Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
Protestant Christians created America.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Yes, I have read a great deal of Early Church history, and I know that the Christian Church, or at least the majority of it has been hierarchical since the end of the first century with Clement and certainly by 50 years later with Justin Martyr. It is nonsense to suggest that Early Christians believed in sola scripture when they did not have much scripture to be solo about until the 4th Century. And yes, the very cannon that not only does not comment on solo scriptura was compiled by none other than the Roman Church in its councils. That same Roman Church recognized very early that when Christians interpret scripture without any authority then what you get is a “my interpretation is as good as yours” result. Also, one must recognize that the Roman Church is almost 2K years old and comprises 1/6 of humanity. You have to ask yourself, would our Lord allow 1/6 of humanity to pursue a falsehood in His name? Not likely.
However, this is a very old and tired argument and we must all be united against an evil (Godless humanism) that will destroy all Christians if we are not together. Anyone who accepts Jesus and believes in The Trinity is not the enemy to another Christian, in my opinion.
The fallacy here is to assume that the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone" is true in the first place.
Are you aware that this doctrine historically did not mean a faith that was alone, but that the kind of faith that is counted for righteousness (Rm. 4:1-5ff) is one that effects obedience towards its Object, the Lord Jesus? See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Reformation_faith_works.html And which faith-works “justify” one as having saving, complete faith?
“Another fallacy is that Catholics do not honestly derive their teaching from Scripture.” "Without the charism of infallibility granted to the Church by Christ himself, we would be hopelessly left with conflicting interpretation that could never claim greater authority than the other."
Questions for your consideration:
1. Are infallible decrees dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant for their veracity?
2. Upon what basis do you have assurance for the veracity of such a teaching as the Assumption of Mary?
3. If an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary for the authority of truth claims, how were writings established as Scripture, and truth preserved, before there was an assuredly infallible magisterium of men?
4. Does being the magisterium with historical decent over the people of God, who were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, and recipient of Divine promises of presence and preservation, render them assured infallible?
5. Did you make an infallible decision to submit to the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome?
6. Do you have assured infallibility to interpret the teachings of the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome?
7. Can you tell me for sure how many infallible decrees there are in total?
8. How many texts of Scripture has Rome infallible defined?
9. Outside core essentials, if the Roman magisterium prevents different interpretations, why is it that Roman Catholics can and do disagree about many things, especially as to what Scripture texts mean?
10. Under the Catholic model of sola ecclesia, in which the Church is effectively the supreme authority (defining sources of Truth and their meaning), why is it that there are multiple divisions, even as to something so basic as papal infallibility, though they otherwise share a substantial unity?
11. How is it that SS-type evangelicals who are “hopelessly left with conflicting interpretations,” overall hold to core essentials, manifesting a common front against those who deny them (cults), and also testify to a substantial unity in moral views (in many things more than most Catholics), while enjoying a essential spiritual unity based upon a shared Scripture-base conversion and relationship with the Lord Jesus that transcends denominations, though they disagree about many things?
12. Why is it that under sola ecclesia, which model Rome shares with cults, and in which men, not Scripture, is really the supreme authority (as infallibly defining evidence as supporting their claim to be the the one true Church), you have the most critical salvific deviations?
The differenc4e between you and I is that I have no axe to grind based on bigotry, and I don't believe foxxes book of CR@P.
“You have to ask yourself, would our Lord allow 1/6 of humanity to pursue a falsehood in His name? Not likely.”
Quite likely:
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: “ (Matthew 7:13)
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. “ (Matthew 7:22-23)
“For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. “ (Matthew 24:5)
“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty...” Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publica” June 20, 1894
As for history, you must compete with the EOs, and scholars:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=450#450
Cynical Bear: You asked a question so I am going to answer. I have not got into these same debates over and over again with you fundie Protestants but the tone of your statement and question sort of motivated me to jump in again. My post is somewhat long, but believe answers your question and clearly shows that The Catholic Church’s teaching on the Assumption is in line with Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and supported by the teachings of the orthodox Early Church Fathers, who btw, defined the NT canon.
Is there direct statements saying “Mary was assumed into Heaven”? No, is the doctrine contradictory to Sacred Scripture? No. Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture and has as its foundation, a Christological Reference? The answer is absolutlely yes.
With respect to the Assumption,The OT calls Eve the Mother of the Living (Gen 3:20). However, we also know that threw Adam and her sin, death came to all her descendants. In the second century, Church Fathers began to see that the Eve-Mary parallel which suggests that Mary and a role in salvation history in relation to Christ, just has Eve had a role in the fall of the human race in relation to Adam. St. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho [circa 155 AD] is the first to actually propose the Doctrine of Mary as the New Eve. Fr. Luigi Lamberto in his work Mary and the Fathers of the Church, published by Ignatius Press notes that Justin wanted to show how the Lord had decided to accomplish the salvation of man by following the same procedure by which sin had been committed and caused the downfall of man (p. 47). He points out that the Eve-Mary parallel had its foundation in the Pauline doctrine of Christ as the second Adam (1 Cor 15: 21-22). St. Justin Martyr writes
“The Son of God became man through a Virgin, so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it begun. For Eve, who was virgin and undefiled, gave birth to disobedience and death after listening to the serpent’s words. But the Virgin Mary conceived faith and joy; for what the Angel Gabriel brought her the glad tidings that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, so that the Holy One born of her would be the Son of God, she answered, ‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). Thus was born of her the Child about whom so many Scriptures speak, as we have shown. Through him, God crushed the serpent along with those angels and men who had become like the serpent.” (Dialogue with Trypho 100)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the great defender of orthodoxy against the Gnostic Heretics of the 2nd century, further develops the idea of Mary as the New Eve, which again St. Justin Martyr began to develop in 155. Fr. Matero notes that St. Irenaeus first recapitulated salvation history in Christ by appealing back to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans 5: 12, where it states the whole human race fell into sin because of the man Adam, and then it was necessary that God’s son should become man and thus become the foundation of a new humanity. He then provides the following two quotes from Irenaeus, 1) that recapitulates Christ as the new Adam and 2) that recapitulates Mary as the new Eve.
(1) Irenaeus writes “When the Son of God took flesh and became man; he recapitulated in himself the long history of men, procuring for us the reward of salvation, so that in Christ Jesus we might recover what we had lost in Adam, namely, the image and likeness of God. For since it was not possible for man, once wounded and broken by disobedience, to be refashioned and to obtain the victor’s palm, and since it was equally impossible for him to receive salvation, as he had fallen under the power of sin, the Son of God accomplished both of those tasks. He God’s Word, came down from the Father and became flesh; he abased himself even unto death and brought the economy of our salvation to its completion.” (Against Heresies 3, 18)
(2) After recapitulating Christ as the new Adam, Irenaeus writes “Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin….By disobeying, she became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race…The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosened by faith.” (Against Heresies 3: 22)
St. Irenaeus further writes and points out that only the Gnostic Heretics ignore God’s economy of salvation, in which Mary had a unique role in playing since she gave birth to Christ, the word made flesh. Irenaeus writes:
“Eve was seduced by the word of the [fallen] angel and transgressed God’ s word, so that she fled from him. In the same way, [Mary] was evangelized by the word of an angel and obeyed God’s word, so that she carried him [within her]. And while the former was seduced into disobeying God, the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And just has the human race was bound to death because of a virgin, so it was set free from death by a Virgin, since the disobedience of one virgin was counterbalanced by the Virgin’s obedience.
If then, the first-made man’s sin was mended by the right conduct of the firstborn Son [of God], and if the serpent’s cunning was bested by the simplicity of the dove [Mary], and if the chains that held us bound to death have been broken, then the heretics are fools; they are ignorant of God’s economy, and they are unaware of his economy for [the salvation of’ man.’ (Against Heresies 5: 19)
Finally, St. Irenaeus develops the recapitulation theme to its fulfillment when he writes:
“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve [had to be recapitulated] in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish one virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.” (Proof of Apostolic Preaching 33)
In summary, there was a well developed doctrine of Mary’s unique role in salvation history way before the New Testament Canon was settled in the 4th century Church Councils at Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397, respectively. The second century testimony of two of the greatest orthodox Church Fathers, Justin and Irenaeus support the position that Mary was chosen by God to be the means through which the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (c.f. John 1:14).
The Catholic Church states “Mary, in whom the Lord Himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the Glory of God dwells. She is the “dwelling of God...with men” [CCC #2676].
Now, where did the Catholic Church get this notion of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, looking at the OT through the correct scriptural interpretation perspective of “Typology”, signs and events of the OT prefigure Christ and events in the NT. So, in Exodus 40: 34-35, the Ark is stated to be the dwelling place of God’s presence which prefigures the Angel Gabriel stating that the Holy Spirit would overshadow Mary and her Womb is the the place of the presence of God in the Flesh, i.e. Christ. [Luke 1:35].
Continuing this theological connection, the Ark contained the 10 Commandments, the Manna and Aaron’s rod that came back to life [Duet 10:3-5, Hebrews 9:4] which of course prefigures the Incarnation of Christ, the Word of God in the Flesh, the Bread of Life [See John Chapter 6] and the branch that would come back to life [Resurrection of Christ] [c.f. Luke 1:35]
The connection between the Ark travelling to the coountry of Jodah [2 Samuel 6:1-11] and Mark traveling to Hill Country of Juda to see Elizabeth [Luke 1:39], King David jumped for Joy when the Ark arrived [2 Samuel 6:1-11] prefigures John the Baptist leaping in the womb of Elizabeth [Luke 1:43] when Mary carrying Christ in her womb appeared, David shouts for Joy in the presence of the Ark, Elizabeth does the same [cf. 2 Sam 6:15; Luke 1:42], David asks how is it the Ark should come to me, Elizabeth asks a similar question “Why is it that the Mother of my Lord Should come to me? [cf 2 Sam 6:9, Luke 1:43], the Ark remains with David for three months, Mary with Elizabeth for 3 months [2 Sam 6:11; Luke 1:56]
Psalm 132:8 states “Arise Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic Ark” and Revelation 11:9 indicates that John sees the Ark in Heaven, which of course follows into Revelation 12 which speaks of a Woman in Heaven”
Now, there a consensus among the Early Church Fathers that clearly interpreted Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, consistent with the CCC statement above which is consistent with the Assumption of Mary. I have attached the links which cleary show Mary as the Ark and thus her Assumption into Mary, rather than contradicting Sacred Scripture, is entirely consistent with it.
In what way is the Assumption inconsistent with Scripture? Elijah apparently was so assumed, as was Enoch, and perhaps Moses. Burial sites were important even to the Jews, and no place has ever claimed to have the grave of Mary. That even though she was already very important to the early Church as the Virgin Mother of Jesus.
From The Prophecies of Marie Julie Jahenny....
“A horrific, supernatural Chastisement will befall the Earth from the very Hand of God, sparing neither the good nor the bad in order to purge the world of all the evil and inequity worked upon it, particularly by those who wreaked havoc on the Catholic Church.”
I have affirmation of this while attending Adoration and don’t know dates or time
I came into the Church kicking and fighting after 46 years as an Evangelical. However, once I got in I was amazed and embarrassed. Confession has allowed Christ to transform my life. The Eucharist has allowed me to truly worship God for the first time in my life.
Everything the Church teaches is reasonable. Mary was a human but given the grace to be a holy tabernacle for God incarnate. Why is it such a scandal to ask those in heaven to pray for us?
Apostolic authority is all over the place in the New Testament. Matthew 16, Matthew 18, Luke 10:16, Acts Chapter 1, Acts Chapter 15 reads like an Ecumenical council to me.
The Catholic Church is the Church that has kept the ancient tradition going back to the apostles. Come on in. The water is great.
I really didn’t need to read any past that statement. “In the second century”? Seriously? If you read my question I asked about the bodily assumption of Mary with proof from scripture. You didn’t do that. In the rest of your post you only attempt to show RCC justification for the veneration of Mary with scripture that doesn’t support the contention. I realize that Catholics hold the “church fathers” on the same level as the apostles but no where in scripture is that supported.
As to the level of veneration of Mary there is no support in scripture. In Luke we are given Jesus statement as to the veneration of Mary.
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.
The Catholic veneration of Mary is unscriptural and conjured up along the lines of pagan worship of “the queen of heaven” condemned by God. There is no “co-redemtrix” with Christ. The entire Mariology concept is blasphemy.
The RCC interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation is in error. The “woman” in Revelation 12 is Israel.
You haven’t answered the question I posted to prove from scripture the bodily assumption of Mary. Mary wasn’t even mentioned in scripture after the ascension of Christ and as I showed from Luke Jesus wouldn’t support the veneration of Mary.
This is a crucial rule of thumb for ANY self-proclaimed Christian church. If what they preach about the Gospel is not according to the clear words of Scripture, then everything else is suspect also. They may even have many of the other doctrines of the faith correct, but if they stray away from the gospel of salvation by grace through faith, then they are preaching an accursed gospel. Just as this article brings out, Paul placed HIMSELF under the same yardstick. That says to me that what Scripture says is the plan of salvation IS what God says it is and no one can pervert it and stay true.
That was a good article and I saved it to my Favorites. I expect the hounds will be howling over it soon. This may be another 1000+ thread for you! ;o)
LOL Can anyone claim infallibility like the RCC “magesterium” did? I think Mohamed, John Smith and some others have done it. I know that I will just stay with “Christ in us” and call it good. If Christ is “in us” than I’m calling the guy with the pointy hat a charlatan and imposter.
Apparently you believe the Christians at those councils were what we call today Roman Catholics. I don’t.
So merely disagreeing with Catholics is bigotry? Talk about sophistry.
My problems with Catholicism are based first and foremost on my understanding of Scripture, not history and certainly not John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. I believe that when I stand in the courts of heaven I must be clothed in Christ’s robe of perfect righteousness because I have no righteousness of my own to offer. I’m a sinner whose very best is filthy rags in the sight of God, so my best works can do nothing but damn my soul. I simply believe Scripture when it says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
I believe the Apostle Paul when he wrote, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
I believe there is one mediator, Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
I believe there is only one vicar of Christ on earth, the Holy Spirit.
Christ is my high priest, not the sinful man sitting on the Roman throne.
I believe the universal catholic church is the bride of Christ and He is the head of His church.
There is one Holy Father and He’s God the Father, not the Bishop of Rome.
I believe only the Lord can speak or act infallibly.
I believe it’s utter blasphemy for any sinful son of Adam to take upon himself the names, duties, and characteristics of the three persons of the trinity.
I’ve got lots of other points of disagreement with Romanism besides their works righteousness and the papacy. I’ve got big problems with Mariology, Purgatory, Treasury of Merit, indulgences, transubstantiation, the mass, Roman idols and relics, the sacraments, etc. Unless the Lord changes your heart, we will never agree on history or theology, but I will pray for you.
The overwhelming majority were protestant, yes, but not exclusively. Even so, the only reason many of them came here in the first place was to escape the tyranny of other protestant religions, particularly in Britain. Charles Carroll, RC, signed the Declaration, but more importantly, his state, Maryland, under Catholic Lord Baltimore & family, because of the persecution of Catholics in Britain, became the first to grant complete religious freedom. Rhode Island followed suit two years later (when its founder fled puritanism in Massachusetts). And, despite the fact that they were influenced by Catholic and Protestant writers alike, the founders out-thought them all, producing a system that exceeded, exponentially, the sum of its parts.
Assumption and conjecture aren’t what Christ taught nor did the apostles. Christ Himself referred back to scripture to support what He taught as do I. Base your beliefs on conjecture and assumption if you will. I’ll stay with scripture.
Your question about Mary is based on a false premise. The Bible itself makes no claim that all spiritual truth is limited to scripture. The authority of apostolic tradition and apostolic authority is all over the place in the New Testament.
Everything about Mary is reasonable if you take the time to actually study what the Church teaches rather than anti-Catholic sources. If Mary was given the grace to be the holy mother of God incarnate, it is reasonable she could have been taken like Enoch.
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. KJV
You would love being a Catholic.
Yeah America was pretty close to a 100% Protestant creation about as close as a thing could be to it.
That’s wrong on so many levels I won’t even take up your time. The only reference is scripture to a “vicar” or “stand in for Christ” isn’t anything I want to be associated with. The only references by God to a “queen of heaven” tells me that Catholicism is something I will only condemn and speak out against.
Your responses only highlight your ignorance of both scripture and what the Church teaches.
Jesus is the descendant and heir of King David. Mary is the mother of the King. The office of Queen Mother is all over the place in the Old Testament.
Everything the Church teaches about Mary isn’t about Mary but rather about Jesus and God’s plan for our salvation and sanctification.
A good analogy the Church uses is Jesus is like the sun and Mary is like the moon. Mary doesn’t generate any light on her own but only reflects (magnifies) the light of Christ.
Keep studying the Bible and the Holy Spirit will eventually open your eyes to the truth that Jesus established an authoritative Church on His apostles.
God bless you. I will pray for you tonight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.