Posted on 05/09/2010 8:29:20 PM PDT by Salvation
This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.
This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:
The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.
All Christians believe that Mary was a virgin before and at the time of the birth of her son Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians and many other Christians also believe that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life.
Great teachers of the Church from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:
Council of Constantinople II (553 - 554) twice referred to Mary as "ever-virgin."
The great protestant reformers affirmed their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity:
There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. The first considers the "brothers" of Jesus from the Gospels.
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.
Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other Semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)
A second objection to Mary's virginity arises from the use of the word, heos, in Matthew's gospel.
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.
A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word, prototokos, translated "first-born" in Luke's gospel.
The Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary. The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.
Nothing to hide, sorry!
??
Post 53 To what it was going to lead to what it all means original question I think last night.
The Protestant or Catholic exorcisms have this common theme test that the Divinity became human{ Flesh} as proof to know to see if the victim is delivered.
Now, see... That is what I was talking about. I thought that too, but I had a very bad experience with one who fully admitted "Christ, come in the flesh." Perhaps I was inattentive, not paying close enough attention (they're tricky)...
But it was that experience which lead me to question what the phrase "Christ, come in the flesh" actually means.
[...] I challenge her to say the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed. She couldn’t do it. [...]In my eyes without a doubt this a tool from God.
An interesting take... though I find creeds to be of little value. "Vain repetitions," chantings, and such, these things we are told to avoid. Pagan artifacts.
[...] the Apostles Creed And Full Gloria
Please define, exactly: I am familiar with the Apostle's Creed, but "[...] And Full Gloria" is an amendment which I am unfamiliar with. Probably an RC vs. P translational thing...
I have seen that Mary declares the Apostles Creed And Full Gloria which a pure spirit can not exclaim.
I assume you meant an "impure spirit"... "Cannot exclaim" According to whom?
I truly believe this is the end all tool that Jesus gave us thru John the Apostle.
I find it of passing interest that most folks who follow the Spirit are drawn to John's testimony. I was saved while reading John.
Also I think its not a coincidence that Mary and John were very close because of Christ but more so of his writings.
This is a speculation - not necessarily false, but speculation none the less. It is not in Scripture. I have no doubt that John and Mary were close, else why would Christ consign the care of His mother to John... but their relationship (John, Mary) is not defined.
Now Its kind of funny that Mary comes in these visions. Why! She is the test proof of 1John 4.
Again, a speculative position, and most probably false.
Also its passed down that John and Mary came to one of the men who helped write the Creed that declares what we are commenting.
An apparition authorizing a creed... Now why is it that God would not see fit to just include this "important thing" right in the Book?... That seems to smell a little.
Also Why I believe in the Assumption of Mary{Body And Soul went to heaven}.And its very strange that there is no know Relic of this Great person. For all eternity we will see this very verse declared before our eyes.
Again, speculative. There is no record of such, nor is any assumption of Mary recorded in the Book.
As to relics, I find the entire subject field appalling, and proof abounds that it was manipulated extensively for profit. It is not a Biblically authorized activity, and is very much a pagan practice.
If there was even one instance of Mary being called a queen, or being bowed down to in the Book, I would hold my tongue.
Why the sudden need for a new "style" of messenger from God? The Father has always sent His word to man by way of angels, or by the direct intervention of the Son of Man...
There is no "mother figure" in the Hebrew tradition, and the predictions of the Prophecy show nothing more than the "born of a virgin" stuff wrt Mary... Yet every other thing that God has done, He has showed us beforehand, and that, in spades. Why this paradigm shift in the whole thing?
This points to the "Character of God" thing that I spoke of before. He doesn't change, and His proof is that He told us ALL He set out to do beforehand. Mary's apparent powers are not predicted *at all*.
In what way is Mary's apparition more efficacious than one's standard variety angelic presentation, or the appearance of Christ Himself?
This entire post asserts a false premise. The Protestant ideal does not consider tradition a "dirty word." Sola Scriptura places tradition under the Holy Bible, which is held to be supreme, irrevocable, and unchanging. Protestants of all stripes have traditions which they hold to.
In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven.
There's your problem, right there.
Doesn’t mean a real dirty word his getting the main point though thru.
Awesome post!
Thank you.
Rats! You've just shot down one of my favorite theories... Thanks for your correction!
Well all I can say is its a belief. Now we have different ways of looking at it. I believe in the Church that produced the book. I believe other people believe the book translated the way they can understand. I am no mystic. But the first Christians walked in the Holy Spirit . We still can and do walk in the Holy Advocate Spirit. Like our redeemer who talk about the advocate. I have a sense of spiritual things just like you do. Like a verse comes up while we are doing our daily business in life. Also a very deep pray life I believe puts us more in a walk with The Spirit. I told you the story. I believe that Holy Spirit sense can prompt me to help. Don’t we all have some kind relationship in the spirit. Anyway the way I look at it its still a tool. I have even read Martin Luther or other Protestant or Catholic use that tool. Also Your assumption is in the Bible only. If thats true who do we go to for the right reading. Don’t say Holy Spirit only otherwise why all the disagreements with Thousands of denominations. They all claim Holy Spirit then contradict each other. Someone has to be the real caretaker of the deposit of faith. Surely God Never intended the mess of differences.
Thanks..but my position on this is established... i do go over them though...
Accepted.
Now we have different ways of looking at it. I believe in the Church that produced the book. I believe other people believe the book translated the way they can understand.
I believe the Spirit wrote the Book. Both the first Covenant, and the second. Anyone, or any human organization which happened to be associated therewith is incidental.
I am no mystic.
Not meant in a derogatory way, but in the generic... Spiritually oriented...
But the first Christians walked in the Holy Spirit . We still can and do walk in the Holy Advocate Spirit. Like our redeemer who talk about the advocate. I have a sense of spiritual things just like you do.
So it seems... and as I said, it is not often I meet such in the RCC. Bravo.
Also Your assumption is in the Bible only. If thats true who do we go to for the right reading. Don’t say Holy Spirit only otherwise why all the disagreements with Thousands of denominations.
Oh, but I will say the Holy Spirit. Those thousands of denominations stand thousands strong on most beliefs... on the important ones. It is my observation that the differences are in large part due to particular focus, and more likely, due to traditions. And that is not altogether bad.
They all claim Holy Spirit then contradict each other. Someone has to be the real caretaker of the deposit of faith. Surely God Never intended the mess of differences.
I believe the Holy Spirit is the "deposit of faith". If all the churches were suddenly to collapse, and all the Bibles on the Earth were burned, there would be a remnant. Just as there has always been with Israel - It is that remnant which IS the true Church.
And I believe that no matter what, the Spirit WILL succeed - God's Words do not return to Him empty. Soon enough, Apostles would be designated, scribes would be inspired, and the Book would be found, or rewritten again.
As far as the difference between the RCC and the Protestants - and this is the part I wanted to chew on before my reply - That difference can be likened to a term used by computer folks who deal with operating systems:
"The Cathedral and the Bazaar."
Closed source systems, the biggest of which is Microsoft, protect the source code for their software (the Windows operating System, among others), very closely guarded. No one can access the source code accept those who have been scrupulously approved. Guards are posted, non-disclosure agreements are signed... Production dates and dollar signs drive development. All bulwarks and drawbridges, Microsoft is the "Cathedral".
Open source systems, the most noted of which is the Linux community, is the polar opposite. Anyone can access the source code (any and all source code) at any time. Anyone can build an operating system from the individual files according to their wants and desires, following a strict, but minimal framework.
All of the various "kinds" are published, and the best compilation(s) are determined by the market, and the entire system is completely FREE. Not only "free as in beer," as the community coins it, but "free as in liberty."
Linux is the "Bazaar (flea market)."
Now, the castle mentality, the "Cathedral," has all of the market share, and holds that market share by means of force: They threaten their "flock" with excommunication (at the buyer/manufacturer level) if they do not "toe-the-line." They spend literally billions on every system version, with very little improvement. They live or die by their decisions "on high."
But the end users were constantly frustrated. Promises made by the advertising department were never quite true, the product was poor, and tended to lock-up quite often. finally, as no redress for grievance was available, it came to a point that any price, any cost was worth the effort to get out of under the corporate behemoth and it's restrictive, and purposefully unfair EULA agreements.
Along comes Open Source - a community of true believers. They don't care about the bottom line, they care about the code. Every one of them strives to make the thing just right. No more deadlines, no more department heads, no more lawyers, or sales teams. And they produce something nimble and wholly configurable, good for nearly any application - and they do it, for the most part, for free.
But there are some problems. there are many varieties of linux, and the better ones developed followings among them. And there is terrible infighting at times, as each "brand" is fought over as to which methods are best... But anyone who runs a Linux system, be it BSD, Gentoo, Red Hat, Mandrake, Slack, Ubuntu, Mint, or a thousand other varieties, they KNOW they are running Linux, to be sure. And they ARE running Linux - They are all basically the same. And they are all beautiful
The thing with the bazaar, it is a rowdy cacophonous place. One who has never been to one might consider it chaotic at their first look. But the nice thing about a flea market is that there is always another stall. No one can possibly corner the market with an inferior product, because inferior products just wilt away and die on the vine. The bazaar itself is very hard to change because it is born of change... change guards it and it changes constantly - Always being refilled with product by those who do a better job for the end user. But the structures of the bazaar, the stalls and alleys, it's framework, changes very little.
The outcome is inevitable. Microsoft cannot keep up. While it can pay for a hundred thousand code writers, it can in no sense succeed against millions of true believers writing excellent code for free. Microsoft, my FRiend, is doomed. The bazaar, Linux, will overtake it. It is just a matter of time.
And the moral of this story? Between the Roman Catholic church and the Protestants?
It is quite simple, and quite evident: God went Open Source.
That’s a nice allergory symbols semantics. It all comes down to where he meets us. A humble and contrite heart he will not ignore. The enemy loves to have us attack each other because makes he’s job easy. But I do believe Jesus meets us where were we at in this life. Praise Jesus!
Goodness sakes, it’s in the Bible!
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.