The passages in Luke 24: 13 - 35 are a great illustration of that. How is it that Protestant converts to Catholicism have seen this? And many who have converted also had both - or multiple versions - of Christian history. They had the versions they were taught in their seminaries, and then they learned the REAL version. And that was the impetus for their conversion. You can’t ignore TRUE history. Mormons and Jehova’s Witnesses will also convey their version of Christian history and they also claim that Christian history is inaccurate and that THEY have the accurate version. And, bless their hearts, but they are not authentically Christian because they don’t believe that Jesus is ONE with God: they belive He is a “son” (small “s”) of God, but not God. So, who’s to say that their version of Christianity is not true? Acording to them, all other Christians - including Protestants - are all in error. 

“You also have a bias that Roman Catholic is authentic Christianity. If my ‘claims are not authentic either because you are already pre-determined in your positions.’  Then this applies to you also.
I am not quoting dissident Roman Catholics all the time.  I have quoted Roman Catholic scholars who are not considered dissident from what I can tell.”

“Bias” means that you look at things from a particular slant that is based on your own creation of truth. Is someone “biased” if they think that gravity does not exist, or that air does not exist because you can’t see it? You have to be able to defend Christianity without using the Bible. It says so in scripture. They early Christians were martyred not because they were carrying around Bible in their hands: They were killed because of their witness!!! It’s already been pointed out to you the different “Roman Catholic scholars” that are dissidents. By the way, being a dissedent automatically disqualifies them from being Roman Catholic. You know, I find it interesting that you have such an objection to “tradition” and yet you follow your own tradition, namely the tradition of Martin Luther who started a tradition of “protesting” the Catholic Church.

“Science as a discipline of study should have no bias. The bias may come from those who practiced it and think that science is against Christianity.”

So you agree that one can be biased in their search for truth. Yet, their scientific “research” is being passed off as UN-biased in media circles and “elite” universities. So, who’s right?

“I actually think that scientific discoveries support the existence of God since naturalistic forces alone cannot account for the complexity and design in the universe.”

I’m in 100% agreement with you.

“Do you read and study the Scripture?”

I think that there’s more to reading and studying Scripture that makes one an authentic Christian - if that’s what you’re implying. As I stated in my last post, the ORAL tradition is the means by which the faith was passed on for years. And still is today. There are still numerous countries where people can’t read - particularly the poor countries. And yet they are exposed to the readings, traditions, and the Eucharist. It does not say anywhere in Scrpiture that you have to be able to “study” or “read” the Gospels in order for you to be considered an authentic Christian. If that were the case then Christianity would only be for those who COULD read. And as I stated earlier, for more than 1500 years following the establishment of the Church, the ORAL tradition has been the way to impart the faith - not reading the Bible alone. And Scripture DOES say that you need to be a part of “the church” - not that you need to read the Bible. Jesus never wrote anything: He only spoke. 

In the OT only those who qualified (scribes, leaders, etc.) were given access to written Scripture.  All of the Faith was passed on orally by those in Authority.  Ordinary people might have “known” Scripture, but it wasn’t from reading it.  All the bible says about Scripture is that it is worthy of knowing.  Doesn’t say anything at all about reading it.  And it warns against interpreting it.  As I have shown.

mk,

Nice support of the oral tradition!!!!

Mk,
In regards to what you and Augustine believed you wrote:
“On matters of Dogma and Doctrine he believed everything I believe and I believe nothing that he did not believe.

Purgatory was not a doctrine at the time of Augustine. Nor were the Marian dogmas, transubstantiation or papal infallibility.  We can add to this that he did not believe in indulgences either. These things were later developments in Roman Catholic history.  You believe these things but he did not.

Rafael,
Is there any oral traditions of the apostles that is known today in the RCC? If so, what exactly is it?

Mk,
  You write some mind-numbing statements that need some clarification. You wrote—“ All the bible says about Scripture is that it is worthy of knowing.  Doesn’t say anything at all about reading it.  And it warns against interpreting it.”

Does this apply to us today? Do you think we have a responsibility to read and study it? Do you think we can do this without interpreting it?

Purgatory was not a doctrine at the time of Augustine. Nor were the Marian dogmas, transubstantiation or papal infallibility.

But there is where you are wrong, yet again.  The Eastern Churches celebrated the Dormition/Assumption of Mary and her Immaculate Conception as early as the 1st few centuries.

You are still claiming that a Dogma/Doctrine does/did not exist until solemnly declared and again, you are flat out wrong.  It was believed from the earliest days and was solemnly declared later, due to being challenged.

As for Transubstantion, this was believed by the apostles and I have proven it to you with both Scripture and the Didache and the EARLIEST Church Fathers.

As for Purgatory, the concept of an ‘in between” place is as old as the Old Testament.  People prayed for the dead.  What would be the point if they were in hell or heaven?  Why should I pray for someone in heaven?  What’s to gain?  Why should I pray for someone in hell, as that is a permanent state?  Not only did Augustine believe in this “in between” place, but HE is the one who developed the idea into what we in the West now call Purgatory.  A rose by any other name…

Papal infallibility is Scriptural and we have shown you numerous times that there WAS/IS a recognized head of the Church since Peter. 

So you are wrong on ALL counts, as usual.  Augustine was a member of the ONLY Catholic Church that there is/was…and that Church was in Communion with Rome.

That’s all she wrote.  Everything you are claiming is pure fantasy and/or wishful thinking. 

Mk,
Were these things doctrines (purgatory, indulgences, Marian beliefs,transubstantiation and papal infallibility)  at the time of Augustine?

Yes or no?

You write some mind-numbing statements that need some clarification.

Sorely tempted to make a snarky comment about minds that are numbed, but I’ll take the high road.  ;)

If it doesn’t say anything at all one way or another about “reading” the Scriptures then why would it be wrong?  It’s not a moral issue.

As for interpreting…we can read Scriptures to learn and to allow God to speak to us privately.  But it is not our job to discover or declare doctrine based on what we read.  There is much room for personal interpretation, meaning that Scripture will have something to say to us as individuals.  What we are not to do, is attempt Public Interpretation.
That is the Churches job.  I can read that God loves me, and died for my sins or that Paul had a conversion…what I cannot do is make a statement contrary to what the Church teaches on doctrine and dogma.  That is the Church’s prerogative alone.

It’s like what we tried and failed to explain to you about the differences between private revelation and public revelation.  Fatima, Lourdes, Medjugorje, etc are all private revelation.  Scripture, Sacred Tradition…these are Pulblic Revelation and subject to the Authority of the Church.  There are no options when it comes to Public Revelation…you either believe or you leave.  Not so with private revelation…you can disbelieve and stay with no problem.

The problem arises when you and your ilk believe that they have the power and authority to interpret Scripture PUBLICALLY.  Speaking for all Christians everywhere…simply not you job.  That job is reserved for a select few.

Were these things doctrines (purgatory, indulgences, Marian beliefs,transubstantiation and papal infallibility)  at the time of Augustine?

I believe we have said so over 50 times now.  Is there a way I can make it clearer to you?

I admit as far as indulgences are concerned, strictly speaking, I am not able to answer.  But that aside, the rest were accepted Church Teaching at the time of Augustine, yes.  So don’t waste your breath arguing indulgences with me.  Luther didn’t have a problem with them per se, he took ubrage with their abuse.  I’m not even sure that indulgences are Doctrine.

Is there any oral traditions of the apostles that is known today in the RCC? If so, what exactly is it?
   
Oral tradition refers to teaching primarily through speech.  It’s common in areas and times when literacy is low.  Most early Christians could not read, so the Scripture was proclaimed. 
 
So, to answer your actual question: The Bible.

Mk,
  It was the founder of the Jesuits (Ignatius of Loyola)  who said “when the Pope says that black is white, and white black, it is the great moral glory,…” you remind of this.  Even if the Scripture shows a teaching of your church false you will believe the church and not Scripture. Would this be correct?

Mk,
  The church at the time of Augustine did not teach as doctrines: purgatory, indulgences, Marian beliefs, papal infallibility and transubstantiation.
These came centuries after Augustine.

Erik,

“Is there any oral traditions of the apostles that is known today in the RCC? If so, what exactly is it?”

You know, Erik, I said a BUNCH of stuff in my last post. And this is ALL you have to come back with? How about answering these observations and facts that I’ve sited? This is what I mean about your insincerity in having a real “discussion” because your only REAL intention here is to try and tear down Catholicism with your vesion of Christianity.

Jared,
So there are no oral traditions of the apostles outside the Bible. Correct?

Rafael,
What specifically do you want me to respond to? Don’t forget I’m not just responding to you. I also have my other friends here such as mk and Jared and now you. There is only so much time.

Erik,

I’ll save you the troulbe. The reason you don’t have an answer for this is because your version of history and opinions do not match up against the FACTS I’ve presented here. So you have to resort back to using the Bible as the ONLY authority, which you and I have already agreed upon is not necessary to find something in scripture because scripture says you don’t have to. The Bible is not a historical text book. There is history in there. But it does not qualify as a stricly historal book.

Rafael,
Help me out. What do you mean in regards to the Bible—“does not qualify as a strictly historical book.”?

Erik,

I’ll be back in a little while. I have family matters to attain to. But, I think a good place to begin would be to address the issues of oral tradition as FACT and then the issue of truth and the Mormon and Jehova’s Witness versions of Christainity. Adn then we can talk about the Bible being a historical book.

Would this be correct?

Not only would it be incorrect, it would be impossible.

The church at the time of Augustine did not teach as doctrines: purgatory, indulgences, Marian beliefs, papal infallibility and transubstantiation.
These came centuries after Augustine.

No.  They did not.  And I have prove as much.  Transubstantiation alone took place in while Jesus was still alive.  Simply repeating something often doesn’t change reality.

So there are no oral traditions of the apostles outside the Bible. Correct?

That is not what Jared said.  Not even close.  If you want to know the answer to this question, go back and read the 378 comments made here so far.  You’re question has been answered, re answered and answered yet again dozens of times over.  None of us is going to do the work for you.  Two weeks ago, we might have.  But we’re much wiser as to your antics now.

Mk,
Transubstantiation as a doctrine was not known until over 1000 years after Christ. There were many different theories about the meaning of the Lord’s supper in the early church.

There is only so much time.

And a lot of it would be saved if you read answers, answered questions and didn’t dodge subjects that make you uncomfortable.

Mk,
I understood what Jared wrote. I asked a question for clarification to see if we are on the same page. No need for a meltdown :(

mk,
You also are guilty of not answering questions and changing subjects.

Transubstantiation as a doctrine was not known until over 1000 years after Christ.

I’m going to say this one more time, very slowly, and then I am not going to recover this ground so pay close attention. 

For a thing to be Doctrine it DOES NOT have to be Solemnly Declared.

If that were true then the Doctrine of the Trinity would not have come about until the Council of Nicea in 325.  Does this mean we did not believe in the trinity until then?

Doctrines developed over time.  Developing doesn’t mean they didn’t exist in rudimentary form.  It doesn’t mean the concept wasn’t believed. It only means to took years to iron out the rough spots.  To nail it down.  Many Solemn Declarations of particular Doctrines were in direct response to challenges to said Doctrines.  The fact that the Solemn Declaration of the Immaculate Conception was not made until the last Century does mean that it wasn’t accepted as Doctrine from the earliest Centuries. 

Transubstantiation was an accepted belief of the ENTIRE Catholic Church from the Last Supper on.  A thing is not true because it is Solemnly Declared.  It is Solemnly Declared, because it IS True.

There is a BIG difference between a Doctrinal Belief and a Solemn Declaration of a Doctrine.  You would do well to learn that difference.

You also are guilty of not answering questions and changing subjects.

Seriously?  You want to go there?  I’ll hire someone to list how many times I have purposely refused to answer a question or dodged an issue and how many times you have.  You want to play that game?  World of difference between refusing to answer a question for the 300th time or honestly missing a question, and the games that you play, intentionally misdirecting the conversation over and over again.

Hey Erik,

What Church do you belong to?

I understood what Jared wrote. I asked a question for clarification to see if we are on the same page. No need for a meltdown

And you have just proven the comment I made above this one.  You play games Erik.  It is not possible, sans severe brain damage, that you need to clarify whether the Catholic Church believes that the ONLY source of Oral Tradition is the Bible.  You asked for AN example.  You were given one.  If you don’t know by now that the Church believes that ALL of Revelation comes to us through Sacred Tradition AND the Scriptures and NOT through Scripture alone, then you are either in need of a Special Needs Program or you are a liar.

Erik,
I don’t think you quite grasp what oral tradition is.  It is not a Catholic term.  It’s not even a religious term.  It is a method of teaching, not a specific teaching.  I gave the Bible as an example because oral tradition is how scripture has always been taught, whether it’s Moses learning of the events of Genesis long before they were written down, the readings being proclaimed at every Mass, or parents reading the Bible to their young children at this very moment.

Jared,
I understand that when Moses, the prophets, Jesus and His apostles taught they taught orally at times. That period is now gone and has been for over 2000 years. That’s why I wanted to clarify this. There is no such thing today of an oral teaching of an apostle that is known. All that we have from anyone in Scripture is written in Scripture. Agreed?

Do you think Mark would approve of Scott Hahn?

Not that this question has anything to do with this blog entry, but I think very highly of both Dr. Hahn and the quality of his work.

Mk,
You are right. I do have Special needs. That need is the truth and not assumptions.  These so called “Sacred Tradition” is still too nebulous. I want an official example of it and its origin. What you and Mark may think a “Sacred Tradition” is may not be the same thing as what the Roman Catholic church officially teaches they are. That’s why I want something official. Can this be found anywhere?

For example the Sabbatine Privilege has the full support of the RCC—“Pius XII mentioned this privilege in 1950 and thus lent it credence and authority.  In his words: “This most kind mother will not be tardy in using her intercession with God to open the gates of heaven as soon as possible for those of her children who are expiating their faults in purgatory, a truth that is based on the promise known as the Sabbatine privilege.” (Letter Commemorating the seven-hundredth anniversary of the Mount Carmel Scapular, February 11, 1950, AAS XLII, 390)  Already in 1910, Pius X had reconfirmed the indulgences attached to the Sabbatine Privilege (AAS III, 22-24).”

Is there something like this for a Sacred Tradition?

PS- again; no one is obligated to answer any questions. You should not be complaining since you have had the vast majority of your questions answered. I should be so lucky.

Mk,
You wrote—“For a thing to be Doctrine it DOES NOT have to be Solemnly Declared.”

Is this official church teaching?

Could it be a doctrine that Mary is at this very moment in light of the “fifth Marian dogma” which establishes Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix has not been Solemnly Declared could in fact be a doctrine?

Would this be an example of your claim?

Holy moly.

Erik, I haven’t read all of this thread, but I can see well enough that you are a slippery one. (Not a compliment.)

You will probably not face this problem that I put to you, but for argument’s sake, pretend that I have no other concern. (Not for “discussion’s” sake, which was an obvious ploy by you to pretend you were being reasonable while ignoring valid problems with your position). For the sake of this question, I don’t care about the validity or invalidity of the Catholic Church, the Pope, the Eucharist, or anything else. (In other words—don’t change the subject when you can’t answer the question.) So here it is.

1. You refute traditional knowledge. Correct? (That’s simple—it’s a yes/no question.)
2. The collection of books we know as the New Testament was assembled by traditional knowledge of those who assembled it. (Nowhere in scripture does it tell us which books are supposed to be included in the New Testament, we only know some of the authors by traditional knowledge, and we don’t know the authors of at least one of them (though I think two.))
3. Therefore, you refute the New Testament because it’s source is tradition.

QED.

Erik,
I don’t know about you.  Perhaps you a convert to Christianity…someone who found Christ later in life, but I am not.  I have grown up in a Catholic household.  Before I could read, I heard the Bible proclaimed at Mass, learned about it from my parents, and saw scenes recreated in Bible cartoons.  There are people today who are illiterate and need someone to teach them the Scriptures.
 
Teaching through oral tradition is not a thing of the past, my troll-y friend.

RUs,
Greetings. Do Roman Catholics have some kind of play book when engaged with a Protestant? I keep getting the same kinds of rebukes and challenges. Amazing. Let me answer your questions. Some may require further clarification. So don’t take it as dodge as so many others do.

1) Before I can answer this I need to know what you mean by “traditional knowledge”?
2) I can agree with this depending what you mean by traditional knowledge.
3) No.

So what follows from your points?

Jared,
I know personally a number of Roman Catholics very well and I have never heard them use the term “oral tradition” when they refer to the gospels or Scripture being read at a mass etc.  This is something I will have to ask them. It’s always important to understand what people mean by the terms they use so I don’t misunderstand what they say.

Erik. You have made it clear that knowledge outside of scripture is invalid for the sake of determining religious doctrine. You have made it clear that you completely disregard any traditional knowledge as it relates to Catholicism. I see you are trying to be slippery with definitions now, so let’s pin it down a little neater.

1. You reject knowledge that is not received directly from the Bible.
    a. If you don’t reject knowledge that is not directly from the Bible, you refute every statement you made in this entire thread that refutes Catholic knowledge on the basis that it is not in the Bible.
    b. If you do refute knowledge that is not directly from the Bible, procede to step 2.
2. The New Testament (and the Old, for that matter) was assembled with the use of knowledge that was not taken from scripture.
3. Therefore, you reject the New Testament because it did not come from a scriptural source.

Either you are completely and blatantly self-contradictory, in which case your discourse is abject buffoonery and/or evil deception, or you have to accept traditional knowledge as a source of truth and acknowledge that all of your refutations above based upon such nonsense are bogus.

Take your pick.

Yes.

It has not been Solemnly Declared as Dogma but has been accepted as official Catholic Teaching since at least the year 200.(which in case you hadn’t calculated was before Augustine).  It might not have all of the kinks ironed out, as I and others keep pointing out to you, Doctrine develops, it doesn’t just land on a tarmac ready to go. 

I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding this as your own Doctrines are the same way.  You keep whining that the TRUE Church has ALWAYS believed in Sola Scriptura, OSAS and Faith Alone, yet THESE Doctrines were not officially stated until the 1500’s.  So either they were totally new Doctrines pulled out of thin air, (which is what we hold) OR they were believed all along and Martin Luther and his friends finally made them official.  If the latter is true, and Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura and OSAS are what Christ intended from day one that that is YOUR SACRED TRADITION.  Capiche?

RUs,
  You must be related to mk. You make so many assumptions about my views and then proceed to knock me down. Pretty clever.
Let me try to state my view so you have a better understanding (assuming you are wanting to understand).
  I believe that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant and because they are, they alone are binding on all followers of Christ. In them we know what is necessary for salvation and how we are to live life in Christ. All doctrines are to be grounded in Scripture and if not they are not binding on Christians.
In regards to your questions:
1) Not true. There is all kinds of knowledge not contained in Scripture. Knowledge that is in the Scripture is considered revelation.
2) Not true. The writings themselves are inspired-inerrant. It did take other knowledge such as history and reason to determine which books belonged in the Scripture.
3) No true. Those that put the canon of the New Testament together used tests to discover which books belonged to the New Testament. Some of those tests were discussed far above.  The church did not make Scripture inspired-inerrant. They are inspired-inerrant because their source is ultimately from God.
The problem you have is to demonstrate another source that is also inspired-inerrant Word of God. Surely you would not claim the leaders of your church or its traditions are inspired-inerrant? If you do think this then we can discuss this.

Mk,
Are you claiming that the Marian dogmas “has been accepted as official Catholic Teaching since at least the year 200.”?

You are going to need to support this claim. Where does it say this was the Catholic Teaching in around 200? What document says this?

Mk,
it looks like we need to change topics again. Do you want to discuss OSAS and Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura? I game but I’m not sure Mark would appreciate you changing topics :)

RUs,

Thanks for helpin’ out, tho you should be prepared to swallow a lot of Tylenol…

It would probably help is you use the terms we have been using.  “knowledge” is ambiguous and you’ll just get into a “discussion” about how we can know that the earth revolves around the sun and that water is wet.

You have to claaaaarify things for Erik.  And I do mean clarify, as in over and over (still no promises and the reason for the Tylenol).

It has already been explained to Erik, by numerous people on numerous occasions that the Catholic Church believes that there are three EQUAL sources of Divine Revelation.

Scripture
Sacred Tradition (which you are calling “knowledge”
The Teaching Authority (Magesterium) of the Church.

He has also been told that Sacred Tradition and The Teaching Authority may not contradict Scripture, in fact, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to so, because all three are protected by the Holy Spirit, the very soul of the Church, BUT, that they do not necessarily have to come directly FROM Scripture.

I can guarantee you that before this thread is shut down, he will have asked yet again how a thing can be true if it isn’t in Scripture, how our beliefs contradict Scripture and that Augustine was not a Catholic in communion with Rome.

What he will not tell us, is what Church he belongs to.  This is actually an easy one if he truly knew his own Faith, but he is so freaked that we’ll jump all over his “Particular” denomination that he hasn’t even figured out the correct answer (From his Protestant View) is that churches don’t have capital “C’s”, there is no building or place where his church exists and that wherever two or more are gathered, there is the church.  But it is telling that he won’t even share his denomination with us, yet feels free to trash our own Faith at every turn.  Cowardice at it’s best.

Erik,

Are you claiming that the Marian dogmas “has been accepted as official Catholic Teaching since at least the year 200.”?

We weren’t talking about the Marian Dogmas, we were talking about the difference between Sacred Tradition and Solemnly Declared Doctrines, and YOU asked about a SPECIFIC Sacred Tradition, that of Mary as Mediatrix.
And I responded that it has been stated as part of Sacred Tradition since at least the year 200, but has not been Solemnly Declared yet. 

Which bring us to your next dodge.  I have no desire to discuss the particular doctrines of SF, SS or OSAS.  I was discussing the fact that either you claim these were ALWAYS held beliefs, in which case that would be an example of your OWN Sacred Tradition, OR they are brand new pulled out of thin air Doctrines made up by men with no authority and only came into being in the 1500’s.  Either way you are screwed as you have to admit that you TOO adhere to Sacred/oral Traditions, as SS, OSAS and SF were never written down as Doctrine anywhere before that, or that they were totally invented.  There is no other choice.

You are going to need to support this claim. Where does it say this was the Catholic Teaching in around 200? What document says this?

Sweetie, all you have to do is Google Mary as Mediatrix or CoRedemprix and you’ll have all the resources you need. 

Here is one example…

Mary, by becoming the channel of our Salvation, is defined as the source of eternal salvation for those who tasted death through Eve. Mary’s role in the Father’s plan was to undo the knots of disobedience and death.   Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies

http://www.mariedenazareth.com/8124.0.html?&L=1

And here:

One of the oldest teachings of the Church is that Mary is the New Eve. Just as the first Eve really contributed to the disaster of original sin, so Mary the New Eve really contributed to removing it, that is, to redeeming us. She was Mother of the Redeemer precisely insofar as He is our Redeemer. Every Pope since Leo XIII, and Vatican II, in seventeen documents have said that her role in redeeming us extends even to a part in the great sacrifice of Calvary itself! It is a general principle, that if something is taught repeatedly by the Church, even on a level less than a definition, the teaching is infallible.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya1.htm

Mk,
That’s no way to treat our new friend. Poisoning the well before RUs gets started will only cause him-her to have to dig himself-herself out of a bigger hole later. You are right. Get the Tylenol out right now if you think this is going to be easy.  Unproved assumptions will no longer carry the day here. Mk will tell you that.
Mk—you assert that “Sacred Tradition and The Teaching Authority may not contradict Scripture, in fact, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to so,…”  is another claim that needs to be proven.  We know Jesus never promised such a thing nor have you given a list of these Sacred Traditions so we can see if there are any Sacred Traditions that do contradict Scripture. We already know that the claim that Mary was without sin or kept from sin (Sacred Tradition????)  contradicts Scripture. It can also be demonstrated that she had other children of her after the birth of Christ.  Would these be Sacred Traditions?

Do you know anything what Augustine said about the pope in Rome? Does he say anything about the bishop in Rome being the supreme head of the entire church?

BTW- the early Christians did not meet in church buildings but in the synagogues and houses. You can see an example of this in Romans 16:5. I think it was about the 3rd century before Christians met in church buildings.

Mk,
On your quote by Irenaeus of Lyons on Mary “....becoming the channel of our Salvation…” is he speaking for the entire church or is he just giving us his opinion?

Mk,
You wrote that “Every Pope since Leo XIII, and Vatican II, in seventeen documents have said that her role in redeeming us extends even to a part in the great sacrifice of Calvary itself!” is not an ancient teaching. Leo XIII was born in 1810. Vatican 2 is even later. That is not that long ago. In fact it’s a novel idea.

He is speaking against heresies.  This would mean he was speaking for the whole Church.  The belief is held today which means that it was accepted as True and authentic teaching.

you assert that “Sacred Tradition and The Teaching Authority may not contradict Scripture, in fact, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to so,…”  is another claim that needs to be proven.

I’ve already done that…so have others.  We’ve shown you where it was promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, where the apostles do not go to Scripture with controversies but to the Church, and where we are told to follow Tradition.  I don’t know what more you want…a tape recording by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John addressed directly to you? 

It can not be demonstrated that she had children after Jesus.  What can be demonstrated is that Jesus had relatives. Aramaic being the language that was spoken, and having no word for “cousins”...the word brother/sister was used for all close relatives.

This would be a perfect example of two people reading Scripture, each thinking it says something different.  WE have the Church, who knows and has studied Scripture for far longer than you or I and we have that promise of Jesus Himself that She is a valid authority that can and must be trusted, so I defer to Her wisdom.  I certainly don’t defer to yours.
Unlike you, I am able to say, “I simply don’t know…let’s see what the “experts” say” and then turn to the Church for the proper understanding, just as I was instructed to do by both Jesus and Paul…

Augustine:

In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.

I think your problem lies in that since you don’t adhere to any particular denomination you pull junk from all of them.  The idea that Augustine and the African Church was not in communion with Rome seems to come from the Anglican Church.  Yet they accept Transubstantiation and a valid priesthood, both of which you contest.  Or you take your view of Sola Scriptura from Luther, yet Luther believed in the Marian Dogmas and Cosubstantiation, both of which you also contest.  This is why, I suspect, you belong to a non-denominational Church.  In these Churches you are free to pick and choose whatever the heck you want…it makes Cafeteria Catholics look downright orthodox.

What exactly is it that you believe?

You wrote that “Every Pope since Leo XIII, and Vatican II, in seventeen documents have said that her role in redeeming us extends even to a part in the great sacrifice of Calvary itself!” is not an ancient teaching. Leo XIII was born in 1810. Vatican 2 is even later. That is not that long ago. In fact it’s a novel idea.

No Erik, that is not what that shows.  What it shows is that the belief was held as early as the year 180 and still hold today.  I gave you references from Irenaeus to today…I was showing continuity, but in your ever amazing inability to follow a thought through to the end, you have once again, missed the boat.

In fact it’s a novel idea.

*head bang*...YOU are not honestly talking to US about novel ideas…that would be flat out insanity!  Give me an example of ANYONE, ANYWHERE at ANYTIME before the 16th century that believed in the “ancient” concepts of SS, SF or OSAS…Novel ideas…good one.

Mk,
OSAS also known as eternal security was taught by Jesus in John 6:37, 10:27-29; and Paul in Philippians 1:10, 2:12-13; Romans 8:35-39; Ephesians 1:13;  4:20; by Peter in I Peter 1:5; and Jude in Jude 24.

To deny eternal security is to deny the Scripture and call God a liar.

Mk,
Pope since Leo XIII, and Vatican II is about 1600 years after 180. Why didn’t you answer my question about Irenaeus? Who said he speaks for the entire church at the time? Just because a church father says something does not mean its true or believed by the entire church.

Really?  Show me the documents that prove that the early church read Scripture that way?  Why did it take 1500 years for someone to figure out that that is what Jesus was saying?  PROVE that this is what the Church believed.  Not the words you are reading, but that they mean what you claim.  Go ahead, prove it!

Why didn’t you answer my question about Irenaeus?

5:56pm…read it again.

Mk,
When Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church it does not follow from that it could never err. We know it erred not only in some of its doctrines but also in certain practices of your church such as the inquisitions. The inquisitions was a matter of faith and morals.  How could such a thing happen if your church was protected from error?
When Paul is speaking of tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he is speaking of traditions that he had taught them himself. There is no such teaching in any of Paul’ writings that he taught them about purgatory, indulgences or the Marian dogmas. These things were totally unknown to him.
Here are the reasons why Mary had children of her own after the birth of Jesus:
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) Her response is in response to the timing. It seems the angel is saying she will conceive immediately since she was not currently having sexual relations with Joseph. Secondly she says – “But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” If she had taken some vow not ever to have sex she would have said something like—- How can this be, since I will have no relations with a man?”
Thirdly it does look like that she did conceive shortly after this. If you look at the timeline between this announcement and her meeting with Elizabeth and add the time up it must have been very soon after the announcement. This would lend support to that it was almost immediately.

This kind of explanation does not require a person to speculate about any vows by Mary or her and Joseph making some kind of covenant in their marriage never to engage in sexual relations which would have been unheard of in a marriage or a violation of the command for married couples to procreate and multiply if they could.

5) If Mary had only one child born to her Luke in his narrative would have used a different word in than “first born” (Luke 2:7) and would have used a word for “only born” instead. 
6)    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 and Mark 6:3
7) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
8) There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
9) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
10) If we don’t take Mark 3:31-32 as Jesus blood brothers then further in the passage we have a weakened exhortation in verse 33-35 if we use the word cousin or relative instead of blood relationships.
11) 32   A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.”
33   Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?”
34   Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!
35   “For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
 
Instead of the word “brother” insert the word cousin or relative.

32   A crowd was sitting around Him, and they *said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your “cousins-relatives” are outside looking for You.”
33   Answering them, He *said, “Who are My mother and My “cousins-relatives”?”

34   Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He *said, “Behold My mother and My “cousins-relatives”!
35   “For whoever does the will of God, he is My “cousins-relatives” and “cousins-relatives” and mother.”
 
This saying does not cover all family relationships.

12)  Catholic translations use the words “brothers and sisters” when addressing their relationship to Christ.
13) There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36
Psalm 69:8 could also be used to establish Jesus had brothers.    I have become estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.

Mk,
Where do you get this idea that in his speaking against heresies he is speaking for the entire church at the time?  What you need to show is that the leadership at the time appointed him to be speaking for the entire church. The fact of the matter is it cannot be done. No one appoint him or any church father to speak for the entire church.

I don’t need to show what the entire church believed for it to be true. All I need to show is what the Scripture teaches to be true. The criteria for truth is not the church but the Scripture.

RUs,
 
Before you get further involved, I’ll join mk in warning you.  Eric is not attempting to discuss or evangelize.  He’s a troll, which means his goal here is to annoy others for his own easily-obtained amusement.  So don’t expect him to site a source other than modern heretical Catholics; don’t expect him to think his view through.  He knows he has no foundation for his belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and he knows that he has no historical ground to stand on when arguing that the Apostles were not the first Bishops.  He is here to annoy us, nothing more.

The criteria for truth is not the church but the Scripture.

Too bad Erik was not here to correct Paul when he called the Church of the living God the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Good point Mark. Notice that Paul did not say the church is the truth but that it is support the truth. That truth would be the Scripture.

No.  That truth would be Jesus.  We worship God, not a book.

It is true that Jesus is the Truth but it is by the Scripture we know Him. You would not know Christ without the Scripture.

And we would not have scripture, nor understand it, without the Church.  Therefore, it is an utter fool’s errand to pit the one against the other since both are God-breathed creations of Jesus (John 20:21-23; 2 Tim 3:16).  You might as well be demanding to know which blade on the scissors does the cutting as to demand to know whether Sacred Tradition or Scripture is greater.  Sacred Scripture is just the written expression of apostolic Tradition.

THANK YOU MARK!!!

Fear not, Jared and mk. The only reason I joined this was that my approach was different than anything I’ve read in it so far.

Erik writes (and subsequent quotes are from him.)
“You must be related to mk.”

I suppose I could be. ‘Tsup, sib?

“You make so many assumptions about my views and then proceed to knock me down. Pretty clever.”

I can only go by what you say. We’ll leave it to you to “correct” me. And it’s not clever at all. It’s simply facing what’s in front of me. Funny how you have taken such a sarcastic and airy attitude of superiority, yet criticize my sib for being so, so condescending. You’re as slippery as they come. I’m sure you are proud of yourself.

“I believe that the Scripture alone is inspired-inerrant and because they are, they alone are binding on all followers of Christ.”

Right. Sola scripture and all that. According to what source of knowledge are these things true? According to what revelation? (Especially the “alone” part, but also the inspired and binding parts.)

“In them we know what is necessary for salvation and how we are to live life in Christ.”

According to what source of knowledge? According to what revelation?

“All doctrines are to be grounded in Scripture and if not they are not binding on Christians.”

According to what source of knowledge? According to what revelation? (These are all doctrinal questions, so your sources—according to your own words—must be part of revelation.)

In regards to your questions:
“1) Not true. There is all kinds of knowledge not contained in Scripture. Knowledge that is in the Scripture is considered revelation.”

Sigh. I don’t think you are that stupid, so I assume you are attempting to stall and deflect. Let’s rephrase it now for the special-ed troll class:

You reject Christian doctrine that is not revelation received directly from the Bible.
  a. If you don’t reject doctrine that is not directly from the Bible, you refute every statement you made in this entire thread that refutes Catholic revelation on the basis that it is not in the Bible.
  b. If you do refute revelation that is not directly from the Bible, procede to step 2.
And so it continues.
2. Your doctrine that the Bible as it has been assembled in the New and Old Testaments does not come from scriptural revelation. It is traditional knowledge. (History, reason, language, and a whole lot of other things are part of traditional knowledge.)
3. Therefore, you reject the doctrine of sola scriptura because what the New Testament (and Old) consists of did not come from a scriptural source.

You are done. Stick a fork in you. You may fiddle with the language, but that’s just because you are too thick to realize you are done. Anyone with two brain cells knows it, too. I repeat. Either you are completely and blatantly self-contradictory, in which case your discourse is abject buffoonery and/or evil deception, or you have to accept traditional, non-Biblical knowledge as a source of truth and acknowledge that all of your refutations above based upon such nonsense are bogus. If you face the former, you are manifestly out of your mind. If you face the latter, you have finally seen the light. Facing neither would be cowardly and dishonest.

Although you are done, a little cleanup follows. (These and the above are unanswerable by you without refuting pretty much your entire discourse, so have at it.)

“The writings themselves are inspired-inerrant.”

According to what source of knowledge? According to what revelation?

“It did take other knowledge such as history and reason to determine which books belonged in the Scripture.”

In other words, the entire foundation of your doctrine relies upon non-scriptural knowledge. If this is true, you have no basis whatsoever to squawk when Catholicism uses non-scriptural knowledge. By your own admission, your entire doctrine cannot be derived from the Bible alone.

“Those that put the canon of the New Testament together used tests to discover which books belonged to the New Testament.”

According to what source of knowledge? According to what revelation? Where in the Bible does it say that any of these tests you speak of are valid at all?

“The church did not make Scripture inspired-inerrant. They are inspired-inerrant because their source is ultimately from God.”

According to what source of knowledge? According to what revelation?

“The problem you have is to demonstrate another source that is also inspired-inerrant Word of God.”

No, the problem is that you have no foundation to demonstrate any inspired-inerrant Word of God *at all*. You can either reject non-Bibilical doctrine entirely resulting in self-contradictory nonsense because it results in rejecting the Bible itself, or you can admit that non-Bibilical doctrine is possible and refute every statement you’ve made that rejects Catholicism’s use of non-Bibilical doctrine. The first is stupid and irrational. The second results in Erik the Troll being skewered and defeated.

Take your pick.

Thank you my brother ;)  Now I wonder…when Erik said we must be “related” did he mean brothers or cousins? 

Speaking of which Erik, insert the word Family in there instead of cousins or relations…Your mother and family are waiting outside for you…oh noes, that might actually make sense!

We worship God, not a book.

And there’s the rub. We start with the absolute God and worship him, including our recognition and use of sacred scripture and the inspired word. Erik starts with devotion to paper and ink that he has elevated to some absolute godlike status, completely losing sight of he who inspired it.

And a corollary to the above: After God we follow with what God himself directly established—the Church. Jesus did not directly write the scriptures. He did directly establish the Church.

(I’m not putting this out there for discussion with Erik. My discussion with him is very narrowly defined. This is just food for thought.)

Mark,
This is a false statement –“ And we would not have scripture, nor understand it, without the Church.” God could have used a donkey to get us the Scripture if he wanted to. 

Mark,
Is Sacred Tradition inspired-inerrant?

Now is a good time to have some insights into what the Roman Catholic church teaches about Mary. Its this kind of thing that separates the RC from other Christians but also from Scripture.

“Treasury of All Good Things
1. “God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” and “God has committed to the Blessed Virgin Mary the treasury of all good things in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace and all salvation.” (Pius IX: Encycl., Ubi primum, February 2, 1849.) — [p. 12, number 12; p. 18, no. 38]

Only Through Thee
2. “O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.” (Leo XIII: Encycl., Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895.) — [p. 12, no. 13]

No One Goes to CHrist Except Through His Mother
3. “With equal truth it may be said that of the great treasury of all graces given to us by Our Lord—for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ—nothing comes to us except through Mary’s mediation, for such is God’s Will. Thus, as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no one goes to Christ except through his mother.” (Leo XIII, Encycl., Octobri mense, September 22, 1891.) — [pp. 13,14, no. 19]

With Mary and Through Mary
4. “If it is impossible to separate what God has united, it is also certain that you cannot find Jesus except with Mary and through Mary.” (St. Pius X: Allocution to the Franciscans, November 12, 1910.) — [p. 14, no. 20]

“What We Owe the Virgin Mary
“As the various mysteries present themselves one after another in the formula of the Rosary, for the meditation and contemplation of men’s minds, they also make clear what we owe to Mary for our reconciliation and salvation.” (Leo XIII: Encycl., Fidentum Piumque, September 20, 1896.) [pp. 15,16, no. 29]

All Hope
“All our hope do we repose in the Most Blessed Virgin, in the all-fair and immaculate one who has crushed the most cruel serpent’s poisonous head and brought salvation to the world.” (Pius IX: Apost. Const., Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.) — [p. 18, no. 39]

The Mediatrix of Our Salvation
“O Holy Mother of God; to thee we lift our prayers for thou, powerful and merciful, art the Mediatrix of our salvation.” (Leo XIII: Encycl., Jucunda semper, September 8, 1894.) — [p. 19, no. 43]

Graces to Mankind
“Mary is all powerful with her divine Son who grants all graces to mankind through her …” (Benedict XV: Encyclical, Fausto appetente die, June 29, 1921.) [p. 59; no. 244]

Salvation of the Christian People
“From whom can we expect the salvation of the Christian people today if not from her of whom it is written that whosoever shall find her shall find life and shall have salvation from the Lord?” (Pius XI: Letter, Cum valde, Februrary 20, 1929.) [p. 59; no. 245]

Keep in mind no one in the early centuries of the church believed this kind of stuff.

Are you answering questions with these last to posts, Erik? Or are you just throwing out random passages as if they and you by yourselves command some authority over Catholic doctrine as a way to distract from the issues that were presented to you?

You have absolutely no foundation to even discuss these matters until you have established that your one single doctrine about the New Testament is sound. You and your methods have already been refuted above, so there is no reason to engage you in this smokescreen.

You’re done.

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church,  Matthew 18:18

Now why do you suppose Jesus doesn’t say “If he refuses to listen even to Scripture?  Why do you think Jesus does say “If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH?  You’d think Jesus would send those that are in error to the only source that is without error, and yet he tells them to go the CHURCH.  What the heck good would that do, if the Church can be wrong.

I mean, here we have Erik, who is in error.  He comes to a website that represents the Church.  We show him that the Church is telling him that he is in error.  His response is to disobey the Church and turn to Scripture.  I’d say that he is now wrong on two counts.  One, He disobeys Jesus command to abide by the authority of the Church…he has the gall to ARGUE with the very Church that Jesus tells him to go to for the final decision on the state of his soul…and two, he claims that Scripture and his interpretation of it, carries more authority than the Church that Christ instituted does.

So what should we do when a person has been brought before the Authority of the Church and remains in stubborn disobedience?  Well, let’s see what Jesus says:

then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Ouch!  That’s pretty harsh.  But it is also pretty clear that Jesus calls for obedience to His Bride and failure to be so will have pretty harsh consequences. 

Mk,
Now you are really confusing me. Who gave you authority to speak for your church? Secondly, isn’t Matt 18 for church officials to carry out and not for the layman? Are you an official like a bishop in your church that gives you the authority to discipline outsiders? 

There are at least two profound and unresolvable problems with Erik’s position. I’ve focused on the problem of authority. The other problem is the relative nature of language. There are many reasonable, yet mutually exclusive interpretations of pretty much every single verse in the Bible. It is impossible to come to a reliable interpretation of scripture without being informed by traditional knowledge—impossible.

For example, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church,” could just as easily mean “If he refuses to listen to them, tell those guys who cite scripture. If he refuses to even listen to the reciters of scripture,...” That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation—and there’s the problem. These verses can mean just about anything you want. You could reasonably interpret the verse to mean he must sit quietly in prayer in the church building, opening himself up and “listening” to God. I could come up with twenty more, and I could find a way to reasonably work in rubber duckies and Twizzlers—but none of them are reliable without some outside, non-Biblical reference point. This problem renders every interpretation of scripture that Erik makes completely unreliable and useless, but he doesn’t know that, so he carries on like an idiot.

Without establishing authority, there is absolutely no point in dealing with the particulars like the nature of the Church and Mary.

I’m hammering this troll on the complete lack of authority and scriptural revelation for his core doctrine. I could have hammered him on the fact that reliable interpretation is impossible, which is a little more work. Either way, it makes no sense to talk about anything else with him.

I just got back from Mass and guess what the first reading was…

<i>Brothers and sisters:
You are no longer strangers and sojourners,
but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones
and members of the household of God,
built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets,
with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.
Through him the whole structure is held together
and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord;
in him you also are being built together
into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.</i.

Hmmmm…The HOUSEHOLD (not BOOK) of God.  Built upon the foundation of THE APOSTLES (Not Scripture), the WHOLE STRUCTURE (as in Church, not Scripture) grows into a TEMPLE (Not a book) sacred to the Lord, WE are the dwelling place of the Spirit, (Not the Bible) 

If Scripture alone was the only source of inerrant Truth, why didn’t Jesus build His kingdom on Scripture?  Why did He build it on the backs of the Apostles, His Church?

Erik,

I haven’t read this entire thread, but I noticed that you are curious about the priesthood. “Priest” is from the Old English “preost,” which is from the vulgar Latin “prester,” which is in turn from the Greek “presbyter.” A priest is a presbyter.

Now, all Christians are priests, capable of partaking in sacrifice to God, just as all Jews were priests, capable of partaking in sacrifice to God. However, just as there were Levites who made the sacrifice in the Old Testament, so there are presbyters who make the sacrifice in the New Testament.

“For I knowb their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues.

And they shall come and shall see my glory, and I will set a sign among them.

And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations.

And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord.

And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord” (Isaiah 66:18-21).

“For priests and for Levites,” writes Isaiah. So we know that, in the new dispensation among the Gentiles, there shall still be “priests and Levites,” which will naturally be offering sacrifice. Malachi further tells us, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts” (1:11).

Our priests are presbyters who represent the sacrifice of the Word, for “the cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (I Corinthians 10:16).

Methinks you fail to appreciate the power of humans as co-workers with Christ because of the impoverishment of Protestant ecclesiology. You do not realize that the Church is the “totus Christus,” the fullness of Christ. We are ever “growing up in all aspects into Him who is the head” (Ephesians 4:15). Since we psychosomatic wholes—both matter and spirit—we must receive grace through channels both material and spiritual. Thus we commune with God through prayer, sacrament, and Scripture. He operates in our hearts, our minds, and our bodies.

Really, the Protestant rejection of the physicality of the sacraments is a rejection of the Resurrection. Really, the Resurrection makes no sense in Protestantism. It is borrowed from Catholicism and would not have arisen given its internal logic. It is as random as the virgin birth is to Islam. Both are borrowed from orthodox Catholicism. Since Protestantism denies that God uses material to communicate grace, why then would He want us to rise again? Would it not be preferable for us to be pure spirits, flitting about a celestial kingdom? The Resurrection is only logical in a religion that embraces the whole cosmos as one giant sacrament, one giant mystery through which God touches and loves and glorifies man, His beloved creation.

Erik, I don’t meant to go on. It is admirable that you have stuck around here. However, I urge you to do a little serious reading of first hand sources. Go back to the fathers of the church. Read Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Ephraim the Syrian, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome, Maximus the Confessor, Didymus of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Popes Gregory of Leo, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine.

These men form a straight line all the way back to the apostles: Ignatius of Antioch was a student of John the Apostle and his Eucharistic theology is already utterly Catholic. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, and he is also thoroughly Catholic.

I don’t doubt that you love and adore God, that you are a good Christian. But you seem to be operating at the cut and paste level here. You don’t appear to have actually read the sources and considered solemnly the history of the Catholic Church, which spread the faith across the world and has offered up more martyrs to Christ than every Protestant sect combined.

Whatever your decision and opinions, God bless you and protect you, and may His light shine upon you. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit—One God, forever and ever, amen!

Now you are really confusing me.

That’s a given.  But I digress…

Who gave you authority to speak for your church?

Puhlease!  I am not speaking “For” the Church.  The Church is speaking.  I am simply telling what SHE has said.  Unlike you, I am not saying “I, MK, say…”  I am saying “The Church says”.  You are saying that YOU have the authority to tell us what Scripture is saying.  You’re not saying “The Authorities say that this passage means”, You are saying “I, ERIK, am telling you what this passage means”  You stand on your own authority, I stand on the Churches Authority. 

Secondly, isn’t Matt 18 for church officials to carry out and not for the layman? Are you an official like a bishop in your church that gives you the authority to discipline outsiders?</i.

<i>“If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

And make no mistake about it Erik, you are in sin when you misrepresent the teachings of Christ and insult His Bride.

The troll is almost dead—if you don’t feed him.

Mk,
  You are right that Jesus “ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,  in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,  in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.”
Ephesians 2
The apostles and prophets are the foundation and not the building itself.  It is the teachings of the apostles (Scripture) from which to build since there are no apostles living.
I suspect you will reject this. Since there are no longer any apostles on what is the Roman Catholic church building on? Popes, bishops, priests? Mary? 

PJ,

That was beautifully put.  We’ve attempted to explain to Erik why God would use a physical means to nourish us, but it fell on deaf ears.  You put it so eloquently, however, that maybe even his ears might be opened.

The sad thing is that in rejecting the Church, the Eucharist, Confession etc, Erik is cheating himself out of a wonderful source of Grace and an opportunity to grow even closer to our Lord.  In refusing to accept this Truth, he harms no one but himself.  Tomorrow, I will go to Mass and receive communion.  I will receive abundant Graces, be filled and fed by my God.  Erik on the other hand will have cut Himself off from the greatest gift that God has ever given us; Himself, in the form of bread and wine.  All snarkiness aside, this saddens me greatly.

RUs and mk,

Be peaceable, brothers. If we have not charity, we are just resounding gongs and clanging cymbals. Erik may be wrong, but he deserves nothing less than our love, and love is kind, understanding, mild, and temperate. Frankly, I would rather be a cracker-and-grape-juice Baptist with a heart of gold than a Catholic who attends adoration every day but has a heart like a prune—shriveled, dry, and dark. Not that you have prune hearts. ;-) But it’s not necessary to bludgeon folks with our dogma. Since they are true, they will stand any mockery or scrutiny.

Mk, If I am not predisposed to interpret it that way, I won’t interpret it that way. Erik’s predisposition and non-biblical influences are obviously different than yours. Battling interpretations won’t work. It simply doesn’t matter because his core doctrine is non-biblical, so let him die on that spear.

Mk,
  Where did your church officially speak to me on this blog? All I have seen are just the opinions of various Roman Catholics and not one is an official of the Magisterium as far as I can tell.  You are speaking in the place of your church when you claim in your post that “The Church is speaking.  I am simply telling what SHE has said.”  Your church has not officially spoken to me here.

Matt 18:15-20 has to do with sin and church discipline. If you had read verse 15, you would have seen you are to go in private. This blog is not private. You have not come to me in private. 
I have not misrepresented Roman Catholic teachings.  Show me one that I have. Otherwise, it is you who is in sin by making a false accusation against me. 

Erik,

The Church is a living organism: the Body of Christ. It is animated by its Head, the God-Man. Every member is different and has its own purpose. The “leaders” of the Church are the successors of the apostles. We can trace the lineages of these men back to the days of the Twelve (see: Irenaeus, Against Heresies).

To be a Catholic is to live within the beautiful mystery that is the Body of Christ. We are part of Christ. In Him, through the Spirit, we are “partakers of the Divine Nature” (II Peter 1:4). We are sons of God after the Image of *the* Son of God. This sanctifying and glorifying grace we receive through various means, including the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. But to receive this glory we must empty ourselves out. We must perform kenosis, self-emptying, so as to achieve theosis, godliness. This is the ascetic struggle that is the day to day life of the faithful Catholic, carried out by way of disciplines like the Hours and regular fasting. 

I hope this helps. God bless you, Erik!

PJ, you’ve admitted that you haven’t read the thread. Don’t come in at the last minute and get all holier than thou on me. Erik has used very dishonest and downright evil means to twist up this thread, and I just pinned him down to where he is done. Now you come in and feed the troll while acting like you are so much more Christian than me. I’m sorry, but evil means sometimes has to be faced with hard words.

Your words are so badly timed, and so ignorantly applied, I suspect that you are nothing more than Erik’s sock-puppet.

Don’t feed the troll.

PJ,
I hope you are not another one of these nasty Roman Catholics. It gets tiring having to put up with the nastiness when a good theological discussion can be had.
As for a priesthood in the New Testament there is one and that is all believers in Christ are priests as you know. See I Peter 2:9. However, there is no such office as a priest in the New Testament church. A priest is a not presbyter. The New Testament does not use the term priest — hiereus — to refer to a separate office of Christian ministry. If priests as an office was mentioned in the New Testament it would have used “hiereus” and not presbuteros and episkopos.

The other problem you have with an office of priests in the New Testament is that there are no examples of them leading in worship such as the Lord’s supper nor hearing confessions and offering absolution for sin.

There has been much debate about the meaning of the Lord’s supper in church history. There is not just one view. The literal view i.e. that Christ is present in the bread and wine has some serious problems. The metaphorical-symbolic view does not suffer from this.

Have you read the church fathers? There are something like 38 volumes.

Did you know that your church has persecuted and murdered Protestants? Just look at the inquisitions that went on for centuries with the approval of popes and the Magesterium.

Erik, instead of entertaining your sock-puppet and whimpering about nastiness without taking responsibility for your own lack of charity, why don’t you face the problems that I presented you. You are toast, and you know it. Your core doctrine and every doctrine you cling to is based upon non-biblical sources. This refutes just about everything you’ve said. You’re done.

RUs,

I’ve read enough of it, RUs.

We’re called first and foremost to love, my friend. If we are ill-treated, we have even more reason to love. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). “But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39).

The best witness to the glory of the Catholic faith is to evidence the presence of God within us, and “God is love,” as the Apostle John tells us. We Catholics have the benefit of direct communion with the Lord. If we don’t show the fruits of this communion, we have truly failed Him.

I apologize if I upset you. Certainly, I did not mean to chastise or judge you. These internet discussions can get pretty hot. It is always wise for us to remind ourselves that being right is not worth hatred and anger, because “the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).

God bless and keep you!

PJ,

but he deserves nothing less than our love, and love is kind, understanding, mild, and temperate.

With all due respect, talk to me 450 comments from now. If you are still here, which I suspect you will not be, let’s see how temperate, mild and understanding you are capable of being…lol.

I happen to believe that the reason I have not walked away from Erik after close to a thousand comments IS because I love him.  Tough love to be sure, but love nonetheless.  How charitable would it be to allow him to continue to misrepresent our Faith and manipulate the conversation so that he never comes one iota closer to understanding the Truth.  Were I super human, perhaps I would have more patience.  As it stands, I’m working on pure perseverance, and running low on that.  Go ahead, have a go.  Smother him with love…nothing would make me happier than to see someone move him an inch.  Good Luck.  Peace to you also.

I think first and foremost, it is extremely self-righteous and judgmental of you to write on the assumption that I do not have love in my heart for Erik. A child that you love deeply must sometimes be treated harshly or he will grow into a monster. By continuing to preach to me that “we are called first and foremost to love” you are continuing to assume that I am deficient in my love and you are continuing to judge my actions here. Do you not remember Christ’s anger as he turned over the tables at the temple?

PJ, you are OOZING with self-righteousness. Find yourself some humility, and if you continue as you are, I can only assume you are Erik’s sock-puppet. If you are not his sock-puppet, you are only enabling the child to become a monster.

Mk,
You are precious. Let’s talk about some more about the Truth that you claim is found in the Roman Catholic church. Since you are Roman Catholic I assume you can tell me what this means:
“  No One Goes to CHrist Except Through His Mother
“With equal truth it may be said that of the great treasury of all graces given to us by Our Lord—for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ—nothing comes to us except through Mary’s mediation, for such is God’s Will. Thus, as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no one goes to Christ except through his mother.” (Leo XIII, Encycl., Octobri mense, September 22, 1891.) — [pp. 13,14, no. 19]”

How should I understand what this means?

Don’t take the bait, Mk. The only thing he is trying to do is distract from the point that he is done.

I have demonstrated that his core doctrine and every doctrine he adheres to is based upon non-biblical sources, so nothing else he has to say about Mary is relevant. The only way for him to “escape” this is to try to stir up enough dust and hope his lethal deficiency is forgotten in the dust storm. Don’t take the bait. Don’t feed the troll. He is done.

Erik,

“PJ,
I hope you are not another one of these nasty Roman Catholics. It gets tiring having to put up with the nastiness when a good theological discussion can be had.”

I am a Roman Catholic, yes.

“In the New Testament there is one and that is all believers in Christ are priests as you know”

God said to Moses, “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel” (Exodus 19:3).

All Israelites were priests in the general sense that they served and communicated with God, but not all Israelites were priests in the specific sense that they offered sacrifice and performed the sacred liturgy. This is the verse to which St. Peter refers, and thus the same distinction applies for New Israel, the Church.

Anyway, in a very real sense, the entire congregation participates in the sacrifice of the Mass. We offer gifts of bread and wine. More importantly, we offer what Pope Benedict calls the “sacrifice of the logos,” the mind and heart. Of course, it is only the specially ordained presbyter who, in all love and humility, calls down the Holy Spirit to perform the work of transformation, rendering bread and wine into Body and Blood, mystery of mysteries!

“However, there is no such office as a priest in the New Testament church. A priest is a not presbyter. The New Testament does not use the term priest — hiereus — to refer to a separate office of Christian ministry. If priests as an office was mentioned in the New Testament it would have used “hiereus” and not presbuteros and episkopos.”

But that’s what I’m saying: This is an issue of language, not Biblical theology.

In Old English, “presbyter” was pronounced “prester,” and eventually “priest.” At the same time, “hiereus” was translated as “priest.”

“Priest” is the proper (though degenerate) English word for “presbyter,” a spiritual elder who leads the liturgy. The liturgy is composed of the reading and consideration of the sacred texts, joyful prayers and hymns to the Trinity, and the Eucharist, which is “participation in the blood of Christ [and] a participation in the body of Christ.”

Protestants in the English world charge that Catholics have created an unbiblical office. In fact, we have not. It is just an unfortunate accident of the English language.  This is not a problem in other place. The eastern Catholic Churchers, who speak Greek, still use the word “presbyter” for their spiritual elders.

Pj,
I’d like your insights on this. I asked Mk also but I’m not sure she will be able to respond. Since you are Roman Catholic I assume you can tell me what this means:
“  No One Goes to CHrist Except Through His Mother
“With equal truth it may be said that of the great treasury of all graces given to us by Our Lord—for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ—nothing comes to us except through Mary’s mediation, for such is God’s Will. Thus, as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no one goes to Christ except through his mother.” (Leo XIII, Encycl., Octobri mense, September 22, 1891.) — [pp. 13,14, no. 19]”

How should I understand what this means?

In case you’ve forgotten:
1. Erik rejects Christian doctrine that is not revelation received directly from the Bible, and he has used this approach in the majority of what I have read of his comments in this thread.
  a. If he doesn’t reject doctrine that is not directly from the Bible, he refutes every statement he made in this entire thread that refutes Catholic revelation on the basis that it is not in the Bible.
  b. If he does refute revelation that is not directly from the Bible, procede to step 2.

2. Erik’s doctrine that the Bible as it has been assembled in the New and Old Testaments does not come from scriptural revelation. It is traditional knowledge. (History, reason, language, and a whole lot of other things are part of traditional knowledge.)

3. Therefore, Erik must reject the doctrine of sola scriptura because what the New Testament (and Old) consists of did not come from a scriptural source.

And because of this, every argument he makes about every other point of doctrine is *irrelevant*

And to every statement he makes in an attempt to validate his core doctrine, he must answer the question(s): According to what source of knowledge? According to what revelation?

The entire foundation of Erik’s doctrine relies upon non-scriptural knowledge, so he has no basis whatsoever to squawk when Catholicism uses non-scriptural knowledge. By his own admission, his entire doctrine cannot be derived from the Bible alone.

Let the troll die on that spear.

RUs and MK,

Brothers, all I am saying is: Let us try to be peaceable and charitable. I’m not saying that you’re loveless devils, I just think that after several hundred posts of debate, you’ve gotten a little heated. No harm. I’ve been there before! ;-)

Anyway, the inner battle against the passions is part of our Catholic ascetical heritage. If we do not bring peace and charity to an engagement, we fail to bring the fullness of the faith. In a real way, we fail to bring Jesus Christ, and thus we fail to bring His Church.

Anyway, keep up the good fight. Must return to work. God bless you all—especially you, Erik!

The troll knows he is dead. If PJ is a real person, he or she will waste hours going nowhere with the troll.

If, as I suspect, PJ is merely Erik’s sock-puppet, then we can leave the skewered troll to die while playing with himself. Seems like a suitable death for a troll.

“How should I understand what this means?”

You should understand it to mean that Pope Leo XIII had a strong devotion to the Lord’s mother, as do many Catholics, for who knows a son like a mother, and who so loves a mother as a son?

Erik,

Good afternoon! Did you forget about me? It’s apparent that I missed a lot and we’ve had some new members added to the discussion. (Welcome PJ and RUs). I won’t completely fault you for not responding to my last post since I see that you’ve been bombarded by others. But, I will give you another chance to respond.

In the meantime, though, let’s cut to the chase: It’s obvious that you do not think that the Catholic Church was the church established by Christ. which means that there is another church somewhere out there that IS that church. Is it the Mormon church? Is it the Jehova’s Witness? Seventh Day Adventist? They ALL claim authority to TRUE Christianity. Or is it another church that I have not mentioned?

RUs,

PJ’s not a troll.  C’mon, you can see that.  He just hasn’t been trapped on a merry go round for 10 days, as I/we have, so he isn’t so dizzy that his patience is being tried.  He just said he is returning to work.  Which is fine, but it’s easy to drop a few pleasantries and move on.  I have been “discussing” with Erik for weeks now.  As I pointed out, perverseness has to count for something.  PJ can work on his virtues, and I’ll work on mine.  I’ve no bone to pick with PJ and can even understand his take on what he has read here.  All I can say is, when you’ve walked in my shoes, we’ll talk.  So yeah, he’s got lots of patience and Thank God.  But I doubt he’s got the perseverance to stick it out.  Time will tell.  I can say that I pray to Holy Spirit for guidance every time I sit down to this keyboard.  And I can say that I will not bash a fellow Catholic for coming in fresh and making an attempt.  Honestly, I don’t want to fight with anyone, including Erik.  I wonder if I can get some points for the things I have NOT said to him… ;)

Erik,

You drive me to distraction, but I hope you know that I am fond of you, okay?  I wish you no ill will, (although sometimes I’d like to throttle you) and no matter how much I complain, I must be getting something out of this as I am still here.  I really, and I mean this, really hope there are no true hard feelings.  You know I love you.  From one nasty Roman Catholic to an Infuriating Protestant of undetermined Denomination, I consider you my friend.  Peace.

PJ very well may be a sock-puppet, which is not the same thing as a troll. PJ, if he’s a real person, is also extremely annoying and self-righteous, and I’m not going to be shamed by PJ into reacting to that self-righteousness.

I was not bashing PJ for trying to “make an attempt” with Erik and feed the troll, though I did make that a point. I “bashed” PJ for jumping in while hemorrhaging such self-righteousness. PJ needs a very strong dose of humility.

Erik—regardless of our hopes for him as a fellow human being—is a dishonest and slippery person who should not be handled with kid gloves. This holier-than-thou “Oh! We should just love him!” stuff is playing right into his hands, and it is one of the reasons I strongly suspect PJ is not a person, but a sock-puppet.

This isn’t about Erik’s and my “relationship.” This is about Erik’s core doctrine and all the doctrines built upon it that rely upon non-scriptural knowledge—a situation which refutes everything he’s said against Catholic doctrine. The charitable thing to do here is force him to face that truth, and not allow him to obfuscate by feeding with distraction material.

This is about Erik’s core doctrine and all the doctrines built upon it that rely upon non-scriptural knowledge—a situation which refutes everything he’s said against Catholic doctrine. The charitable thing to do here is force him to face that truth, and not allow him to obfuscate by feeding with distraction material.

You’ll get no argument from me there!  lol Just wanted to restate that it is Eriks modus operandi that I dislike and not Erik himself.  You attack my Church, and I’ll defend my Church.  Truth is all there is. 

Actually, I’m an editor of a Catholic web mag, so I’ve been around, and you can rest assured that I know the frustration of arguing with Protestants and other Catholic detractors. I’ve undertaken these marathon debates. They are difficult—I applaud you even for trying

That said, I’m skeptical as to their ultimate value. Often, winning or scoring rhetorical points becomes more important than demonstrating the love and saving power of Christ. Even if good intentions are maintained, they almost never have a satisfactory conclusion for either party. They create more heat than light, more wrath than righteousness.

Witnessing should be about one heart revealing itself to another heart. “Deep calleth unto deep.”

Mk,
I bear no ill will towards you and the others. I pray for all of you every day. If we met in person   I could probably go out for a beer with you even though I don’t drink :) You and the others have helped me to refine my beliefs and been a catalyst to study Roman Catholic beliefs and its history. I have also learned to control myself with you and the others. For that I thank you. Hope you get some points for what you have not said :)

I know you think I am attacking your church but I don’t look at it that way. The way I look at it is that I have challenged Roman Catholic beliefs. That’s why I asked you and PJ what you thought of the quote on Mary.  I know I would have a hard time swallowing this. Maybe you and PJ don’t.

PJ,
  You wrote in regards to a priest being the same thing as a presbyter based on old English. Actually it’s a historical issue. Clement of Rome never uses the term ‘priest’ to describe a Christian minister. This is true of all the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement and The Didache all use the terms ‘bishop’ or ‘presbyter’ and ‘deacon’ when referring to those responsible for Christian ministry. It is with the fourth century Greek Fathers that we find the word hiereus universally applied to describe a Christian minister.
Also the qualifications for a Roman Catholic priest is different than what the New Testament tells us. The Roman Catholic priest is to be celibate and engaged in sacramental duties. We don’t see this kind of thing in the New Testament in regards to bishops, elders and deacons.

Hi Rafael,
  I almost did forget about you. Sorry about that. You asked—“ it’s obvious that you do not think that the Catholic Church was the church established by Christ. which means that there is another church somewhere out there that IS that church. Is it the Mormon church? Is it the Jehova’s Witness? Seventh Day Adventist? They ALL claim authority to TRUE Christianity. Or is it another church that I have not mentioned?”
It is true that I don’t see evidence in Scripture that Christ established the Roman Catholic church as His church.  The reason is that we don’t see in the New Testament church which He established have a pope or a celibate leadership. We also don’t see many of the Roman Catholic doctrines such as indulgences, the papacy, the Marian dogmas or purgatory in the New Testament. A true church be structured like we see in the New Testament and will teach what is in the Scripture.

How would you define the church? What must one believe to be truly part of the church of Christ?

PJ,
The problem here is that Erik is not to argue for protestant doctrine.  Heck, he’s not even really here to argument against the Church.  He’s here to annoy; nothing more. 
   
Erik,
Hey buddy, you seem to be forgetting something.  You have yet to establish how the Biblical Canon is self-evident (ie. not chosen by a Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit).  Mind filling in that gap?

We don’t see this kind of thing in the New Testament in regards to bishops, elders and deacons.

And—if this is true, though it is arguably false—why must we rely solely upon the New Testament for our understanding of the priesthood? We both know you rely upon non-biblical sources to establish doctrine, so why can’t anyone else?

The fact of the matter is, a proper understanding of the Catholic priesthood does not contradict a proper understanding of the New Testament, and is in complete harmony with it as a matter of history, discipline, and doctrine. You may interpret in your pet way to contradict it—but why should we care? You have no basis of authority for your interpretation. Your entire position relies upon non-Biblical sources, so you cannot reasonably reject the position of others based on that. Sorry, dude. Your done.

It is true that I don’t see evidence in Scripture that Christ established the Roman Catholic church as His church.  The reason is that we don’t see in the New Testament church which He established have a pope or a celibate leadership.

It is irrelevant what you see, because your interpretations are meaningless and without any authoritative foundation whatsoever. You have admitted that the basis of your knowledge is non-Biblical, so you cannot use that as a basis to judge all knowledge valid or invalid without completely refuting yourself. Period.

We also don’t see many of the Roman Catholic doctrines such as indulgences, the papacy, the Marian dogmas or purgatory in the New Testament.

We also don’t see the doctrine in the New Testament that the New Testament is made up of the list of books you are using. We also don’t see the doctrine in the New Testament that the New Testament is the final authority. We also don’t see the doctrine in the New Testament that the Church is NOT an authority over scripture.

A true church be structured like we see in the New Testament and will teach what is in the Scripture.

The structure of the Catholic Church is in complete harmony with the New Testament’s representation of it. You don’t like our interpretation of scripture—but why should we care? Your interpretation is based solely on your preference, and ultimately rests upon non-biblical knowledge. By your own beliefs, your ideas are self-contradictory and therefore irrelevant.

You’ve got nothing, Erik. Nothing but your own smug belief that you are an authority based upon your personal preferences for interpreting scripture.

“We also don’t see many of the Roman Catholic doctrines…”

For that matter, there are many doctrines accepted throughout Christianity that are not clear in the New Testament. The very knowledge of the Trinity is not clarified until centuries after the books were written, but—much like the nature of the Catholic Church—it was implicit within the New Testament, and the non-biblical knowledge of the Trinity was firmly established in the Tradition and Deposit of Faith of the Catholic Church.

You reject Catholicism on the base of non-biblical sources, you not only reject yourself—you reject all of Christianity. (I don’t include the cults who reject the Trinity as part of Christianity.)

Jared,
Not sure I understand you here—“You have yet to establish how the Biblical Canon is self-evident (ie. not chosen by a Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit).  Mind filling in that gap?”
The books of the canon were self-evident in a number of ways. Such things that determined if a book belonged in the canon would be:
1) Was it written by a prophet or apostle?
2) Did it tell the truth about God?
3) Did it speak with the authority of God? (Thus says the Lord or I (Jesus) say to you).
Hope this helps

Jared,
  i asked Mk if she wanted to discuss eternal security i.e. the great doctrine also known as OASA but I told her that I didn’t think Mark would appreciate that since the blog topic is not about that. I don’t want to be accused of changing topics. I’m already in enough hot water :)

1) Was it written by a prophet or apostle?

Like Hebrews, which nobody now the author of.  Come to think of it, none of the gospels claim to be written by an apostle or prophet.  The only way we know they are apostolic is… sacred tradition.

2) Did it tell the truth about God?

Which is why Luther wanted to get rid of Hebrews (which cites the Ascension of Isaiah), James, 2 Peter, and Revelation [quipping, “A Revelation ought to reveal”]).  How do you tell him he’s wrong?  I’m dyin to hear your explanation of the “clear truth of God” that obviousl leaps off the pages of the book of Revelation and makes it clearly superior to, say, the book of Wisdom or Tobit, which are, no doubt *obviously* not inspired.

3) Did it speak with the authority of God? (Thus says the Lord or I (Jesus) say to you).

So you would canonize the gospel of Thomas or the Book of Mormon, since these claim to speak with the authority of God?

My offer of a copy of By What Authority? stands, Erik.  Though the burning question of sacred Tradition no doubt consumes you to such a degree that you have already ordered a copy from Amazon as you said you would.  Surely you aren’t asking “questions” with no interest in the answers because you are a troll whose mind is totally closed to anything outside of your hermetically sealed, vacuum-packed little clutch of anti-Catholic catchphrases. So if your extreme busyness here has somehow pushed it from your mind let me again recommend my book, particularly since the hopeless “criteria” you propose for determining the “self-evident” inspiration of a biblical book are dealt with in great detail there and the utter hopelessness of your position (a position I once held) is discussed there in some detail.  Send me your snail mail and I’ll shoot you the book.

Mark,
There is a lot of history to the canon that many people are unaware of.  I tried to keep it basic. It is true that Luther had his ideas and if I’m not mistaken carried the day for about century until the Lutherans brought back the books he rejected.
Some books were obvious candidates for the canon. The gospels were as were Paul’s letters.  Not everything was “clear truth of God” for everyone to see. It took some time before all the books were accepted.

In regards to Thomas being accepted one of the problems it had was that it was not written by an apostle and it was late. There were also other problems with it which is why the church rejected it.
As for the Book of Mormon being rejected even though it may claim to speak with the authority of God is that it contradicts other portions of known inspired-inerrant Scripture. I know of no Christian or Roman Catholic scholar who thinks it should be included in the Scripture. Do you?
The book of Wisdom or Tobit was not considered Scripture by the Old Testament Jews.

Mark,
I may be dense but hopefully not to stupid to give you any indication where I live. Why would I ever give someone like you my address who insults me? I am not willing to give you any inroads into my private life.

Since you wrote this book why can’t you show us one of the Sacred Traditions of your church that is inspired-inerrant? Why don’t you just post an offical list of these Sacred Traditions so we can discuss them?

The books of the canon were self-evident in a number of ways. Such things that determined if a book belonged in the canon would be:
1) Was it written by a prophet or apostle?

According to what revelation or other knowledge are these books written by Apostles?

2) Did it tell the truth about God?

According to what revelation or knowledge do these books tell the truth about God?

3) Did it speak with the authority of God? (Thus says the Lord or I (Jesus) say to you).

According to what revelation or knowledge do these books speak with the authority of God?

Hope this helps

It doesn’t help your position one bit. All of these answer rely upon non-biblical sources. You still don’t know it (partly because of the troll-feeders)—but you done.

1) Was it written by a prophet or apostle?
2) Did it tell the truth about God?
3) Did it speak with the authority of God? (Thus says the Lord or I (Jesus) say to you).
Hope this helps
 
1.  Prophets and Apostles are sent by God to bring His message to specific people (eventually, all people).  However, where is the guarantee that what they write is inspired?  In addition, this requires knowing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who wrote each book.  We do not; so your criteria does not match the finished project.
       
2.  How did they know it was telling the Truth?  Especially if the Truth can only be revealed through the Bible which has yet to be compiled?  You’ve got some circular reasoning going on here, my friend.
       
3.  Any writer could throw in a false quote and meet this criteria.  Also, not every book of the Bible meets this one. ALSO, how does it follow that quoting God means everything written there is inspired?  By that logic, several of our comments here are divinely inspired!
   
Your criteria all fail.  Even if you can establish that everything a prophet or apostle writes is inspired, you cannot establish that all the books were written by such men.  If Scripture is the only source of theological truth that is free from error, what do you compare hypothetical-scripture to in order to determine that it is true?  And even if someone quotes God, it does not follow that everything outside the quote also has the authority of the Almighty. 
 
There is no earthly criteria to figure out the divine.  We’re just not at that level.  There is only one way that the Biblical Canon makes sense; God was guiding His people as the Scriptures were written AND when they were compiled.

Erik writes:
It took some time before all the books were accepted.

Accepted by what authority and on the basis of what revelation or knowledge?

In regards to Thomas being accepted one of the problems it had was that it was not written by an apostle and it was late. There were also other problems with it which is why the church rejected it.

In other words, this test of yours is no test at all. You admit in this statement that it does not work. Which is only a side problem to the fact that your test is based upon no authority and no revelation at all.

As for the Book of Mormon being rejected even though it may claim to speak with the authority of God is that it contradicts other portions of known inspired-inerrant Scripture.

Again—this is just proof that this is no test at all, and does not make it self-evident at all. That, I’m sure, was Mark’s point, but you haven’t grasped that even though you articulate it. Very dense.

I know of no Christian or Roman Catholic scholar who thinks it should be included in the Scripture. Do you?

Irrelevant—your test is shown to be bogus, and you have yet to establish any kind of revelation or authority to back up your use of scripture. This is a brick wall you cannot get past. You can prattle on and pretend it is not there while the rest observe how irrational you are, but you will not get past it. Sorry—you’re done.
The book of Wisdom or Tobit was not considered Scripture by the Old Testament Jews.

Jared,
You bring some questions that goes beyond this blog. I can recommend some good books written by scholars who can give you some excellent information on this. Let me know if you are interested.

Erik,

“How would you define the church? What must one believe to be truly part of the church of Christ?”

You tell me. You’re the one saying what the church isn’t. So define it in positive terms. If I try to define “steak” by telling you, “Well, it’s not white, it doesn’t swim in the ocean, it doesn’t cluck, and it doesn’t go ‘gobble, gobble’,” I still haven’t told you what steak is: I’ve told you what it isn’t. So, define Jesus’ church in the positive. We already know what you believe it isn’t.

The book of Wisdom or Tobit was not considered Scripture by the Old Testament Jews.

This snippet above was from Erik.

Erik, the Jews did consider Wisdom or Tobit part of scripture. It wasn’t until *after* Christ that they decided to exclude them from the Jewish Canon. What was that you were saying about history?

Erik

Just repeating the offer. You are safe from the awful peril of giving me your address if you order the book from Amazon here. Since you have *such* a burning desire to understand the Catholic view of Sacred Tradition I’m sure you’ll rush right out and read it.

And no, you are not dense.  You are dishonest.  Deeply dishonest.  It’s not that you don’t have a sharp intellect.  You do.  You are, in fact, quite bright.  It’s that you persistently use that excellent gift of intellect in order to avoid looking at Catholic teaching honestly.  Your problem is not in the intellect, but in the will.  Only God can help you.  Mere human argumentation never will till you repent the perverted use of the intellect you have embraced.  May God forgive you, help you crucify your pride and bring you one day to humble yourself before him through Christ our Lord.

Rafael,
We both have the responsibility to define what we mean by the word “church”. That way we can determine if we are truly speaking about the same thing. Agreed?

I can recommend some good books written by scholars who can give you some excellent information on this. Let me know if you are interested.

We don’t want books from scholars, because you insist that all doctrine must come from revelation, so your sources must be sources of *revelation* or they are *worthless* to explain your position. You have fallen on your own sword. But by your unwillingness to face the challenges I present you, you are obviously not willing to face it.

You are one irrational and lost dude.

RUs:

Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint and have the same books in their bibles as Catholics.  Two Jews, three opinions. :)

But, of course, that’s because they are blind to what is “self-evidently” inspired. What could be more obvious than that Wisdom is rejected by the Holy Spirit and Revelation is *clearly* an inspired book.  Any fool, glancing a the Bible for a moment can instantly see that and can see that the whole Catholic Church has been wrong for 2000 years.  It’s *easy*!

Mark,
Your example you set here as leader in the RCC is quite appalling. By your example, others here follow in the same despicable manner against me. In fact you even approve of some of the comments made here against me otherwise you would have rebuked one particular poster. Your attitude towards me speaks far more powerfully than what you claim to believe. Who would want to be a RC because of your example?

Erik,

“We both have the responsibility to define what we mean by the word “church”. That way we can determine if we are truly speaking about the same thing. Agreed?”

No, not agreed. You still haven’t answered the question. You’re avoiding defining it. Let me help you further: If I were to leave the Catholic Church (since you say it’s not Jesus’s church) to find Jesus’ real church, where do I go? You can’t take me out of somewhere without giving me somewhere to go.

Erik:
You mistake me for somebody who has followed this thread closely.  I lost interest days ago when it became evident that you are utterly and completely insincere and dishonest.  Periodically, something you say catches my eye and, against my better judgement, I respond in the hope that you will show some glimmer of interest in actually engaging an idea instead of simply spouting pre-recorded talking points you picked up from James White or one of his acolytes.  But no, you simply offer a perfect imitation of him, right down to the self-pity when you are called on your dishonesty.  Don’t like it when people point out your dishonesty?  Then try conducting an honest conversation.

Rafael,
If you were to leave the RCC go to a Protestant church that teaches sound doctrine and is structured after the model of the NT church.

Mark,
Since you just accused me of being dishonest and now you have the responsibility to show where I lied. If you don’t then you are guilty of the sin of slander.

Erik,

Give me a name of one.

Erik,

I could probably go out for a beer with you even though I don’t drink :)

Since I don’t drink very often either we could both not go out for a drink, together.  ;)

Rafael,
Check out a reformed Baptist church in your city. Call em up or check their website out. Ask to see what they believe.

Erik,

“Check out a reformed Baptist church in your city. Call em up or check their website out. Ask to see what they believe.”

We’re getting somewhere. You said “a reformed” Baptist church, means that there’s more than one. I want the ONE church that is Jesus’ church.

Rafael,
There was no one church even in the times of the apostles. If you read church history you will find churches with various distinctions and differences.

Send me your snail mail and I’ll shoot you the book.

LOL…better yet, just tell him what Church you belong to and he’ll send it there…

Erik,

“There was no one church even in the times of the apostles. If you read church history you will find churches with various distinctions and differences.”

Isn’t the reform Baptist a break off from the original Baptist church? So, the first Baptist church go it wrong?

According to your statement above, how did these different churches settle difficult matters when there were problems? 

Erik,

It says that the Baptist Church was started around 1609 in Amsterdam by John Smyth and the Reformed Baptist Church was started around 1603.

Typo: 1630 for the Reformed Baptist

Who would want to be a RC because of your example?

ummmmmm…me?

Erik,  you say we should find a Protestant Church that has sound doctrine.  That’s it?  There’s over 10,000 to choose from.  How would I know which ones have sound doctrine?  The Lutherans?  They believe in Consubstantiation and the salvific nature of Baptism.  The Anglicans?  They believe in the ordained priesthood.  The Presbyterians?  They believe in infant baptism.  Nondenominational?  They don’t believe in anything.  Maybe the baptists?  Which one?  There’s hundreds of different Baptist Churches and they all believe the same thing.  One of them doesn’t believe that something can be implicit in Scripture but must be explicit…where does that leave the trinity?  Or the two natures of Jesus?  I’m so confused.  How does one tell WHICH of these has SOUND DOCTRINE?  Can you help?

*obviously that should have read and none of them believe the same things*

Erik: I didn’t call you a liar.  I called you dishonest and I told you what I meant by that. That you choose to ignore what I actually said and put your own torque on it is just an illustration of my point.

I’m checking out again.  It was a mistake to hope you would argue in good faith.  My apologies for losing my temper.

Erik,

You are also still confusing the term Roman Catholic Church with The Church of Rome.  While all Roman Catholics are part of the Church of Rome, not all members of the Church of Rome are Roman Catholic.  There is only ONE Church.  It’s head is in Rome.  Under that umbrella, there falls many a different Rite.  All one Church, different rights.  Think of the Trinity.  3 persons make up 1 God.  A dozen or more Rites make up one Church.  The phrase Roman Catholic denotes a Rite and only a Rite.  Just wanted to try once more to clear that up.

When you say the Roman Catholic Church you are not speaking of the Catholic Church as a whole, but rather one room in a mansion.  If you mean the Catholic Church whose head is in Rome, then you need only say “The Catholic Church”, not the Roman Catholic Church.  Unlike the Reformed Baptists and the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Methodist and the etc, etc, etc, we are ONE Church UNITED (as Christ commanded) under Rome.  But we are NOT all Roman Catholic.  And we ALL believe the same Doctrine/Dogmas, ie, The Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, the Infallibility of the Pope and yes, even the Sacred Priesthood.

I think what Mark is trying to say is that you are either really smart or incredibly dumb.  You are either playing dumb but actually really smart are doing it so well that that you are manipulating this conversation like a Maestro manipulates his orchestra…I call that a “Pulling a Columbo”. (Since I am convinced you are only 15, I don’t expect you to get that reference). 

OR you actually are as dumb as you appear. 

Mark is opting that you are very intelligent because nobody that was actually as dumb as you pretend to be, could type as well as you do.

Which means you are cunning.  Sly.  or as Mark puts it, dishonest.

I think they call that a left-handed compliment.

Oh.  But don’t take it to heart.  I mean, for all you know, we could all be really dumb and just really good at pretending to be intelligent… ;)

Okay, so I looked up your Reformed Baptist Church and it says that they don’t all believe the same thing, because, get this, there is no hierarchical authority…so which Reformed Baptist Church should I call and inquire about?  One in Philadelphia?  L.A.?  Chicago?  I mean, if they are all different, which one has SOUND DOCTRINE *dun,dun,dun,dun*?

And if it is the one in say Malibu, then are you telling me that the Church, whose foundation is Christ and has lasted for over 2,000 years, has only, what, 300 or so members?  And does this mean that *gasp* St. Augustine was a reformed Baptist because that is the Church that contains (cue music….dun,dun,dun,dun…)SOUND DOCTRINE?

Hmmmm…I see now that even if we put aside small differences, the entire Reformed Baptist Church has approximately 16,000 members.  Pretty lame for the One True Church.  Not even approaching the 144,000 mark.  What the heck happened?  Heaven is gonna be pretty dang lonely.

Meanwhile the 1 and a half billion Catholics around the world, UNITED in faith are gonna be standin’ around outside the gates, scratchin’ their heads and saying “Oh Mabel, if only we had listened to Erik and followed the (wait for it) SOUND DOCTRINE!

I don’t know if I’d follow a guy that claimed to be God and could only get 16,000 people to follow him…and it took 1600 years just to do that!

Mark,
Calling someone dishonest is to call them a liar.

Erik,

If I see a woman drop a dollar on the floor and I don’t tell her but pocket the dollar for myself.  Am I a liar or a thief?  Am I dishonest?

Mk,
You wrote—“A dozen or more Rites make up one Church.  The phrase Roman Catholic denotes a Rite and only a Rite.”

Are all of these churches identical in doctrines, practices and worship?

Here is what you get in the RCC that supposedly has a pope and infallible magesterium in regards to unity:
“in a nationwide survey of fifteen hundred American Catholics,

  The survey found significant gaps between individual values and the Roman Catholic Church’s structure and teachings. When asked to make a moral decision on several issues, 50% said in vitro fertilization procedures are not wrong, and 61% would not condemn artificial birth control. The church opposes both. Although the church also opposes the death penalty, Catholics were evenly split on the issue. However, 61% agreed with their church’s stand against stem-cell research that ‘entails destruction of human embryos’; 68% agreed, ‘that abortion is morally wrong under virtually all circumstances’; and 61% said ‘homosexual behavior’ is wrong. Nonetheless, 83% said it is wrong ‘to discriminate against homosexuals. Most would let priests marry (54%), allow women to be ordained (53%), give the laity more leadership roles (72%) and make the church more democratic in its decision-making (62%) (Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY 11/16/2001).”

I know RC’ from personal experience that agree with church on some issues and not on others. I have asked RC’ what must they believe to be saved and not one gives the right answer nor what the RCC teaches. So much for unity.

Mk,
You would be a liar, thief and dishonest.

They are identical in doctrine (tho the words might be different due to the language.  For instance Easter Churches call the Assumption of Mary into heaven, the Dormition of Mary.  But the doctrine is the same.  She was taken body and soul into heaven…the worship is different in that obviously they would have music from their own cultures, etc, but it is still the Mass.  They might have more readings, wear different clothes (the priests), but these are not doctrinal differences.  We don’t “worship” as you do.  We (all of us) celebrate the Sacrifice.  THE Sacrifice.  The Mass. 

Practices are definitely different.  How couldn’t they be?  How could someone in Iraq not have different practices than someone in St. Louis?  But again, these are not doctrinal difference.

Here is an example.  You keep saying we have a doctrine of celibate priesthood.  We have corrected you a number of times, but you can’t seem to grasp this.  Celibacy is not doctrine.  It is not Dogma.  It is a discipline.  The Eastern Rite Churches have priests that marry.  In fact, if an Eastern Rite priest were to come over to the Latin/Roman Rite and was already married, he could be a Roman Catholic priest and remain married.  These are customs, not doctrines.

But we ALL celebrate mass, say the words of Consecration, go to Confession, believe in the Marian Dogmas (all of them), believe in 7 sacraments…the whole enchilada.  We are ALL in communion with Rome.  Which means we ALL view the Pope as the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, the Servant of Servants.

But some have icons, or make the sign of the cross with three fingers instead of two, use different language…etc.

Mk,
You wrote—“the entire Reformed Baptist Church has approximately 16,000 members.  Pretty lame for the One True Church.”

Did not Jesus say that those who are on the road to destruction are many and few are the narrow path to life? Matt 7:13-14.

Are you depending on Mary to save you as pope Leo 13th taught “None, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.” (Leo XIII: Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895) — [p. 19, no. 44]”

Hey guys bring the discussion back to The Reformed Baptist. We were making progress. (Sorry, Erik. We know how you feel about the Catholic Church and how it’s not Christ’s Church.) I want to hear about this Reformed Baptist Church…

mk,
So when you say you have unity you don’t mean perfect unity. People in your church believe all kinds of things including some things that contradict church teachings. Correct?

Calling celibacy ” not doctrine.  It is not Dogma.  It is a discipline.” does not change the fact that it nullifies the Scripture.

Is this discipline a tradition also?

Rafael,
How do doctrines such as:
1) the deity of Christ
2) Christ died for our sins
3) the Trinity

differ between a Reformed Baptist, a Methodist and a Lutheran?

Erik,

By unity, we mean that there is ONE CHURCH and it has ONE set of beliefs.  There are no RC police.  The Church doesn’t go around giving tests!  She states what we are to believe and then it is up to us.  We will all have to answer to Jesus in the end, not to the Pope.  You are confusing unity with perfection.  None of us is perfect.  But the Church is.  We strive to live up to the Churches teachings and many of us fail. As do all Christians.  Even Popes and priests and Bishops fail as is evidenced by the priest scandals.  The Pope is not perfect.  Infallibility does not mean perfect.  The Holy Spirit IS perfect.  And it is HE who leads the Church.  But given our Human Natures, we live in a Physical World and the Holy Spirit speak through a man…that is why when the Pope is speaking from Peter’s Chair (Ex Cathedra think seat of Moses), it is infallible, because it is really the Holy Spirit speaking, not the man/Pope.  God spoke through Moses right?  And when Moses was relaying God’s words, those words were infallible.  But was Moses infallible?  Of course not!  He wasn’t even allowed to see his promised land!  But does that mean the Ten Commandments didn’t come from God? 

Moses spoke with Authority from the Seat of Moses…a phrase meaning at times he was God’s mouthpiece.  It is the same with the Pope.  HE speaks not from Moses Seat, but from Peter’s Chair.  With Authority.  All other times, he is just a guy.  Sometimes, like Benedict or John Paul a REALLY GREAT GUY, but sometimes, not so much.

David screwed up, Moses screwed up, Solomon screwed up…but they were all Authority figures and the one place they NEVER screwed up is when they were speaking FOR God, when God was speaking THROUGH them.

And you don’t judge the Church by it’s members. You judge a Church by what it teaches.  If it’s member are a mess, you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.  You’d call the police if you needed them, right?  Even tho there are bad cops?  Because you recognize that the Police Force is good at it’s heart…it’s laws are good.  Just because some cops run amok, you still thing the “Police Force” is a good thing,right?

So the Church, as a WHOLE, has a set of beliefs, which we call Doctrine/Dogma….and those don’t change regardless of whether people within the Church accept them or not.  We are not puppets. We are people, who have opinions, many of them wrong, and we are trying daily to become better CAtholics.  Sadly, in some countries, the US being one of them, there was a period of time where we were poorly catechized.  From say, 1960 on…and people raised Catholic during that period were not “fed” well.  A lot of them, tragically, don’t KNOW what the Church teaches.  I know, because I was one of them.  But that is slowly changing.  If you were to go to say, India, to the small part that is Catholic, you would find Catholics who know their faith very well. 

Erik,

I don’t know because I don’t know which is Jesus’ church. You say it’s the Reformed Baptist. So, who cares what the Methodists and Lutherans think.

As a matter of fact Erik, many Catholics in those countries (Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria, India) are being killed daily because of what they believe.  They know their faith and are willing to die for it.  Not many Americans would say that.

It is a discipline.” does not change the fact that it nullifies the Scripture.

Erik, was Jesus celibate?  Paul?  How can it nullify Scripture if 2 of the greatest players in Scripture were celibate?  And one of them was a High Priest?  Jesus. 

It doesn’t say in Scripture that you must be married.  We’ve been over this.  It says it is better to be married than to have sex outside of marriage and since men tend to have certain “needs”, now that they are Christian it is best that they fill those needs in the context of marriage.  If they are ordained while married, it is best that they do not remarry after their wife dies, because it is actually best NOT to marry, as Jesus.  But men will be men, so if you MUST, then marry, but only once.  I don’t know why you keep insisting it says that you MUST marry.

For those who are interested in Oral Tradition, it actually predates the Catholic Church.  Rabbinic Judaism has its own oral traditions.  From what I’ve read Moses not only produced a Written Torah, he also produced an Oral Torah.  In my readings the rabbis themselves say that you need a human teacher to safeguard against misinterpretations of the Written Torah.  They also point out that there are things that are referred to in the Written Torah, that have no detailed descriptions to go along with them, and depend on oral teaching for them to be communicated and understood.
For a long time the Oral Torah was only in oral form.  Eventually outside forces led to the Oral Torah being written down to insure its survival. In written form the Oral Torah is supposed to be 50 times the size of the Written Torah.  I have read the writings of modern rabbis where they freely mix the Oral and Written Torahs in their teachings.

I think it safe to say that the Catholic Church didn’t invent Sacred Tradition out of thin air.

Rafael,
You need to show that your church is indeed the church that Jesus founded. Merely asserting does not make it so.

I know this is an impossible task without the facts.

mk,
Where did Jesus make celibacy a requirement for church leadership as your church does with its discipline?

GregB,
Thanks for the info. You are right about oral teachings. Question: what does this have to do with Sacred Tradition? What specific Sacred Traditions are you referring to?

So when you say you have unity you don’t mean perfect unity.

We mean there is ONE Church with many parts.  One body with Christ/the Pope as it’s head.  That there are not different churches that believe different things on matters of doctrine.  That the beliefs are unified under one head.  And that her members are called to obedience. 

The Church is Christs Bride.  She has to be spotless, unblemished.  Not each particular member, but the CHURCH Herself.  Her teachings.  Just as a wife should be a perfect reflection of her husband, the Church must be a perfect reflection of HER spouse…Jesus.

That is what Paul is saying here:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

Do you see the language here?  It’s so beautiful.  He gave HIS life, for His CHURCH…He sanctified her, cleansing her with Baptismal waters and the Holy Spirit, preparing her…making her without spot or wrinkle so that she would be worthy of her bridegroom…the Word, the Logos, Jesus.

His Church.  His one, true, Holy, spotless, Universal, United as one body…CHURCH.  The Catholic Church. (of which the Roman/Latin rite is but one part…one Body, many parts, right?)

Erik,

“You need to show that your church is indeed the church that Jesus founded. Merely asserting does not make it so. I know this is an impossible task without the facts.”

I agree with you. So how is the Reformed Baptist church “indeed the church that Jesus founded?”

Erik,

I honestly am beginning to think you really aren’t understanding this…that it may be honest and not misdirection.  I hope I am right.

You’re not really getting what a discipline is.  A discipline is a choice.  It is up to a particular Church/Rite to decide how they want to do something.  Somethings, there are NO choices to be made.  We call this UNCHANGEABLE law.  This means it was instituted by Christ and can not, under any circumstances, be messed with.  We also have somthing called CHANGEABLE law.  This means it is a way for our Church to operate more smoothly. It is not necessary, but advantageous for our particular circumstances.  The western Church (latin/Roman rite) decided that it would be more practical and better for the Church in our circumstances if priests would offer themselves body AND soul to the Church.  But it didn’t have to be that way.  Jesus doesn’t really say anything about it one way or another.  It’s just a different way of living. 

An example of UNchangeable law would be women priests.  That can never change.  And NO Catholic Rite can EVER have women priests.  Not the Chaldean, not the Byzantine, not the Roman Rite.  Because Jesus did NOT ordain any woman, and he had a boatload of women to choose from.  This is more about the “role” a priests plays than about women per se.  The priest is Jesus, he stands in Jesus place.  Jesus is the brideGROOM, not the Bride.  The role Jesus plays in our Faith, is the role of head of the household.  That is a male role.  John Paul II has written some MAGNIFICENT stuff on this, and it would take years to cover it all, but the bottom line is that the role of a priest is a male role.  So women can never be priests.  How could a woman be a father?  The head of a household?  A husband? 

Celibacy is a choice made by the Latin/Roman Rite arm of the Church.  It could change tomorrow.  It might never change.  But unlike Doctrine which CANNOT change, it could change.

It is a tradition with a small “t” the way it is a tradition in my house to open presents on Christmas Eve.  Does it have to be that way?  No.  But in MY house, we choose to do it that way.  But in EVERY CHRISTIAN House, Christmas is the celebration of the birth of our Lord.  That is a SACRED TRADITION and cannot be changed (not the date, but the fact that our God became incarnate)...so, opening presents on Christmas Eve/Celibacy in the priesthood….tradition with a small “t”, not doctrine, changeable.  God became man and was born of a woman?  Sacred Traditon…unchangeable.

Rafael,
Jesus did not “found” a church but is building His church. Matt 16:18. It is an ongoing process whereby those who repent of their sins and believe in Him for salvation become part of His church. The church’ responsibility is to build up and equip believers to grow to maturity in Christ.

Erik,

“Jesus did not “found” a church but is building His church. Matt 16:18. It is an ongoing process whereby those who repent of their sins and believe in Him for salvation become part of His church. The church’ responsibility is to build up and equip believers to grow to maturity in Christ.”

I’m confused: you said a while ago to look up the Reformed Baptist church. Now you’re saying that He didn’t “found” a church and that He’s still “building His church”. Well, where is this church? If it’s not the Reformed Baptist, then where?

Mk,
I understand what a discipline is. Whether it can change or not does not change the fact that the qualifications for church leadership is for a man to be married. This is not a discipline but a command of Scripture because it comes from the apostle himself.
“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),  I Timothy 3.

Note some of the qualifications:
1) aspire
2)above reproach
3) the husband of one wife
4) keeping his children under control with all dignity

Notice why the apostle makes these qualifications: “(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)”

It is how a man manages his own household that will show if he can take care of the church. Celibate single men are disqualified because they can’t fulfill these conditions.

Rafael,
Is Jesus building (ongoing process) His church or not?

The church is where those who have repented of their sins and believed in Christ for salvation. The church is where 2-3 are gathered in His name.

Erik wrote:
GregB,
Thanks for the info. You are right about oral teachings. Question: what does this have to do with Sacred Tradition? What specific Sacred Traditions are you referring to?
****************************************
That is the entire problem with your presentation.  If you question Catholic Sacred Tradition then you need to apply the same standards to Judaism, from out of which the Catholic Church got her start.  From your own writings you can’t accept Catholicism or Rabbinic Judaism.  Your problems go clear back to Moses.

mk,
I understand you calling events in the Scripture Sacred Tradition. Is there anything outside the Scripture that is also a Sacred Tradition? If so, what?

Erik

“Is Jesus building (ongoing process) His church or not? The church is where those who have repented of their sins and believed in Christ for salvation. The church is where 2-3 are gathered in His name.”

So you’re saying it’s not the Reformed Baptist Church. You’re leaving me high and dry. So, then where do I go? Where do I go on Sundays to worship (it is still Sunday, right?)?

Rafael,

If the members of the Reformed Baptist Church fulfill the conditions i mentioned then the church of Christ is there.

Worship can be on either Sat or Sun. RC’ worship on Saturday’ also don’t they?

Erik,

“If the members of the Reformed Baptist Church fulfill the conditions i mentioned then the church of Christ is there.”

So you yourself are not sure if they are the true church of Christ. So then we’re back to square one. 

“Worship can be on either Sat or Sun. RC’ worship on Saturday’ also don’t they?”

What RC says is irrelevant because we already established long ago that they’re not Christian, right?

Rafael,
Why would you say—“So you yourself are not sure if they are the true church of Christ. So then we’re back to square one.”????

Is there something wrong with worshiping Saturday?

Erik,

“Why would you say—“So you yourself are not sure if they are the true church of Christ. So then we’re back to square one.”????”

Because you have no certainty either. I want certainty that the church I go to is Chrsit’s church. And you’re not sure.

“Is there something wrong with worshiping Saturday?”

I didn’t say one way or the other. I just said that it’s irrelevant what the Roman Catholic Church says because you say they’re not Christian. I would like to hear the Christ’s church has to say on the matter, though. But, you haven’t directed me to it.

Rafael,
I am sure about the church. I gave you the qualifications and the characteristics to look for. Do you really think that those who go to a Reformed Baptist church aren’t sure that its a church of Christ?

Many Protestant churches have services on Saturday and Sunday. That alone shows this is right.

Erik,

“I am sure about the church. I gave you the qualifications and the characteristics to look for. Do you really think that those who go to a Reformed Baptist church aren’t sure that its a church of Christ? Many Protestant churches have services on Saturday and Sunday. That alone shows this is right.”

So, now you say they ARE Christ’s church. Man, you really confuse me.

Listen, I’m done for the night. Have a Happy 4th. I’ll pick up with this again on Thursday. Enjoy the fireworks and God Bless!

Rafael,
Have a great 4th. God bless you to.

You bring some questions that goes beyond this blog.
   
No, I don’t.  We are asking questions that cannot be answered by your denomination.  Like all protestants, you cling to a tiny fragment of Sacred Tradition.  Quit living in denial. Embrace this part of your faith!

Erik,

3) the husband of one wife

Isn’t it just possible that you are putting meaning where there is none?

How many wives did Solomon have?  How many should a priest have? 

Just maybe, could this be an admonishment against polygamy and not a directive to be married?  As in…

The husband of ONLY one wife?  Given that the pagans had many wives?  And Jesus told us that we were to practice polygamy? Couldn’t this be a warning NOT to have more than one wife???

*And Jesus told us that we were to practice polygamy? Couldn’t this be a warning NOT to have more than one wife???*

Obviously I meant that Jesus told us we were NOT to practice polygamny.

As for Jesus “founding” a Church.  What does “Found” mean in this case?

Here is what the dictionary says:

1. To establish or set up, especially with provision for continuing existence: The college was founded in 1872.
2. To establish the foundation or basis of; base:

Here is what Jesus said:

He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep , and laid the foundation  on a rock : and when the flood arose , the stream beat vehemently upon that house , and could not shake it : for it was founded  upon a rock

And are built upon the foundation  of the apostles and prophets , Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Are you seeing a pattern here?  The Church is built on sold Rock.  Jesus is the Cornerstone, Peter is the Foundation.  Jesus FOUNDED His Church on Peter.  And THEN it began to grow.  Each person who believes and is baptized is another brick in that building. 

Jesus is the Cornerstone.  Peter is the Foundation.  We are the bricks. 
So yes, you are right, the Church is still being built.  But it is being built on a FOUNDATION.

What contractor would build a building without first laying the foundation?  That would be crazy talk.  Just as Jesus said.  It would be like a man building his home on sand.  It would collapse.  It MUST have a SOLID FOUNDATION.  Hence, Jesus FOUNDED His Church.

NOW the question is, what Church did He FOUND?  You say the Reformed Baptist Church.  We say prove it.  We say, the Catholic Church (NOT the Roman Catholic Church which is only a part of the Bigger Church, but the Catholic Church whose head is the Pope in Rome.  Why?  Because Jesus the PAPACY is the Foundation, the bedrock, the solid ground, on which the rest of the Church is built.  Take away the Papacy, the foundation, the Rock, and your Church collapses.

Which we see in Protestantism.  Protestantism is a house built on sand, not Rock.

We know that there was such a Church, a Church that was established on this cornerstone, a VISIBLE Church, a recognizable Church, an entity that could be known, not just a bunch of random people because Paul
PERSECUTED that Church.  He didn’t persecute individual persons, Scripture says he persecuted “THE CHURCH”....

* For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it,

There IS a Church.  Jesus FOUNDED it.  It is still being built up today. 

The question is, where/what is THAT Church?  How will/can we recognize it?

We CAN know this Church, through Scripture.

Jesus says:

And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kepha/Rock), and upon </B>this rock</B> I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

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

So we have been told that Jesus is our Cornerstone (the one that the builders rejected…the builders being the Jews) and that Peter is the “Rock”, the foundation, upon which this Church will be built. 

Jesus-Cornerstone
Peter-Foundation
Church-The rest of us

To recognize the Church is to find the FOUNDATION. 

The Catholic Church is many bricks built on ONE foundation.  This is what we mean by UNITY.  Each brick may not be perfect.  BUT the whole is sound because of it’s sturdy foundation (the papacy/AUTHORITY).  When we have questions, we look to the FOUNDATION.  Not just Scripture, but the FOUNDATION.

The Protestant Churches are like scattered bricks.  They are not part of the Church Proper as they have not been placed on the solid the foundation.  They are just bricks, laying around.  Useful ONLY when collected and placed into/onto the BUILDING that is resting on a solid FOUNDATION.  No unity.  No cohesiveness.  NOT the Church.  Just scattered members of the Church. 

When a passerby sees these scattered bricks they don’t know what they belong to.  They say “Oh look, a lone brick”.  No one can tell what that brick is part of.  BUT, when they look at the OUR Bricks, they say “AHA…there is a CHURCH! There is THE Church”...Why?  Because it is a unified building.  The loose bricks could belong to a hospital, or a house or a library.  No one can tell.  ONLY the bricks that have been given a purpose, one on top of the other, can be recognized as a collection of bricks that represent of building…not a literal building…but a cohesive unit….The Church…the One True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic CHURCH.

Jared,
  Thank you for opening my eyes with your powerful argument. I am now convinced.

Mk,
The norm for marriage in the New Testament times was one husband and one wife. Even Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 refers to one man and one woman becoming one flesh.  Even if polygamy is being referred to in I Timothy 3 it would not change the fact that the bishop and elder were to be married.
There is also the passage in Ephesians 5:22-23 that also speaks of only one husband and one wife. One husband and one wife is the model for Christians.
They were not confused about what entailed a marriage in those days like so many are today.
What do your Roman Catholic commentaries say about this passage?
Since there is no office of priest in the New Testament I don’t know how many wives a priest should have.

Thank you for opening my eyes with your powerful argument. I am now convinced.
 
No need for the sarcasm.  I know I can’t work miracles.

Mk,
  The foundation of the church is not just Peter but all the apostles. “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,” Ephesians 2:20. Notice that it does not mention Peter by name but says all the apostles are the foundation.  Prophets are also part of this foundation. Who are the prophets in your church?
Notice also that Rome is never mentioned as part of the foundation here either. There is also no mention of Peter ruling in Rome.  There is also no evidence that Peter nor Paul founded the church in Rome.
We also know historically that there is no mention of the papacy in the 1st century in Rome.  The church at Rome did not have a single bishop then but was ruled by a plurality of elders until at least the 2nd century.

Roman Catholic historian von Dollinger reminds us of the following facts:

      “Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these three texts, yet not one of them who commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!

      Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together (Cited in Hunt D. A Women Rides the Beast. Harvest House Publishers, Eugene (OR) p. 146).”

As you say—“Take away the Papacy, the foundation, the Rock, and your Church collapses.”

Jared,
You are right. You can’t work miracles but you should at least give some facts to back up your assertions.

You can’t work miracles but you should at least give some facts to back up your assertions.

Says the man who insists on biblical revelation to validate facts, yet whose every utterance and every assertion of a factoid relies upon non-biblical, non-revelation sources. (Not to mention that he is devoid of any authority whatsoever to validate his interpretation of the facts.)

Absolutely comical.

Yes, Erik, ONE husband and ONE wife is the Christian model…but for what?  For Marriage.  Jesus didn’t only come to save the Jews.  He came for everyone…including those that did not follow the Jewish marriage norms.

* This saying is trustworthy:* whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.a 2Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married <B>only<?B> once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,

See what it says?  Married ONLY once. 

(this is from notes on the Greek at Biblenet: tn Or “a man married only once,” “devoted solely to his wife” (see 1 Tim 3:12; 5:9; Titus 1:6). The meaning of this phrase is disputed. It is frequently understood to refer to the marital status of the church leader, excluding from leadership those who are (1) unmarried, (2) polygamous, (3) divorced, or (4) remarried after being widowed. A different interpretation is reflected in the NEB’s translation “faithful to his one wife.”)

It says to refer to 3:12, 5:9 and Titus 1:6 for clarification.  So lets do that.

Deacons may be married only once and must manage their children and their households well.  3:12

5:9 No widow should be put on the list 13 unless 14 she is at least sixty years old, was the wife of one husband,  5:12

1:6 An elder must be blameless, 6 the husband of one wife, .

Now if you interpret this as you do, then Paul would not be following Jesus’ command and neither would Jesus Himself. 

Here is what Jesus says when the apostles say that what he is telling them (that once married they must stay married) makes it sound as if it is better for a man NOT to marry at all…

19:10 The 11 disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!” 19:11 He 12 said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 19:12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, 13 and some who were made eunuchs 14 by others, 15 and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

Note that Jesus says, yes, it is better, but not everyone can do it.  If you can, then do so.  If not, then marry only one woman and stay married.
He also says that some men remain celibate because they are born that way, some because they are forced into it, and some FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

Here is what Paul says…

7:1 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

At which point he goes on to direct how men and women IF they are married should conduct themselves.  BUT then he addresses widows, men who were married and are no longer.  Note that he doesn’t tell them to remarry, but to remain CELIBATE AS PAUL IS CELIBATE.

7:8 To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. 7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire. 7

It is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire…which is why it is OKAY to marry, but not NECESSARY.  And if you DO marry, then only have ONE wife.

If we read the very first passage 1 Tim 3, the way you do, then what the heck is Paul talking about here?

First he says you MUST marry, then he says it’s better if you do NOT marry.  Which is it?

I, and the Catholic Church hold, that these two passages can ONLY stand together IF the first is talking about polygamy and have ONLY one wife.

And here Paul tells us why:

7:32 And I want you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 7:33 But a married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, 7:34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman 24 or a virgin 25 is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world, how to please her husband. 7:35 I am saying this for your benefit, not to place a limitation on you, but so that without distraction you may give notable and constant service to the Lord.

Because a man with a family will have distractions.  If you are going to be a priest then you are married to the Church.  You will be so busy with your priestly duties that you will shortchange your family, OR you will be so busy with your family, that you will shortchange your priestly duties.  IF you are already married, then theres nothing you can do and you should live out BOTH vocations as best as you can…yet if the time comes that your wife should die you are NOT to remarry.

He is also clear that this, unlike Baptism, the Eucharist, etc are not commands, but rather recommendations.  It is not a sin either way you choose to go.  In the East they chose to go with marriage, in the West they chose to go with Celibacy.  Celibacy is simply fasting from an earthly pleasure for the sake of the Kingdom.

Mk,
I Tim 3 is dealing with the qualifications of church leadership.
The I cor 7 passage is dealing with the various relationship in life. Paul is telling them that there will be problems in marriage and those who marry will not be able to give undivided attention to Christ (32-34. Those that are single is free from these concerns and can give attention to Christ. (verse 32). This passage has nothing to do with church leadership.

The foundation of the church is not just Peter but all the apostles. “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,” Ephesians 2:20.

Yes Erik, technically, you are correct. But we have already established (and you yourself agreed) that Peter was singled out as the head Apostle.

You’ve heard us throw around the word Magesterium.  But the Magesterium is not just the Pope.  It’s the teaching body of the Church.  It is made up of the Pope and all the Bishops together.  The Pope is the head, but only a part, of the Magesterium.  Just as Peter was an apostle but not all apostles are Peter.  Peter is the foundation, in union with the Apostles.  Every “body”, corporate or human, family or society, clan or classroom, must have a head.  Saying that Peter is the foundation is not saying that the apostles are not.  Because where ever Peter is, so too are the apostles.  Peter stands out, but he does not stand alone.  Peter and the Apostles are the governing “BODY” of the Church, and they have a head.  But he has to be the head of SOMETHING…and that something is the apostles. 

Again, like the different rites under the umbrella heading of “Catholic Chuch” don’t take away from the whole.  No church is more important.  The umbrella “APOSTLES” has under it, each of the Apostles, out of many comes “ONE”.  No apostle is “more important”.  But they do have different roles.

Erik,

I Tim 3 is dealing with the qualifications of church leadership.

So are you saying that Paul was not a leader?

And what does Jesus mean by “Except to those whom it has been given”  or “some are Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God”

And how do you reconcile the leaders being COMMANDED to be married, but the people they are supposed to be examples to are told NOT to marry?

Wouldn’t you think that the followers would follow the lead of the leaders?

Who were these leaders anyway?  What was there role, and how were they set apart?  Could anyone be a leader?  Who decided?

I Tim 3 is dealing with the qualifications of church leadership.

I am really unclear as to who this Church is that is being “led”.  Can you see my confusion?  You said that the Church is wherever three or more are gathered.  Is there a leader for every group with 3 in it?  Is each group a Church unto itself?  Is there ONE Church and all the groups and various leaders belong to it?  Where is this ONE Church today?  Where was it in the year 400?

BTW Erik, this is the first time in all these weeks that I have felt that you are actually reading what I am saying and not just switching topics with lightening speed.  I appreciate that, as it take me a long time to write these comments.  I have to do a lot of looking things up, cutting and pasting, cross referencing…it’s a lot more worthwhile when I feel that you are actually taking the time to read my responses.  I just wanted to say thank you.

Mk,
You wrote in regards to I Tim 3—“So are you saying that Paul was not a leader?”
No. Paul as you know was an apostle who is writing here about the qualifications of church leadership and what this leadership is.

Mk,
I’ll take any compliment from you.  You are welcome. 

I’m really, really confused now.  Paul was an apostle but not a leader?  How is that possible?  I think you’re going to have to explain what a leader is then.

And I just complimented you on reading my comments and after all the work I did, the only thing you have to say is Paul is talking about the qualifications of leadership?

Was I wrong?  Are you not actually participating in this conversation? Am I talking to myself again?

“...the only thing you have to say is Paul is talking about the qualifications of leadership?”

That’s what trolls do. They coax you in, then not only exhaust you by making you chase uncountable distractions, but they also force you to construct, little by little, what the troll himself is saying. It is not a method for discovering truth. It is a method to wear you down so you don’t care anymore about finding the truth. He has been toying with many of you this way, and for some reason he keeps getting away with it.

He didn’t get away with it with me—notice how he won’t face me now? In fact, if I’m right about his reference, he whimpers to the blog owner that I should be admonished and shut down—because he doesn’t want to face anyone who doesn’t allow him to play his game, and he especially doesn’t want to face anyone who has given him unanswerable refutations to his position. He doesn’t want to face facts. Notice how he is working very hard to create as much smoke as possible to hide the fact that he has been soundly refuted?

Don’t feed the troll.

mk,
You wrote—“ I am really unclear as to who this Church is that is being “led”.  Can you see my confusion?  You said that the Church is wherever three or more are gathered.  Is there a leader for every group with 3 in it?  Is each group a Church unto itself?  Is there ONE Church and all the groups and various leaders belong to it?  Where is this ONE Church today?  Where was it in the year 400?”

The first characteristic of the church is repentance and faith in Christ. It starts with those who have the Spirit of Christ in them.  This fact incorporates them into the body of Christ where this same principle is true.  We can speak of the church in a number of different ways. At its most basic level it starts with the individual, then to groups of people such as 2-3 believers together in the name of Christ and He is there.  They represent also the body of Christ i.e. the church but they are not the fullness of the church.
There is also has a “structure”  where we see bishops, elders etc preaching the gospel and building up the body of Christ.  This is where all believers are to belong to. All believers should be under a pastor-bishop-elders.
The church in 400 would have these characteristics.  These would be necessary characteristics. The papacy for example is not a necessary condition for a church.  Apostolic doctrine is necessary for a true church.

In the New Testament church there is no pope. Even though Peter is one of the main leaders of the New Testament church, no one elevates him to a position like a pope in the New Testament church. 

How can Peter alone be the foundation when Ephesians 2:20 says that all the apostles and prophets are the foundation?

Mk,
Paul was a leader in the church. That is part of the responsibility of being an apostle. What point are you making?

PS- don’t forget its easy to misunderstand people on this kind of communication. Its very limited. If we were literally talking to each other we could clarify things a lot and not have to assume so much.

I’m sorry Erik.  I misunderstood. I asked if you were saying that Paul was not a leader and I thought you were responding with “No.  He was an apostle”.

Okay, so Paul was a leader.  We’re agreed.  And Paul says that he wishes ALL Christians could be like him…meaning celibate.  So he was a. a leader and b. celibate.  Correct?  And yet you say that all leaders MUST be married.

Explain.

Mk,
You wrote—“And what does Jesus mean by “Except to those whom it has been given”  or “some are Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God”

This has nothing to do with church leadership?

“And how do you reconcile the leaders being COMMANDED to be married, but the people they are supposed to be examples to are told NOT to marry?”

Paul did not say all people are not to marry. The reason Paul wanted married men with children is because leading and shepherding the church is a lot like being a husband and father.

“Wouldn’t you think that the followers would follow the lead of the leaders?”
Its not about what kind of followers the leaders will lead but the qualifications of the husband-father fitting the qualifications of a bishop-elder.

“Who were these leaders anyway?  What was there role, and how were they set apart?  Could anyone be a leader?  Who decided?”

Scripture doesn’t say.

How can Peter alone be the foundation when Ephesians 2:20 says that all the apostles and prophets are the foundation?<.i>

<i>7:8 To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. 7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire.

Can you reconcile these two contradictory ideas?

Scripture doesn’t say.

Scripture doesn’t say?  And yet you have concluded that Paul is a leader?  (I concur btw).  So where do we go to find out who these leaders were?

And again, Paul, a LEADER says: 7:8 To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. 7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire.

So Paul was a Leader AND Paul was celibate.  How is that possible when ALL Leaders MUST be married?

In the New Testament church there is no pope. Even though Peter is one of the main leaders of the New Testament church, no one elevates him to a position like a pope in the New Testament church.
How can Peter alone be the foundation when Ephesians 2:20 says that all the apostles and prophets are the foundation?

Okay—this is my last post, I think.

I mean seriously, Erik, how can you continue like this? You know for a fact that you have no basis in revelation to back up your personal interpretation of scripture. None.

When you read the passages on Peter, without any background knowledge of scripture, you “could” interpret it in such a way that no one elevates him to a position of Pope, and that would be a reasonable *possible* interpretation. But there are numerous possible interpretations, and the Catholic interpretation has many things backing it up, including the fact that Peter was specially named “Cephas,” and that he carried that name throughout scripture. Any man can read that and see there is something special there—but you don’t have to. There is no way to determine what interpretation is good without some non-biblical understanding of it. Thank God Jesus gave us the Church to help us much like Philip helped the eunuch in Acts 8:26-40. Of course, you have another reasonable interpretation of Acts, though it is ignorant of the knowledge of Christ’s Church, but it is meaningless because you do not have revelation behind you saying: “Erik’s interpretation is the correct one.” You have NOTHING.

So you can squawk all you want about the Bible not elevating Peter—but you have no foundation in revelation to back up your interpretation. It is merely your personal preference, and without any revelation (your stipulation) and without any other authority at all—you are done. Your interpretation is MEANINGLESS. Catholicism, on the other hand, has the Deposit of Faith directly received from Christ and the Apostles, and we have the continued priesthood traceable all the way back to the Apostles.

You have no way to refute this. YOU ARE DONE.

And just to remind you the context of what I’m saying here:

1. You reject Christian doctrine that is not revelation received directly from the Bible.
  a. If you don’t reject doctrine that is not directly from the Bible, you refute every statement you made in this entire thread that refutes Catholic revelation on the basis that it is not in the Bible.
  b. If you do refute revelation that is not directly from the Bible, procede to step 2.
And so it continues.
2. Your doctrine that the Bible as it has been assembled in the New and Old Testaments does not come from scriptural revelation. It is traditional knowledge. (History, reason, language, and a whole lot of other things are part of traditional knowledge.)
3. Therefore, you reject your very own doctrine that all doctrine and belief must come from scripture because what the New Testament (and Old) consists of did not come from a scriptural source.

Mk,
Sorry about the misunderstanding.  You asked—“ Okay, so Paul was a leader.  We’re agreed.  And Paul says that he wishes ALL Christians could be like him…meaning celibate.  So he was a. a leader and b. celibate.  Correct?  And yet you say that all leaders MUST be married.

Explain.”
When Paul says to imitate him he is not referring to his marital status but to his following after Christ. This is what he wants believers to imitate. See I Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:7-17.
  We cannot be absolutely sure he was unmarried. However, he does know that being married will cause division and distraction from Christ.  He prefers people to pursue Christ fully without any distraction because he believes the time is short. However, he does not forbid marriage.  He never uses this reasoning when he lays out the qualifications for church leadership. For church leadership you must be married with children.

mk,
You wrote this in regards to I Cor 7—“Can you reconcile these two contradictory ideas?”

Look at the context of I cor 7. He is not speaking of church leadership.

It seems you are confusing the office of an apostle with a bishop. Paul was never the bishop of any church. An apostle was one who was more like a missionary than a bishop or elder. They were constantly on the move while a bishop stayed in one place.

Mk,
You are mistaken when you write—“So Paul was a Leader AND Paul was celibate.  How is that possible when ALL Leaders MUST be married?”

The only leaders who are to be married are the bishops, elders and deacons. Not all leaders in the church are to be married only those I mentioned.

Erik,

Ahhhh…so now Paul WAS a leader, but he was NOT a Leader at the same time.
If this is biblical revelation (and it goes to the heart of doctrine) then I imagine you can give me passages that say Bishops, Elders and Deacons are one kind of leader that MUST be married, and Apostleship is a DIFFERENT KIND of leadership that does not have to be married.

Maybe this will help…what was the role in the undefined Church that the Bishops played.  The Deacons?  The Elder?  The Apostles?  Perhaps if I had a clearer understanding of the differences between these types of leadership I could understand what you mean by “Paul was only talking to/about Bishops, Deacons and Elders”, but NOT to the apostles. 

Mk,
We know that some of the apostles were married such as Peter. (Peter would be disqualified today from being a bishop in your church today.) 
Paul for example never refers to himself as a bishop or elder. Peter does refer to himself as an elder as done John.

I would have to do some research on your last questions.

Do you have any RC commentaries? I would think they would address this.

mk,
What gives you the idea that “Ahhhh…so now Paul WAS a leader, but he was NOT a Leader at the same time.”?????

What have i said that makes you think i said this?

Well, of course they address this but you will contest what they say. 

You have said that Paul was a leader but not the type of leader that had to be married.

I just think that you are reading the passage in Timothy incorrectly and are having to jump through hoops to make it work.  It is a much simpler/stsraight forward reading to say ONLY one wife, than to assume ALL MUST be married.

Many translations have ONLY ONE wife.  And the Greek plays this out.  Only a very few interpret it to mean MUST have ONE WIFE (be married) probably because both Jesus and Paul make it clear that celibacy is preferred for those in ANY leadership roles.  You limit a command to marriage to Bishops, deacons and elders…so that they can be like fathers, yet do not command it of Paul even tho he calls himself a father.

There’s just too much jitterbugging in your interpretation.  Especially given the fact that most translations say ONLY ONE WIFE and the Greek translates that way.

Okay, here’s what I found.  “Overseer” tranlated from Greek means:

1) an overseer 1a) a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent 1b) the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church

Is that not who Paul was?  Didn’t he travel everywhere overseeing all of the Churches?

mk,
Yes, Paul did travel everywhere overseeing all of the Churches but he never stayed at one church permanently like a bishop would. Bishops and elders did not travel around like an apostle would.

I have no hoops to jump through in regards to the bishop and elder being married. Paul actually commands it—“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,....” I Tim 3:2

This alone shows that a celibate bishop would not be the NT model.

But I’ve shown you that the translation reads “ONLY one wife”.  Emphasis on only.  Even the KJV translation has a footnote that a more perfect translation is “Only one wife”. 

And if Paul was an “Overseer”, and the passage reads “Overseer” then why didn’t Paul have to be married?  Where does it say only those who stay in one place?

Erik,

Hope you had a happy 4th.

Let’s pick up with your last post:

You said: “I am sure about the church. I gave you the qualifications and the characteristics to look for. Do you really think that those who go to a Reformed Baptist church aren’t sure that its a church of Christ? Many Protestant churches have services on Saturday and Sunday. That alone shows this is right.”

To recap, let me see if I have this right:

A) You’re sure that the Reformed Baptist church is Christ’s church - even though they were “founded” in 1630.

or

“If the members of the Reformed Baptist Church fulfill the conditions i mentioned then the church of Christ is there.”

B) So long as ANY group of people gathered together calling themselves a church AND “fulfill the conditions” you mentioned, then they too can be called the church of Christ. The natural conclusion of this is that, of course, there can be others besides the Reformed Baptist church.

Which one is it?

Many Protestant churches have services on Saturday and Sunday. That alone shows this is right.”

Many protestant Churches honor Mary, believe in Transubstantiation/Consubstantiation and that Baptism is Salvific AND Necessary for salvation.  Does that alone make them right?

Erik,

Just got back from Mass and it got me thinking…you said that you would have to “research” what each of the different ministries entailed.  Right?
So I’m curious.  Where will you research?  Will you research Scripture?  Or will you go to extra-biblical sources?  Someone who has already done the research?  If so, then how will you know that their take is the correct one?  They can’t be using Scripture, because if they were, YOU could do it without them.  Do you see what I am asking? 

Let’s keep it simple.  Where would you go to “research” what each of the different ministries in the Church described in Scripture, entails?

Mk,
Doing research on what various ministries entailed would require reading what scholars in the field have discovered. There are a number of background commentaries on the market that could shed some light on these things. At times I use the “The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament by Keener. Craig Keener is professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky. This particular commentary is written for the layman which means it’s not as heavily footnoted. There are other background commentaries that have a lot more detail in them.
One way to determine if a conclusion is correct in doing research is to consult multiple sources. If they are all saying basically the same things then the conclusion is most likely correct.

Mk,
  In regards to the different beliefs among individuals and churches a person needs to first understand what the Scripture teaches and then compare that with the doctrine. Take infant baptism. Many churches teach it.  Many do not. How do we decide? First you look to the Scripture to see if there is any explicit teachings about it and if they are any examples of it. Does it deny any other teaching such as the requirement to repent and believe before one is baptized?  In both cases there is not any explicit teaching or example of it in Scripture. It does deny the requirement to repent and believe in Christ.
We can also look for evidence for it in church history. What we find here is that there are different opinions on it and it does not come into fullness until around the 3rd-4th century.
On this particular issue, churches that do infant baptisms are not following the New Testament model.

Rafael,
Hope you had a good 4th to.

The answer would be “B”.

Mk,
You wrote—“ And if Paul was an “Overseer”, and the passage reads “Overseer” then why didn’t Paul have to be married?  Where does it say only those who stay in one place?”

Paul was not a bishop nor the leader of one particular church.  He was “managing” multiple churches.  His various letters to different churches attest to this. He would not be under the same qualifications that he laid down in I Tim 3 because he was not in that position. Paul wants a particular type of man with the qualifications he laid down to be in the position of leadership in the various local churches.

Erik,

Thanks for your response.

So, if I’m understanding what you’re saying, ANYONE can start a church - so long as they follow certain guidelines that come from what you call “the New Testament model.” So, if for instance one group that is calling themselves the Reformed Baptist church is following these guidelines but another group that calls themselves a Reformed Baptist Church is not, then the former one would be Christ’s church, but the latter would not.

Okay,  Erik,  So you go to your source and I go to mine and they both come up with different things.  You say we should then look at Scripture, but if Scripture were clear, we wouldn’t have needed to go to another source to begin with, right.  So we are left with 2 different interpretations, both given by “experts”, none of which is clear in Scripture.  Why should I choose one over the other?

Mk,
Help me out. You wrote-” But I’ve shown you that the translation reads “ONLY one wife”.  Emphasis on only.  Even the KJV translation has a footnote that a more perfect translation is “Only one wife”.

How does this support the idea that a bishop is to be celibate?

He would not be under the same qualifications that he laid down in I Tim 3 because he was not in that position.

Your not understanding my question.  I understand that Paul moved around, got that.  What I am asking is where in Scripture does it say that the leaders that PAUL WAS SPEAKING TO did not move around.  Where does it say that “those who are leaders but stay in one place MUST be married”?  How do we know the leaders that Paul was talking to, fell into that group?

You’ve already told me that you don’t know what the differences were between the leaders. 

How does this support the idea that a bishop is to be celibate?

I’ve never claimed that a Bishop is to be celibate.  I am only addressing the issue of whether or not a Bishop MUST be married.  So, given that even the KJV footnotes say that the most proper translation states that a “bishop/whatever” must have ONLY one wife and does not say that he must HAVE a wife, I assert that it doesn’t make one iota of difference whether he is married or not.  As long as IF he IS married, he ONLY has ONE wife.  And furthermore IF he is married he is to conduct his household without reproach as this would show that he was worthy of leadership.  However, IF he was NOT married, this speech didn’t apply.

So to make it simple.  I am saying that the best translation say ONLY one wife, and not MUST BE MARRIED.

I mean, you want the Truth right?  Even if it is not what you have thought up until now?  I know that I do.  I would not stubbornly stick to my guns even if I could clearly be shown that I was in error. 

See, part of the problem Erik, is that you are refusing to accept that the Catholic Church does not say that a Bishop should not be married.  It says it is up to the individual Rite.  Only the Roman/Latin right makes that choice, and it is a choice.  You have claimed since day one that celibacy is against Scripture, and I have been saying that it is not. 

So IF the words must have only ONE wife are the truest translation, then celibacy is NOT against Scripture.

Erik, Are you aware that Deacons can be married in the Roman/Latin Rite?  And as I have already pointed out there are exceptions where priests are married also?

Mk,
Mk,
  I choose by which one has the better case that is based on more facts biblically and historically. Take infant baptism again. The one that is in support of it needs to show in Scripture where it is taught and give examples of it. That cannot be done since there are no explicit of it or examples of it in Scripture. I’m familiar with the support of it but I don’t find it compelling and the counter evidence in Scripture is not overcome by the Protestants-infant baptism arguments.

In regards to your source differing than mine we then need to go to other sources. The more sources, the better. From these sources we should be able to construct which side has the better case.
You are handicapped because you put absolute trust in your church who you believe cannot err. That is going to bias you heavily against anything that is against what your church teaches. I have seen this time after time with Roman Catholics when they are present with facts that counter church teachings they will always go with the church.

Mk,
You wrote—“So to make it simple.  I am saying that the best translation say ONLY one wife, and not MUST BE MARRIED.”

What translation says this?

Erik,

C’mon.  I’ve already given you the link to netbible.  You read the Greek/Hebrew translations and then go to the footnote.  Personally I think it’s dishonest of them that you should HAVE to go to a footnote. The best translation should be the ONLY translation.

https://net.bible.org/#!bible/1+Timothy+3

Go to footnote #16 and “read more”

Now here is what I do not understand.  You are willing to take the WORD of a 21st apologist over what the actual established church of the 2nd Century was DOING.  ( on infant baptism)

We can see in historical accounts that infants were baptized. It was the norm.  This is what the earliest records of Christianity tell us.

If I were to dispute a law made today, calling it unconstitutional, I would look FIRST to what the founders of the country say, and only then would I listen to a 21st Century Lawyer.  Even then, I would always weigh what the Founders and the Constitution say before I would side with that lawyer.  You seem to think that modern interpretations trump what the Fathers of the Church say.  I think that is really dangerous.

So, the Catholic Church today baptizes infants because our understanding of Baptism is that is is necessary to Salvation.  This was taught to us FIRST by Jesus.  He says that we MUST be baptized.  It is the action of Baptism itself that saves, that transmits the Graces won for us by Jesus’ death.  It is efficacious and not just symbolic.  That is what Scripture SAYS.  Then we have what the Church Fathers SAY and what the early Church DID.  1500 years later we have a small sect, called the Anabaptists that out of thin air, decide that they have a better understanding of Scripture.  I say that the onus falls on them.  Until they can show me, clearly, why infant baptism is wrong (and they would first have to show that baptism itself is simply symbolic) then they would be inclined to believe what those who were closest to Jesus time and part of the very beginning of His established Church did and said.

I am kind of floored that you would take the word of “no one”, just some guy who was disgruntled, over 1500 years of established beliefs and historical documents.

So why are the Anabaptists right, and Jesus and the Early Church wrong?

That cannot be done since there are no explicit of it or examples of it in Scripture.

Now see this is where people feel you straddle dishonesty.  We say that Mary was concieved without Original Sin and you say that this idea is nowhere, explicitly in Scripture.  So we try to show you how it is implicitly understood and you say “No dice.  It’s not in Scripture, it can’t be true”.  We show you that the earliest Church believed it and that the Fathers wrote of it.  We outline the thinking behind it and you say “Nope, it ain’t in Scripture”. 

Then I ask what the differences between the different leaders are and you make some claim that some stayed put, some roamed and that Paul was only talking to those who stayed put. I ask you to show me where in Scripture that is and you say “Oh, well, we have to go to extra-biblical sources for that”.

Also, it is not that we believe everything our Church teaches because we are blind fools.  But because our VERY FIRST PREMISE, which is EXPLICIT in Scripture, says that the Church herself (not her members) will be protected by the Holy Spirit from error.  It is EXPLICIT.  Do you understand?

If you reject that premise, then NOTHING in Scripture can be trusted, because Scripture was given to us by the Church.  If she could err, then she could have erred in what books she chose to put into the Canon. 

If you reject the EXPLICIT belief that the Church is the Authority of God’s Kingdom on Earth, then you reject ALL of it.  ALL of it.

So once we accept that very, very basic and explicit understanding, we only have to go the Church when disputes arise.  You cannot say that.  You go to Joe Nobody, and Steve Saysitsso.  But NO WHERE in Scripture were you, or Joe or Steve given ANY authority to speak for Jesus.  But the Church was.

THAT is why we believe what she says.  Because it’s either HER or you.
And YOU were NOT given any authority by Jesus, while SHE was.  Can you understand that?

It always, always, always goes back to Who Has the Authority in the Church.  You claim either No one does, or Everyone does.  Either way, you can’t be trusted.  It’s every man for himself and I for one, am not willing to trust my soul to you, or myself.  I trust Jesus, and Jesus told me to trust His Church.

That is totally, completely, undeniably and reliably TRUE.

Erik,

Did you forget about me?

mk,

By the way, marvelous job on your counter-arguements and cross-references.

Mk,
  This is the first I recall you giving me the link to the netbible. Thank you. I use them also. 
Why do you think—“ Personally I think it’s dishonest of them that you should HAVE to go to a footnote. The best translation should be the ONLY translation.”?

Do you understand the process and science of biblical translations?  There is no such thing as “The best translation should be the ONLY translation.” Part of the reason is that translators are dealing with multiple Greek manuscripts and different manuscript families.  Some translations are either Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are terms for methods of translation coined by Eugene Nida. The two terms have often been understood as fundamentally the same as sense-for-sense translation (translating the meanings of whole sentences) and word-for-word translation (translating the meanings of individual words in their more or less exact syntactic sequence)…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_and_formal_equivalence

Here are the footnotes from the netbible on the passage we are discussing in regards to being married: “tn Or “a man married only once,” “devoted solely to his wife” (see 1 Tim 3:12; 5:9; Titus 1:6). The meaning of this phrase is disputed. It is frequently understood to refer to the marital status of the church leader, excluding from leadership those who are (1) unmarried, (2) polygamous, (3) divorced, or (4) remarried after being widowed. A different interpretation is reflected in the NEB’s translation “faithful to his one wife.”
Verse 12:—( footnote #16 )- Or “men married only once,” “devoted solely to their wives” (see the note on “wife” in 1 Tim 3:2; also 1 Tim 5:9; Titus 1:6).

As you can see, a bishop and deacon were to be married and not celibate.

Rafael,
How could i ever forget about you my friend? :)

In a sense anyone can start a church. The question is will that church be grounded and faithful to apostolic doctrine?

Let me ask you: How did the first 5000 Christians on the day of Pentecost go back to their cities and villages start churches in those places? There is no way for the apostles to have been able to help out all these people that were spread out over the empire. How do you think it was done?

Mk,
The best scholarship in church history is happening right now. We have more scholars, more tools and more documents are giving us a better understanding of church history. We have better translations of the Scripture than ever before because of what I said.

“Now here is what I do not understand.  You are willing to take the WORD of a 21st apologist over what the actual established church of the 2nd Century was DOING.  ( on infant baptism)

We can see in historical accounts that infants were baptized. It was the norm.  This is what the earliest records of Christianity tell us.”

“Lutheran professor, Curt Allen, after intensive study of infant baptism says, “There is no definite proof of the practice until after the third century,” and he says, “This cannot be contested.”
In other words, infant baptism was not the norm for the early church.

Erik,

Cool.

“In a sense anyone can start a church. The question is will that church be grounded and faithful to apostolic doctrine?”

OK. Since we’ve established that, now comes the kunundrun: If the criteria and authority to start the church - by anyone - must come from the Bible (according to you), then by what authority does the Bible get the authority to set the criteria? The Bible cannot speak. Also, we’ve established that nowhere in the Bible does it say for something to be Biblical it has to be in the Bible.

“Let me ask you: How did the first 5000 Christians on the day of Pentecost go back to their cities and villages start churches in those places? There is no way for the apostles to have been able to help out all these people that were spread out over the empire. How do you think it was done?”

I’m with you: From the first apostles. And that’s how apostolic succession gets started. So, one must be able to trace their origins back to the apostles, which is why I find it difficult for a new church starting in 1630 - like the Reformed Baptists - to say that they have apostolic succession.

Mk,
You wrote—“ Where does it say that “those who are leaders but stay in one place MUST be married”? 
I Timothy 3:2—“… The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,..”
Notice the phrase “must be”. This is a requirement, a command.

“How do we know the leaders that Paul was talking to, fell into that group?”
One way we know they did not move around is that there is no command here for the bishop to go preach and teach elsewhere.  Secondly, it would have been very difficult for families to move around.  Third, it takes time to establish a church and build it up.

Mk,
You wrote—“Erik, Are you aware that Deacons can be married in the Roman/Latin Rite?  And as I have already pointed out there are exceptions where priests are married also?”

You can have any requirements for your priests that you want since the priesthood is not a church office of the NT. There is no such thing as an office of the priest in the NT.

Rafael,
  How can the Bible appeal to a higher authority than itself?  If men are faithful to the Scripture then those men will have authority not based on themselves but on the inspired-inerrant Word of God.

It is true that the “nowhere in the Bible does it say for something to be Biblical it has to be in the Bible.” However no one can say something is apostolic or biblical unless it is grounded in the Scripture. This is the kunundrun you must face: your church teaches doctrines that are not apostolic nor biblical but are the teachings of men. Living under such an institution puts you under false teachers.

The problem you have is that apostolic succession cannot be shown to have been passed on from any apostle to any non-apostle.  Joseph Ratzinger’s wrote “The concept of Apostolic Succession was clearly formulated in the second century.” From an essay entitled “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica,” in the work “God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press ©2008;)

Erik,

“How can the Bible appeal to a higher authority than itself?  If men are faithful to the Scripture then those men will have authority not based on themselves but on the inspired-inerrant Word of God.”

So, then you are saying that the Bible IS God. In essence you are equating a book with God.

Mk,
It looks like you are being dishonest about the Mary was conceived without Original Sin and claiming that “the earliest Church believed it and that the Fathers wrote of it.”
I already pointed out that many fathers and leaders of the early church thought she had sinned. Let me give a short list of fathers who thought she had sinned:
“Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220):

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

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

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): The Lord knew Himself to be the only guiltless One [Sciebat Dominus se solum sine delicto esse. De Oratione, Caput VII, PL 1:1162], and so He teaches that we beg “to have our debts remitted us.” A petition for pardon is a full confession; because he who begs for pardon fully admits his guilt.

ANF: Vol. III, On Prayer, Chapter 7.

Early Church Writers and Early Church Fathers claimed that"God alone is without sin.”

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379):

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

Ambrose (c. 339-97) commenting on Luke 1:35

For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption, but dispelled them by heavenly majesty.

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

For translation, see I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 1996), p. 258.

Ambrose (c. 339-97):

So, then, no one is without sin except God alone, for no one is without sin except God. Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshiped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.” God also does not worship, but is worshiped, for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.”
Augustine (354-430):

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

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

BTW- there is no promise by the Lord Christ “says that the Church herself (not her members) will be protected by the Holy Spirit from error.” There is not one verse that says this. Not even Peter was protected by error. See Galatians 2:11-14. The Lord Jesus rebukes churches for errors in Revelation 2-3.

You can trust the authority of your church all you want to. Just don’t claim that they have not committed grave errors because the facts show that have.

Rafael
No, I am not “...... saying that the Bible IS God. In essence you are equating a book with God.”

I am saying that the Bible alone is inspired-inerrant Word of God. All other sources are to be in subjection to the Scripture because there is no other inspired-inerrant source for Christians. No institutions or man is inspired-inerrant.  Only the Scripture.

I know this creates huge problems for you as I have previously stated and demonstrated throughout this blog. I understand why you don’t want to deal with these problems.  I know I wouldn’t.

Erik,

“I am saying that the Bible alone is inspired-inerrant Word of God. All other sources are to be in subjection to the Scripture because there is no other inspired-inerrant source for Christians. No institutions or man is inspired-inerrant.  Only the Scripture.”

If it’s not God, then you are saying that it’s equal to God.

Rafael,
Lets see if we can come to an understanding what it means to say the Scripture is inspired-inerrant Word of God. Here is what Jesus said about His teachings in John 12:

44 And Jesus cried out and said, “ He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.
45 He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.
46 I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.
47 If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
49 For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
50 I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me.”

Here is another passage to consider on this issue:
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
Matt 24:35

What is the nature of the teachings i.e. words of Jesus in these passages? How should we understand what Jesus is saying in these passages in regards to His words?

Erik,

You still have not answered the question. Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the “inspired-inerrant word of God”?

What you’ve quoted is what someone else said about what Jesus said about his “teachings” - not the Bible.

Rafael,
How well do you know the Bible? Are you familiar with various ways it speaks about itself?

Rafael,
Are those words in John and Matt the words of Jesus or not?

Erik,

“Are those words in John and Matt the words of Jesus or not?”

How do we know for sure that those are Jesus’ words? There are other books that were floating around during that time that also said things that Jesus said. For example, the Gospel of Tomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter. How do we know for certain that John and Matt’s quoting of Jesus are accurate?

Rafael,
I’m amazed at your answer. Are you not Roman Catholic?

Erik,

Just answer the question.

Rafael,
I know the answer to your question. You need to answer mine. I was under that assumption you are RC. Am I wrong?

Erik,

My being Catholic or not is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with this conversation. We’re talking about the Bible.

Are you not aware that were other books floating around during the time after Jesus that were also saying things that Jesus said? If not look them up (the ones mentioned above) and then answer the question if their books were accurate or the books written by John and Matt and others. It’s a simple question, brother.

Rafael,
It is true there were other writings in the first and second century that were purported to be the words and deeds of Jesus. These were for the most part gnostic works which had no connections to the apostles themselves.
The Gospel of Tomas- written middle or late 2nd century. To late to be written by an apostle.

The Gospel of Mary- is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex. It was never used in the early church and was not written by an apostle.

The Gospel of Peter—rejected by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church’s synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon, as apocryphal. Scholars agree that it was not written by Peter.

As for the 4 canonical gospels, these gospels were accepted by the church since the beginning. We know who wrote them even though their names are not on the gospels themselves. As for them accurately recording what Jesus said and did the answer is yes. 2 of the gospels are eyewitness accounts and so had the ability to accurately record the sayings and actions of Christ. All 4 gospels agree on the essentials and do not contradict each other. We can also accept that they got it right because Jesus Himself promised to bring “remembrance to all that He said to them”. John 14:26.

If someone wants to reject this then they are going to show that facts are false. It won’t do to claim that a person does not accept them. He has to demonstrate that these things are false. 

Erik,

One way we know they did not move around is that there is no command here for the bishop to go preach and teach elsewhere.  Secondly, it would have been very difficult for families to move around.  Third, it takes time to establish a church and build it up.

So you’ve made an assumption.  You have no proof and some very sketchy logic.  There is no command for them to eat scrambled eggs on Tuesday either, so are we to assume that they did not do this?  Actually there is no command at all about what they are to do, only on how they are to “BE”.  Not being stated is not proof of anything.  I want biblical proof that these deacons and bishops did not move around.  That Paul was NOT a Bishop.  I want to know how a person became a Bishop.

Because we/the CC contends that it was the laying on of hands by an Apostle.  As the Father has sent me, so I send you.  Go, whose sins you forgive are forgiven…did that end with the apostles?  Where does it say so in Scripture.  Because I can show you where an Apostle passed the Holy Spirit on to a non apostles and sent them…Apostolic Succession.

No, I’m sorry.  I just don’t buy that these Bishops and Deacons didn’t move around.  I might even be able to accept that some of them did not.  But I don’t think that was a “criteria”.  Certainly, you can not prove that it was or wasn’t using Scripture.  Which means you go to an outside source…which is Tradition.  Yet you balk at our own “Tradition”.

To make it simple…there is no Scriptural proof that deacons and Bishops could not travel around, and there is even less that Paul’s leadership was different than theirs.  There is no reason why Paul should remain celibate, while deacons and Bishops had to be married.
There is only conjecture.

Mk,
What do you make of this: Joseph Ratzinger’s wrote “The concept of Apostolic Succession was clearly formulated in the second century.” From an essay entitled “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica,” in the work “God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press ©2008;”????

This would rule out apostolic succession.

Erik,

All of those quotes are about Jesus who was born without sin, WITHOUT benefit of His own Mercy.  We are all sinless after Baptism.  An infant that is baptized will remain perfectly sinless until he reaches the age of reason and is capable, of his own free will, to sin again.  What Augustine, and Tertullian, etal are saying is that no man is sinless on HIS OWN MERIT.  We can only achieve sinlessness with the Mercy and Grace of Jesus.  Through Our Lord and not on our own.  Mary achieved that Baptismal Grace in an extraordinary way, but we all receive that Grace at Baptism.  And her fiat, her YES, allowed her to receive and except ALL the Grace that God could give her.

I agree, that Mary could not have been conceived without sin ON HER OWN.  You misunderstand the Fathers and that can be shown because elsewhere they speak of Mary’s Immaculateness.

What do you care what the Fathers say anyway?  You’ve thrown them out with the bathwater because they believed in Salvific Baptism, Infant Baptism, The Papcy, The Sacrament of Confession and most especially The Eucharist.  So why would you even use them as a reference since clearly, according to your own criteria, not one of them fits your definition of a Christian following “SOUND DOCTRINE”. 

What do you make of this: Joseph Ratzinger’s wrote “The concept of Apostolic Succession was clearly formulated in the second century.” From an essay entitled “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica,” in the work “God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press ©2008;”????

This would rule out apostolic succession.

That’s like saying that because the Trinity was only formulated in the fourth century, this rules out a Trintarian God.  And likewise, scripture was only formulated in the late fourth century, so that rules out Scripture.

Saying something is clearly formulated later in the life of the Church does not mean it only came into existence when it was formulated.  Apostolic succession is already present in the New Testament.  That’s why the apostles are already choosing successors on Acts and Paul is writing to such successors in his letters to Timothy and Titus.

The concept of Apostolic Succession was clearly formulated in the second century.”

A. The quote is out of context and
B. You do this a lot…the word “CLEARLY” is important here.  It is not CLEAR…meaning who laid hands on whom.  This is not to say that it didn’t happen, only to say that the Church was growing so fast, that records were sketchy and we’re not quite sure who succeeded whom.  We know that Clement and Linus and Anacletus but there is very little info about them.  We some things that they have said, and some things that were said about them, but there is no good documentation of who ordained whom.  It is un CLEAR hence the phrase we do not see CLEARLY until the 3rd Century.  You have to remember that these guys were not taking copious notes as they expected Jesus’ IMMINENT return.  The whole “governing body” of the Church developed over time.  Who knew how many Bishops, Priests and Deacons were going to be needed over 2,000 years! 

If you give me a link to the document, I’m sure you’ll see that this is what he was saying.  I can pull things out of context also and make them say what I want them to say.  But this is another example of what Mark means when he calls you dishonest.

If I post a quote, you can be dang sure I have read the entire context that it is pulled from!  I don’t just go to a website and copy and paste the work that someone else has done.  I do it myself.  If I find a quote from a document, I check the source. Either the document or the person making the claim.

Here is another example of dishonest…I just googled the Ratzinger quote and you can’t even FIND it in context.  You have to buy the book…so you couldn’t possible know the context.  Unless, and I very much doubt, you OWN the book?

lol Mark…it’s also a little Silly for the Successor of Peter to write a book about Apostolic Succession and then say that there is no evidence for it.  Be like Obama writing a book claiming the Founders of our Country didn’t want a presidency.  Obama and Benedict would have written themselves out of jobs.  So “Clearly ;)” Benedict must have meant something else.  But it’s easier to jump to conclusions I guess.  To cut and paste someone elses words.  Lazy is what it is.

Erik,

Do you even know that the Joseph Ratzinger you quote is our present Pope Benedict?

<i>excluding from leadership those who are…”

I’m sorry.  Excluding from what?  Leadership you say?  You mean it doesn’t clarify what SORT of leadership?  So it could mean any leaders?  Like, oh I don’t know, say….Paul?

Mk,
I warned Mark about calling me a liar. You need to demonstrate I have lied and if you don’t then you are guilty of the sin of slander.

Erik,

Nobody has called you a liar.  Not Mark.  Not me.  I’m just trying to point out what we mean by dishonest.  It isn’t about lying.  It’s about not being totally honest about the sources you use.  Or the fact that you cut and paste and don’t have a clue who your are cutting or pasting.  It’s about switching topics and not answering questions (which I’ll give you credit, you have been doing a better job of lately)

It’s about using other peoples words and passing them off as yours.  The guy who wrote The Gospel of Mary- is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex. It was never used in the early church and was not written by an apostle.
The Gospel of Peter—rejected by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church’s synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon, as apocryphal. Scholars agree that it was not written by Peter.
As for the 4 canonical gospels, these gospels were accepted by the church since the beginning. We know who wrote them even though their names are not on the gospels themselves. As for them accurately recording what Jesus said and did the answer is yes. 2 of the gospels are eyewitness accounts and so had the ability to accurately record the sayings and actions of Christ. All 4 gospels agree on the essentials and do not contradict each other. We can also accept that they got it right because Jesus Himself promised to bring “remembrance to all that He said to them”. John 14:26.
If someone wants to reject this then they are going to show that facts are false. It won’t do to claim that a person does not accept them. He has to demonstrate that these things are false.

could not possibly be the same guy who doesn’t understand the concept of dishonest debate.

These adjectives mean lacking honesty or truthfulness. Dishonest is the least specific: a dishonest business executive. Lying conveys a blunt accusation of untruth: a lying witness giving inconsistent testimony. Untruthful is a softer term and suggests lack of veracity and divergence from fact: made an untruthful statement. Deceitful implies misleading by falsehood or by concealment of the truth: deceitful advertising. Mendacious is more formal than lying, and suggests a chronic inclination toward untruth: a mendacious and troublesome employee.   http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/dishonest

Neither I nor mk have called you a liar.  I say you are dishonest, which is a different thing.  mk notes that your use of the quote appears, well, dishonest.  So, do you have the book and are you familiar with the context or are you just cutting and pasting a regurgitation from somewhere as a hopeful “gotcha”?  Meantime, I can’t help noticing you avoiding answering some straightforward questions, which is you custom since you are dishonest.

The first source for this quote is Triablogue when you Google it.  My money is on Erik just cutting and pasting from there.  He doesn’t have clue what the passage means in context and has never read the book.  He was just looking for another gotcha—because he’s dishonest and has no interest in a real conversation.  Why beat your head against the wall, mk?

Both of you are calling me a liar. Here is what dishonest means—“Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud, or deceive.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dishonest

This is what you both are accusing me of. When you call someone dishonest you are calling them a liar. If you are going to do that then you better have the facts because you both bear the burden to prove I Have lied about anything.

Until, you can show I have lied (1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie

Then you are both slandering me. That is a sin and false accusation.

What with all that fake dudgeon, Erik, you’ve avoided answering mk’s questions.  No lies told by you, yet still quite dishonest.

Erik,

Sorry for the delay.

I left out a couple: the Gospel of the Lord, the Gospel of Truth. These were also written in the 2nd Century, which could very well have made it into the Cannon.

You mentioned earlier that there wasn’t one church: there were many. So, which church did Matt belong to? And which church did Mark belong to? And how about John? And Luke? Were they part of the Reformed Baptist Church? The Presbyterians? The Methodists?

Erik,

The Gospel of Judas has the Bishop of Lyons rallying against this gospel in 180 A.D. So, it appears that there must have been a big confusion about it in the early church if a bishop had to write against it. That, too, was well before the Cannon.

I’ll catch up with all of you tomorrow at some time.

God Bless and good night.

Both of you are calling me a liar.<i>

<i>These adjectives mean lacking honesty or truthfulness. Dishonest is the least specific: a dishonest business executive. Lying conveys a blunt accusation of untruth</B?: a lying witness giving inconsistent testimony. <B>Untruthful is a softer term and suggests lack of veracity and divergence from fact: made an untruthful statement. Deceitful implies misleading by falsehood or by concealment of the truth: deceitful advertising. Mendacious is more formal than lying, and suggests a chronic inclination toward untruth: a mendacious and troublesome employee.  http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/dishonest

You see, you do the same thing with the term dishonest that you do with Scripture.  YOU have a very specific definition of dishonest.  There is a BIGGER definition that is accepted by the rest of us.  When we show it to you, you cling you your own personal, biased definition, in spite of proof that there are other definitions.  This is what you do with Scripture.  You read some guy that disagrees with the Catholic Church, and take it as irrefutable proof that certain Scripture passages MUST mean what he/you say(s).  When someone shows you an accepted alternative, you refuse to even entertain the idea that your “guy” might be wrong.

An example of this is 1 Tim 3.  You have been taught that it means MUST be married.  I show you an alternative meaning.  Rather than admit that there is simply no way to know exactly what was meant, you accuse us of not following Scripture.  We say your are dishonest, and you say we are calling you a liar, even when both of us, the people who actually called you dishonest ( and would probably know better than you what we meant) have told you numerous times that that is not what we mean by dishonest.

You cut and paste things out of context, presenting them as meaning something that they do NOT mean.  That is dishonest.

You change the subject rather than answer questions, in order to confuse us.  This is called obfuscation, a form of dishonesty.

You use circular arguments (The bible is it’s own authority) which are meant to cause confusion, another obfuscation.

You haven’t outright lied, no, but you have misdirected, misrepresented, misinformed the people here.  This is dishonest.

Did you even know who Joseph Ratzinger was?  If not, then don’t you think it was dishonest to pretend that you did?  To quote him, out of context and then claim to know what he meant by his statement? 

This inability to understand what you read yet claim that you do, to know and check your sources, to make false accusations (claiming the Pope doesn’t believe in Apostolic Succession???? Seriously?), to quote heretics and call them Catholics in good standing, to accuse us of contradicting Scripture….all of these are dishonest tactics.  And they are why I said so long ago, that you are not a worthy opponent in debate.  Instead of trying to get better, you dishonestly claimed this wasn’t a debate at all.  You called it a discussion.  This way you could avoid being called out on your poor debate skills.  Even calling it a discussion is dishonest because until very recently you manipulated the conversation to such a degree that we only talked about what YOU wanted to talk about.  That is not discussion.

I’m sorry if your feelings were hurt.  That is not my intention.  My intention, is, and has always been, to help you become better at this.  If your practical application could only match your passion, you might one day be a worthy opponent.  As it is, right now, the only challenge is whether or not I have the patience to continue.  What it is NOT is an authentic discussion about doctrine and theology.  That is what I WISH it were. 

\

Erik,

Answer me this.  Did you write these words yourself?  Or are they someone elses?

The Gospel of Mary- is an apocryphal book discovered in 1896 in a 5th-century papyrus codex. It was never used in the early church and was not written by an apostle.
The Gospel of Peter—rejected by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church’s synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon, as apocryphal. Scholars agree that it was not written by Peter.
As for the 4 canonical gospels, these gospels were accepted by the church since the beginning. We know who wrote them even though their names are not on the gospels themselves. As for them accurately recording what Jesus said and did the answer is yes. 2 of the gospels are eyewitness accounts and so had the ability to accurately record the sayings and actions of Christ. All 4 gospels agree on the essentials and do not contradict each other. We can also accept that they got it right because Jesus Himself promised to bring “remembrance to all that He said to them”. John 14:26.
If someone wants to reject this then they are going to show that facts are false. It won’t do to claim that a person does not accept them. He has to demonstrate that these things are false.
e

So, what, you’ve taken ball and gone home?

Boy, I thought I was missing out on a day’s worth of back and forth - like a good action flick. I guess Erik’s not playing anymore. What a shame. I don’t think you guys were wrong. Either he was definitely taking things out of context or his reference sources were really, really poor. Erik, anytime you wish to continue you’re welcome back. I want to applaud you for sticking it out as far as you did - despite some of the frustrations on both sides. That’s just because we’re all so passionate about our love for Jesus. MK and Mark I want to thank you both for also helping me grow in my faith with your in-depth knowledge and insight into the faith, and your amazing formulations of counterarguments and analogies. You are both GREAT apologists! And I thank you for confirming me along in my journey. God Bless and I hope we get to do this again sometime, minus the frustration.

Rafael,

Thank you so much.  I feel the same.  Every time I see your name I think an “angel” is commenting.  Mark always puts up interesting posts so check back.  The opportunity for more…ahem…“discussion” is sure to arise.

I give Erik credit also.  I have been on his end of the deal many a time…six Protestants or Atheists and I’m the lone Catholic.  I know he won’t believe it and I know that I can get pretty dang snarky sometimes, but I really, really, really did want him to become better at this.  I so admire his spunk.  But plagiarism is dishonest and so is obfuscation. To be taken seriously you have to play fair.  I was hoping that using me as his springboard would give him some easy practice time as my skin is pretty thick. 

Who knows.  Maybe he learned something and will continue to grow from this experience.

I also wish that he and everyone else could experience the Joys of the Catholic Faith and the Pure Bliss of receiving our Lord in the Eucharist…Peace that passes understanding.

Take care of yourself.  You can be on my team ANYTIME!

mk,

Amen to that! To be the lone Catholic amongst that group really sharpens your apologetic skills. I’m not as fortunate to have those around me to test my skills. But, I do get tested with another group around me: “Progressive”-liberal Catholics! They might as well be Episcopalians, but they choose to stay to try and change the Church from within. They think it’s their calling.

I’ll be checking back for Mark’s posts.

With regards to the “angel” reference, I’ll conclude with a line from the 1986 Blockbuster film “Top Gun”: “You can be my ‘wing’-man anytime.”

Deal :)

“Eucharist is, in fact, Jesus Christ fully present.”
Yet, on the very first occasion, Jesus was NOT part of the bread or wine: “And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” (Mt 26, Douay)
So: Jesus is here, at one part of the table; the bread is there, on its tray; the wine is over there, in the cup.
Not. Part. Of. Each. Other.
The original Passover was followed by annual commemorations, memorials, anniversaries. This is what Jesus instituted, not the unscriptural “Mass”.
What scriptural backing then do Catholics find for doing it today? And every day? Paul understood the Jesus’ death to be “once for all”.

Doug,

Stop worshipping the Bible. You have no appreaciation for the Bible because you have no appreciation for the Church that put it together. If you want to give total respect to the book you are quoting, give the Church its due respect. Stop creating a religion out of a book.

O you silly gooses, this “Erik” is a girl.  She’s led you down a silly path of merriment and mirth, and tested all your logics, of which there is a dearth.  And if you want to know the things the Spirit has to give, put down your mouses, loose your chains, breathe in the air and live.