Free Republic

Thanks, dear Dr. As one of “the OTHERS”, I’m CERTAIN you got my point...;)

The Case of the Very Bitter Life

Chapter 2: Mystery or Miracle?

"Hey, wait a minute..I've never seen the wine actually curdle before..."

And to you, Jvette. Thanks for the truth.

Grace to you, svitw

And this is all i ask. truth. and honesty. As i'm sure you do.

Grace to you, Deo volente.

Oh, I’ve read. Every word. Your religion has made what Mary is to you, NOT on Scripture, but on Tradition. Mary is to be honored, as the chosen vessel for Jesus’ birth. You can argue the point all you want, you will find more EXPLICIT information on Enoch and Elijah being bodily in Heaven, than Mary. Which is NOWHERE to be found. IN SCRIPTURE.

The points I made, the Scripture I gave all were ignored.

No they weren't ignored.

"How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." ((2 Cor. 12:4).

We could SURMISE what Paul heard, and make an entire religion around those suppositions, and claim verses implicit in those asserttions. At least we KNOW Paul was caught up into paradise. That's not IMPLICIT in Scripture. That is EXPLICIT>

No, doctrines of your faith can found when you read into Scripture what you want, and make it say something is does not say. Not by a long shot.

Like THIS for an example. Jesus was born of a virgin. Named Mary.

And by that, you deduce she was immaculately conceived herself,never sinned, and is sitting on the right hand of Christ, dispensing grace.

Isn't it interesting?

"...We wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith...;_Deiparae Virginis Mariae.

1946. Pope Pius sends a letter to the bishops of the world concerning the Assumption of Mary.

In order to respond to the Pope, the bishops needed to determine the source of the belief in the Assumption of Mary. Was it just a legend, believed by a few Catholics? Or was it a part of the deposit of faith, revelation handed down from the apostles? The Church could only define it as dogma if it were the latter. SO where do the bishops search for the answer? Scripture and Tradition. Of course, Scripture had no teaching of Mary's death, burial, resurrection, or Assumption. So on to Tradition they went. And that's where they found their doctrine on the Assumption of Mary. With supporting Scripture that is NOT explicit, but IMPLICIT. And can only be understood by those who contemplate and study and ponder these things in their hearts. The faithful and their "supernatural appreciation of the faith" . the sensus fidelium, the concensus of faith. It is an "...instinctive sensitivity and discrimination which the members of the Church possess in matters of faith. In that which the faithful hold in common to be the true Catholic faith, they are infallible and "cannot err in matters of belief."

You are a piece of work, my friend. You are EXHAUSTING. ;)

Yes, Paul stayed with Peter for 15 days. And also saw James, the Lord's brother. And then 14 years later, Paul went again to Jerusalem. "But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; " (2 Gal. 2:6).

The apostles are the ones referred to in bold. They had nothing to add to Paul. This in itself SHOULD prove to you that Peter was NOT the first pope and did NOT have charge of the universal church. Get it? Peter added NOTHING to Paul. Paul was giving Peter information, not the other way around.

Good points and I would like to know the answers myself. Hopefully, they will be forthcoming!

Well, Mark. Would you entertain these Scriptures for your Sola- wary list?

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

" That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars.." (Gal. 2:9).

Peter was listed second. Not first, as would be expected IF he were "primus".

"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person:)" (Gal. 2:6).

God did not seem to believe Peter was "primus". He is no respector of persons.

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience Chapter and verse, please. Where does the Bible say that?

"Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel which I preach unto you..."(1 Cor. 15:1).

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Cor. 15:3,4).

THERE, for a start.

Another example of the pious crowd. The meek and humble. You know, Beatitude 101.

First, since the end of the Apostles, revelation has stopped. What we have now is unfolding of what it already revealed.

"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them "their own position of teaching authority." -Second Vatican Council.

"The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on." - Second Vatican Council.

"The value of the Fathers and Writers is this: that in the aggregate they demonstrate what the Church did and does not yet believe and teach. In the aggregate they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which itself is a vehicle for revelation." -The Faith of the Early Fathers.

"It (Tradition) comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience." - Second Vatican Council.

So Mary's Assumption lay dormant for centuries, until it somehow springs to life in modern times through pious and infallible contemplation?

Peter is mentioned 155 times. Well, I'm certainly impressed. This MUST have a meaning. Unlike his OWN WORDS that say "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that YE SHOULD FOLLOW HIS STEPS: "(1 Pet. 2:21).

Not, "my steps". "HIS STEPS."

And while I'm on the subject of these ongoing revelations that Christ gives your infallible pope and magisterium, your "Sacred Traditions", let me ask you this:

Why, with these ongoing revelations, would God wait until 1946 to reveal the Assumption of Mary? If she were in heaven bodily, ALL THAT TIME, did HE not see her sitting on the right on of Jesus Christ, and feel the need to LET YOU ALL KNOW SHE WAS THERE, BODILY? That's a LONG wait for THAT revelation, my friend.

This post is for you, so I wanted to make SURE you got it.

And while I'm on the subject of these ongoing revelations that Christ gives your infallible pope and magisterium, your "Sacred Traditions", let me ask you this:

Why, with these ongoing revelations, would God wait until 1946 to reveal the Assumption of Mary? If she were in heaven bodily, ALL THAT TIME, did HE not see her sitting on the right on of Jesus Christ, and feel the need to LET YOU ALL KNOW SHE WAS THERE, BODILY? That's a LONG wait for THAT revelation, my friend.

The same is true in the case of the Ephesians to whom Paul said, “I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God” (Acts 20:27). This statement undercuts sola scriptura. Paul remained in Ephesus for over two years teaching the faith so diligently that “all the inhabitants of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10), yet his epistle to the Ephesians is a scant four or five pages and could not even begin to touch upon all the doctrines he taught them orally.

From where did Paul receive his teachings, those doctrines he taught for over two years? (Actually it was 3 years) Verse 24 tells you the answer.

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the MINISTRY WHICH I HAVE RECEIVED OF THE LORD JESUS, TO TESTIFY THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD."

Paul was teaching the Ephesians THAT which he received by REVELATIONS from the Lord. They were NOT given to him by man, neither he received them of men, But by Christ. Traditions were not being established in Ephesus. THE WORD OF GOD revealed to Paul was being established in Ephesus.

There is a HUGE difference. Paul was given BY JESUS CHRIST, the dispensation of the Grace of God. As he received revelation, he taught those at Ephesus what Jesus Christ had given him.

Tradition in the sense of the Catholic Church is not comparable to what Paul was given. Unless you believe that your Church receives revelations from Christ to the Magesterium, and then on to the rest of the Church.

But THAT IS what your Church teaches isn't it? That you are receiving revelations from Christ? And that He gives them to the Pope, or the Magsterium, which is why they are "infallible", and on and on. Throughout the centuries...The revelations just go on and on until the last of the 'faithful' remaining is no longer.