Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?
It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?
If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.
Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.
Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.
But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.
Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.
The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."
Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Bsuppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."
St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."
Twisting my words again, I see.
I realize truth can be so unfamiliar as to be challenging for some RC’s to comprehend, understand well at all.
That’s “what Catholic’s say” and “what YOU say they do.”
Not at all. It's right here in this thread.
It is my understanding that "time" does not exist in Heaven. (Or, rather, Heaven does not exist in "time.") If Mary and the other saints are united with God in Heaven, then such questions are not relevent.
LOL.
In the dreams of some RC’s, for sure.
Wagglebee, it’s not what Catholics believe, it’s what a handful of hateful anti-Catholics SAY they believe.
Focus on what’s important here!
Hubris
Let your bigotry fly! It's good to have it out in the open.
Sorry to the folks of good will here, few and far between. This is enough.
Yeah I know. It kind of reminds me of the Rooty Rooters, they proclaim something false as true and then get angry when you won't agree with their falsehood.
Sunlight is a fantastically effective disinfectant.
I honestly don't remember that detail Rollo since it was 5 years ago. As to Rev. 12 and the woman with the stars around her head (12 stars signifying the 12 tribes of Israel) does not specifically refer to Mary, its referring to the Nation of Israel, for out of Israel comes the Messiah.
"The woman symbolized ISRAEL, as indicated by Genesis 37:9-11, where the sun and the moon referred to Jacob and Rachel, Joseph's parents. The stars in the woman's crown clearly related to the 12 sons of Jacob and identified the woman as Israel fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant. J.B. Smith cites Isaiah 60:1-3, 20 as proof that the sun refers to Israel's future glory ("A Revelation of Jesus Christ" p. 182). Many commentaries are so intent on attempting to identify Israel as the church that they ignore these plain indications that is woman is ISRAEL. Robert H. Mounce, for instance, makes the woman 'the messianic community, the ideal Israel...(Rev. 12:17). The people of God are one throughout all redemptive history...While there is a unity of the people of God, this does not wipe out dispensational and racial distinctions. The symbolism, while NOT referring specifically to Mary, the mother of Christ, points to Israel as the source of Jesus Christ. Wicked women are sometimes used to represent false religions, as in the case of Jezebel...the apostate church of the end time as a prostitute (Rev. 17:1-7, 15, 18), and Israel as the unfaithful wife of Yahweh (Hosea 2:2-13). The church by contrast is pictured as the virgin bride (2 Cor. 11:2), the Lamb's wife (Rev. 19:7)....while in some sense this may be fulfilled in the birth of Christ to the Virgin Mary, the context seems to refer to the emerging nation of ISRAEL in its suffering prior to the second coming of Christ. This is further supported by the verses which follow." (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament Edition, Walvoord & Zuck, c1983, p958-959).
But if you want to use a Revelation analogy this blasphemous worship of Mary the RCC is engaged in (and I don't care how loudly you scream, "NO WE DON'T" the evidence is there that you do!) has more to do with the woman who rides the Beast in Revelation 17 'The Mother of Harlots' who is 'drunk with the blood of the saints' and I'm reminded of all the saints down through history the RCC has had burned at the stake. And stars or no stars, or whatever your view of Rev. 12 IS or ISN'T doesn't change the reality of her PROMINENT position on that altar above Christ. I recognize worship when I see it and WHO the object of that worship IS.
You are bearing false witness.
Notice there are no statues of any kind on the altar itself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2010858/posts?page=1359#1359
I read everything on the Church’s website. I couldn’t even find anything that confirms that it is named after the Blessed Mother.
I believe the insinuation is that they all do.
But surely they worship her above Him.
” Seems like one of satan’s major tools is overblown Mommy Dearest gigs.”
Dude - that nailed it BIG time! It’s called deflection - getting one to take his eyes/mind off the Truth so he we will accept a lie as truth and be led far astray before he’s knows his compass is corrupt.
Oh, I can definitely spot one of Satan’s major overblown tools right here on this thread.
I agree with your point about only the Lord God (all 3 persons) being omnipresent (and omniscient, I might add), Mary - being a woman - could converse with 5 or 6 women at once but hardly ever listen to a man :-)
What about THIS church? You will notice that THIS church even has statues praying to other statues.
(Whose grave are people leaving flowers at? Are they "worshiping" a dead person? Perhaps asking the dead to pray for them?)
(This is a real gem, the family shown IS NOT the Holy Family)
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.