Catholisicm [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Belteshazzar

July 14th 2003, 02:16 PM

JardinPrayer:

There does seem to be an awful lot of Catholic rule and ritual that is not supported by the bible.

There were several hundred years in early Christianity when we didn't have the Bible was we know it today. The Church (and its rituals and rules) predate the Bible. Catholics and Orthodox Churches preserve the rituals of the early Church.

An elder of my church said she was raised Catholic and was amazed the first time someone handed her a bible...for her to read! She'd been taught that to even touch a bible was to sin.

This is an example of argument by outrage and is a double edged sword. There are a lot of Catholics that don't understand their faith, just as there are a lot of Protestants that don't understand their fath. That doesn't alter Catholic or Protestant beliefs. Your elder obviously never read during mass, or even paid attention, because a complete study of the Bible is built into the Catholic liturgy, and has been for centuries. Don't rely on biased second hand opinions on Catholic teaching when you can go straight to the definitive source, which is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Its online in a number of different places, include the Vatican's site http://www.vatican.va/ and there are some nice search engines for locating information too.

Praying to Mary and to saints is also not scriptural. We are told to pray only to the Father...period. We're all saints, according to the bible. No one hears or answers prayer except the Father, according to the bible.

Yes they do hear us, and there is scriptural support. Paul says we are a spectacle for all the angels 1 Corinthians 4:9, which also applies to the saints. And Revelation 5:8 has the saints bringing our prayers to God, so they are aware of them.

We are also told to confess our sins to the Father, in personal relationship, not to a priest who then assigns us a "penance" that is supposed to atone for that particular sin. That' just nowhere to be found in the bible. The bible says salvation through Jesus Christ cleanses you of all your sins, past and future and makes no mention of atonement other than confession to the Father and repentance.

"As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23) The earliest Christians confessed their sins, publicly, to the whole Church.

If reading - or even touching - the bible is considered a sin in Catholicism, how can any Catholic know if their theology is correct?

If I am mistaken on any of these points, I would welcome any Catholic's quote of scripture that shows me my error.

Reading or touching the Bible isn't a sin, nor has that ever been taught by the Church. The only attempt I've ever seen by anyone to claim so has been to bring up the time long before Gutenberg when Bibles were very expensive and few and far between. Prohibitions on handling those Bibles were meant to preserve them for decades of reading for everyone's benefit.

Jerry

Jacob

July 14th 2003, 03:01 PM

Jerry,

I agree with some of your refutations regarding some of the false accusations noted against Catholicism. Still, I find fault with much of your response...

Also, there were several hundred years in early Christianity when we didn't have the Bible was we know it today. The Church (and its rituals and rules) predate the Bible. Catholics and Orthodox Churches preserve the rituals of the early Church.

They had the OT, which the NT claims is good for correction, training, etc....

That the ancient church traditions were preserved is the claim. But many of the rituals in Catholicism the Orthodox churches are not to be found in the earliest church -- especially in their current or medieval form.

This is an example of argument by outrage and is a double edged sword.

Amen. I use a double edged sword when Catholics complain about the diversity of beliefs within Protestantism... I simply point to the diversity of beliefs (some contradictory) within Tradition, and to the diversity of teaching by priests (especially in the America's) and to the diversity of beliefs & morals by the Catholics any one of us has met (I've met more Catholics who think that neither abortion nor divorce is sinful than those who hold to the Biblical and Roman Catholic position).

I told my Dad (a widower who became a Roman Catholic priest) that I'm more Catholic then most people in his church -- and he conceded the point (which is an extremely rare phenomenon).

Yes they do hear us, and there is scriptural support. Paul says we are a spectacle for all the angels 1 Corinthians 4:9, which also applies to the saints. And Revelation 5:8 has the saints bringing our prayers to God, so they are aware of them.

It is presumption to quote 1 Cor 4:9, which refers to angels, in order to show that "saints" know of our activities on earth.

Rev 5:8 (NASB) When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Note that Revelation 5:8 has the 24 elders, presenting the prayers of the saints, not the "saints" presenting our prayers. Whether or not these elders know the content of the prayers they present is not known.

The earliest Christians confessed their sins, publicly, to the whole Church.

Confession to the whole church is not the same as confession to priests.

Jerry,

I think most people's problems with Catholicism have more to do with perception than with doctrinal error, with a very few exceptions. But first, the Catholic Church has done a generally lousy job of educating their members. I attended 8 years at a Catholic school and I did not really understand much besides the minimal requirements to be OK with the church. Most Catholics (or former Catholics) that I know have had similar experiences.

The biggest issues have to do with the role of merit in regards to salvation, and the role of tradition in determining correct doctrine & dogma. One can argue about Mary, prayer to saints, confession, baptismal regeneration, etc, but that's just going to ruffle feathers and get emotions heated. Authority & salvation are the issues at the heart of everything else.

I am grateful for the role the Catholic & Orthodox churches played in preserving scripture and tradition (and I value both, but not equally). Their disagreement is one of the primary reasons that I don't place much merit in the idea that either of them is "the true church". If you two ever sort it out, I'll have a much less convincing defense to the claims of antiquity & apostolic roots as pointing to the "true church"...

God Bless,

Jacob

spl_cadet

July 14th 2003, 05:08 PM

Today @ 09:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148467#post148467)
JardinPrayer:
An elder of my church said she was raised Catholic and was amazed the first time someone handed her a bible...for her to read! She'd been taught that to even touch a bible was to sin.

Well, she was raised idiotically, and in direct opposition to the Faith. Heck, it used to be that you could get an indulgence for reading the Bible for 15 minutes. I'm not sure if you can still anymore.

We are told to pray only to the Father...period. We're all saints, according to the bible. No one hears or answers prayer except the Father, according to the bible.

Chapter and verse?

We are also told to confess our sins to the Father, in personal relationship, not to a priest who then assigns us a "penance" that is supposed to atone for that particular sin. That' just nowhere to be found in the bible.

You are right. Which is why we don't believe that penance atones for that sin. It's really just a reflection and such to help us get on the right track.

If I am mistaken on any of these points, I would welcome any Catholic's quote of scripture that shows me my error.

Regarding prayer to the saints (from the Summa Theologica):
Whether we ought to pray to God alone?

Objection 1. It would seem that we ought to pray to God alone. Prayer is an act of religion, as stated above (3). But God alone is to be worshiped by religion. Therefore we should pray to God alone.

Objection 2. Further, it is useless to pray to one who is ignorant of the prayer. But it belongs to God alone to know one's prayer, both because frequently prayer is uttered by an interior act which God alone knows, rather than by words, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 14:15), "I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding": and again because, as Augustine says (De Cura pro mortuis xiii) the "dead, even the saints, know not what the living, even their own children, are doing." Therefore we ought to pray to God alone.

Objection 3. Further, if we pray to any of the saints, this is only because they are united to God. Now some yet living in this world, or even some who are in Purgatory, are closely united to God by grace, and yet we do not pray to them. Therefore neither should we pray to the saints who are in Paradise.

On the contrary, It is written (Job 5:1), "Call . . . if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints."

I answer that, Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: first, as to be fulfilled by him, secondly, as to be obtained through him. On the first way we offer prayer to God alone, since all our prayers ought to be directed to the acquisition of grace and glory, which God alone gives, according to Ps. 83:12, "The Lord will give grace and glory." But in the second way we pray to the saints, whether angels or men, not that God may through them know our petitions, but that our prayers may be effective through their prayers and merits. Hence it is written (Apoc. 8:4) that "the smoke of the incense," namely "the prayers of the saints ascended up before God." This is also clear from the very style employed by the Church in praying: since we beseech the Blessed Trinity "to have mercy on us," while we ask any of the saints "to pray for us."

Reply to Objection 1. To Him alone do we offer religious worship when praying, from Whom we seek to obtain what we pray for, because by so doing we confess that He is the Author of our goods: but not to those whom we call upon as our advocates in God's presence.

Reply to Objection 2. The dead, if we consider their natural condition, do not know what takes place in this world, especially the interior movements of the heart. Nevertheless, according to Gregory (Moral. xii, 21), whatever it is fitting the blessed should know about what happens to us, even as regards the interior movements of the heart, is made known to them in the Word: and it is most becoming to their exalted position that they should know the petitions we make to them by word or thought; and consequently the petitions which we raise to them are known to them through Divine manifestation.

Reply to Objection 3. Those who are in this world or in Purgatory, do not yet enjoy the vision of the Word, so as to be able to know what we think or say. Wherefore we do not seek their assistance by praying to them, but ask it of the living by speaking to them.

Aquinas rocks :thumb:

Belteshazzar

July 14th 2003, 07:41 PM

Jacob:

That the ancient church traditions were preserved is the claim. But many of the rituals in Catholicism the Orthodox churches are not to be found in the earliest church -- especially in their current or medieval form.

If tradition is recognized as something worth preserving, then its logical to suppose that traditions would grow within the Church as theological thought developed. So its not necessary to specify that only traditions of the very early Church be preserved. This is particularly true of Marian devotion, where it took awhile to figure out the impact she had upon all of humanity.

I told my Dad (a widower who became a Roman Catholic priest) that I'm more Catholic then most people in his church -- and he conceded the point (which is an extremely rare phenomenon).

Did he want to enroll you in RCIA? :lol: Its great to hear your Dad is a priest, congratulations! Do you ever visit his parish?

It is presumption to quote 1 Cor 4:9, which refers to angels, in order to show that "saints" know of our activities on earth.

Yes, we do have to make some assumptions about 1 Cor 4:9, Rev. 5:8 and Rev. 8:3-4 to show that saints hear our prayers. However 1 Cor 4:9 demonstrates that God is not the only one that hears our prayers, angels also hear them. Can saints hear them too? Can we ask them to pray for us? We can try to derive that by determining the place of saints and angels, but I prefer to go by the traditional teaching of the Church. We know that people asked for the saints intercession as far back into Church history as we can find. The Shepherd of Hermas, although not inspired scripture, is good for understanding some of the beliefs of the earliest Christians, and the earliest Christians asked for the intercession of the saints.

Authority & salvation are the issues at the heart of everything else.

Yes sir! I agree.
Jerry

Belteshazzar

July 14th 2003, 07:46 PM

spl_cadet:

Aquinas rocks :thumb:

Well said sir, thanks for the summa quote and have some pearls! :smile:

Jerry

Dee Dee Warren

July 14th 2003, 07:49 PM

Yesterday @ 09:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148073#post148073)
InquisitorKind:

I don't think you'll get many responses with that kind of attitude.

You shoulda seen the ones by another brand new member that didn't make it out of the ether before I zapped them.

Dr T

July 15th 2003, 08:41 AM

Yesterday @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148470#post148470)
Solly:

I don't think you can quite characterise it like that. Protestant theology didn't just drop out of the sky, esp for those who are into The Recovery of Truth or Charismatism.

Oral tradition passed on by the apostles would be a good answer, even though we don't accept it.

Remeber, Catholics have been defending their cause a lot longer than we have, and simplistic caricatures and questions won't shift an eyebrows hair on a seasoned debater like Spl.

slly5 Calvinist.

I'm sorry if my question causes anyone any problems, and I wouldn't expect it to change any ones opinion. I was just interested in the answer.

Protestant theology came directly from the Chatholic Church, I don't believe that any of the people at the start of the protestant movements wanted anything other than reform within the one united Church. But wasn't part of that reform removing traditions that had been added purely for the temporal benefit of the Church (selling of indulgences for example)?

Today @ 12:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148760#post148760)
Belteshazzar:

If tradition is recognized as something worth preserving, then its logical to suppose that traditions would grow within the Church as theological thought developed. So its not necessary to specify that only traditions of the very early Church be preserved. This is particularly true of Marian devotion, where it took awhile to figure out the impact she had upon all of humanity.

I've not come across the expression 'Marian devotion' before and would like to see how this would be defined. Also from your comments above is it fair to say that neither scripture nor the early Church fathers support 'Marian devotion'?

JasonTE

July 15th 2003, 12:35 PM

It was asserted that the Assumption of Mary is a tradition preserved by the early church. In reality, the concept first appears in apocryphal and heretical literature that postdates the apostles by hundreds of years. While some of the later church fathers accepted the doctrine, apparently under the influence of the apocryphal literature, Epiphanius and other church fathers deny that any apostolic tradition has been passed down regarding the end of Mary's life.

Pope Pius XII, in his decree Munificentissimus Deus (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM ), refers to the Assumption of Mary doctrine as "a matter of such great moment and of such importance". He says to people who oppose the doctrine, "let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith". The Pope refers to the Assumption doctrine as "this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times".

Regarding the multiple, contradictory accounts of Mary's grave site, see the following article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14774a.htm

Roman Catholics often argue that we would know where Mary's bodily remains are, and that early sources would have claimed more Marian relics, if she had remained in the grave, since she's such an important person. But did the earliest Christians think Mary was as important as Catholics suggest? David Farmer comments:

"in the early church, as in Christ's ministry, she [Mary] remained so much in the background that it is difficult to know where she lived or even where she died. Both Ephesus and Jerusalem claimed to be the place of her death, with the Eastern Fathers generally supporting Jerusalem." (Oxford Dictionary of Saints [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997] p. 336)

Keep in mind that the existence of such traditions without an accompanying tradition of an assumption early on suggests that people thought Mary's body was still in the grave. Thus, the claim that nobody had relics of Mary is misleading, since it appears that the earliest Christians thought Mary's body was in a grave. We would expect later sources to not seek the bodily remains of Mary, because of their belief in an assumption, but we can't conclude that earlier Christians held such a view.

Here are some references to the evidence we have, from various secular, Protestant, and Roman Catholic sources:

"It [the Assumption of Mary] rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation. The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was attributed to her. In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours († 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also, even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle." (Philip Schaff, http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/3_ch07.htm , section 83)

"In a later passage, he [Epiphanius] says that she [Mary] may have died and been buried, or been killed - as a martyr. 'Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows.'...A Palestinian with opportunity for some research, E. does not speak of a bodily resurrection and remains noncommittal on the way Mary's life ended. He nowhere denies the Assumption, or admits the possibility of Assumption without death, for he has found no sign of death or burial. He suggests several different hypotheses and draws no firm conclusion." (Michael O'Carroll, Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 135)

"Epiphanius's approach suggests strongly the absence of a fixed tradition on Mary's final lot....Isidore of Seville (d. 636) breaks the general silence, but only to attest profound ignorance on the way Mary left this earth. A century later, the English Bede confessed his ignorance of the final disposition of Mary's body." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], pp. 134-135)

"The genesis of the Transitus Mariae [apocryphal] accounts is unclear. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt or Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of Mary as 'mother of God' at the Council of Ephesus (431). At least a score of such accounts are extant in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. All recount the death of Mary. All postulate some kind of divine intervention: a translation of Mary's body to a presumably earthly paradise, where it is preserved incorrupt under the Tree of Life; or a genuine assumption, a reunion of soul and body that entails Mary's entrance into heaven....The more ancient accounts exercised a perceptible influence on the establishment of the eastern feast of the Dormition or of the Migration of the Mother of God....The first express witness to a genuine assumption occurs in the (possibly sixth-century) apocryphal Transitus of Pseudo-Melito." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], pp. 134-135)

"As historical accounts, the Transitus literature [mentioning the assumption doctrine] is valueless." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 134)

"With this background, it is not surprising to find the first orators on the feast of August 15 in the west consistently wary of pronouncing on Mary's corporeal resurrection; not surprising to find in Spain, as the eighth century closes, some Asturians denying Mary's assumption (perhaps the first to do so); not surprising to see develop in the ninth century, beside the tradition favorable to an assumption represented by Pseudo-Augustine, another current of thought represented by Pseudo-Jerome and hostile, if not to the doctrine, at least to its unequivocal affirmation as somehow binding." (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, editor [New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999], p. 135)

"It is now generally agreed that the belief [Assumption of Mary] was unknown in the earliest ages of the Church. St Ambrose (Exposit. Evan. sec. Luc. 2. 35; PL 15. 1574) and St Epiphanius (Haer. 79. 11; PG 42. 716) were apparently still ignorant of it. It is first met with in certain NT apocrypha dating from the later 4th cent. onwards, some of them Gnostic in sympathy....It appears that one such work was condemned in the Decretum Gelasianum, though the condemnation may have been directed against its Gnostic teachings rather than specifically against the doctrine of the corporal assumption. A homily attributed in most MSS to Timothy of Jerusalem (prob. 4th-5th cent.) may imply the alternative belief that the BVM was assumed in body and soul during her natural life. The doctrine of the corporal assumption was first formulated in orthodox circles in the W. by St Gregory of Tours (d. 594), who accepted as historical the account attributed [falsely] in MSS to Melito." (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, editors [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 117)

"The doctrine first emerged in various New Testament apocrypha of the 4th cent., and on the strength of a passage in pseudo-Dionysius became accepted in orthodox circles by the 7th cent. Finally in 1950 Pope Pius XII, in the decree Munificentissimus Deus, defined it as a divinely revealed dogma, making claims that have little historical support: 'This truth is based on Sacred Scripture,...it has received the approval of liturgical worship from the earliest times, it is perfectly in keeping with the rest of revealed truth.' What is clearly true is the recognition that it is 'deeply embedded in the minds of the faithful' (or at least many of them), and on this basis it was declared and defined as a dogma revealed by God" (The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, John Bowker, editor [Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1999], p. 101)

"Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Mary in the New Testament, Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, John Reumann, editors [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978] p. 266)

Much could be said about the absurd Biblical arguments Catholics use to support this doctrine. They cite Psalm 132:8, Revelation 11:19, etc. In my Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic series on the church fathers, I give some examples of the church fathers disagreeing with Roman Catholic claims about these passages, such as the claim that the ark of the covenant is a type of Mary:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Belteshazzar

July 15th 2003, 01:00 PM

Dr T:

I've not come across the expression 'Marian devotion' before and would like to see how this would be defined. Also from your comments above is it fair to say that neither scripture nor the early Church fathers support 'Marian devotion'?

There is much support for Marian devotion in scripture and the most ancient beginnings of the Church, beginning with John taking Mary into his home at the crucifixion. Some of the concepts associated with Marian devotion, just as the concepts associated with the trinity, weren't fully developed until later. One example is Theotokos, Mother of God, which wasn't developed fully until Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century when Mary as Theotokos was found to be an ingenious way to indentify anti-trinitarian theology.

Here's a description of Marian devotions from Bishop Fulton Sheen:

All our perfection consists in being confirmed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ; and therefore the most perfect of all devotions is, without any doubt, that which most perfectly conforms, unites and consecrates us to Jesus Christ. ...The more a soul is consecrated to Mary, the more it is consecrated to Jesus....This devotion consists in giving ourselves entirely to Our Lady, in order to belong entirely to Jesus..through her."

John Paul II is particularly devoted to Mary, and you'll find one of his most beautiful writings here in the ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html) Here's an excerpt:

The contemplation of Christ has an incomparable model in Mary. In a unique way the face of the Son belongs to Mary. It was in her womb that Christ was formed, receiving from her a human resemblance which points to an even greater spiritual closeness. No one has ever devoted himself to the contemplation of the face of Christ as faithfully as Mary. The eyes of her heart already turned to him at the Annunciation, when she conceived him by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the months that followed she began to sense his presence and to picture his features. When at last she gave birth to him in Bethlehem, her eyes were able to gaze tenderly on the face of her Son, as she “wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger” (Lk2:7)

Hope this helps,
Jerry

JasonTE

July 15th 2003, 01:05 PM

Regarding development of doctrine, different Roman Catholic sources will make different claims about church history. The Council of Trent will refer to private confession to a priest as something always practiced by the Christian church, while the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the early system of penance being more public and not becoming more private until later in history. The Catechism of the Council of Trent will refer to the veneration of images as a unanimous tradition of the church fathers, while modern Catholic apologists will refer to the practice as something that developed more gradually. Pope Pius IX will claim that the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine always held and taught by the Christian church, while modern Catholic apologists will argue that the concept gradually developed in some parts of the world, while not being understood for several hundred years in other parts of the world.

Since Catholic apologists appeal so often to the concept of an acorn growing into an oak tree, we should keep that imagery in mind. Catholics use such imagery because of the inevitability involved. Who would deny that a seed, under normal circumstances, will inevitably grow into a tree, or that a child will inevitably grow into an adult? Ask yourself whether the ante-Nicene fathers' opposition to the veneration of images inevitably grows into the practice of venerating images. Ask yourself whether the patristic seed that Mary was a sinner inevitably grows into the tree of Mary's sinlessness. When Origen, Lactantius, and other early fathers reject the concept of praying to the deceased, though the practice was popular among the later church fathers, are we to believe that praying to the dead developed from a rejection of praying to the dead? How can a contradiction be considered a development? Rather than an acorn developing into an oak tree, Roman Catholicism is trying to derive an oak tree from an apple seed.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

JasonTE

July 15th 2003, 01:54 PM

Belteshazzar said:

There is much support for Marian devotion in scripture and the most ancient beginnings of the Church, beginning with John taking Mary into his home at the crucifixion. Some of the concepts associated with Marian devotion, just as the concepts associated with the trinity, weren't fully developed until later.

Scripture repeatedly, and in many ways, teaches concepts such as monotheism, the deity of the three Persons, and Their co-existence. In contrast, concepts such as Mary being sinless from conception onward and her being bodily assumed to Heaven are absent or contradicted for hundreds of years of church history. For example, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Ephraim, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and many other church fathers and Roman bishops denied that Mary was sinless from conception onward. How can you compare the Roman Catholic view of Mary, which is Biblically and historically untenable, with the deep and widespread Biblical and patristic evidence for Trinitarianism?

Why would Marian doctrine need much time to develop? For example, if Mary was bodily assumed to Heaven, why would people need hundreds of years to develop an understanding of that fact? They didn't need hundreds of years to develop an understanding of Jesus' sinlessness, His ascension, etc. Such concepts are taught in first century documents. Either Mary was bodily assumed to Heaven or she wasn't. To compare such a matter of historical fact to questions of the nature of God, such as Trinitarian doctrine, is absurd. Subjects such as the nature and attributes of God are deep and complex. Whether Mary was bodily assumed to Heaven is not deep and complex. Why would people need hundreds of years to develop an understanding of it? And why did so many church fathers and Roman bishops not only not understand the Roman Catholic view of Mary, but even contradicted it for hundreds of years? For example, Pope Innocent III, who lived in the second millennium of church history, referred to Mary as a sinner, and Roman Catholic Saints of the second millennium, such as Bernard of Clairvaux, denied that Mary was immaculately conceived. Now, if the RCC has faithfully maintained all apostolic teaching throughout church history, as the RCC claims, then why would so many Popes and Saints not only be ignorant of those doctrines, but even contradict them for hundreds of years? Appealing to doctrinal development isn't a sufficient explantion, nor is it sufficient to cite a false parallel to Trinitarian doctrine. There is no such parallel.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Belteshazzar

July 15th 2003, 02:42 PM

JasonTE:

Scripture repeatedly, and in many ways, teaches concepts such as monotheism, the deity of the three Persons, and Their co-existence.

NT scripture itself also demonstrates the development of doctrine as the apostles discover and develop new ways of teaching about Christ, heretics are encountered, and massive persecutions occur. While both the concept of the trinity and Marian devotion have a sound basis in scripture and traditions of the Church, their full development didn't occur until later.

Here's a source you'll probably like, F.F. Bruce and D. Douglas' comments on the development of the doctrine of the trinity:

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and, though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the Church till the 4th century" (New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas & F. F. Bruce, Trinity, p 1298).

As for your other comments, you pick and choose quotes from the early Church fathers to support your arguments, but then will be quick to deny the same fathers when they assert the authority of the Church. I'm frankly shocked you included Augustine, since he is one of the most ardent supporters of the Church's authority to establish doctrine.

Jerry

Jacob

July 15th 2003, 03:46 PM

Yesterday @ 06:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148760#post148760)
Belteshazzar:

If tradition is recognized as something worth preserving, then its logical to suppose that traditions would grow within the Church as theological thought developed. So its not necessary to specify that only traditions of the very early Church be preserved. This is particularly true of Marian devotion, where it took awhile to figure out the impact she had upon all of humanity.

OK, but this contradicts the claim that the church simply preserves tradition. This shows the church as the developer of tradition. The difference between these functions is beyond measure.

Did he want to enroll you in RCIA? :lol: Its great to hear your Dad is a priest, congratulations! Do you ever visit his parish?

I did once, and it embarassed him. I was going to attend a mass & not take communion. One of the parishoner's suggested that I, as the priest's family, help my dad distribute the elements. I looked at him and realized that he was in quite a bind -- he never tells anyone that only 1 of his 8 children are Catholic. I said that I shouldn't and took a seat and my dad proceeded to get things going before anyone else spoke up.

He is, truthfully speaking, a very self-centered & hostile man. I took my kids to visit him a couple of years ago, but he had no time or tolerance for their interuptions -- same way we were treated when we were young. I don't take them to see him any more, because they're getting old enough to remember. He was too busy telling me how wrong I was. In a few hours of conversation, I might have gotten in 5-10 minutes of speaking -- he wouldn't let me get past 2 sentences in answering him before he would cut me off.

He mocks many of his parishoners (but only behind their backs), and is vindictive & unforgiving toward his neighbors and ignores the severe financial & emotional needs of his daughters.

By Catholic standards, I doubt that he will be saved.

Yes, we do have to make some assumptions about 1 Cor 4:9, Rev. 5:8 and Rev. 8:3-4 to show that saints hear our prayers.

Those assumptions violate the plain meaning of the text.

However 1 Cor 4:9 demonstrates that God is not the only one that hears our prayers, angels also hear them. Can saints hear them too?

The verse says:

1Co 4:9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.

This says nothing about angels hearing our prayers, so it cannot infer that saints might also be able to hear them.

We know that people asked for the saints intercession as far back into Church history as we can find. The Shepherd of Hermas, although not inspired scripture, is good for understanding some of the beliefs of the earliest Christians, and the earliest Christians asked for the intercession of the saints.

But you would not suggest that all practices of the early church are normative, would you? No, your church selects which practices it desires to declare normative, and it ignores the rest. Again, this is not preserving tradition, it is decreeing tradition.

Yes sir! I agree.
Jerry

I find agreement regarding authority & salvation with my Catholic acquaintance on theologyweb.com, at least at this level :smile:

Jacob

Belteshazzar

July 15th 2003, 05:42 PM

Jacob:

OK, but this contradicts the claim that the church simply preserves tradition. This shows the church as the developer of tradition. The difference between these functions is beyond measure.

No, there's no contradiction because they are not exclusive. Tradition develops AND is preserved. Just as the doctrine of the trinity, with which, I presume, you agree.

Those assumptions violate the plain meaning of the text.

Before answering this, I should have quoted from Aquinas because he gives a much better argument about prayer to saints. ([url=http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=148659#post148659]spl_cadet
posted it here[url]) After reading Aquinas its obvious the passage supports it, not violates it.

But you would not suggest that all practices of the early church are normative, would you? No, your church selects which practices it desires to declare normative, and it ignores the rest. Again, this is not preserving tradition, it is decreeing tradition.

Your logic escapes me. The early church encountered orthodox and heretical teachings, of course we preserve and develop the orthodox teachings, while denouncing the heretical. Yet, you seem to find issue with this, how so?

That's, uh, a good start.
Jerry

JasonTE

July 16th 2003, 11:18 AM

Belteshazzar said:

NT scripture itself also demonstrates the development of doctrine as the apostles discover and develop new ways of teaching about Christ, heretics are encountered, and massive persecutions occur. While both the concept of the trinity and Marian devotion have a sound basis in scripture and traditions of the Church, their full development didn't occur until later.

Here's a source you'll probably like, F.F. Bruce and D. Douglas' comments on the development of the doctrine of the trinity

You then quote Bruce and Douglas referring to the use of the word "Trinity". But the issue isn't terminology. The issue is concepts. Trinitarianism is Biblical in concept. Doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, and numbering the sacraments at seven are not.

Here's what your denomination claims about the history of doctrine:

"For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus -- that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning." (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)

"This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, 'the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.' 'The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.'...The Church, 'the pillar and bulwark of the truth', faithfully guards 'the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints'. She guards the memory of Christ's words; it is she who from generation to generation hands on the apostles' confession of faith....In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a 'supernatural sense of faith' the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, 'unfailingly adheres to this faith.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 78, 171, 889)

Things like terminology and apologetic arguments may change over time, but, according to the RCC, all apostolic teaching has been held in unbroken succession throughout church history. So, we shouldn't see the church fathers contradicting doctrines like the sinlessness of Mary and the veneration of images. Yet, that is what we see. If Roman Catholic doctrines are absent or contradicted for hundreds of years, as was often the case, such a fact can't be reconciled with Roman Catholic claims such as those quoted above.

As for your other comments, you pick and choose quotes from the early Church fathers to support your arguments, but then will be quick to deny the same fathers when they assert the authority of the Church.

I quoted a variety of scholars, including some of the foremost Roman Catholic scholars in the world, saying that the Assumption of Mary is absent from the earliest sources, and that the existence of such a tradition is denied by some of the later fathers. How is that equivalent to "picking and choosing"? Are you saying that you can cite ante-Nicene fathers teaching the Assumption doctrine? No, you can't. If what I argued is inaccurate, why don't you prove it rather than just asserting it?

I'm frankly shocked you included Augustine, since he is one of the most ardent supporters of the Church's authority to establish doctrine.

Evangelicals don't deny that the church has authority. The issues in dispute are what the church is and what type of authority it has. Augustine's view of authority is in some ways similar to Roman Catholicism, in some ways similar to Protestantism, and in some ways different from both. Augustine was no Roman Catholic.

Augustine held the Roman church and its bishop in high regard, but he had a non-papal view of church government. Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno comments:

"Elsewhere I have argued in detail Augustine's views of authority in the Church and that, in my opinion, the council [not the Pope] was the primary instrument for settling controversies....I believe that Augustine had great respect for the Roman church whose antiquity and apostolic origins made it outshine by far other churches in the West. But as with Cyprian, the African collegial and conciliar tradition was to be preferred most of the time." (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 79)

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:

"Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter, through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by eminence the sedes apostolica. But on the other hand, like Cyprian and Jerome, he lays stress upon the essential unity of the episcopate, and insists that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed not to a single man, but to the whole church, which Peter was only set to represent. With this view agrees the independent position of the North African church in the time of Augustine toward Rome, as we have already observed it in the case of the appeal of Apiarius, and as it appears in the Pelagian controversy, of which Augustine was the leader. This father, therefore, can at all events be cited only as a witness to the limited authority of the Roman chair. And it should also, in justice, be observed, that in his numerous writings he very rarely speaks of that authority at all, and then for the most part incidentally; showing that he attached far less importance to this matter than the Roman divines." (The Master Christian Library [Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1998], History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 246)

As Augustine said:

"Wherefore, if Peter, on doing this, is corrected by his later colleague Paul, and is yet preserved by the bond of peace and unity till he is promoted to martyrdom, how much more readily and constantly should we prefer, either to the authority of a single bishop, or to the Council of a single province, the rule that has been established by the statutes of the universal Church?...[quoting Cyprian] For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power both of setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein.' Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address [of Cyprian]." (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 2:2-4)

"Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed." (Letter 43:19)

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

JasonTE

July 16th 2003, 11:26 AM

Belteshazzar said:

Tradition develops AND is preserved.

Let's consider an example, the sinlessness of Mary. Nobody in the earliest centuries refers to her being sinless from conception onward. Many early fathers, from East and West, as well as Roman bishops, deny that she was sinless. Augustine, though he believed in a post-conception sinlessness of Mary, denied that she was immaculately conceived. He even comments that the belief that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human is consistent with the faith of the universal church of his day (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48). Would you explain to us how the absence of belief in the sinlessness of Mary and the presence of a widespread belief that she was a sinner is equivalent to the tradition that she was sinless being "preserved and developed"?

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

doulos

July 16th 2003, 12:38 PM

Hi all, I guess I am getting involved in this thread kinda late, and some of the responses I have included may have already been addressed but I just wanted to out my $.2 in. Thanks!

Praise:
We really do owe the Catholic Church a great deal for keeping the basic principles of Christianity intact throught some very difficult times throughout history.

Do we owe the Catholic Church or do we owe God? I believe God is more responsible for keeping His Word intact than humans. I think if it was up to us only the Bible would look something like Mother Goose fairy tales by now.

JardinPrayer:
There were several hundred years in early Christianity when we didn't have the Bible was we know it today. The Church (and its rituals and rules) predate the Bible. Catholics and Orthodox Churches preserve the rituals of the early Church.

This does not mean that the Bible did not exsist. The books were there, were known, and were used. The rituals of the early Church may not have been correct though if they are anything like what the Catholic Church practices now. Just because human members of the early church did something does not make it right. We are always to use the Word of God to test what is done to see if it is ok.

Yes they do hear us, and there is scriptural support. Paul says we are a spectacle for all the angels 1 Corinthians 4:9, which also applies to the saints. And Revelation 5:8 has the saints bringing our prayers to God, so they are aware of them.

Yes, we are a spectacle for the angels, because they are very concerned with the matters of Gods plan of redemption not so we can pray to them.How does this apply to the saints.

And Revelation 5:8 has the saints bringing our prayers to God, so they are aware of them.

In this verse the saints are not bringing our prayers to God. The prayers are the saints prayers being brought by an angel as vs. 8:3 later makes clear.

"As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23) The earliest Christians confessed their sins, publicly, to the whole Church.

Only God can forgive sins and to say otherwise makes Jesus’ useless. This verse is not to show that the Apostles had the divine power to forgive sins but to show they had the power to convey the Gospel which when believed in forgave sins or when denied retained the sins of a person.

Prohibitions on handling those Bibles were meant to preserve them for decades of reading for everyone's benefit.

If they were just protecting the Bibles then why did they at not least read the Bible aloud, in vernacular, so that the Bible could be understood by all. IMHO, I believe the church was just afraid that the people would find out that what they taught was unbiblical. And that is what is happen once the Bible began being made available to the public.

spl_cadet

“
We are told to pray only to the Father...period. We're all saints, according to the bible. No one hears or answers prayer except the Father, according to the bible. ”

Chapter and verse?

As far as we’re all saints: Acts 9:13, 9:32, 9:41, 1 Corinthians 1:2. Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 14:33.
As far as them hearing our prayers: where in the Bible does it say they can hear our prayers?

You are right. Which is why we don't believe that penance atones for that sin. It's really just a reflection and such to help us get on the right track.

The Catholic Catechism says otherwise:
“1422 Those who approach the sacrament of penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense comitted against Him….
…1424…It is called the sacrament of forgiveness since by the priest’s sacramental absolution God grants the pentient “pardon and peace”.

Belteshazzar:

If tradition is recognized as something worth preserving, then its logical to suppose that traditions would grow within the Church as theological thought developed. So its not necessary to specify that only traditions of the very early Church be preserved. This is particularly true of Marian devotion, where it took awhile to figure out the impact she had upon all of humanity.

Recognized by whom, man or God? What impact did Mary have on humanity??? She was used by God to bring His Son into the world. Ok, so? God used many people in the redemtive process, why do we not worship them too? What about Joseph (Mary’s husband.) He helped to raise Jesus. Shouldn’t we worship him?

Yes, we do have to make some assumptions about 1 Cor 4:9, Rev. 5:8 and Rev. 8:3-4 to show that saints hear our prayers. However 1 Cor 4:9 demonstrates that God is not the only one that hears our prayers, angels also hear them. Can saints hear them too? Can we ask them to pray for us? We can try to derive that by determining the place of saints and angels, but I prefer to go by the traditional teaching of the Church. We know that people asked for the saints intercession as far back into Church history as we can find. The Shepherd of Hermas, although not inspired scripture, is good for understanding some of the beliefs of the earliest Christians, and the earliest Christians asked for the intercession of the saints.

How can you assume in any way, shape, or form that “saints” in heaven can hear us. They are not once mentioned and the Bible tells us that those in heacenIs it not preferable to go by what the Bible says and human tradition. God does not like the traditions of man and I don’t think we should go after them too, especially when we have God’s word readibly available to us.

There is much support for Marian devotion in scripture and the most ancient beginnings of the Church, beginning with John taking Mary into his home at the crucifixion. Some of the concepts associated with Marian devotion, just as the concepts associated with the trinity, weren't fully developed until later. One example is Theotokos, Mother of God, which wasn't developed fully until Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century when Mary as Theotokos was found to be an ingenious way to indentify anti-trinitarian theology.

Much support for Marian devotion in the scripture? Where? John taking Mary into his home? How is this an example? Please explain. The difference between the concepts concerning Mary and the concepts concerning the Trinity is that the Trinity can be found in all places in the Bible. It is Biblically sound with tons and tons of support. Marian Devotion is not.

NT scripture itself also demonstrates the development of doctrine as the apostles discover and develop new ways of teaching about Christ, heretics are encountered, and massive persecutions occur. While both the concept of the trinity and Marian devotion have a sound basis in scripture and traditions of the Church, their full development didn't occur until later.

Only the Apostles could doe this though, as inspired by God. No one after them has the authority to create, or teach new doctrine.

I am almost in agreement with the first comment made that opened the thread, but do not feel we should being attacking each other. I am on the border though of thinking that Catholicism is not a Christian religion. I just can't get it to go along with what the Bible says about salvation. However, I do know there are many Christians in Catholicism. I have no problem with the people, and love them very much. I just have big problems with what the RCC teaches.

Jacob

July 16th 2003, 01:13 PM

Yesterday @ 04:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149454#post149454)
Belteshazzar:

No, there's no contradiction because they are not exclusive. Tradition develops AND is preserved. Just as the doctrine of the trinity, with which, I presume, you agree.

Wrong. The concept of the Trinity is found in the Bible. Many RCC traditions have no basis in the Bible.

Before answering this, I should have quoted from Aquinas because he gives a much better argument about prayer to saints. ([url=http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=148659#post148659]spl_cadet
posted it here[url]) After reading Aquinas its obvious the passage supports it, not violates it.

I read through Spl_cadet's post. It provides no insight into the passages you cited. The reference to Job 5:1 violates the context (do you realize that this is a quote from the foolish counsel of Eliphaz the Temanite?).

Aquinas did a lot of good, but he propagated Scholastic Theology which has it's basis in philosophical specualation. The quote by Spl_cadet shows that he did not care to observe basic hermeneutics when interpreting scripture, so long as it sounded like it supported his position.

Aquinas was wrong on this point, and the RCC follows him into error in this matter.

Your logic escapes me. The early church encountered orthodox and heretical teachings, of course we preserve and develop the orthodox teachings, while denouncing the heretical. Yet, you seem to find issue with this, how so?

That's, uh, a good start.
Jerry

The early church did distinguish between orthodox & heretical teachings -- no problem here. But when the RCC quotes Aquinas or Augustine and other early scholars as though they carry authority, yet they dismiss many of their teachings. By doing this they show that they use these men or dismiss them quite casually. Why should I care what Aquinas or Augustine thought (actually, I do care), the RCC dismisses many of their views as heretical, and I don't want to follow the teachings of a heretic, now do I?

Jacob

Belteshazzar

July 16th 2003, 01:27 PM

JasonTE:

You then quote Bruce and Douglas referring to the use of the word "Trinity". But the issue isn't terminology. The issue is concepts. Trinitarianism is Biblical in concept.

How can Trinitarianism be Biblical in concept when it predates the Bible? The one doesn't not logically imply the other, to do so is illogical. You're getting the cart before the horse. Trinitarianism is based upon the truths revealed by Christ to his disciples, and passed down by Apostolic succession through Peter, Linus, etc... to John Paul II.

Doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, and numbering the sacraments at seven are not.

We, as 'catholics' (with a little 'c') AND 'Catholics' with the capital 'C', agree that the Church is, a sheepfold, the SOLE and necessary gateway to which is Christ. This is the SOLE Church of Christ, holy, catholic and apostolic. This is the source for our epistomoligical truths, which we can trace to Christ himself.

Whereas you, on the other hand, can only trace your epistomoligical truths to the formation of scripture (as we know it) to approximately 400 AD, or 1531 if you want to include Luther's modifications to the canon.

Here's what your denomination claims about the history of doctrine:

You're (again) picking and choosing between various quotes from the Church while failing to acknowledge the authority of the Church. You're perspective fails to understand the role of the Church in helping us to understand (in every generation) the underlying truths revealed by Christ and the Apostles, and recognized by the Church as dogma and doctrine.

Things like terminology and apologetic arguments may change over time, but, according to the RCC, all apostolic teaching has been held in unbroken succession throughout church history. So, we shouldn't see the church fathers contradicting doctrines like the sinlessness of Mary and the veneration of images. Yet, that is what we see. If Roman Catholic doctrines are absent or contradicted for hundreds of years, as was often the case, such a fact can't be reconciled with Roman Catholic claims such as those quoted above.

You misrepresent our beliefs sir! We do not hold that all apostolic teachings have been held in unbroken succession throughout church history. This is clearly impossible, since we recognize that Paul develops teachings and doctrines as he learns new methods of relaying the Gospel to the gentiles. This reoccurs in every generation, from Christ until the second coming.

In fact, the disagreements between various ECFs on the sinlessness of Mary, etc... only serve to enforce our belief of the authority of the Church as the final arbiter. Otherwise we would have splintered into a myriad of different sects long before Martin Luther.

This especially applies to Augustine, whom you have quoted, because he says: "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

Jerry

Belteshazzar

July 16th 2003, 01:42 PM

Jacob:

Wrong. The concept of the Trinity is found in the Bible. Many RCC traditions have no basis in the Bible.

You're argument fails upon itself, the Bible is not found within the Bible either. Then, how can the sole basis for other truths be specified as the Bible? Example, show me where the table of contents is listed in the Bible itself! You can't.

Conclusion: You're view of God and truth is incomplete. There must be an underlying authority, which helps establish the books of the Bible.

Aquinas was wrong on this point, and the RCC follows him into error in this matter.

Do you mean that Aquinas was selectively and subjectively wrong on this point? Whose word should we take, yours or Aquinas? Who can help us determine this? (hint, who has the authority to determine this?)

Why should I care what Aquinas or Augustine thought (actually, I do care), the RCC dismisses many of their views as heretical, and I don't want to follow the teachings of a heretic, now do I?

Specifically, what views of Aquinas are dismissed by the Church as heretical?

Jerry

Jacob

July 16th 2003, 03:31 PM

Today @ 12:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150199#post150199)
Belteshazzar:

You're argument fails upon itself, the Bible is not found within the Bible either. Then, how can the sole basis for other truths be specified as the Bible? Example, show me where the table of contents is listed in the Bible itself! You can't.

The table of contents, and even the chapter & verse divisions are not "scripture". And the authority of scripture is taught clearly in Scripture.

Conclusion: You're view of God and truth is incomplete. There must be an underlying authority, which helps establish the books of the Bible.

That could just as easily be said concerning the Church, the papacy, etc....

Do you mean that Aquinas was selectively and subjectively wrong on this point? Whose word should we take, yours or Aquinas? Who can help us determine this? (hint, who has the authority to determine this?)

I would never suggest taking my word on this matter. Just quote some part of Aquinas or Augustine which contradict RCC teaching and the church will dismiss it as error. Augustine held & taught views which were quite similar to Calvinism (and I believe is the basis for some of Calvin's views), but the RCC dismisses Calvin's & Augustine's views on these matters as erroneous.

Specifically, what views of Aquinas are dismissed by the Church as heretical?

Jerry

I don't have any ready to quote, and I may not be able to find any particular statements which the RCC declared to be heretical. I can find statements which teach views which the RCC rejects as erroneous. Even though I don't have any ready to quote, I'll find some if you agree (in truth, not just for sake of argument) to abide by anything Augustine or Aquinas taught. It will mean rejecting the authority of the RCC.

Jacob

Dr T

July 17th 2003, 07:41 AM

07-15-2003 @ 06:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149194#post149194)
Belteshazzar:

There is much support for Marian devotion in scripture and the most ancient beginnings of the Church, beginning with John taking Mary into his home at the crucifixion. Some of the concepts associated with Marian devotion, just as the concepts associated with the trinity, weren't fully developed until later. One example is Theotokos, Mother of God, which wasn't developed fully until Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century when Mary as Theotokos was found to be an ingenious way to indentify anti-trinitarian theology.

Here's a description of Marian devotions from Bishop Fulton Sheen:

“ All our perfection consists in being confirmed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ; and therefore the most perfect of all devotions is, without any doubt, that which most perfectly conforms, unites and consecrates us to Jesus Christ. ...The more a soul is consecrated to Mary, the more it is consecrated to Jesus....This devotion consists in giving ourselves entirely to Our Lady, in order to belong entirely to Jesus..through her." ”

John Paul II is particularly devoted to Mary, and you'll find one of his most beautiful writings here in the ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html) Here's an excerpt:

John Paul II is particularly devoted to Mary, and you'll find one of his most beautiful writings here in the ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE. Here's an excerpt:

“ The contemplation of Christ has an incomparable model in Mary. In a unique way the face of the Son belongs to Mary. It was in her womb that Christ was formed, receiving from her a human resemblance which points to an even greater spiritual closeness. No one has ever devoted himself to the contemplation of the face of Christ as faithfully as Mary. The eyes of her heart already turned to him at the Annunciation, when she conceived him by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the months that followed she began to sense his presence and to picture his features. When at last she gave birth to him in Bethlehem, her eyes were able to gaze tenderly on the face of her Son, as she “wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger” (Lk2:7) ”

Hope this helps,
Jerry

The quote from Bishop Fulton Sheen seems to say that we should give ourselves to Mary. Could this be paraphrased as 'Love Mary with all our heart and all our mind and all our strength'.?

The quote from John Paul II could be said of any mother of her unborn child. It doesn't say to me why we should be 'devoted' to, or why we should gave ourselves to Mary.

JasonTE

July 17th 2003, 10:41 AM

Belteshazzar said:

How can Trinitarianism be Biblical in concept when it predates the Bible? The one doesn't not logically imply the other, to do so is illogical. You're getting the cart before the horse. Trinitarianism is based upon the truths revealed by Christ to his disciples, and passed down by Apostolic succession through Peter, Linus, etc... to John Paul II.

Something can be taught orally at one point and also be in the Bible. The fact that Jesus taught Trinitarian doctrine orally doesn't prove that Trinitarianism isn't Biblical.

Whereas you, on the other hand, can only trace your epistomoligical truths to the formation of scripture (as we know it) to approximately 400 AD, or 1531 if you want to include Luther's modifications to the canon.

Scripture existed before the year 400. Besides, I don't deny that oral teaching has been authoritative in the past. The issue, with regard to sola scriptura, is what our rule of faith ought to be today. Sola scriptura isn't a denial that the oral teachings of Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, etc. were authoritative. Likewise, you as a Catholic wouldn't deny that God's oral communication with Adam and Eve was authoritative, even though God doesn't orally speak to Catholics today.

As far as the canon of scripture is concerned, are you aware that the canon put forward by the councils of Hippo and Carthage is different from the Roman Catholic canon? They included the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras, which is a different book than the Vulgate version. So, if the councils of Hippo and Carthage determined the canon for us, then the Roman Catholic canon is incorrect. Besides, Hippo and Carthage were regional councils in Africa. They weren't infallible by Roman Catholic standards.

As far as Martin Luther is concerned, it's a historical fact that there was widespread rejection of the Apocrypha prior to the Reformation. Even after the beginning of the Reformation, Pope Leo X approved a Bible translation that rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha in its preface. See the extensive documentation here:

http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

You're (again) picking and choosing between various quotes from the Church while failing to acknowledge the authority of the Church.

Whether your denomination's claims are true is what's in dispute. You can't assume the truthfulness of your denomination's claims, then use that assumption as a basis for rejecting all evidence against it.

You misrepresent our beliefs sir! We do not hold that all apostolic teachings have been held in unbroken succession throughout church history. This is clearly impossible, since we recognize that Paul develops teachings and doctrines as he learns new methods of relaying the Gospel to the gentiles. This reoccurs in every generation, from Christ until the second coming.

The RCC teaches that all public revelation ceased with the death of the apostles (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 66-67, 73). Therefore, your comparison to Paul is fallacious. The RCC does not believe that what occurred with Paul is occurring throughout church history.

I gave you quotes from Pope Pius IX and from the Catechism. Instead of ignoring those quotes and making undocumented assertions, why don't you interact with the evidence I've provided?

In fact, the disagreements between various ECFs on the sinlessness of Mary, etc... only serve to enforce our belief of the authority of the Church as the final arbiter.

The fathers and multiple Roman bishops referred to Mary as a sinner for hundreds of years. What "disagreements" are you referring to? There was widespread agreement among the fathers that Mary was a sinner.

What you're telling us is that your denomination's claims are unfalsifiable. No matter how much historical evidence there is against your denomination's historical claims, we're to believe whatever your denomination teaches. Why would a group that claims such deep historical roots be running so far from the historical record?

Pope Pius IX wrote:

"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin -- a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God -- and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts." (Ineffabilis Deus)

Now, the Pope is making a historical claim. If he says that the immaculate conception of Mary is a doctrine always held and taught by the Christian church, how do we examine the truthfulness of that claim if not by studying the historical record? But since the historical record not only doesn't support what the Pope said, but even contradicts him, you're telling us that we're to believe the RCC's historical claims regardless of the historical evidence.

"When I am told that it is precisely its immunity from proof which secures the Christian proclamation from the charge of being mythological, I reply that immunity from proof can 'secure' nothing whatever except immunity from proof and call nonsense by its name." - J.S. Bezzant (cited in Francis Schaeffer, The God Who is There [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998], p. 120)

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

JasonTE

July 17th 2003, 10:55 AM

Belteshazzar said:

You're argument fails upon itself, the Bible is not found within the Bible either. Then, how can the sole basis for other truths be specified as the Bible? Example, show me where the table of contents is listed in the Bible itself! You can't.

First of all, note the double standard. Belteshazzar tells us that the Bible can't be sufficient as a rule of faith, since it doesn't list its own canon. Yet, where does the Roman Catholic rule of faith list its canon? It doesn't. Roman Catholics disagree among themselves about which council rulings are infallible and which ones aren't, when the Pope is exercising infallibility and when he isn't, etc. At least Evangelicals have a canon. We agree on a 66-book canon of scripture, whereas Catholics continue to argue among themselves about the canon of their rule of faith.

Secondly, while the Bible doesn't list its own canon, it does mention the principles that lead to the canon. Similarly, the Bible doesn't mention every means by which murder can be committed, such as murder with a gun, but it does give us the principles by which we arrived at the conclusion that murder with a gun is immoral. Both the Evangelical canon of scripture and the concept of sola scriptura are logically derived from the authority of the apostles, and the authority of the apostles is taught in scripture (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20, etc.). I explain this concept in more depth, with a discussion of the canon of scripture, in a couple of articles at my web site:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/canon.htm

http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/devdef4.htm

You're view of God and truth is incomplete. There must be an underlying authority, which helps establish the books of the Bible.

Yes, we all rely on logic, historical evidence, and other things that are outside of our rule of faith. That's not true only of sola scriptura, but also of the Roman Catholic rule of faith. If you conclude that the RCC is the church founded by Christ, you arrive at that conclusion by means of your own reasoning, historical evidence, and other entities that exist outside of the RCC itself. Everybody arrives at their rule of faith by means outside of that rule of faith. This isn't something unique to sola scriptura. The "sola" in sola scriptura isn't a denial that we arrive at scripture by means of objects outside of scripture. Rather, the "sola" is meant to qualify the content of that rule of faith.

Do you mean that Aquinas was selectively and subjectively wrong on this point? Whose word should we take, yours or Aquinas? Who can help us determine this? (hint, who has the authority to determine this?)

Matters of truth don't need to be settled by an authority figure. If you're going to claim that the RCC is the church founded by Christ, then which authority figure told you so? And which authority figure told you about that other authority figure? If you're going to appeal ultimately to the authority of God, Evangelicals can do the same thing.

Specifically, what views of Aquinas are dismissed by the Church as heretical?

For one thing, Thomas Aquinas denied that Mary was immaculately conceived.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Jacob

July 17th 2003, 12:28 PM

Today @ 09:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150971#post150971)
JasonTE:

For one thing, Thomas Aquinas denied that Mary was immaculately conceived.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Whew, Jason, you da man.....

Thanks for saving me from having to search for this sort of occurance. Thanks also for your more thorough arguments in this thread.

Jacob

Bartholomew

July 17th 2003, 11:43 PM

Regarding the overall Catholic v. Protestant debate:

Jason is, quite frankly, one of the best apologists I have seen on the net.

It is always a pleasure to read his work.

~Matt

Pereynol of Sheer Dread

July 18th 2003, 01:09 AM

I'm not RC, and I have some serious theological differences with the RCC. Nevertheless, some of my favorite theologians are RC, such as Avery Dulles, who was recently made a Cardinal, and of course, there's Thomas Merton. After reading the bulk of Merton's work, and hearing God speak through much of it, despite my not insubstantial disagreements, I decided to visit Gethsemani where he lived as a Trappist monk.

I was not expecting anything extraordinary; my wife and I had been visiting her family in Kentucky, and our stop at the monastery was but a diversion. It was Christmastime, and I entered the church and talked with some of the brothers. An incredible and unforseen peace permeated the place. I was led, without even asking about Merton, to his grave, where a sense of God's presence struck me powerfully. I felt joy and gratitude for this servant of God, his legacy, and those who came before him, my theological objections notwithstanding. Although we were invited to stay for worship, we had to leave. The brothers saw us off very kindly. There was a little Christmas tree in the dormitory window, its modest lights burning in the dusk, and we drove down the hill through the snow flurries.

Belteshazzar

July 18th 2003, 10:15 PM

JasonTE:

Something can be taught orally at one point and also be in the Bible. The fact that Jesus taught Trinitarian doctrine orally doesn't prove that Trinitarianism isn't Biblical.

Where did the concept of Trinitarianism originate? Since it predates the bible, there must be a different origin.

As far as Martin Luther is concerned, it's a historical fact that there was widespread rejection of the Apocrypha prior to the Reformation.

I know you've been taught that, but it doesn't hold up to an examination of true historical fact. For instance, try finding one of the digitized copies of the Gutenberg Bible online (pre-reformation), and see if it contains the 'Apocrypha'. Hint: look in the Old Testament.

Whether your denomination's claims are true is what's in dispute. You can't assume the truthfulness of your denomination's claims, then use that assumption as a basis for rejecting all evidence against it.

Neither can you assume that Christ didn't found a Church until sometimes in the 17th century, or was it the 18th, 19th, 20th for you? When Christ founded his Church (in his lifetime) he established the Church which the gates of hell would not prevail against.

The RCC teaches that all public revelation ceased with the death of the apostles (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 66-67, 73). Therefore, your comparison to Paul is fallacious. The RCC does not believe that what occurred with Paul is occurring throughout church history.

Strawman, public revelation was not in question.

The fathers and multiple Roman bishops referred to Mary as a sinner for hundreds of years. What "disagreements" are you referring to? There was widespread agreement among the fathers that Mary was a sinner.

Selective quoting of ECF again, without acknowledging the authority whom they recognized. I see you're not quoting Augustine anymore, so at least you're learning.

What you're telling us is that your denomination's claims are unfalsifiable. No matter how much historical evidence there is against your denomination's historical claims, we're to believe whatever your denomination teaches. Why would a group that claims such deep historical roots be running so far from the historical record?

Now this one was a stretch. You're the one running from historical records and historical roots, we are firmly rooted in them.

Now, the Pope is making a historical claim.

You are the one making a historical claim, you are skilled strawman developer.

"When I am told that it is precisely its immunity from proof which secures the Christian proclamation from the charge of being mythological, I reply that immunity from proof can 'secure' nothing whatever except immunity from proof and call nonsense by its name."

Nice quote, but another strawman.

Jerry

Belteshazzar

July 18th 2003, 10:44 PM

JasonTE:

First of all, note the double standard. Belteshazzar tells us that the Bible can't be sufficient as a rule of faith, since it doesn't list its own canon. Yet, where does the Roman Catholic rule of faith list its canon?

Its not a question of what, it is WHO. Who has the authority to determine the rules of faith? We believe it IS the Church who has the authority.

For one thing, Thomas Aquinas denied that Mary was immaculately conceived.

No, he didn't. In fact the doctrine of the immaculate conception is based partly on Aquinas work. If you look carefully at his arguments in the Summa Part III) (http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP.html) in Q27 you'll find he's talking about the moment of her sanctification. But in Q37 he says "But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin" to be purified in the Temple.

Jerry

JasonTE

July 19th 2003, 04:52 PM

Belteshazzar said:

Where did the concept of Trinitarianism originate? Since it predates the bible, there must be a different origin.

What is the significance of the origin of the doctrine in this context? The concept has existed as long as the Trinity has existed. Just as there are Trinitarian passages in the New Testament, there also are Trinitarian passages in the Old Testament, which was written before the RCC came into existence. Even when Jesus orally taught Trinitarian doctrine, that wasn't equivalent to the RCC teaching Trinitarianism, since Jesus isn't the RCC.

I know you've been taught that, but it doesn't hold up to an examination of true historical fact. For instance, try finding one of the digitized copies of the Gutenberg Bible online (pre-reformation), and see if it contains the 'Apocrypha'. Hint: look in the Old Testament.

I gave you a link to a web site that contains extensive documentation of rejection of the canonicity of the Apocrypha prior to the Reformation. Why didn't you consult that documentation I provided?

And what's the relevance of citing pre-Reformation Bibles that contained Apocryphal books? Some pre-Reformation Bibles also contained Apocryphal books that the RCC rejects, such as 3 Maccabees and the Septuagint version of 1 Esdras. Many Bibles contain commentaries and maps. Do you conclude that the people who own such Bibles consider the commentary and maps to be Divinely inspired? I own a Bible that contains not only the Apocryphal books Roman Catholicism includes, but also some others. Does my owning such a Bible prove that I believe in the canonicity of those books? Again, you ought to consult the web site I linked to earlier:

http://www.christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html

Neither can you assume that Christ didn't found a Church until sometimes in the 17th century, or was it the 18th, 19th, 20th for you?

Apparently, you don't know much about Protestantism. We don't deny that the Christian church was founded in the first century. What we deny is that the Christian church is a worldwide denomination led by a Pope. We believe in the catholic church, but not the Roman Catholic Church.

The term "church" is defined in a variety of ways. Sometimes it refers to a local assembly, such as a house church in Rome (Romans 16:5). Other times, it refers to a spiritual entity consisting only of believers (Ephesians 4:16). In my view, the church being referred to in Matthew 16 is the church of believers. And, sometimes, people define the church as all local assemblies collectively. In other words, if you combine all Baptist churches, Presbyterian churches, etc., all of those assemblies combined would constitute a worldwide, visible church. I could go on, but the point is that the term "church" can be defined in multiple ways. You can't just gratuitously assert that Matthew 16 must be referring to the RCC or must be referring to some infallible denomination. There's nothing in the text or context that logically leads to such a conclusion.

Strawman, public revelation was not in question.

You're mistaken. We were discussing the Christian rule of faith. A rule of faith is something public. It's a rule for Christians in general. Private revelations aren't part of the Evangelical rule of faith, nor are they part of the Roman Catholic rule of faith.

Selective quoting of ECF again, without acknowledging the authority whom they recognized. I see you're not quoting Augustine anymore, so at least you're learning.

Go to the following web page:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm

There you'll find extensive documentation of Augustine and many other church fathers not only referring to Mary as a sinner, but also contradicting the Roman Catholic definition of the church. As I've documented, your denomination has taught that the sinlessness of Mary was a doctrine always held and taught by the Christian church. When somebody documents widespread rejection of the sinlessness of Mary among the church fathers, it makes no sense for you to respond by saying that those fathers believed in the authority of the church. Their beliefs about the church don't change their beliefs about Mary. And they didn't define the authority of the church the way Roman Catholicism does.

Why do you claim that my citations of the fathers are "selective"? What am I supposed to do? Quote every document every church father ever wrote? Nobody in the earliest centuries of church history refers to Mary as sinless from conception onward. Church fathers in many different parts of the world, along with Roman bishops, refer to Mary as a sinner. As I've documented, Augustine argues that his belief that Jesus was the only immaculately conceived human is consistent with the faith of the universal church of his day. Now, if Augustine rejects the concept that Mary was immaculately conceived, and he comments that his rejection is consistent with the faith of the universal church of his day, would you explain how something Augustine viewed as universal is "selective"?

Even if I was being selective as you suggest, what are we to conclude about the fathers who did deny that Mary is sinless? If they were Roman Catholics, and the RCC is correct that the Christian church has always taught that Mary was sinless from conception, then why would we consider men to be fathers of Roman Catholicism if they rejected what the RCC taught in their day?

Who has the authority to determine the rules of faith? We believe it IS the Church who has the authority.

All that you're doing is saying that the rule of faith is defined by the RCC. In other words, the RCC is your rule of faith. But how do you know that the RCC has this authority? You have to use your own reasoning, historical evidence, and other objects outside of the RCC in order to arrive at that conclusion.

And Catholics disagree among themselves about what the RCC has and hasn't taught infallibly. Simply saying "we believe in the authority of the church" doesn't settle the matter of what the church is and how it has or hasn't exercised its authority. As I said before, at least Evangelicals are agreed on a 66-book canon of scripture. There's widespread disagreement among Catholics, even arguments between conservative Catholics, regarding which papal decrees are infallible and which ones aren't, which council rulings are infallible and which aren't, what authority the recent Catechism has, etc.

No, he didn't. In fact the doctrine of the immaculate conception is based partly on Aquinas work. If you look carefully at his arguments in the Summa Part III) in Q27 you'll find he's talking about the moment of her sanctification. But in Q37 he says 'But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin' to be purified in the Temple.

What does the visit to the temple have to do with an immaculate conception? Aquinas, in section 3:27 of Summa Theologica, refers to Mary being sanctified in the womb, and he says that the same occurred with Jeremiah and John the Baptist. Aquinas writes (http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP027.html#TPQ27OUTP1 ):

"she was first conceived in the flesh, and afterwards sanctified in the spirit"

"The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from the guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into Paradise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the same also is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ."

"Original sin is transmitted through the origin, inasmuch as through the origin the human nature is transmitted, and original sin, properly speaking, affects the nature. And this takes place when the off-spring conceived is animated. Wherefore nothing hinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after animation"

Aquinas tells us that original sin is transmitted at animation, and that sanctification occurs after animation. Clearly, he viewed Mary as being conceived in sin. He continues:

"The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a 'perfect cleansing,' as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified."

"It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation."

"If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all....But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb."

Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception. This fact is confirmed by conservative Roman Catholic scholars such as Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 201) and Michael O'Carroll (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 343).

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

mickiel

July 19th 2003, 05:00 PM

You claim there are trinitarian passages in the old and new testements, i would like to see these

JasonTE

July 19th 2003, 05:28 PM

mickiel said:

You claim there are trinitarian passages in the old and new testements, i would like to see these

Glenn Miller gives some examples:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin01.html

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

PhilVaz

July 20th 2003, 04:17 PM

JasonTE << What you're telling us is that your denomination's claims are unfalsifiable. No matter how much historical evidence there is against your denomination's historical claims, we're to believe whatever your denomination teaches. Why would a group that claims such deep historical roots be running so far from the historical record? >>

Same goes for the canonicity of 2nd Peter in the New Testament. No matter how much "historical evidence" there is against the canonicity of 2nd Peter, we're to believe that book belongs in the New Testament. We Catholics just extend that to ALL the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

But since you are not Catholic, we debate doctrine on the grounds which you accept: namely, the Bible and the Church Fathers. But it seems you don't really accept the Church Fathers otherwise you would believe those doctrines that are affirmed unanimously by the early Church such as baptismal regeneration. So your standard is really what you JasonTE believe the Bible to teach, and nothing else.

JasonTE << Now, the Pope is making a historical claim. If he says that the immaculate conception of Mary is a doctrine always held and taught by the Christian church, how do we examine the truthfulness of that claim if not by studying the historical record? But since the historical record not only doesn't support what the Pope said, but even contradicts him, you're telling us that we're to believe the RCC's historical claims regardless of the historical evidence. >>

As I said, the same can be said for the canonicity of 2nd Peter. Two replies to this are here: shows the growing belief in the sinlessness of Mary

Development of the Immaculate Conception (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm)

The Immaculate Conception, the Bible and the Church Fathers (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm)

The "historical record" apparently is not enough to determine truth claims (because of some disagreements among the Fathers), nor is "the Bible alone" (because of massive disagreement among Protestants). So what is the authority to determine truth claims? Answer: JasonTE's interpretation of the Bible.

JasonTE << Aquinas rejected the Immaculate Conception. This fact is confirmed by conservative Roman Catholic scholars such as Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 201) and Michael O'Carroll (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 343). >>

I have Ott. Good source if you would read the whole book. Aquinas rejected the full-blown Immaculate Conception doctrine as later explicitly defined in the 19th century. That is correct. What St. Thomas Aquinas did believe is the following:

"Since Mary would not have been a worthy mother of God if she had ever sinned, we assert without qualification that Mary never committed a sinful act, fatal or non-fatal: You are wholly beautiful, my love, and without blemish. Christ is the source of grace, author of it as God and instrument of it as man, and, since Mary was closest to Christ in giving him his human nature, she rightly received from him fullness of grace: grace in such abundance as to bring her closest in grace to its author, receiving into herself the one who was full of every grace [for others], and, by giving birth to him, bringing grace to all." (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica IIIa:27.4-5)

Do you agree with any of the above?

St. Augustine taught the following:

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

Now if we can get JasonTE to come as far as Aquinas and Augustine on this, we're half-way to the Immaculate Conception. I'll agree the argument comes down to believing the Catholic Church is the original Church established by Christ, the authority argument. That is what settles the issue for Catholics when there is disagreement. Its either that, or believe what you will on the Trinity, on Mary, on salvation, on the sacraments, on the canon, etc. Basically, anything goes. Perhaps that is an exaggeration?

I would recommend Keith Mathison's book The Shape of Sola Scriptura for some corrections. May be a good book to discuss in here.

Phil Porvaznik

JasonTE

July 20th 2003, 05:30 PM

PhilVaz said:

No matter how much "historical evidence" there is against the canonicity of 2nd Peter, we're to believe that book belongs in the New Testament. We Catholics just extend that to ALL the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Roman Catholics have historically argued that all apostolic teaching has been held by the Christian church in unbroken succession throughout church history. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, for example, refers to the veneration of images as an apostolic tradition supported by all of the church fathers. Pope Pius IX, in his decree Ineffabilis Deus, refers to the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine always held and taught by the Christian church. If such claims were true, the historical evidence not only wouldn't be against those doctrines, but we would expect to find them advocated explicitly and often from the earliest sources onward. But such is not the case.

As far as 2 Peter is concerned, what historical evidence are you referring to? I agree with Glenn Miller that the historical evidence favors its authenticity (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ynotpeter1.html , http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html ). 2 Peter is quoted, alluded to, or mentioned in multiple ante-Nicene sources, and even sources skeptical of its authenticity take it seriously and refer to widespread acceptance of it. Much of what the RCC teaches, on the other hand, is not only absent in the earliest centuries, but is even widely contradicted. You're making a false comparison.

But it seems you don't really accept the Church Fathers otherwise you would believe those doctrines that are affirmed unanimously by the early Church such as baptismal regeneration.

When Augustine writes that the concept that Jesus is the only immaculately conceived human is consistent with the faith of the universal church of his day (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47-48), do you conclude that the Immaculate Conception must not be an apostolic tradition? When the ante-Nicene fathers reject the veneration of images, do you conclude that the practice of venerating images is to be rejected as non-apostolic? If you can disagree with beliefs that were popular among the church fathers, yet still claim to "accept the church fathers", whatever that means, why can't I?

Besides, baptismal regeneration wasn't unanimous among the fathers. Not all of the fathers discussed justification, and not all of those who did discuss the subject even mentioned baptism, let alone advocated baptismal regeneration. Even after the doctrine became popular, we find some fathers referring to people being regenerated before or without baptism. Constantine was considered a Christian emperor even though he delayed his baptism until near the time of his death. Baptismal regeneration became popular in general, but there were still uncertainties and inconsistencies.

Cyril of Jerusalem, though himself an advocate of baptismal regeneration, acknowledges that the believers in Acts 10:44-45 were justified prior to baptism:

"Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spake with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture saith that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith, the body also might by the water partake of the grace." (Catechetical Lectures, 3:4)

Similarly, Tertullian writes:

"And so they say, 'Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith.' But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added...For the law of baptizing has been imposed" (On Baptism, 13)

Cyril of Jerusalem and Tertullian acknowledge that people like Cornelius and Abraham were justified through faith alone. But they dismiss such examples as exceptions to the rule. The problem with such an argument is that it contradicts what the apostles taught. Not only are Cornelius and Abraham not exceptions to the rule, but Paul and Peter hold up those two men as illustrations of how all people are saved (Acts 11:16-17, 15:7-9, Romans 4:11-16). All that I'm doing is taking the logic of Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem to its inevitable conclusion. The fact that such church fathers were inconsistent in their reasoning doesn't require me to be inconsistent. If Cornelius and Abraham were justified through faith alone, apart from baptism, then so are believers today.

In other words, I disagree with the church fathers when the evidence is against what they taught. In this case, the popularity of baptismal regeneration among many of the fathers is contradicted by the earlier testimony of scripture and the testimony of earlier fathers who say nothing of baptism when discussing justification, such as Clement of Rome and Mathetes. Scripture repeatedly tells us that people are justified when they believe, not when they're baptized (Genesis 15:6, Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, 23:39-43, Acts 10:44-45, 19:2, Romans 5:1, Galatians 3:2-3, etc.).

I don't claim that the church fathers were members of my denomination, which was passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history. You, on the other hand, do make that claim. Since you make weightier claims about your relationship with the church fathers, you carry a weightier burden of proof. And you can't carry it. The church fathers weren't Roman Catholics. Much of what your denomination teaches was absent or contradicted not only by many church fathers, but even by Roman bishops.

Now if we can get JasonTE to come as far as Aquinas and Augustine on this, we're half-way to the Immaculate Conception.

Augustine lived into the fifth century, and Aquinas lived early in the second millennium. They did believe in a post-conception sinlessness of Mary, which I never denied, but they also rejected the concept that Mary was immaculately conceived. Yet, Pope Pius IX taught:

"The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin -- a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God -- and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts." (Ineffabilis Deus)

Similarly, the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church claims that the RCC has faithfully maintained all apostolic teaching throughout church history. If the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine always held and taught by the Christian church, why do we find men like Augustine and Aquinas (the latter living in the second millennium) contradicting the doctrine? Even Roman bishops, such as Innocent III in the second millennium, denied that Mary was sinless. And you want us to believe that such circumstances are comparable to the evidence for the canonicity of 2 Peter?

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

PhilVaz

July 20th 2003, 05:51 PM

<< If you can disagree with beliefs that were popular among the church fathers, yet still claim to "accept the church fathers", whatever that means, why can't I? >>

I don't think the issues you brought up were very "popular" among the Church Fathers taken as a whole (i.e. anti-images, and premillennailism are your favorites these days), but were believed by a couple early Church Fathers depending how you interpret what they meant.

But good question: I agree the issue comes down to one of authority. I believe the Catholic Church is the original Church Christ established, we can trace our bishops back to the apostles so they have apostolic authority. What the Catholic Church (read Roman Catholic Church) teaches I believe and accept as true.

You believe the Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church since the RCC arose somewhere in the 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th century (?) and besides there were disagreements among the Fathers on issues (no argument), therefore we are left to ourselves to figure out what we are to believe. Its ourselves and our Bibles.

I think that summarizes my position defended online since 1994, and your position defended online since 1997 or so, correct?

I don't have the time (or energy) to answer all your points. I probably could address each of them, but the problem is Jason, you bring up many many points, many of which are either (a) irrelevant, (b) a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching which I have to correct, (c) more devastating to the so-called "evangelical position" when applied to what you believe. Pick (a) or (b) or (c) to apply to any of your points.

Maybe I'll post some more replies, but we need to stick to one topic. In this thread I was addressing the authority question I think and you brought up a myriad of other issues.

Phil Porvaznik

JasonTE

July 20th 2003, 07:55 PM

PhilVaz wrote:

I don't think the issues you brought up were very "popular" among the Church Fathers taken as a whole (i.e. anti-images, and premillennailism are your favorites these days), but were believed by a couple early Church Fathers depending how you interpret what they meant.

If a belief was widely rejected by the earliest church fathers, why would you consider the belief plausible as long as it became popular among the later fathers? For example, the conservative Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott writes:

"Owing to the influence of the Old Testament prohibition of images, Christian veneration of images developed only after the victory of the Church over paganism. The Synod of Elvira (about 306) still prohibited figurative representations in the houses of God (Can. 36)." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 320)

The veneration of images is widely condemned among the ante-Nicene fathers. It wasn't just condemned by "a couple" of them, as you ignorantly assert. The practice did become popular later in church history, but how do you know where to draw the line? If a Roman Catholic doctrine is to be considered an apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church as long as it eventually becomes popular, even if it was rejected in earlier centuries, then why can't Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and other non-Roman-Catholics use the same reasoning? If a Protestant doctrine was absent or contradicted for hundreds of years, why can't we argue that it's an apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church, as long as it eventually became popular? Your reasoning is absurd.

Since you mentioned premillennialism, I'll note that it was the popular eschatology of the earliest church fathers. It was advocated by Papias, The Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Nepos, Cyprian, Commodianus, Victorinus, etc. It wasn't advocated by just "a couple" fathers. It was a widespread belief in the East and West long before amillennialism, which is the historical eschatology of Roman Catholicism, even approached its popularity.

I mentioned the sinlessness of Mary, but you didn't respond to what I documented. Augustine rejected the Immaculate Conception, and he refers to that rejection being consistent with the faith of the universal church of his day. Are you going to argue that the universal church represents just "a couple" people? What about Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Ephraim, Basil, Hilary of Poitiers, and the many other fathers who denied that Mary was sinless from conception onward? The historian J.N.D. Kelly writes:

"On the other hand, almost all Eastern theologians, so far from acknowledging her [Mary's] spiritual and moral perfection, followed Origen in finding her guilty of human frailties. Basil, for example, reproduced Origen's interpretation of the sword prophesied by Simeon as signifying her loss of faith at the crucifixion. Chrysostom went much further" (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495)

Are you going to argue that "almost all Eastern theologians" is equivalent to "a couple"?

I believe the Catholic Church is the original Church Christ established, we can trace our bishops back to the apostles so they have apostolic authority.

And Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Copts, some Lutherans, and other people claim that they can trace a line of bishops back to the apostles. Do we therefore conclude that they all have apostolic authority? How could they when they contradict each other's theology, which the apostles didn't do?

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

PhilVaz

July 20th 2003, 09:56 PM

JasonTE << The veneration of images is widely condemned among the ante-Nicene fathers. It wasn't just condemned by "a couple" of them, as you ignorantly assert. >>

Hey I don't say you're ignorant. But thanks for the compliment I think. Answered here

Exposition of the Veneration of Images (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ475.HTM)

JasonTE << If a Protestant doctrine was absent or contradicted for hundreds of years, why can't we argue that it's an apostolic tradition always held by the Christian church, as long as it eventually became popular? Your reasoning is absurd. >>

No not really. Protestant distinctives are absent for 1,500 years. JND Kelly and Jaroslav Pelikan for example would establish that fact if you read carefully their history of Christian doctrines. While some Catholic distinctives (including for example, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the doctrine of Christology, and the canon of the New Testament) might be explicitly lacking in the first 300 years of the Catholic Church during which time the Church was still battling paganism (i.e. your quote from Ludwig Ott), these doctrines become quite explicit a little later (4th, 5th, 6th centuries). Of course there isn't a whole lot of ante-Nicene writings anyway.

JasonTE << Since you mentioned premillennialism, I'll note that it was the popular eschatology of the earliest church fathers. It was advocated by Papias, The Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Nepos, Cyprian, Commodianus, Victorinus, etc. It wasn't advocated by just "a couple" fathers. >>

Answered here. It was indeed "a couple" even "a very few" or "a tiny number" depending how you interpret which Fathers. This view was called "chiliasm" in the early Church

Chiliasm in the Early Fathers (http://www.northforest.com/kingisrael/h002h000.html)

See also his page on the biblical problems with the PreMil position

Problems with Premillennialism (http://www.northforest.com/kingisrael/h009d000.html)

JasonTE << I mentioned the sinlessness of Mary, but you didn't respond to what I documented. >>

Sorry, I answered what you "documented" here in the two links above. Must have missed them. I thought my answer in our debate last year was sufficient. Here they are again.

Development of the Immaculate Conception (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a95.htm)

The Immaculate Conception, the Bible and the Church Fathers (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a115.htm)

JasonTE << Are you going to argue that "almost all Eastern theologians" is equivalent to "a couple"? >>

Yes, I will argue there were some (not all) Eastern theologians to the 4th century who implied minor faults in Mary. From the 5th century on, the belief became unanimous in the east for the sinlessness of Mary. For documentation, see the above links, and get to a library and find the three volume Mariology edited by Juniper Carol. Much more exhaustive than JND Kelly, or Schaff, or Pelikan, or Ludwig Ott on the Fathers and Mary.

Phil P

JasonTE

July 20th 2003, 10:55 PM

PhilVaz said:

Answered here

Where does the article refute what I argued? I didn't deny that images existed in the early centuries. Rather, I said that the veneration of images was opposed by the ante-Nicene fathers. Some of them did oppose even the use of images, but not all of them did. The issue is veneration of images, not the use of images. The article you linked to acknowledges that the early church opposed the use of images of Christ in churches, for example, but argues that the doctrine of venerating images developed over time. As I explained earlier, though, the RCC claims that the veneration of images has always been the practice of the church. Besides, how could opposition to the veneration of images, such as we see in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, etc., develop into support for the veneration of images? That's not development. It's contradiction.

Answered here. It was indeed "a couple" even "a very few" or "a tiny number" depending how you interpret which Fathers. This view was called "chiliasm" in the early Church

I named ten ante-Nicene sources advocating premillennialism. I could name others as well. That's more than "a couple". Besides, since the number of premillennialists outnumbers those who advocated amillennialism in the earliest centuries, how can you deny that premillennialism was more popular? If only "a couple" believed in premillennialism, which is an absurd claim, then less than "a couple" advocated amillennialism during that time.

No matter how insignificant you claim the support for premillennialism was, how do you explain its acceptance by those who did advocate it? If men like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were Roman Catholics, why did they advocate such doctrines that Roman Catholicism rejects?

Yes, I will argue there were some (not all) Eastern theologians to the 4th century who implied minor faults in Mary. From the 5th century on, the belief became unanimous in the east for the sinlessness of Mary.

As I documented, the RCC has claimed that the Immaculate Conception was always held and taught by the Christian church. What you're telling us is that belief in Mary's post-conception sinlessness became unanimous a few hundred years after the time of the apostles. Why the contrast between what the RCC has claimed and what you argue?

Again, contradictions are not developments. If church fathers and Roman bishops for hundreds of years refer to Mary as conceived in sin, even as late as the second millennium of church history, such a belief couldn't develop into the concept that Mary was conceived without sin. If contradictions are to be considered developments, then any group can claim to have developed from the church fathers. No matter how much Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Copts, Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. contradict the church fathers, they can claim to have developed from the church fathers.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Belteshazzar

July 21st 2003, 11:36 AM

JasonTE:

I named ten ante-Nicene sources advocating premillennialism. I could name others as well. That's more than "a couple".

Jason, sorry I've been busy for a few days and really haven't had much time to devote to this discussion.

I went back and read the sites you posted in this thread. It took quite awhile, so I hope you appreciate the effort I put into it. It looks like you've authored some of the material, and its well written, so please accept my compliments. However, it is still Protestant propaganda which potrays only one side to any argument, or potrays a caricature of Catholic teachings. So, while you may be able to fool some unlearned Catholics or Orthodox, believe me, you're not going to convince anyone who has some education on these matters, or someone who has researched these themselves.

On the issues you've raised, so many of the issues boil down to the issue of authority. Like you mention above, you quote 10 anti-Nicene sources as your authority for support of premillennialism. However, on other issues you'll select a different list of authorities. Do you have a consistent list of authorities you can consistently cite to determine doctrinal issues? If so, who gave you that authority?

For instance, one of the sites you posted (I forget which one) argues in detail how the Jews never consider the deutero's to be canonical. Yet it avoids mentioning that the Jews didn't really establish a canon until the Pharisees at Jamnia around 90 AD. They established a canon which excluded the deutero canonicals, and a lot more. So, is your authority for determining the canon the Jewish Pharisees? Well, no, because the Pharisees at Jamnia also excluded Matthew and all other Christian texts. So, what is your authority for determining the canon? It appears that it varies between the New and Old Testament and has its origins in 90 AD and 1531 AD, which doesn't exactly date back to Christ, does it?

You've also stated that there was "widespread rejection" of the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals, which is really a meaningless statement. There was also "widespread acceptance" of the canonicity of the deuteros. Is this how you determine doctrinal issues, by putting together a varying set of various Church figures that demonstrate widespead support for your positions?

Jerry

Belteshazzar

July 21st 2003, 11:58 AM

JasonTE:

Go to the following web page:

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm

There you'll find extensive documentation of Augustine and many other church fathers not only referring to Mary as a sinner, but also contradicting the Roman Catholic definition of the church.

Why should I go to a Protestant propagandist site's spin on Augustine or Aquinas when I can go straight to what they wrote themselves? You're entire argument about Aquinas is a half truth. Aquinas even quotes Augustine too.

Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi): "In the matter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to Christ. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most certainly was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin."

Aquinas NEVER refers to Mary as a sinner. Aquinas examines if Mary was free from original sin from the moment of her conception, or moment of animation. That is a very BIG difference from saying that Mary was a sinner. Let's stick to what Aquinas actually said and stay away from propagandist spin. Here's a good source for the Summa.
[url]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
Let stick to the Summa for a discussion of Aquinas.

Aquinas Summa Summa Theologiae III:27:4

But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned.

Aquinas says Mary never sinned. You're only picking up a half-truth on whether Aquinas believed she was sanctified before, during, or after conception or animation. He strongly argues she never sinned.

So, will you agree with Aquinas that Mary never sinned?

Jerry

Belteshazzar

July 21st 2003, 12:08 PM

PhilVaz:

Maybe I'll post some more replies, but we need to stick to one topic. In this thread I was addressing the authority question I think and you brought up a myriad of other issues.

Phil Porvaznik

Phil, excellent responses to Jason! Have some pearls :smile:

Jerry

PhilVaz

July 21st 2003, 07:13 PM

<< Phil, excellent responses to Jason! Have some pearls Jerry >>

Thanks I do the best I can. JasonTE is a good guy, but seems he has a lot of time on his hands. I am amazed at his "output" the past number of years. I'd like to talk to him on the phone, I think it would be fun to see what he's really like in person. We had our debate and he is correct I didn't finish, and was late and went over. Oh well, the thesis was rather large but wanted to see how well I could defend it....someday I'll get that 5000 word closing in there when I feel like finishing it....

PhilVaz vs. JasonTE, the great debate on the Church (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate21.htm)

You can listen to my little meeting with James White from 1995. I figured out how to turn old cassette tapes into Real Audio. I was just getting started in Internet apologetics back then. I only knew FidoNet and other BBS, wasn't on an ISP. See link at top, crank up your speakers, its audible if you make it loud enough

Response to White (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a56.htm)

I'm probably done with this board, it was fun for a day or two. I think I prefer the EZBoards "outline" style of threads, rather than these PHP boards. Anyway, my site is always available if you wanna use the articles or research on there. Much of the stuff I looked up myself at my university library (the old fashioned way before Google came along :)

Evangelical Catholic Apologetics (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics)

Phil Porvaznik

Dr T

July 23rd 2003, 05:15 AM

I'm not sure of this, but if a wife has entered into a marriage of her own free will yet refushes herself to her husband, is this a sin? Is it a good thing, or a bad thing?
Joseph was engaged to Mary before he found out about Jesus, and was still around a long time after the birth of Jesus.
How is this handled in the argument for Mary remaining a virgin?

spl_cadet

July 23rd 2003, 08:22 PM

Today @ 02:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156169#post156169)
Dr T:

I'm not sure of this, but if a wife has entered into a marriage of her own free will yet refushes herself to her husband, is this a sin? Is it a good thing, or a bad thing?

Sinful, thus bad thing.

How is this handled in the argument for Mary remaining a virgin?

There's an old tradition which states that Joseph was an old man who was simply taking care of Mary, who was a consecrated temple virgin.

Dr T

July 24th 2003, 07:37 AM

Today @ 01:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156629#post156629)
spl_cadet:

There's an old tradition which states that Joseph was an old man who was simply taking care of Mary, who was a consecrated temple virgin.

This raises a number of questions. I will have to start by showing my ignorance, but what is a consecrated temple virgin, and what evidence is there that Mary was one.

Mary was engaged to be married to Joseph, I can't see anything that says that it was a 'paper or false' marriage.

There is no male menopause. Old men do not marry young women in their best interests. If Joseph was purely acting in Mary's best interest, there were other things he might have done, or so it seems to me. Marrying Mary while she was a young women isn't one of them.

There is no evidence that Joseph was old, he was still around and able to travel 13 years later.

I have heard of the 'old man' tradition before, but do not know of when or where this tradition started. Do you know much about it?

I don't mean to offend, but it appears to me that it is a likely defence against the question of withholding your self having freely entered into a lawful marriage. This just feels like something made up to bolster a case for Mary remaining a virgin, even while married.

It isn't a sin for a lawfully married couple to have children, and there is no question that Joseph and Mary were lawfully married, and that the marriage lasted at least 12+ years. In fact isn't this the purpose of marriage to produce children (amongst other things).

I just find the argument that Mary was sinless, and hence remained a virgin (after the birth of Jesus) unconvincing, as to remain a virgin in such a marriage would be sinful.

It would seem more logical to argue that she was a perfect wife and mother and hence had more children than the other way around.

Sorry about this, a fairly random collection of thoughts, I welcome your comments (or any ones elses for that matter).

Jacob

July 24th 2003, 09:21 AM

Yesterday @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156629#post156629)
spl_cadet:

There's an old tradition which states that Joseph was an old man who was simply taking care of Mary, who was a consecrated temple virgin.

Is that "official" Catholic teaching, or an apologist's speculation to explain the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

What is the Catholic teaching on sexual obligation of married persons? Here's one quip from Summa Theologica

Although the act of carnal copulation is not essential to marriage, ability to fulfill the act is essential, because marriage gives each of the married parties power over the other's body in relation to marital intercourse.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/505801.htm

To my thinking, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary makes it sound like either (1) Mary was unable to coplate [for whatever reason], making the marriage invalid, or (2) Joseph had no desire for intercourse with Mary, which makes no sense, or (3) God "tricked" Joseph into marrying Mary, and then informed him that this would not be a normal marriage. Any way it's cut, there's an awful lot of hoop jumping to explain the doctrine and maintain the definition of a valid or good marriage.

Jacob

spl_cadet

July 26th 2003, 12:08 AM

Is that "official" Catholic teaching, or an apologist's speculation to explain the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Neither. It's an old tradition is all.

What is the Catholic teaching on sexual obligation of married persons?

If you get married, you have to have sex.

And there's a fourth option: Mary was consecrated to virginity and Joseph married her to take care of her.
And a fifth option: They were both consecrated virgins.

Dr T

July 28th 2003, 07:40 AM

07-26-2003 @ 05:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=158526#post158526)
spl_cadet:

Neither. It's an old tradition is all.

If you get married, you have to have sex.

And there's a fourth option: Mary was consecrated to virginity and Joseph married her to take care of her.
And a fifth option: They were both consecrated virgins.

I take it your not married then?

Anyway I would still be interested in what a 'consecrated temple virgin' is.

My view is that once the tradition of perpetual virginity is held you create real problems.

First you have to explain away all the biblical evidence for the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Then you have to come up with a reason why Mary was not sinful in her marriage.

Then you have to come up with a reason why Joseph takes on a young wife who has apparently decided to remain a virgin. One would presume that Mary had told Joseph prior to the marraige

All to avoid saying Mary was a wonderful and loving wife and mother.

Christianotaku

August 1st 2003, 10:36 PM

We are told to pray only to the Father...period. We're all saints, according to the bible. No one hears or answers prayer except the Father, according to the bible. ”

Chapter and verse?

The actaul being of a saint is a certain person who has a special conection with god. But god cosiders all the people the same no matter how holy they are. The bible states that god is the only one that can answer prayers.

Now I started this thread to talk about purgatory

If purgatory really exists

THEN WHY DID JESUS COME AND DIE ON THE CROSS??

I WAS UNDER IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS TO SAVE AND CLEAN US FROM OUR SINS SO THAT WE COULD GO TO HEAVEN!!!

The bible never states that purgatory exists and it is a nother figment of mans imangianation of a middle place. but the bible states that there is a right and a wrong no in between

Like yoda put it "do or do not there is no try"

same goes with purgatory it is a figment of imigination as a middle place.

Jesus came to earth to cleanse us for our sins. not to create another loophole for us to suffer in for sinning. God came and took all the suffering we were to bare by staying in hell 3 days so we wouldnt have to suffer for our sins.

Purgatory does nto exist and so do many of the things that catholics believe in

Not till recentloy have the catholics allowed people to read the bible on there own!!

the catholic curch is a front for a dictatorship of people

Belteshazzar

August 2nd 2003, 05:08 PM

Christianotaku:

Now I started this thread to talk about purgatory

If purgatory really exists

THEN WHY DID JESUS COME AND DIE ON THE CROSS??

Where was Lazarus when Christ resurrected him from the dead?

The doctrine of purgatory is firmly rooted in scripture, but since you've redefined the canon, some of the roots of purgatory are lost in your Bible. However, we know the earliest Christians taught by the apostles believed in purgatory. This is made clear at the very beginning of the Didache, and continues through Origen, Gregory, Origen, Augustine, to Aquinas who all expressed belief in purgatory.

From whence will some people be taken for the last judgement?

spl_cadet

August 2nd 2003, 06:02 PM

Not till recentloy have the catholics allowed people to read the bible on there own!!

When exactly did we prohibit the reading of the Bible?

Christianotaku

August 2nd 2003, 11:29 PM

Where was Lazarus when Christ resurrected him from the dead?

The doctrine of purgatory is firmly rooted in scripture, but since you've redefined the canon, some of the roots of purgatory are lost in your Bible. However, we know the earliest Christians taught by the apostles believed in purgatory. This is made clear at the very beginning of the Didache, and continues through Origen, Gregory, Origen, Augustine, to Aquinas who all expressed belief in purgatory.

From whence will some people be taken for the last judgement?

Lazarus was waiting as we all shall we will be asleep until the final judgement.

As the bible says "those who are dead in christ are not dead but just asleep". Jesus said to mary when she questioned him about lazarus "he is not dead he is just asleep"

and so what many of these people believed in purgatory doesnt make it true or meam that it exists!

When exactly did we prohibit the reading of the Bible?

You restricted the people fro mreading the bible during the times of marting luther... And thats why the lutheran chruch and finally protestantism and todays evangelical and gospel churches were formed!!!!

spl_cadet

August 3rd 2003, 12:05 AM

You restricted the people fro mreading the bible during the times of marting luther... And thats why the lutheran chruch and finally protestantism and todays evangelical and gospel churches were formed!!!!

Proof please. Cite the official documents in which such a policy was set forth.

Christianotaku

August 3rd 2003, 09:07 AM

Proof please. Cite the official documents in which such a policy was set forth.

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Belteshazzar

August 3rd 2003, 09:44 AM

Christianotaku:

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

This is a lie, and taken verbatim (without attribution) from an anti-Catholic author, David Cloud, from an article entitled, "The KJV and the Latin Vulgate." The Council of Trent did NOT prohibit reading the bible, the Council of Trent only made prohibitions against unauthorized translations of the Bible. This has been relaxed greatly since Trent, recently I heard a pair of Catholic priests say the KJV was a pretty good translation, as long as you use the original version which contained the deuterocanonicals.

Well, at least we know where Christianotaku gets his material now.

spl_cadet

August 3rd 2003, 11:16 AM

Today @ 06:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166084#post166084)
Christianotaku:
The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Belt already got that one, but would you mind quoting it with context?

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Name the papal bulls and encyclicals please. Otherwise we can't tell if you are making up the quotes or not.
And I severely doubt that Pius VII said what you allege him to have said, since Catholic vernacular Bibles had been around for millenia.

Christianotaku

August 3rd 2003, 05:18 PM

The poor people did not understand latin so they had no way to read and interpret the bible for there own and still the catholic church never made a translation to english.....

And futhermore in the time of luther the majority of the people were not allowed to read not bye a pupal statement but by the bishops of the land .

here is proof that they tried to stop anyone who translated it into english:

"...Pope Innocent III was of the opinion that the Scriptures were too deep
for the common people, as they surpassed even the understanding of the
wise and learned. Several synods in Gaul, during the 13th century, prohibited
the reading of the Romanic translation, and ordered the copies to be burnt.
Archbishop Berthold, of Mainz, in an edict of January 4th, 1486, threatened
with excommunication all who ventured to translate and circulate the
translations of sacred books, especially the Bible without his permission.

"The Council of Constance (1415), which burnt John Hus and Jerome of Prague,
condemned also the writings and the bones of Wiclif, the first translator
of the whole Bible into the English tongue, to the flames; and Arundel,
archbishop of Canterbury and chancellor of England, denounced him as
that `pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who, as a complement of his
wickedness, invented a new translation of the Scriptures into his mother
tongue.'

"Pope Pius IV (1564), in the conviction that indiscriminate reading of Bible
versions did more harm than good (plus detrimenti quam utilitiatis), would
not allow laymen to read the sacred book except by special permission of
a bishop or an inquistor. Clement VIII (1598) reserved the right to grant
this permission to the Congregation of the Index. Gregory XV (1622), and
Clement XI (in the bull _Unigentius_, 1713), repeated the conditional
prohibition. Benedict XIV, one of the liberal popes, extended the
permission to read the Word of God in the vernacular to all the faithful,
yet with the provisio that the translation be approved in Rome and
guarded by explanatory notes from the writings of the fathers and
catholic scholars (1757).

"This excludes, of course, all Protestant versions, even the very best.
They are regarded as corrupt and heretical and have often been committed
to the flames in Roman Catholic countries, especially in connection
with the counter-Reformation of the Jesuits in Bohemia and elsewhere. The
first edition of Tyndale's New testament had to be smuggled into England
and was publicly burnt by order of Tunstall, bishop of London,
in St. Paul's church-yard near the spot from which Bibles are now
sent to all parts of the globe.

"The Bible societies have been denounced and condemned by modern popes
as a `pestilence which perverts the gospel of Christ into a gospel
of the devil.' The Papal Syllabus of Pius IX (1864), classes `Societates
Biblicoe' with Socialism, Communism, and Secret Societies, calls
them, `pests frequently rubked in severst terms,' and refers for proof,
to several Encyclicals from November 9th, 1846, to August 10th, 1863.
[_History of the Christian Church_, Schaff, v. VII, p18-19]

and furthermopre the wrongdoings of the catholic church is selling indulgences, releases from time in purgatory that they had no control over and when martin luther questioned these things they labeled him a heretic

Most recently the coruption inside the church has been shown with child abusing and gay priests...Something the bible does not support!!

How can you truly believe the catholics church teaching when the bible does not talk about prugatory. The bible actaully shows proof against the existence of purgatory!!!!!!

spl_cadet

August 3rd 2003, 05:49 PM

The poor people did not understand latin so they had no way to read and interpret the bible for there own

The poor people couldn't read the vernacular either. :rofl:

and still the catholic church never made a translation to english.....

Douay-Rheims, New American Bible, etc.

And futhermore in the time of luther the majority of the people were not allowed to read not bye a pupal statement but by the bishops of the land .

Proof please.

"...Pope Innocent III was of the opinion that the Scriptures were too deep
for the common people, as they surpassed even the understanding of the
wise and learned. Several synods in Gaul, during the 13th century, prohibited
the reading of the Romanic translation, and ordered the copies to be burnt.
Archbishop Berthold, of Mainz, in an edict of January 4th, 1486, threatened
with excommunication all who ventured to translate and circulate the
translations of sacred books, especially the Bible without his permission.

Name of the synods and I'd like to see a copy of such a threatened excommunication.

"The Council of Constance (1415), which burnt John Hus and Jerome of Prague,
condemned also the writings and the bones of Wiclif, the first translator
of the whole Bible into the English tongue, to the flames; and Arundel,
archbishop of Canterbury and chancellor of England, denounced him as
that `pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who, as a complement of his
wickedness, invented a new translation of the Scriptures into his mother
tongue.'

Wycliffe and Hus, along with their writings, were burnt for calling the pope the Anti-Christ. Pluss Wycliffe had a rather poor translation as I recall.

"Pope Pius IV (1564), in the conviction that indiscriminate reading of Bible
versions did more harm than good (plus detrimenti quam utilitiatis), would
not allow laymen to read the sacred book except by special permission of
a bishop or an inquistor.

False. I demand that you back it up, with a link to the bull.

Clement XI (in the bull _Unigentius_, 1713), repeated the conditional
prohibition.

Oh really? Why does that bull say this then:
79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.

"The Bible societies have been denounced and condemned by modern popes
as a `pestilence which perverts the gospel of Christ into a gospel
of the devil.' The Papal Syllabus of Pius IX (1864), classes `Societates
Biblicoe' with Socialism, Communism, and Secret Societies, calls
them, `pests frequently rubked in severst terms,' and refers for proof,
to several Encyclicals from November 9th, 1846, to August 10th, 1863.

Considering that those groups attacked the Church, of course.

and furthermopre the wrongdoings of the catholic church is selling indulgences

The selling of indulgences was an abuse of the fact that you could, at the time, obtain an indulgence for monetary charity. Because it was so frequently abused, it was gotten rid of.

martin luther questioned these things they labeled him a heretic

Actually we labelled him heretical on other things, as he didn't deny indulgences.

Most recently the coruption inside the church has been shown with child abusing and gay priests...Something the bible does not support!!

Nor does the Church support it. We are cleaning out the priests responsible first, then the bishops.

How can you truly believe the catholics church teaching when the bible does not talk about prugatory.

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

Christianotaku

August 3rd 2003, 06:04 PM

The curch does not support it but has turned a blind eye on it for years!!!

not untilk recently that so many reports came out that have they standed and made a choice on this issues....

My father...in the 60s priest was gay!!! And abused children and who knows whatelse

The bible states that jesus is the lamb that cleanses and wipes away our sins and purifies . And his act of dying on the cross cleansed us of our sins.......Why sohuld we pay for something we have been cleansed for futhermore asss youll see in my previous post jesus made a statement that "those who die in christ are not dead they are just sleeping" and when he raised lazurous " Why are you crying mary? Because my brother is dead if you had been here my brother would not of died! Your brother is not dead he is just sleeping."

What is sleep it is rest not suffering do you think a loving god would make people that have come back to him and admitted there sins suffer?

he paid a price for dying on the corss with our sins on us he went to hell and suffered for us! under torture of the fevil and all the demons in hell!! then the court of heaven..The same court that will judge us at the end of days declared that it was enought! and freed jesus from hell and god resusitated him!!!

How now brown coW?

spl_cadet

August 3rd 2003, 06:09 PM

Today @ 03:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166315#post166315)
Christianotaku:

The curch does not support it but has turned a blind eye on it for years!!!

As have many other Christian churches. We are addressing the problem right now.

The bible states that jesus is the lamb that cleanses and wipes away our sins and purifies . And his act of dying on the cross cleansed us of our sins.......Why sohuld we pay for something we have been cleansed for

God's justice. We are forgiven, but there is still a necessary punishment and purification.

What is sleep it is rest not suffering do you think a loving god would make people that have come back to him and admitted there sins suffer?

Yes.

he paid a price for dying on the corss with our sins on us he went to hell and suffered for us! under torture of the fevil and all the demons in hell!!

I'd love to see you back that up Scripturally.

Christianotaku

August 3rd 2003, 06:51 PM

first of all you never responded about what i sad abotu jesus saying they are asleep

Matthew 9:24-"He said to them, "make room for the girl is not dead, but sleeping."

John 11:11-"These things he said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend lazarys sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up."

Daniel 12:2 -- And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

spl_cadet

August 3rd 2003, 09:32 PM

It was a euphimism for dead. Used in light of the fact that they'd be brought back to life.

Christianotaku

August 3rd 2003, 09:41 PM

you ahve no proof asthe bible says that all who are dead in christ are not dead but sleeping

that means all everyone!!!!!!!!!

Christianotaku

August 3rd 2003, 09:42 PM

you ahve no proof asthe bible says that all who are dead in christ are not dead but sleeping

that means all everyone!!!!!!!!!

again i question you what is sleep it is quick relaxation if you go to sleep everything happens in a flash and you have only sub concous recognition........

so...under the sayings of these scriptures we go to sleep and are waken up at the end of times ..... and then the final judjement begins!!!

spl_cadet

August 3rd 2003, 09:44 PM

Today @ 06:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166430#post166430)
Christianotaku:

you ahve no proof asthe bible says that all who are dead in christ are not dead but sleeping

that means all everyone!!!!!!!!!

In order for it not to euphimistic and instead be a literal sleep, you must be breathing. Last I checked, they weren't. Their mortal bodies are indeed dead.

spl_cadet

August 3rd 2003, 09:48 PM

Today @ 06:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166432#post166432)
Christianotaku:
again i question you what is sleep it is quick relaxation if you go to sleep everything happens in a flash and you have only sub concous recognition........

Not always actually. Depends on how deep the sleep is. Sometimes you can sleep but be semiconcious the whole time. Sucks then.

so...under the sayings of these scriptures we go to sleep and are waken up at the end of times ..... and then the final judjement begins!!!

http://www.tektonics.org/sleepy.html

Christianotaku

August 4th 2003, 10:42 AM

Read again daniel 12:11 it supports my theory

Daniel 12:2 -- And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

it describes the burial of men....and the sleep and then the awakaning in end times!

spl_cadet

August 4th 2003, 11:21 AM

Philippians 1:23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;

St. Paul says that when he dies, he'll be with Christ. His soul will not sleep.

Christianotaku

August 4th 2003, 01:58 PM

paul says to be depart and be with christ but it doesnt mean hell be immedietly with christ....hell have to sleep first and wait for the final judgement or as catholics believe pass throught purgatory. but since sleep passes almost instatanous in the coincoius...

The catholic church has killed people of other faiths and killed and tortured many during the great inquesition....

the bible says "love your enemies and pray for those who persicute you" do you think the catholic churches action fits with that verse?

spl_cadet

August 4th 2003, 02:06 PM

paul says to be depart and be with christ but it doesnt mean hell be immedietly with christ....hell have to sleep first and wait for the final judgement or as catholics believe pass throught purgatory. but since sleep passes almost instatanous in the coincoius...

Fascinating display of eisegis, but I'm afraid that it simply doesn't work with the text in question.

the bible says "love your enemies and pray for those who persicute you" do you think the catholic churches action fits with that verse?

Yes. Have we done stuff that we shouldn't have? Of course. The Church is made up of sinners.

Christianotaku

August 4th 2003, 05:03 PM

Ok i do want to say one thing the chruch is not perfect no chruch is but i reccomend you move to a better one than the catholic chruch because it has many eror in its doctrines...and they hate evangelical people

so peave :cheers:

spl_cadet

August 4th 2003, 08:51 PM

We don't hate evangelicals, almost all of our apologists were evangelicals for crying out loud!
And our doctrine has no error

Gordo

August 6th 2003, 11:07 PM

I guess my question is more concerning salvation of Catholics. While I enjoy reading the debate over the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants, my main concern is the salvation of Catholics. Do they hold a place in heaven??

Thanks for addressing my ignorance kindly!

God Bless

Sam

Christianotaku

August 7th 2003, 05:32 PM

you doctrine has lots of erors

the confession: A confesion to a person who tells you you are forgived and how long you

will stay in purgatory for that sin. But its impossilbe for anyone to know that!!!!

the nonbelief of tongues and the nonexistance of praise and worship: there is no

existance of praise in worship in the catholic church and it does not encourage a one on

one walk with god. also it does not believe in the gift of tongues while there is a whole

chapter on this in the bible.

again there is no biblical proof of purgatory..it is the belief of a in between place

which seems childess

the crucifix: now this is one of the most saddest things in the whole religion. The

crucifix that are part of the cathedrals have a bloody immage of christ nailed to the

cross! It seems as they worship the fact that he is dead!!!!!

Mardi Gras: yes the big holiday whos whole message is its ok to go get drunk and sin all

you want because your gonna get forgiven for it yay!!!!

I have known people who have worked inside the catholic churche and there are groups that

ifluence politics and issue assisinations inside the catholic church. THe group the

jesuits have been used and still today are being used to destroy any denomination

evangelic or non outside the catholic church.

the whole catholic church is based on a facade the true roots come from the roman

religion that included a virgin that gave birth to a child!!! the catholic church is a

lie play and is wrong and perverted..

spl_cadet

August 8th 2003, 05:17 PM

08-06-2003 @ 08:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=170906#post170906)
Gordo:

I guess my question is more concerning salvation of Catholics. While I enjoy reading the debate over the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants, my main concern is the salvation of Catholics. Do they hold a place in heaven??

Thanks for addressing my ignorance kindly!

God Bless

Sam

Would you please reword that, as I'm not sure what you are asking?

Christianotaku

the confession: A confesion to a person who tells you you are forgived and how long you

will stay in purgatory for that sin.

False. They don't talk about purgatory at all in confession.

the nonbelief of tongues and the nonexistance of praise and worship: there is no

existance of praise in worship in the catholic church and it does not encourage a one on

one walk with god.

False. Try attending a Catholic Mass. Furthermore, we do believe in tongues. Heck, the patron saint of my parish, St. Francis Solano, had that gift!

again there is no biblical proof of purgatory..it is the belief of a in between place

which seems childess

You have yet to address the link I gave you which showed the biblical support for purgatory.

the crucifix: now this is one of the most saddest things in the whole religion. The

crucifix that are part of the cathedrals have a bloody immage of christ nailed to the

cross! It seems as they worship the fact that he is dead!!!!!

We choose to show the fact that He died for our sins. Do you have a problem with that?

Mardi Gras

:lmbo:

Mardi Gras is not a Church thing. It's a cultural thing that takes place in a couple of areas, that's it

I have known people who have worked inside the catholic churche and there are groups that

ifluence politics and issue assisinations inside the catholic church.

Oh really? Mind naming names?

THe group the

jesuits have been used and still today are being used to destroy any denomination

evangelic or non outside the catholic church.

Proof?

the whole catholic church is based on a facade the true roots come from the roman

religion that included a virgin that gave birth to a child!

You do realize that all Christians believe that the Bible is indeed correct in talking about the virgin birth, don't you?

Christianotaku

August 8th 2003, 05:57 PM

My father was a catholic bishop for 8 years my friend...

and the vatican does not accept the speaking in tongues either

unless of course you live in a evangelical-catholic church which is a totally different thing

that website you linked to all those verses talk about how those who have not been cleansed and purified by the blood of jesus wont enter heaven..

as far as i know the catholic church doesnt even have a prayer of forgivness

there catholics have constantly assisin ated other leaders my father knows my father was told to carry out one of these assinantions

spl_cadet

August 8th 2003, 06:17 PM

Today @ 02:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=174648#post174648)
Christianotaku:

My father was a catholic bishop for 8 years my friend...

Really? Name him and his diocese.

and the vatican does not accept the speaking in tongues either

Yes it does. How else would it canonize our patron saint or give support to the Charismatic Catholic movement otherwise?

that website you linked to all those verses talk about how those who have not been cleansed and purified by the blood of jesus wont enter heaven..

How about you actually try reading that page, because you aren't describing it.

as far as i know the catholic church doesnt even have a prayer of forgivness

:rofl:

How about the good old Act of Contrition for starters?

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because of Thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who art all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin.

there catholics have constantly assisin ated other leaders my father knows my father was told to carry out one of these assinantions

Oh really? Who of and I certainly hope you have some kind of evidence.

TWells

August 8th 2003, 08:14 PM

there catholics have constantly assisin ated other leaders my father knows my father was told to carry out one of these assinantions

Didnt I read this in a Jack Chick comic once?

spl_cadet

August 8th 2003, 08:18 PM

Today @ 05:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=174770#post174770)
TWells:

Didnt I read this in a Jack Chick comic once?

Yep.

Gordo

August 11th 2003, 04:28 PM

Sorry spl_cadet for not clarifying. I understand the differences that have been debated here between Protestants and Catholics, but my question is not concerning these differences. I can see both sides of the debate. My question is whether Catholics believe the same as Protestants when it comes to salvation.

"...if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9,10

I am pretty sure they believe this, but I'm just asking to make sure. I just need to know if Catholics will be saved.

Thanks for all your help!!

God Bless

Sam :shy:

spl_cadet

August 11th 2003, 06:12 PM

We believe that you are saved by a living faith. You must live your faith, not just say "I believe!." It might be best described as sola fide vitae.

Bartholomew

August 14th 2003, 10:06 PM

Why aren't you on CARM, spl_cadet? I always enjoyed debating with you.

~Matt

Bartholomew

August 14th 2003, 10:08 PM

I am pretty sure they believe this, but I'm just asking to make sure. I just need to know if Catholics will be saved.

Hi Sam,

The Gospel of Catholicism is not compatible with the Gospel of Evangelicalism. As such, only one "group" is saved. (Actually, to be more specific, I believe that there are RCC who are saved, and Evangelicals that are not. I am speaking strictly in terms of doctrine here, not entire churches.)

Which one? Well, how you answer that question depends on your perspective.

I can expand on this if you wish.

~Matt

spl_cadet

August 14th 2003, 10:39 PM

Today @ 07:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185324#post185324)
InquisitorKind:

Why aren't you on CARM, spl_cadet? I always enjoyed debating with you.

~Matt

I got banned for a third time :smile: I now hold the unofficial record for bannings under one name :teeth:

And I'm much too happy flirting with my awesomely gorgeous female friend on another board to think of coming back :teeth: :teeth:

Bartholomew

August 14th 2003, 11:24 PM

Are you talking about Avarils (sp?)?

If it's her, I think her picture comes from Lord of the Rings.

~Matt

spl_cadet

August 14th 2003, 11:35 PM

Today @ 08:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185433#post185433)
InquisitorKind:

Are you talking about Avarils (sp?)?

If it's her, I think her picture comes from Lord of the Rings.

~Matt

Who's Avarils (which probably answers the question)?

Bartholomew

August 15th 2003, 08:43 AM

Yesterday @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=185447#post185447)
spl_cadet:

Who's Avarils (which probably answers the question)?

It doesn't answer the question...because I didn't realize you were talking to this person on "another" board.

Oops.

~Matt

Christianotaku

August 17th 2003, 06:42 PM

The truth about the catholic church is that there theology in THEORY works but when you put it into practice thats when it realy really fails.

I live in colombia one of the most catholic countries in the world.

The teenage pregnancy rate is well ofver 65% and more than 75% of these girls claim to be catholic..

Colombia has a 90% catholic claiming population. But these people have learned from the catholics in authority that it is OK to sin . OK to have unmarried sex. OK to get drunk. OK to murder. AS LONG AS YOU COME TO CONFESSION .... once a year ....

That is what catholicism teaches! it teaches sin without consequences...

People here do nto fear purgatory they actaully laugth at the exisence of such a place!

I lived in mexico before i lived here and in the catholic communities of calfornia and i have come across the same mentality in every catholic church i visited...

The catholic church does not teach about a true walk with god and there definetly isnt a one on one pastor with person relationship..

there truly is know teaching inside the church of TRUE repetance and TRUE decipliship

Ladies And Gentleman I Rest My Case....

Thank You

spl_cadet

August 17th 2003, 09:43 PM

Today @ 03:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188561#post188561)
Christianotaku:

The teenage pregnancy rate is well ofver 65% and more than 75% of these girls claim to be catholic..

Pray for them.

Colombia has a 90% catholic claiming population. But these people have learned from the catholics in authority that it is OK to sin . OK to have unmarried sex. OK to get drunk. OK to murder. AS LONG AS YOU COME TO CONFESSION .... once a year ....

Really? I have a hard time believing that the bishops have officially stated that. If they have, they should be reported to Cardinal Ratzinger.

That is what catholicism teaches! it teaches sin without consequences...

No. That is the life that some apostates live. It is not the official teaching of the Church.

People here do nto fear purgatory they actaully laugth at the exisence of such a place!

They are heretics.
And no reason to fear purgatory. It means you are going to Heaven. You should rejoice if you enter into purgatory.

I lived in mexico before i lived here and in the catholic communities of calfornia and i have come across the same mentality in every catholic church i visited...

So a good many of the laity are idiots. Not the Church's fault.

The catholic church does not teach about a true walk with god

Yes it does.

and there definetly isnt a one on one pastor with person relationship..

That's due to the fact that there are thousands of people in most parishes. Rather hard to have a one on one relationship that way.

there truly is know teaching inside the church of TRUE repetance and TRUE decipliship

That's precisely what the Church teaches. Try reading some of the saints.

Ladies And Gentleman I Rest My Case....

Where was it?

Christianotaku

August 18th 2003, 12:43 PM

They are heretics.
And no reason to fear purgatory. It means you are going to Heaven. You should rejoice if you enter into purgatory.

They dont fear the Amount of time they will pass in purgatory...And exactly how Are you supposed to know your in purgatory or hell from what i hear they sound the same....

So a good many of the laity are idiots. Not the Church's fault.

Once again sir wrong!!! Its exactly the chruches fault the church is who educated this people if the church is really so good i would hope those educated by it would act better.

That's precisely what the Church teaches. Try reading some of the saints.

True true true..............the catholic church does not teach true repentance THE GOSPELS Do even you admit. The whole theology of the catholic church is wrong. The pastors do not care about there parish as individauls but as whole!!! compared to the individaulity that most evangelical pastors deal with peoples spiritual struggle..

The truth of the catholic church is that spiritaul corruption is RAMPANT. Both among pastors AND there parishes. How can you possibly defend a religion with SO much corruption ? That has hurt so many people throught deferentiality? How possibley can you?

Bill the Cat

August 18th 2003, 02:37 PM

THIS IS NOT A MODERATOR POST!!

Let's keep it to a theological discussion, and not get too insult happy, OK?

spl_cadet

August 18th 2003, 07:04 PM

Today @ 09:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=189056#post189056)
Christianotaku:
They dont fear the Amount of time they will pass in purgatory...

Why should they?

And exactly how Are you supposed to know your in purgatory or hell from what i hear they sound the same....

Because God tells you when you die and meet Him.

Once again sir wrong!!! Its exactly the chruches fault the church is who educated this people if the church is really so good i would hope those educated by it would act better.

The Church has it's share of morons in the education department as well. Many "Catholic" universities are recomended to be avoided by the faithful.

True true true..............the catholic church does not teach true repentance THE GOSPELS Do even you admit.

No, the Church does indeed teach true repentence.

The whole theology of the catholic church is wrong.

You have yet to demonstrate such.

Btw, saying that means you deny everything Christian.

The pastors do not care about there parish as individauls but as whole!!! compared to the individaulity that most evangelical pastors deal with peoples spiritual struggle..

There's a bit of a problem when you have a couple thousand people in your parish though. Most evangical churchs have, at most, a couple hundred.

The truth of the catholic church is that spiritaul corruption is RAMPANT. Both among pastors AND there parishes. How can you possibly defend a religion with SO much corruption ? That has hurt so many people throught deferentiality? How possibley can you?

Mind backing that up? And does not the Bible speak of wolves in sheep's clothing?
Remember, Christ's Church is made up of sinners.

Christianotaku

August 19th 2003, 10:24 PM

well after that op warning Methinks me will stop posting here and start listening to music.....

PËACE!!!!

SHÄLÒM!!!

Bob Jenkins

August 20th 2003, 01:15 AM

From Aplogetics Index
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c16.html

Catholicism

by John Ankerberg and John Weldon

» Research Resources

Roman Catholicism: Diverse worldwide religious tradition that officially looks to the Pope and his predecessors/successors as God’s human leader of world Christianity. Because of its size and scope—both in membership (about a billion people worldwide) and geographically, the actual beliefs held by devout Catholics are widespread and eclectic. Catholicism has been influenced by liberation theology, especially in parts of South America. In Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere, attempts have been made to blend Catholicism with spiritism, creating a type of Catholicism with occult elements. In addition, since the 1960s there has been a small but significant element of charismatic Catholics who have been influenced by the larger charismatic movement. A small percentage of Catholics are doctrinally evangelical, and others (such as Matthew Fox) are part of the New Age movement. As a whole, however, the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are still seen most clearly in the issues of the Reformation. The 16th century reformers distinguished themselves from Catholicism in two key ways. First, they saw the Bible as the sole foundation for authority (sola scriptura) rather than the Pope, church dogma or tradition. Second, the reformers taught salvation by “grace alone” (sola gracia). They also insisted that sola gracia could be faithfully maintained only by understanding the gospel to be the message of a free pardon and righteous standing with God through ''faith alone'' (sola fide) in the imputed righteousness of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church claimed (and still claims) to affirm sola gracia, but anathematized sola fide, teaching instead that grace is received and maintained by a combination of faith plus works (religious rites, sacraments, or human endeavor).
Index of Cults and Religions, Watchman Fellowship

In their book, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree?, John Ankerberg and John Weldon write:

Categories of Roman Catholicism

The issues surrounding Catholic belief and authority are compounded by the fact there are some ten categories of Roman Catholicism around the world. The distinctions between them are often not clear because they may tend to overlap and merge or blur into one another. Nor would individual Catholics necessarily appreciate or agree with such labels. But they will serve as a convenient grouping for purposes of illustration:

Nominal or social Catholicism

The Roman Catholicism of the largely uncommitted -- perhaps those born or married into the Church but who have little knowledge of Rome's theology. In practice, they are principally Catholics in name only, although still Catholics ''in Christ'' because of baptism.

Syncretistic/eclecti Catholicism

The Roman Catholicism that is, to varying degrees, combined with and/or absorbed by the pagan religion of the indigenous culture in which it exists (e.g., as in South America and Africa).

Traditional or orthodoxy Catholicism

The powerful conservative branch of Roman Catholicism that holds to papal authority and historical Church doctrines such as those reasserted at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Among this group may be classified the ultratraditionalist Catholics who adamantly reject Vatican II and generally distrust modern changes (e.g., abandoning the Latin Mass -- something Trent pronounced an anathema upon). [1] Also included are traditionalist Catholics who, while adhereing to the entirety of creedal Catholicism and papal authority, more or less accept Vatican II reforms while yet staunchly rejecting liberalism.

''Moderate'' Catholicism

The Roman Catholicism of post-Vatican II which is neither entirely traditional nor entirely liberal.

Modernist, liberal Catholicism

The post-Vatican II ''progressive'' Roman Catholicism that to varying degrees rejects traditional doctrine.

Ethnic or cultural Catholicism

Often retained by migrants to American who use ''their religion to provide a sense of belonging. They feel that not to be Roman Catholic is not to belong and to lose [their] nationality and roots.'' [2]

Lapsed or apostate Catholicism

The Roman Catholicism which involves alienated, backslidden, or apostate Catholics who are largely indifferent to the Catholic Church and its God.

Charismatic Catholicism

The Roman Catholicism which seeks to accept the ''baptism of the Holy Spirit'' and speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts as signs of a deeper Catholic spirituality. (This illustrates the related, if largely distinct, category of mystical Catholicism, undergirded by the mystical Catholicism, undergirded by the mystical and not infrequently occult writings of the Catholics mystics).

''Evangelical'' Catholicism

Former Protestant Evangelicals who may retain some of their former beliefs but whyo now accept Roman Catholicism as the one true Church and its doctrines as authoritative.

Evangelical ''Catholicism''

The branch of former Roman Catholics who are truly Evangelical and who have largely rejected the unbiblical teachings of Rome, often deciding to remain in the Church as a means to evangelize other Catholics or help reform their Church.

Theology

The major broad areas of theology include the following:

Bibiology The doctrine of the Bible
Theology Proper The doctrine of God (Theism, Trinitarianism)
Angeology The doctrine of angels
Anthropology The doctrine of man
Hamartheology The doctrine of sin
Ecclesiology The doctrine of the Church
Christology The doctrine of Christ
Pneumatology The doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Eschatology The doctrine of last things
Soteriology The doctrine of salvatiobn

In all of the above categories, Roman Catholic teaching historically (to one degree or another) has distorted these key theological doctrines. To the observer having only a general familiarity with Catholic teaching and conservative Protestant theology, this may not at first seem evident. Yet, it would be possible to write an entire text on each one of the above doctrines revealing how Catholicism has distorted what the Bible teaches on these subjects -- either through tradition, its approach to biblical interpretation, or other means.

In other words, whatever truths Catholicism may teach in theology generally, serious errors are also encountered. We can see this, in theology proper (the Catholic Church as the continuing incarnation of Christ); in bibliology (Catholicism as the only true Church of Christ); in hamartheology (aspects of pelagianism; moral and venial categories); in Christology (Mariology; the Church as continuing incarnation; the Mass); and in soteriology (Catholic teaching on justification, sanctification, regenerarion, and the sacraments).

No single doctrine is more important to each of us personally than the doctrine of salvation. In examining the component parts of the biblical portrait of salvation, we find the following:

Depravity -- the spiritual condition of man before God.
Imputation -- to reckon sin or righteousness to another's aco[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]
Grace -- the fact of God's nature making Him spontaneously favorable in His dealings with man.
Propitiation -- the satisfaction of God's justice and righteousness through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
Atonement -- the vicarious (substitutionary), efficacious (producing the desired effect) death of Jesus Christ for human sin.
Renconciliation -- to restore to fellowship with God by removing the barriers preventing this.
Calling (efficacious) -- the work of God drawing men to Himself.
Regeneration -- the miraculous work of God making the human spirit alive to Himself and the imparting of eternal life to the individual believer.
Union with Christ -- the spiritually living union of the believer and Jesus Christ.
Conversion -- the human side of regeneration; turning to Christ in faith and repentance (leading to a change in both attitude and behavior).
Repentance -- changing one's mind (mental) and turning from sin (behavioral) (i.e., a change of attitude and action).
Faith -- trust in God, leading to right belief about Him, dependence upon Him, and right behavior toward Him.
Justification -- the forensic or legal declaration of God concerning the believer's absolute righteousness before Him as a result of his faith in Jesus Christ.
Adoption -- to be brought into the personal family of God.
Sanctification -- to be set apart to God's purposes (i.e., growth in relationship to and holiness toward God).
Eternal security -- the absolute security of the true believer with respect to his salvation from the point of regeneration.
Perseverance -- the continuation of the saints in faith unto death.
Election/predestination - to be chosen by God for salvation.
Redemption to remove one from slavery to sin and Satan by payment of a ransom (i.e., the atonement of Christ).
Death, resurrection, and the final state -- involving the physical/spiritual nature of death, the intermediate state, resurrection of the body, immortality, heaven and hell (the physical resurrection of the believer to eternal glory and the unbeliever to eternal ruin).
The church -- the collective body of true believers called out of the world by God for His glory who are joined together visibly in worship and invisibly in union with Christ and one another.

Again, if we were to examine each of the above doctrines in detail, examining what the Bible teaches about them on the one hand and what Catholic tradition/doctrine teaching about them on the other, we would discover that Roman Catholicism has denied, altered, or confused all but one or two.

It is in light of our study of such theology that we find it most difficult to reconcile the current movement on the part of many Catholics and Evangelicals to join themselves together as spiritual brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. For their part, Evangelicals characteristically maintain that they are not abandoning or glossing over important differences in doctrine between orthodox Catholicism and conservative Protestantism; they merely want to stress the unity of the true church, whether Catholic or Protestant. The problem, however, is that we are not going to gloss over important doctrinal differences, then it becomes impossible to maintain that Catholics and Protestants are genuine brothers and sisters in Christ.

Again, this is not to deny that many Catholics, individually speaking, are saved individuals because they have placed true faith in Jesus Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation -- not in their good works, the sacraments, or the Church. The problem arises when we say that all those committed to the traditional orthodox doctrines of the Catholic Church are saved individuals just as much as the simple believer in Jesus Christ. If so, it would seem that what an individual believes (i.e., whether it is either Catholic or Protestant teaching), has little or no bearing as to his individual salvation. But to say this is to abandon biblical authority and teaching entirely.

The bottom line is this: It is virtually impossible to claim to maintain important doctrinal distinctions on the one hand, and to simultaneously unite Catholic and Protestant believers into a spiritual fellowship on the other.

We can illustrate this by examining the following five doctrines and considering briefly how each doctrine relates to Catholic teaching:

Propitiation/atonement
This doctrine demonstrates that the death of Christ fully propitiated or satisfied God's wrath and paid the full divine penalty for all the believer's sin past, present, and future, thereby proving that neither the sacraments, penance, purgatorial suffering, indulgences, the Mass, priests, nor any other aspect of the Catholic Church is involved in any way in the propitiation or remitting of sin.
Reconciliation
This doctrine involves one result of the death of Christ for sin wherein the state of enmity between God and man is replaced by one of peace and fellowship, proving that final reconciliation between God and man is something accomplished by God on behalf of man, not by the Church on behalf of man.
Regeneration
This doctrine involves the making alive of the human spirit toward God and the imparting of eternal life, proving that true spiritual life is eternal and a miracle of God, not something instituted by the Church through sacraments or good works.
Justification
This doctrine constitutes the legal declaration of the believer's absolute righteousness before God on the basis of his personal faith in Jesus Christ, proving that our perfect standing before God is not dependent upon Church teaching, sacraments, personal character, or good works, but solely upon our faith in Christ.
Sanctification
This doctrine involves being set apart to God for His glory. A correct understanding of its past, present, and future applications proves that sanctification does not lead to justification, nor should it be confused with regeneration, as Catholicism teaches.

A brief evaluation of the above doctrines illustrates our central concern: As a result of its tradition and/or interpretation of Scripture, the Catholic approach to biblical doctrine is characteristically colored in a nonbiblical fashion

For balance, read from the following site

http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/apolo.html

Catholic Apolgetics on the nternet