Virgin Mother of God

Companion to the Summa ^ | 1950 | Walter Farrell, O.P.

[irishtenor]

And you are the one that said I was afraid of scripture. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Romulus]

I don't see where Hermann's saying you aren't saved, but I would like to see him clarify his meaning in the last sentence. (Your failure to differentiate which text is yours and which is Hermann's makes my job a lot more uncertain.)

The Church does not teach that those who hold to less than the entirety of Catholic doctrine have no faith in Jesus (implying that their salvation is impossible). But she does teach that you are bound under pain of grave sin to accept the Catholic Church if your reasoning conscience perceives the validity of her claims. Furthermore, she teaches that, although those not in full communion with the Catholic Church are in a gravely deficient position, they too may be saved.

[Romulus]

You don't need it.

And you do. Your god is a book.

[irishtenor]

That is not what he said. He said unless I hold to the whole teaching of the Catholic church... REBUKE HIM.

[irishtenor]

Yes, I need the word of God. It's too bad you don't.

[irishtenor]

Your god is a church.

[xzins]

That is circular logic. Lemme see if I've got this: "You need scripture to tell you you don't need scripture..."

LOL!

Your scripture also tells you that "All scripture is inspired by God, and is USEFUL....."

[Romulus]

Yes, I need the word of God.

What you need is the Word made Flesh.

[Romulus]

Your god is a church.

Not so; the Church is a created thing. But she's a single Body whose head is Christ. In being joined with her, I'm in him. Cut off from her, I'm not.

[Romulus]

Your scripture also tells you that "All scripture is inspired by God, and is USEFUL....."

Quite right. Very useful. But not indispensible.

Are you proposing a doctrine of Nulla salus extra scripturas?

To say that scripture is absolutely, definitively essential to salvation would be to deny that Christ alone is savior of the world.

Do you really want to go there?

[PFKEY]

For them to tell me that I am not an elder just because I can't trace the lineage back to Peter is preposterous. That would mean that drstevej isn't an elder either.

IrishTenor, I will continue to read the remained of this thread> You have done a magnificent job, but if you can not defend your authority for the eldership in the church then I'm very concerned.

I pray that as I read further you do define who and what an elder is.

What the qualifications are..

How you meet those qualifications...etc.

[PFKEY]

Let me take a stab at it...

Actually this goes into the organization of the church which, naturally includes Elders.

Jesus said, "On this rock I will build My church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18

THE CHURCH
The church that Jesus built was HIS church. Jesus Christ is Himself its foundation (I Cor. 3:11). He is the Savior of the church (Eph. 5:23). It was purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28). He is the Head of the church (Col. 1:18). The church is the bride of Christ (II Cor. 11:2). The church is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:23). The Bible says there is only one church (or body) (Eph. 4:4).

Since the church belongs to Jesus Christ, the New Testament is our only reliable guide to the church's organization and the regulations for entering His church. No man-made churches are described or authorized in the Bible (Psm. 127:1).

The New Testament often refers to "the church" in a universal sense, encompassing the entire family of God throughout the world (Mark 16:15). Also, the scriptures frequently refer to "the church" in a local sense (I Cor. 1:2).
The Bible authorizes no organization for the universal church, except Jesus, who is the absolute ruler (Eph. 1:20-23) with absolute authority (Matt. 28:18). The New Testament does present Christ's plan for the organization of the local church.

The only way to construct the true, original organization that God approves of is to look into the scriptures. Let us examine the organization of the local congregation in the first century.

MEMBERS
The church was established in Jerusalem on Pentecost, about 33 A.D. (See Acts 2). After this, the New Testament makes no reference to anyone being saved without being in the church. God automatically adds the saved to the church (Acts 2:47). Entrance into the church (the body of Christ) occurs with baptism (Gal. 3:27, I Cor. 12:13, Acts 2:38-41).

In the first century church, members were simply called "Christians" (Acts 11:26, I Pet. 4:16). They were also referred to as "saints" (Acts 26:10, Rom. 1:7, I Cor. 1:2, Eph. 1:1). Christians were also considered to be "priests" (Rev. 1:6, I Pet. 2:9).
The New Testament is filled with instructions for Christians, including how to act, how to respond to others, and how to serve God (II Tim. 3:16-17, Titus 2:2-8).

Though men and women are equally valuable in God's eyes, they are to fill different roles in His church. It is by God's design that women are not permitted to assume positions of church leadership (I Cor. 14:34, I Tim. 2:12).

From among the members are chosen teachers, preachers, deacons, and elders.

TEACHERS
All Christians are expected to be able to teach the lost (I Pet. 3:15, Matt. 28:19). All Christians were told to "teach and admonish" one another in the first century (Col. 3:16). Those qualified with considerable knowledge of the Scriptures can teach in a more formal manner. Those who do, have greater responsibility (James 3:1).
God expects teachers to present the Word accurately and fully (II Tim. 2:15, Acts 18:26, Matt. 28:20). The scriptures gravely warn Christians about false teachers (II Cor. 11:13-15, II Tim. 4:3-4, I Tim. 4:1-3, Matt. 24:24).

PREACHERS
Men who choose the ministry as an occupation (I Cor. 9:14) are called preachers (Rom. 10:14), ministers (Col. 1:23), and evangelists (Acts 21:8). They have no duty to God different from any other Christian, just greater responsibility to work full time for the Gospel.
The apostle Paul instructed the young evangelist Timothy to "Preach the Word" (II Tim. 4:2, 5). First century preachers were primarily concerned with pleasing God (I Thess. 2:4, Gal. 1:10); therefore they preached the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27).
A minister is to serve (Matt. 20:26-28). The preacher can be a leader in the church (Phil. 3:17). But no where does the Bible authorize him to be a ruler.

New Testament preachers diligently studied the Word of God, using references from the Bible to support their preaching (Acts 2). They believed the Scriptures alone were sufficient and condemned those who taught otherwise (I Tim. 4).

Faithful New Testament evangelists preached the gospel fully (Rom. 15:19), forcefully (Acts 18:28), simply (II Cor. 11:3), urgently (I Cor. 9:16), boldly (Eph. 6:19-20), and in love (Eph. 4:15).
Their preaching was aimed at converting the lost to Christ, restoring the wayward Christian, and keeping the saved saved.

DEACONS
The word deacon comes from a Greek word meaning "servant." We find the first deacons being chosen because of a specific need in Acts 6. The needs and circumstances of a given situation in the New Testament church determined when deacons were appointed and how many were required. The deacons had authority only as they were assigned to be over some specific business.

The Bible has clearly instructed early Christians (and us) about the qualifications for men who serve in the office of deacon (Acts 6:3, I Tim. 3:8-13):

1. Good reputation
2. Full of the Holy Spirit
3. Full of wisdom
4. Reverent (serious)
5. Not double-tongued
6. Not addicted to wine
7. Not greedy for money
8. Hold faith with pure conscience
9. Found blameless
10. One wife (who is reverent, temperate, faithful, and not a slanderer)
11. Manages his own family well

The Bible makes no indication that deacons were permitted to rule in the early church. They were to serve under the oversight of elders (or bishops).

The local congregation in the first century had "bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1).

ELDERS
By God's design "elders" are to rule in the local church (I Tim. 5:17). The office they hold is also referred to as "bishops" (I Tim. 3:1), "overseers" (Acts 20:28), and "shepherds" or "pastors" (I Pet. 5:2, 4; Eph. 4:11).
Each church should be governed and supervised by a plurality of such men, not by one "Bishop" or one "Pastor." There were "elders" over the church in Ephesus (Acts 20:17), and "bishops" over the church in Philippi (Phil. 1:1). Paul instructed Titus to "appoint elders in every city" (Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23).
As a ruler in the church, an elder is only authorized to maintain those rules already set down in the New Testament (Acts 20:30, Gal. 1:9). He is not to be domineering, but is to lead by his example (I Pet. 5:3).
All Christians have been commanded to submit to the leadership and authority of the elders of their congregation (I Pet. 5:5, Heb. 13:7, 17).

The qualifications of men who may serve as elders can be found in I Tim. 3:1-7:

1. Desires the office
2. Blameless
3. One wife
4. Temperate
5. Sober-minded (sensible)
6. Good behavior (dignified)
7. Hospitable
8. Able to teach
9. Not given to wine
10. Gentle (not violent)
11. Not greedy
12. Not quarrelsome
13. Rules his own house well
14. Submissive and respectful children
15. Not a recent convert
16. Well thought of by outsiders

    ... and in Titus 1:6-9:

17. Christian children who are not unruly
18. Steward of God
19. Not self-willed (or arrogant)
20. Not quick-tempered
21. Lover of goodness
22. Just (upright)
23. Holy
24. Self-controlled
25. Firm hold on God's word

Elders were instructed to watch over the flock (church) as shepherds (Acts 20:28-32). They are caretakers of souls who are to perform their duties willingly and eagerly (I Pet. 5:2). Without partiality they are to teach, instruct, and direct all of the members in the way of sound doctrine (Titus 1:9).

CHRIST
No man is head of the church on earth, but Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God (Eph. 4:15-16). Christ is the only head of the church, His one body (Col. 1:18). Therefore, every member of the body must be in subjection to Him (I Cor. 12:12-13, Eph. 5:22-32).
This means that in matters of religion we do not have to submit to any man-made authority, but only to the divine authority of Christ as revealed in the New Testament.

GOD
Though Christ has equality with God (Phil. 2:6), their roles are different. "The head of Christ is God" (I Cor. 11:3).
Jesus said, "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).
Cast all your anxieties on God, for He cares about you (I Pet. 5:7).

GOD

- CHRIST

- ELDERS

- MEMBERS

  (including teachers, preachers, and deacons) is the proper order of authority in the church.

We cannot expect to be rewarded by God unless we live "according to the rules" (II Tim. 2:5) we find in God's Word. We can conclude that God will not be pleased unless we play by His rules.

If we are to reconstruct the church of the first century, we must have an organization with baptized Christians, who are served by teachers, preachers, and deacons. All of these are to be governed by elders who accept Jesus Christ and His Father as the ultimate authority.

[xzins]

The scripture is faithfully, the word of the Lord and of His apostles.

Were Jesus standing before you saying, "I am the light of the world..." then it would be your responsibility to accept that as the truthful word of one who cannot lie.

Since the scripture IS that faithful telling of Jesus' words, then you do have that responsibility.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I don't see where Hermann's saying you aren't saved, but I would like to see him clarify his meaning in the last sentence. (Your failure to differentiate which text is yours and which is Hermann's makes my job a lot more uncertain.)

Only the last part is mine, as near as I can tell.

My meaning - faith comes from accepting divine revelation as presented to us, not by carving our own opinion out of divine revelation and picking and choosing what portions we will accept.

Protestants, by the very fact of who they are, tend not to accept a teaching because the Church presents it to us as a revealed truth, but because it agrees with their own opinions of what revelation is.

The Church does not teach that those who hold to less than the entirety of Catholic doctrine have no faith in Jesus (implying that their salvation is impossible).

However, the faith in Jesus that is held may be a human construct and not what is divinely revealed. This is especialy prevelant among Protestants, and can be simply revealed by asking them to confess whether they believe that Mary is the Mother of God.

One might also ask whether they believe Christ founded just one visible Church, whether He gave men the power to forgive sins, whether God is the creator of evil, etc.

But she does teach that you are bound under pain of grave sin to accept the Catholic Church if your reasoning conscience perceives the validity of her claims.

There is also an obligation to investigate the Catholic Church if one is aware of it. It is not just an "option".

Furthermore, she teaches that, although those not in full communion with the Catholic Church are in a gravely deficient position, they too may be saved.

But not particularly easily, since they have no sacraments except Baptism (and some of them do not even receive that because of the rejection of paedobaptism). The forgiveness of sins then depends upon making acts of perfect contrition, which is difficult for most people, while the maintenance of a life of grace must be done without the Eucharist and the Mass. They would also need to recogniaze that many moral issues approved by the Protestant Churches are sins, and that accepting them means one is living a life of sin.

The salvation of Protestants is therefore doubtful, and not a matter in which we can have good hope for a happy outcome, although we should strongly refrain from juding individual cases.

[mdmathis6]

Yes but when John was born,and Zacharias was asked by what name he should be called, he wrote "his name is John" and then his speach powers were restored to him. Zacharias served in the temple priesthood. His words(Wherebye shall I know this, I am old and stricken in years) to Gabriel bespoke of skepticism and doubt, even after Gabriel, AN ANGEL for goodness sake told him of the special nature of John coming in the power of Elijah!

Look at the words of Gabriel when he first appeared. "Fear not Zacharias, THY PRAYER IS HEARD....and thy wife Elisabeth will bear thee a son and thou shalt call his name John!" When Zacharias had prayed for a son was not made clear, but for Zacharias to have doubted the angel even after the angel had said his prayer was answered took a special kind of chutzpah. Zacharias had asked for a SIGN that the Angel's word was true, and his wish was granted in a left handed sort of way; that is... Zacharias himself bore the mark of that sign in terms of his dumbness. And he bore that sign again when John was born, and he was made able to speak again. This wasn't just a punishment, but really a sign of grace and of God's imprimatur on the life of John, that Zacharias' own experience would be a testament of God's authority for the rest of us to believe as well. (It was a way of saying to Zacharias and the rest of us..."SHUT UP and learn something of the power of God!")

As for Mary, she didn't doubt so much as she just didn't understand. The question she asks"How shall this be seeing that I know not a man?", is a question that rings with concern regarding the enormity of the responsibility and th moral implications of it as well. She didn't doubt the angel that it would be done, and when the angel told her that the Holy Spirit would accomplish it, she DID NOT ASK FOR A SIGN (where by shall I know this? VERSES how shall this thing be?). Her response to the Angel "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word.", was one of faithful submission and obedience.

I do not question that God held Mary in high regard, Gabriel said so in his greeting of her. What I question is the stylistic, plastic statue hung on the rear-view mirror image that has been painted of her by some over intellectualizing theo-cratic "saints" whose musings have been believed over what the scriptures actually said about her!!! The whole article describes Mary as though she was a prime ingredient in the Baking of the perfect Godly woman, ascribing such sinless perfection to Mary that strains sensible credibility in light of the info we actually have of Mary from the Bible. Mary is notable for having given birth to Jesus. She is notable for the grace God has bestowed upon her. She was notable for her faith and submission to Gods will. But she was never "protected from original sin"! She was not perfect! Hence her faith in her unborn son AS HER SAVIOUR!!!!!

PS. It was interesting that in the case of Zacharias, the Angel appeared to him and not Elisabeth...where-as the angel appeared to Mary and later a "just but doubtful" Joseph.

Then again Zacharias was going to need to "assert" his "authority" with Elisabeth for John to be born. For a man struck dumb, Zacharias certainly must have had a way with words with Elisabeth for John certainly was conceived and born!

[mdmathis6]

Yes but when John was born,and Zacharias was asked by what name he should be called, he wrote "his name is John" and then his speach powers were restored to him. Zacharias served in the temple priesthood. His words(Wherebye shall I know this, I am old and stricken in years) to Gabriel bespoke of skepticism and doubt, even after Gabriel, AN ANGEL for goodness sake told him of the special nature of John coming in the power of Elijah!

Look at the words of Gabriel when he first appeared. "Fear not Zacharias, THY PRAYER IS HEARD....and thy wife Elisabeth will bear thee a son and thou shalt call his name John!" When Zacharias had prayed for a son was not made clear, but for Zacharias to have doubted the angel even after the angel had said his prayer was answered took a special kind of chutzpah. Zacharias had asked for a SIGN that the Angel's word was true, and his wish was granted in a left handed sort of way; that is... Zacharias himself bore the mark of that sign in terms of his dumbness. And he bore that sign again when John was born, and he was made able to speak again. This wasn't just a punishment, but really a sign of grace and of God's imprimatur on the life of John, that Zacharias' own experience would be a testament of God's authority for the rest of us to believe as well. (It was a way of saying to Zacharias and the rest of us..."SHUT UP and learn something of the power of God!")

As for Mary, she didn't doubt so much as she just didn't understand. The question she asks"How shall this be seeing that I know not a man?", is a question that rings with concern regarding the enormity of the responsibility and th moral implications of it as well. She didn't doubt the angel that it would be done, and when the angel told her that the Holy Spirit would accomplish it, she DID NOT ASK FOR A SIGN (where by shall I know this? VERSES how shall this thing be?). Her response to the Angel "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word.", was one of faithful submission and obedience.

I do not question that God held Mary in high regard, Gabriel said so in his greeting of her. What I question is the stylistic, plastic statue hung on the rear-view mirror image that has been painted of her by some over intellectualizing theo-cratic "saints" whose musings have been believed over what the scriptures actually said about her!!! The whole article describes Mary as though she was a prime ingredient in the Baking of the perfect Godly woman, ascribing such sinless perfection to Mary that strains sensible credibility in light of the info we actually have of Mary from the Bible. Mary is notable for having given birth to Jesus. She is notable for the grace God has bestowed upon her. She was notable for her faith and submission to Gods will. But she was never "protected from original sin"! She was not perfect! Hence her faith in her unborn son AS HER SAVIOUR!!!!!

PS. It was interesting that in the case of Zacharias, the Angel appeared to him and not Elisabeth...where-as the angel appeared to Mary and later a "just but doubtful" Joseph.

Then again Zacharias was going to need to "assert" his "authority" with Elisabeth for John to be born. For a man struck dumb, Zacharias certainly must have had a way with words with Elisabeth for John certainly was conceived and born!

[Romulus]

Since the scripture IS that faithful telling of Jesus' words,...

How do you know that?

...then you do have that responsibility.

What gives you the authority to instruct me?

I'm not dissing you. I'm asking serious questions.

[xzins]

You made the statement that to believe in scripture being essential to salvation is to supplant Jesus as the savior.

Actually not, if it is true that scripture faithfully preserves the words of Jesus and of those he instructed to speak.

In that case, the words of scripture are the words of Jesus.

And you gave me the inroad to discuss with you by entering into conversation.

[Romulus]

Thanks, Hermann. I want to associate myself with your additional comments on the additional obstacles facing those outside the Church. I have nothing to add to this except that, while God gives us the Church as the means to salvation (and no one can be saved who is not joined to her in some sense pleasing to God), it may be more profitable for us to rediscover salvation in the Mystical Body as a mystery of revelation, rather than the happy outcome of a juridically compliant process.

[mdmathis6]

" (and no one can be saved who is not joined to her in some sense pleasing to God)"


And what is that sense that is pleasing to God? Is it not to be joined with Christ first? Was it not Christ that said "I am the vine and ye are the branches..."? The joining of the church doesn't save...it is being enjoined with Christ first that makes us a part of his church!