Posted on 06/15/2010 6:38:10 AM PDT by bkaycee
I think you misunderstood my question.
You said "If all the councils used the Scripture as the final authority on doctrine, and the Pope had follwed them, we wouldn't be out of communion. "
I asked my question regarding this hypothetical situation - one where everything you said happened to be true - which in history, isn't how it worked out because in numerous Councils, because the parties involved couldn't agree on what Scripture was saying. In numerous cases an outside arbiter and extra-Scriptural language was necessary. Nicaea is a good example of such a situation.
And so I will re-ask my question, now that I have explained it: In a situation where everyone agrees to use Scripture as the final authority on doctrine, who becomes the arbiter to settle disputes of interpretation, and what method do they use to make such a judgment?
Well I’m not the only one to have “observed” its(hail) usage in that way...
Mary acknowledged “the God of her salvation”. The work of Salvation was Christ’s alone via the finished work of the cross. Mary was co-redemptrix of nothing. She carried Christ in her womb, then had other babies with Joseph...for Joseph “knew her not” until after the birth of Christ.
In what way?
In a situation where everyone agrees to use Scripture as the final authority on doctrine, who becomes the arbiter to settle disputes of interpretation, and what method do they use to make such a judgment?
Of course they would have to agree on the language used. If they couldn't reach agreement based on the plain meaning and usage of the language, then it wouldn't become doctrine. Scriptural warrant for doctrine has to be clear.
Now I ask again: What doctines of the Catholic Church rely on only interpretation as opposed to the clear reading of the text?
And Mary gave thanks for the “fruit” of her womb to the “God of her Salvation”. Elizabeth refered to Mary of the “mother of Her Lord”, not as the co-redemtrix of her Lord and the co-worker of Elizabeth’s salvation...neither did Elizabeth refer to Mary as immaculate and for-ever sinless!
Just getting around to reading posts on FR. Thank you for posting this. I will save it and keep for future reference as it is a very well researched paper.
Just be aware, that some on this forum will likely anathematize you for it and, if we still lived in the sixteenth century, would first torture you and then burn you at the stake thinking they were doing God’s work.
I thank the Lord every day for leading me out of the darkness of this religion and into the pure light of the Gospel.
Correct. To top it all off, the Author (webster) must not have read much Blessed Saint Cyril,because he was NOT a solo scripturalist private interpretation believer who taught outside what the Church believed Scripture to say.
Example
"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church"-Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).
I have run across this William Webster heretic before when he tried using the Church Fathers to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He did not fair too well either
Webster is just another charlton lining his pockets with money and tickling ears teaching against historical Christianity by twisting what the ECF's said in his own self interpretation that is not consistent to the ECF's writings as a whole
We Catholics speak of Mary as the ark of salvation. You all seem to think of her as a rent-a-womb. Your objections seems to be more the terms we use. But we use these terms because they follow from our use of the term “Virgin Mary.” It sometimes seem to me that your notion of the Virgin Birth is not more profound than that of Mohammed. To them Jesus—their Issa—is not more than a great prophet and the virgin birth no more than a “sign” of his greatness.
Did you read the passage? If you don’t understand the passage I’m wasting my time.
“Mary was co-redemptrix of nothing.
She carried Christ in her womb.”
And that, is the Catholic position in a nutshell. She is co-redemptrix for she bore Christ.
Did she not care for her son from infancy? He is both Son of God, and Son of Man.
“would first torture you and then burn you at the stake thinking they were doing God’s work.”
Thank goodness, we aren’t Lutherans.
You seem to think your hands are clean. Luther executed anabaptists for the heresy of denying Christian baptism.
Dear Bother, Webster disrespects the Church fathers when he twists some of them to deny consistent Church teaching on Eucharist.
That's pretty evil as far as I'm concerned
So you never chose your faith? What would Luther think of you?
Anyways, in all seriousness, you have not been Anathemised. Luther was.
His followers who chose to turn their back on the Church, were also anathemised. This is only after they persisted in attacking the Church and her believers long after Trent.
The door is open, it always has been. Those who through their own sincerity have found themselves on the other side, are Christians no less and no more than the rest of us.
Trent is not abrogated. Trent assessed the question as to who was correct? The Catholic or the Protestant understanding. Luther, Calvin, all the reformers were invited to make their cases before the council, as the Arians, and the monothelites had done previously.
As Luther himself had even called for an ecumenical council.
There were 25 total sessions, each of them dealing with separate questions raised by Luther and Calvin and Zwingli.
If you want the full and formal list, let me know.
But he does leaves himself open to rebuttal. Many Evangelicals basically say, “well, I FEEL that” and one is left trying deal with their personal experiences. This is sort of like dealing with Sister Agatha who claims to have had a vision of Our Lady.
Once saved, always saved? There are two possible answers to that question. Yes and No. Actually three (I do not know)
Protestants dont have to be in lockstep on non salvation issues.
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things charity"
This is true,but I wonder how many people he misleads who would never think to research what he teaches because they think this guy is a scholar of historical Christianity
Webster uses Blessed St. Cyril of Jerusalem to make a case for solo Scripture than he would be in complete disagreement with him when St. Cyril writes the following on Eucharist
"Do not, then, regard the Eucharistic elements as ordinary bread and wine: they are in fact the body and blood of the Lord, as he himself has declared. Whatever your senses may tell you, be strong in faith."-St. Cyril of Jerusalem
I guess you missread the part about confirmation but God had already included me as part of the elect.
What would Luther think of you?
I think he would be happy.
His followers who chose to turn their back on the Church, were also anathemised.
If by 'Church' you mean the Catholic one, I am anathemized as well.
Luther, Calvin, all the reformers were invited to make their cases before the council,
I'm sure that would have worked out well. I wonder why they didn't go? Hmmm.
Those who through their own sincerity have found themselves on the other side, are Christians no less and no more than the rest of us.
I wonder what the FR 'Inquisitor' would say to that.
As Luther himself had even called for an ecumenical council. There were 25 total sessions, each of them dealing with separate questions raised by Luther and Calvin and Zwingli.
I know, did the Catholics come?
Not so...There is a fourth and the correct one...And that answer is 'both'...
You guys can find scripture for your position and the other side can just as easily find scripture for it's opinion...
How many did Brother Martin kill?
They keep pretending that the English 'Hail' is the German 'Heil'...
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.