Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
One would NEVER get this by reading what our FR Catholics type!
or WITH dying; either!
Alrighty then!
Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.
Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.
Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.
Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.
Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.
Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.
Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.
Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.
Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.
Under your standard, wouldn't this be denigration?
While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (Luke 11:27-28)
Why do they keep denying this when there is so much proof that they do?
John was a prophet. Rev 10:11
American Catholics might be a little less enthusiastic had they ever had the historical experience of doing a little time in a Papal jail. Just not part of the history here.
I believe there is no Christian church of any denomination in which one cannot have the personal experience of Christ and to be saved by Him. Might be harder in some than in others. To argue over dogma, while most enlightening, needs to be put in perspective. The beheaders and crucifiers of Islam don't give tinker's dam whether one follows the Pope, Joel Osteen, Rev Al Sharpton, or the Archbishop of Canterbury; or any other Christian leader. We are Christians and they want to kill us.
“Catholics do not worship Mary.”
No, but many idolize her.
It appears that my non-inspired reading is better than yours, since the statement that " Clement, who was ordained by Peter himself" is not what that site says, but only that this was "According to Tertullian."
Meanwhile, why is it, except as it is convenient for a strawman polemic, do RCs assume that since someone or thing is Protestant, then we necessarily should to give such credence, while on the other hand, RCs, as convenient, broadly define Protestant, and assert that they have no unity?
Schaff is an esteemed historian, not mainly because he is Protestant, but modern research has revealed things that even the best historians did not know. Thus even Catholic researchers and others provide testimony against the propaganda of the early church looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme popes in Rome. while Peterinspired reading is better than, who was ordained by Peter himself If you actually read my response, you should have seen that aside from the Schaff does not make
You must have missed the reminder to submit to the Holy infallible Father in Rome, or at least specifically to pray for him, or at least mention him (esp. among the 27 acquaintances in Romans 16), as Paul did in his epistles, and as befits a cardinal doctrine, since Paul was careful to always to declare "all counsel of God." (Acts 20:27)
You say you still not see the church looking to Peter as Rome teaches it did? Then read the Lord's critique and counsel to the 7 church in Asia, with its commendations and condemnations. For surely submission to Peter would be of primary commendation for the health churches, and commendation for those who were not, and part of the solution for such
Not there either you say? Then look how Peter describes himself in his epistles. Surely you can see that being "a servant," "an apostle," "an elder" is describing the exalted office in Rome to which all the churches looked to as their infallible head.
Such is not seen in any church epistles or letters you say? Then look how the entire church considered Peter's testimony and exhortation as being the definitive sentence on what should be done in Acts 15, rather than being the street-level leader among the 12 leaders, and first to use the keys to the kingdom, the gospel, (Col. 1:13) with no unique powers, and whose word did not settle the matter, but which the conclusive counsel of James did, confirmatory of Peter and Paul and Barnabas, after the latter added their complimentary testimony.
You do not see Peter as the singular supreme leader there? Then look how Paul describes Cephas (Peter) in Gal. 2. Surely being list second after James as one of 3 present who "seemed [appeared] to be somewhat" and that whatsoever they were as persons did not matter to Paul, and publicly reproving Peter for his duplicity is how Rome presents its pope.
You say you see the contrary, and not Peter as first of a line of exalted infallible heads in Rome is not there? Then look how the Holy Spirit is faithful to tell us of the successor to the apostle James who was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) as He did for Judas (in order to maintain the foundational number. (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Rv. 21:14)
You still only Peter as the initial street-level leader among the 11 leaders, with no unique powers perpetuation? Then look how often Peter is mentioned as compared with everyone else, even if much of that is duplicate accounts. And how much God used him. You say that by that kind of criteria you could provide 51 proofs of a Pauline papacy ?
Well, if you cannot see how Rome can extrapolate support for what it declares as Truth out of what Scripture does not teach, then it illustrates why you need to submit your mind to Rome first, as if she was God, and then you can believe anything she want you to. Regardless of any cost to credibility.
When you stop repeating this lie, you will have a chance at becoming an intellectually honest person.
Let's see:
Statue of Mary....check
Kneel before statue of Mary...check
Pray to Mary.....check
Rely upon Mary for salvation....check
Develop special prayers to Mary.....check.
Yet all of that is not worship????
When catholics are honest about their idolatry then they will have a chance at becoming an intellectually honest person.
>>>The same Church that through Petrine authority confirmed the true Word of God in its assembly of the canonical texts after researching for over 200 years, hundreds of texts, cross-checked against the received oral tradition.<<<
>>>Oh, if you doubt Petrine authority, you must also doubt the accuracy of the books assembled as the canonical texts established in the Synod of Rome in AD 382.<<<
>>>Well if you don't believe in Petrine authority then you must question the accuracy of the canonical books assembled in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority that proclaimed the Written Word of God.<<<
>>>The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I.<<<
>>>You must then doubt the canonical texts as well since these were established by men: the early Church Fathers (theologians) under Petrine authority?<<<
>>>Well if you don’t believe in Petrine authority then you must question the accuracy of the canonical books assembled in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority that proclaimed the Written Word of God.<<<
>>>Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the Canon.<<<
Steelfish, you keep making this claim about the NT canon as though it is unchallengeable, and yet when I challenged you in a recent thread you refused to defend your claim or refute my counterargument. I realize that Elsie has given you an intellectual spanking on this thread (applause), but we have unfinished business, so don't run away like a scared little rabbit like you did last time. Surely with all of those scholarly RC writings you keep referring to, somewhere you can find the official RC explanation for the conundrum that I presented. Here, I will refresh your memory:
=====
Even though James is considered the earliest book written in the contemporary N.T., it was one of last accepted as canonical, and was taken in and out a number of times over the centuries. Some eastern countries have never accepted James (traditional Indian Christian communities, for example). In fact, James in many ways proves itself non-canonical, but only one example is necessary to draw doubt from any open mind. The following is from my book, MetaChristianity VI - Unlocking James Bible Mysteries:
quote==>
Ja.2.21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
James made this claim to justify his works-righteousness gospel:
Ja.2.22-24 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
But Abraham was credited as righteous (Ge.15.6, Ga.3.6) ten years before the incident with Isaac in Ge.22. There is nothing about Abraham being considered righteous because of the incident with Isaac. This incident with Isaac was about Abraham's obedience to God's specific instructions and subsequent earthly blessings bestowed on him, not his righteousness. "Now I know that you fear God...I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore." Abraham's righteousness was "fulfilled" when "he believed God" in Ge.15. Between these two events God instructed Abraham to institute circumcision as part of His covenant with Abraham (Ge.17). Why would James not cite this as the "fulfillment" of Abraham's righteousness? Was it not enough works? Paul explains:
Ro.4.9-11a Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Paul confirms that Abraham was credited with "righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." Here's the timeline:
1) faith/righteousness = Ge.15
2) circumcision = Ge.17
3) Isaac incident = Ge.22
But, presuming James is correct, how does James know that the Isaac incident was enough? And how are we to know when we have done enough works so that our own righteousness is "complete" as James attributed to Abraham? Must we offer up our sons as well? What if we don't hear God say "stop!"? And just what are we to make of the statement of Ge.15.6 "Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness"? If Abraham, without sufficient works, was not "completely" credited as justified for the ensuing ten years, what did Moses think he was doing declaring that God credited Abraham as righteous just for believing?
Ja.2.24 You see that a person is [being] justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James here illustrates that not only does he not understand justification, but he is not even consistent in what he espouses. In verse twenty one he claimed that Abraham "was considered righteous for what he did". He also claims in verse twenty two that "his faith was made complete by what he did." So Abraham had accomplished righteousness according to James. But then James in an about face claims that justification is an ongoing process - "a person is [being] justified by what he does". (Even though the "being" is excluded from most translations it is correct based on the Greek grammar.) James now claims that justification is an open-ended proposition. In other words, James insists that justification is a continually on-going process - a complete contrast with what he claimed about Abraham.
The answer to James’ original question is NO, Abraham was NOT considered righteous "for what he did." Paul confirms this in Romans:
Ro.4.1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works [or as James put it, "what he did"], he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
If Paul had agreed with James he would have confirmed what James said. But he did not - he contradicted James in stark black and white. Paul and Moses agree, and James is the odd man out. James tried to pull a fast one, and even if this were the only evidence against the canonicity of James, it would be enough by itself.
<==/quote
As a side note, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does not explain this blatant contradiction between James, and Moses and Paul.
This is just one of many evidences that I explore in my book that leads the conclusion that the epistle of James is not inspired of God and not canonical.
=====
Steelfish, you really should put-up or shut-up. Go search your precious RC documents and find a countering explanation to uphold James as canonical, or withdraw your rubbish about the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority.
I look forward to hearing your (their) explanation.
Or will you run away again?
MuttTheHoople’s post #35
What we have here is the typical shallow Protestant response. Rain down a few scriptural quotes from here and there and ignore the broad breadth and depth of the history of the early Church Fathers and their coherent doctrine and instead resort to acting as internet theologian.
Perhaps you should engage yourself in serious scholarship reading.
The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes,
“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
You wistfully ignore the writings of St. Irenaeus AD 189 before the canonical texts were established. In the same view you have no clue of the earlier writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch in AD 110, himself a contemporary of the Evangelist John who wrote in 21: 25 that there were many things Christ did that cannot fill all the books in the world.
Your eclectic views of scriptures are utterly risible because it would mean that for eleven centuries the constellation of theologians, saints, and martyrs all got it wrong. When you swim in shallow theological waters, it is daunting to try venturing into the deep end of theological discourse. This is why the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict to say nothing of the scores of Protestant theologians who converted to Catholicism flies well over your heads.
Elsie spouts the stuff that emanates from the musings of a local neighborhood self-ordained pastor trying to lure guppies to his congregation. Without undertaking an effort to educate the likes of Elsie and others here’s good starting point.
What the Catholic Church says about Mary cannot be understood without a particular hermeneutic of the Bible, which is commonly referred to as typology: interpreting events and things in the Bible as types, or symbols, of something else. So when Luke’s angel Gabriel describes Mary as “full of grace,” Luke is explicitly using language that applies to the Holy of Holies of the Temple, and saying that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Now, this is not spelled out in so many words. But that’s the point: the Bible often as in Genesis, speaks to us as poetry does, through literary reference and allegory and imagery. And it is fundamental to understand this dimension.
Alas, as Protestant converts have conceded this is beyond the intellectual grasp of born-again Bible believers or because admitting to it would shatter their fragile bubble.
Catholic Mariology uses Biblical typology over and over again, so that Mary is referred to by the Genesis prophecy of the “seed of the woman” and is the woman of the Apocalypse, and is referred to by the constant Old Testament imagery of Israel’s covenant with God as a marriage, with Israel as a woman who is both virgin and mother, so that Mary is literally at the center of history, she is the link between the Old and the New Covenant. So of course Jesus is speaking to all of us when, from the Cross He makes Mary the mother of the beloved disciple.
The very existence of the Marian dogmas tells us something about God’s generosity, but of course so does the content of the Marian dogmas. It is essentially about God bestowing special favors to Mary as His mother.
She gets perpetual virginity. She gets to be glorified before anyone else. She gets protected from original sin. She gets appointed Mother of the Church and Queen of Heaven. Why? Just because He loves her, and that is reason enough.
>>>As I said there are those on this thread who would kill because of how another sings his psalms to God no mater that they believed in the birth and the death, the resurrection and the saving Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Please explain how this is a good thing? How does this farther the cause of Christ? Seems to me the devil encourages such divisions.
Is your way better? So when ISIS come for the Coptics you say nothing because you are not a Coptic? When they come for the Orthodox you will say nothing because you are not Orthodox? When they come for the Lutherans you will say nothing because you are not Lutheran? When they come the Methodist.....
I believe that we are very close to such a time will you standby maybe even assist? Or will you stand with your brothers and sisters in Christ no matter how they sing their psalms to God?<<<
Wow! This is WAY over the top. You should apologize and retract that statement.
Clearly you have not been reading many of the post on this thread or you enjoy the strife.
Yes I would say that it is much better way.
And no I will not apologies and think your post proves my point and I held a mirror up to you and you are mad at me because I showed you what your heart looked like.
Nice how you replied to me by including my name in a response that has nothing to do with what I presented.
Please address my post with your vaunted RC documentation on the canonicity of James. Stating that I am wrong because my argument does not line up with your authorities is a circular argumentation, because it is your authorities that I am challenging.
Of course, I realize (as do you) that you have no choice in the matter, because you have no answer of substance to my conundrum.
Such judgmentalism.
Is this what your church teaches?
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.