Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
He called the cup the fruit of the vine.
How can it be blood then?
So are you telling us He sinned and made His disciples sin by making them drink blood under the old covenant?
Yes.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ALL Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The Holy Spirit right here tells us that Scripture itself is adequate to THOROUGHLY equip EVERY man in order to be COMPLETE.
It's enough because God said it was enough.
It's not inadequate because the Catholic church says it's inadequate.
So all 1.2 billion Catholics get the same message from the Holy Spirit at the same time and they all believe exactly the same thing?
FOTFLOL!!!!!
I didn't say it had to be in scripture. I said it had to be substantiated that they taught it. I have given Catholics every opportunity to show a source showing the apostles taught that. It's Catholics that say scripture is not the only source. So, if there is some other source to prove the apostles taught the assumption of Mary let's see it. If the doctrine is simply built on something else admit it and show us the source.
>>So, what we do have, are sources that show the idea of the Assumption was passed down from the generation to generation and could only have been done so if it was believed widely in the Church.<<
So produce your "sources". Keep in mind that it's still incumbent to show it originated with the apostles and that they taught it.
>>So, one day after a couple of Protestant anti-Catholics tell me it’s a-okay for Protestants to not agree on “disputable” items (using sola scriptura) you’re now claiming the Assumption represents a “different gospel” and people who believe it are accursed?<<
Show me where any "Protestant" didn't use scripture to base their belief on. If you want to discuss what scripture teaches which is what Protestants do have at it. The assumption of Mary is a major dogma of the Catholic Church requiring Catholics to believe it or be anathema. “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus).
Let's look at some facts about the dogma of the assumption. [source http://www.justforcatholics.org/assumption.htm]
Not Taught in Scripture
Catholic authors readily admit that the Assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture. In the biblical narrative, Mary is last mentioned in Acts 1 where she is found praying with the other disciples before Pentecost. After that, the Bible is silent about her life and death.
Naturally Catholic writers refer to various scriptures to demonstrate the possibility of this doctrine, and that it is was ‘fitting’ that Mary should be assumed to heaven. These efforts fall short of biblical proof.
Not Taught by the Church Fathers
The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries:
First Taught by Heretics
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).
The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. It is ironic that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century.
So you have a belief that is demanded of Catholics that has a spurious source at best. A belief that can't even be sourced beyond the 6th century and a belief that by all accounts traces back to heretics.
Vlad and I have sparred a lot in the past. It’s our way of keeping it real.
Wasn't?
Was. And still is.
First mentioned in Genesis. That's the first Book of the Bible, written LONG before the Catholic Church "GAVE" us the Bible lie.
He is a part of the trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
All three compose the one God.
Mary gave birth to Jesus, the physical body.
Not "God"...NOT Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
That is awesome advice and I am humbled by your wisdom. Thank You.
It seems he has stated that the Catholic church would not sanction any of his statements.
Actually comes off as a bit of a lone wolf type heretic with his own misguided convoluted way of “defending” Catholicism which turns out to show how wrong that belief system is.
One of those here to distract from Jesus and His ministry. Mostly by substituting Mary for our Saviour.
“Yes.”
Actually, no. That’s why even some Protestants have tacitly admitted that sola scriptura is assumed rather than an actual statement in scripture.
“ALL Scripture is breathed out”
That means scripture is inspired. That does not mean sola scriptura.
“by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
That means scripture can be used for training us in virtue. It does not mean sola scriptura in regard to doctrine, deciding doctrine, or the denial of sacred tradition.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/2tim316.html
Ah, now we are getting down to something interesting about Mary.If we say that we have no sin...No one says that. We all have sinned. The exceptions are Mary and possibly a few others. "We" are not them.
Just where in the Bible does she say she has no sin? Book, chapter and verse please.
And how about a hint about your speculation of "possibly a few others?"
Seeing a scripture where the Holy Spirit has Mary calling herself sinless will be a major victory for Catholicism's claims.
No one says that. We all have sinned. The exceptions are Mary and possibly a few others.
WHAT?????
The exception is Jesus Christ and NO other. That's the scriptural position.
Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
Such doubtful claims as the sinlessness of Mary should not be presented as Truth.
What is it with Catholics and this hysterical tendency to attempt the infusion of Goddess mythology into Christian teachings?
Scripture is sufficient to the realization of Christian Truth. It does not need man-made additions.
As Christians, we are admonished to neither add nor take away from it.
“It’s Catholics that say scripture is not the only source.”
Scripture says that. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So, if there is some other source to prove the apostles taught the assumption of Mary let’s see it.”
If you want to research it, go ahead. The best compilation of sources are in French.
“If the doctrine is simply built on something else admit it and show us the source.”
I don’t know what you’re saying there.
“So produce your “sources”.”
Research your self.
“Keep in mind that it’s still incumbent to show it originated with the apostles and that they taught it.”
Actually, no. Nothing is “still incumbent to show”. You want to know about it? Research it yourself.
“Show me where any “Protestant” didn’t use scripture to base their belief on.”
Sola scriptura appears no where in the Bible. Thus, no Protestant could ever base sola scriptura on scripture. The same goes for sola fide. Sola fide appears no where in scripture as believed by Protestants. James 2:24 shows Protestants are wrong.
“If you want to discuss what scripture teaches which is what Protestants do have at it.”
Clearly that’s NOT Protestants have.
“The assumption of Mary is a major dogma of the Catholic Church...”
It is? According to what scale?
“requiring Catholics to believe it or be anathema.”
Well, the actual punishment is this:
“45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”
“fallen away” does not strike me as the same thing as “anathema”. Fallen away is passive. An anathema is not.
I’ve seen Mizzi’s site many times and he clearly is intellectually dishonest in his approach. Does Mizzi even mention the Euthymiaca Historia? No, of course not. Don’t know what it is? Look it up.
We've already seen on just this board that the catholics are not all in agreement on the issues.
Imagine all those personal interpretations of Scripture occurring around catholicism.
The hypocrisy is rich with irony.
Oh this is rich....now we allow people to redefine words at will???
Well this is a hallmark of Catholicism.
Best advice....stay with the Greek and Hebrew and you don't go down these rabbit holes.
I am not a Roman Catholic.
What does it matter a word’s meaning in Greek or Latin if the word is not in the Bible?
We don’t speak Greek or Latin. We speak English. An English word has its English meaning. There might be some etymological interest in how a word has come from one language to another, but it has no bearing on what that word now means in the language in which it is used.
John 20:29 (NKJV)
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” from the wider, entire chapter context here.
Perhaps it would be helpful to remind yet again that concepts & principles expressed as the sola's of the reformation are none of them "solo", but are all of them interdependent & interlocking.
Neither did the expression of that summary distillation of principles, as it were, arise minus compelling reasons, or from a vacuum, but instead as Holcomb (who I found convenient to provide link to, though that man not known to me until moments ago, his presentation/discussion being near top of 'search' result) noted, was formulated by the Reformers who were;" Roused to action by the corruption and abuses they saw in the Roman Catholic church of the time,..."
So much for Sola Ecclesia, eh?
Either that --- or the real and true infallible leading of the Church, by the Spirit of the Lord --- obviously (even painfully so) is not entirely confined or restricted to that ecclesiastical community which falls under identification/heading of being Church of Rome, as if that one ekklesia out of all others is itself immune from need for correction (Hebrews 12, anyone? hey!) if we are to speaking here also as towards superstitious beliefs which may lead to confounding, confusing, and/or subverting the teachings and will of God, as that will, abundantly enough (to my own understanding) evidentially is towards those whom He call unto Himself...
Again, as for the rallying cry slogans of the Reformation, if split apart from one another, sola fide from sola gratia --- makes argument against them something of straw-man form, for having rather by default misrepresented them -- and in this instance, in regards to faith itself, you were in error when then continuing having said;
for within Scriptures the theme of faith (in God) runs throughout the texts --- and is the very underlying substance of all of the most primary traditions.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.faith (ultimately --->in God, mind you) testified and taught by the Apostle Paul as foundational and living element...
Now for this additional tangled supposition which you also brought;
No, the Scriptures do not say "the Church" makes the rules, particularly chiefly or only one portion of the Church alone being able to supersede or be over and above the word-of-God as that can be "heard" (Romans 10:17), this principle exemplified (in two-fold fashion?) by Christ Himself who swore not upon His own authority alone, but again and again relied upon "as it is written" when He came to fulfill even that which had been written to the Jews.
As for the remainder of the tangled up (TUBAR -- tangled up beyond all repair/recognition) collection of assertion which you began in the above, italicised from there; continuing on towards your own manufactured conclusions;
the very same can be said for *most* all that which Romanists repeat again and again in assertions pertaining to their own concepts of SOLO Ecclesia --- with the accumulated efforts over the centuries of "terabytes of verbal fluff to create an appearance of legitimacy" indeed having created an intricate inter-locking set of superstitions laid over what elements of truth be in actuality there, which have grown eventually into becoming dogma which is part-true, but not entirely...to whit; not in it's exclusivity of application, the RCC being correct enough in many regards, erring chiefly when it speaks self-reverentially of itself.
See to it that the sword of truth be let fall upon your own suppositions, before attempting to swing that as if those suppositions were pure and eternal "blade" capable of being wielded in only one direction, for truth itself is a two-edged and mightily powerful sword, even His own...
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
“What does it matter a word’s meaning in Greek or Latin if the word is not in the Bible?”
Well, they’re desperate to make something stick. If that means they have to go back to a word meaning no one actually uses or means, they’ll do it. If that means, out of the blue, they’ll bring up something and focus on that in post after post, they’ll do it. And they won’t stop there either. They’ll keep insisting Catholics worship the Virgin Mary even though I, a life long Catholic, and every other Catholic here, flatly state we’ve never met anyone who ever worshiped the Virgin Mary. The truth doesn’t matter to them.
Look at 2303 in this thread. See my last paragraph? It seems clear to me that some just wish to attack the Catholic Church no matter what.
Evidently you have nothing to refute the information in my last post to you. Sola Scriptura is not the discussion here. I wasn't holding you to Sola Scriptura. The problem for you was that you couldn't produce any other source for the apostles teaching of the assumption of Mary. The best you seem to be able to do is point to "A narrative known as the Euthymiaca Historia (written probably by Cyril of Scythopolis in the 5th century).
Catholics need to simply admit that most of their beliefs rest in supposition and conjecture and as I showed in my last post to you on writings of heretics and questionable authorship. Read this again.
The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century.
So two popes condemned the source for information on the assumption yet the Catholic Church calls it a dogma that must be believed. Basing ones eternal destiny on information from an organization like that makes no sense.
Well, it was the third use of papal infallibility.
How does a catholic not know this??
“That’s your best effort to establish a base for the belief in Mary’s assumption?”
No, I won’t even try if you and your ilk are the intended audience. What’s the point? Heck, I’m not even allowed - according to the private messages I was sent - to use a particular word in this forum. So what’s the point of trying if it’s already apparent that my posts will simply be deleted?
“Evidently you have nothing to refute the information in my last post to you.”
I have no reason to believe you would listen to anything anyone says that goes against whatever it is you believe.
“Sola Scriptura is not the discussion here.”
It most certainly is.
“I wasn’t holding you to Sola Scriptura.”
You most certainly are. If the Assumption of Mary was EXPLICITLY in scripture would you believe it or not? And if you did believe it would not sola scriptura be part of the reason why you would? The fact that Christians see Mary as the woman of Rev. 12 is too much for Protestants of course.
“The problem for you was that you couldn’t produce any other source for the apostles teaching of the assumption of Mary.”
No. I don’t expect there to be many written sources for it. I don’t think you do either even if you believed it. There’s not even an inspired table of contents for the Bible from the Apostles.
“The best you seem to be able to do is point to “A narrative known as the Euthymiaca Historia (written probably by Cyril of Scythopolis in the 5th century).”
No, I pointed out that Mizzi never even mentions it yet you seem to think Mizzi’s article is the be all and end all on the issue.
“Catholics need to simply admit that most of their beliefs rest in supposition and conjecture and as I showed in my last post to you on writings of heretics and questionable authorship. Read this again.”
And you wonder why I think Protestant anti-Catholics are mendacious? How did you get from ONE doctrine - the Assumption of Mary - to “most” [Catholic] beliefs? You mean like the Trinity? That’s a Catholic belief! Virgin birth? That’s a Catholic belief!
Sola scriptura and sola fide APPEAR NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE and yet no Protestant anti-Catholic here will ever admit, “Protestants need to simply admit that most of their beliefs rest in supposition and conjecture”. Even Catholics don’t say that about Protestants because we know we actually agree on many things. But apparently Protestant anti-Catholics are not as fair-minded in their judgment on that.
Then you paraphrase or cut and paste Mizzi without attribution for a couple of paragraphs.
“So two popes condemned the source for information on the assumption yet the Catholic Church calls it a dogma that must be believed.”
There is NO EVIDENCE that the belief comes from the Tranistus documents. Logically, the belief had to have already existed to have ended up IN THE DOCUMENTS. It was widespread, no one objected to it, and the first Marian feastdays were about the Assumption.
“Basing ones eternal destiny on information from an organization like that makes no sense.”
Basing ones eternal destiny on false doctrines like sola fide (rejected by the Bible, James 2:24) or sola scriptura (which appears no where in scripture and is, therefore, self-refuting) makes no sense.
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.