Posted on 12/31/2010 7:33:30 AM PST by bkaycee
The Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle which had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally but with the close of the apostolic age all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching and belief that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible, and that consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature as being inspired by God the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. The Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, on the other hand, declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and therefore the Scriptures were not materially sufficient. This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent and is the predominant view today. It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism. Some agree with Trent and some don't. But the view espoused by Trent is contradictory to and is a repudiation of the belief and practice of the Church of the patristic age. The early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura in that it believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced the doctrine was to be rejected.
From the very beginning of the post apostolic age with the writings of what we know as the Apostolic Fathers we find an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. With the writings of the Apologists such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras in the early to mid second century we find the same thing. There is no appeal in any of these writings to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation. It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition that is preserved in the Church in oral form. The word Tradition simply means teaching. But what do these fathers mean when they say this Apostolic Teaching or Tradition is preserved orally. All they mean is that the Bishops of the Church preach the truth orally and anyone interested in learning the true Apostolic Tradition could learn by simply listening to the oral teaching of the Bishops of any orthodox Church of the day. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teaching of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both fathers give us the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the Churches and every doctrine is derived from Scripture. There is no doctrine in this Apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture. And there is no appeal in the writings of these fathers to a Tradition that is oral in nature for a defense of what they call Apostolic Tradition. The Apostolic Tradition for Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the apostles at first preached orally their teaching was later committed to writing in the Scriptures and the Scriptures have since that day become the pillar and ground of our faith. His exact statement is as follows: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith" (Alexander Roberts & W.H. Rambaugh Translators, The Writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874), 3.1.1). Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression.
Irenaeus and Tertullian had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. These early fathers rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer affirms this fact:
For Tertullian Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content...For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought...If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is (Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Van Gorcum, 1953, pp. 184, 133, 144).
The bible was the ultimate authority for the fathers of the patristic age. It was materially sufficient and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As JND Kelly has pointed out:
The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by (Scripture) is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis (Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 42, 46).
Heiko Oberman makes these comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the early Church:
Scripture and Tradition were for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The Tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition (The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366).
That the fathers were firm believers in the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century. He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to catechumens expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. And his teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral Apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture. He states in unequivocal terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This tells us that his authority as a Bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following are some of his statements from the Lectures on the final autghority of Scripture:
This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17).But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts (Ibid., Lecture 5.12).
Notice here that Cyril states that these catechumens are receiving Tradition and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions which they are now receiving. Where is this Tradition derived from? It is obviously derived from the Scriptures. The Teaching or Tradition or Revelation of God which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church is now accessible in Scripture ALONE. It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these catechumens, did not make a single appeal to an oral Tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone. This principle is also enunciated by Gregory of Nyssa:
The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations, but while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume V, Philosophical Works, On the Soul And the Resurrection, p. 439).
Basil the Great, the bishop of Caesarea from 370 to 379 A.D., testifies to his belief in the all-sufficient nature of the Scriptures in these words taken from a letter he wrote to a widow:
Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrikson, 1995), Second Series: Volume VIII, Basil: Letters and Select Works, Letter CCLXXXIII, p. 312).
These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.
The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from @ 130 to 202 A.D. He quotes from 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He makes over 1800 quotes from the New Testament alone.Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 A.D. He cites all the New Testament books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 A.D. He makes over 7200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 A.D. he succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. he makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.
By the end of the third century virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church fathers. Norman Geisler and William Nix sum up the position of the New Testament Scriptures in the early Church in these words: "In summary, the first hundred years of the existence of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognised as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the apostolic age" (Norman Geisler and William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1980), p. 190).
B.F. Wescott comes to a similar conclusion: "With the exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the two shorter Epistles of St John, the second Epistle of St Peter, the Epistles of St James and St Jude, and the Apocalypse, all the other books of the New Testament are acknowledged as Apostolic and authoritative throughout the Church as the close of the second century. The evidence of the great Fathers by which the Church is represented varies in respect of these disputed books, but the Canon of the acknowledged books is established by their common consent. Thus the testimony on which it rests is not gathered from one quarter but from many, and those the most widely separated by position and character. It is given, not as a private opinion, but as an unquestioned fact: not as a late discovery, but as an original tradition (B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1889), pp. 337-338).
It is true that the early Church held to the concept of Traditon as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices and that they often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles even though could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. But these practices did not involve the doctrines of the faith and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church. An example of this is found early on in the second century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a certain day, while the West celebrated it on a different one, but both claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the Apostles. It actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who was demanding that the Eastern fathers submit to the Western parctice. This they refused to do firmly believing that they were adhering to Apostolic Tradition. Which one is correct? There is no way to ascertain which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. And there are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a particular Church father claims that a particular practice is of Apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily is. All it means is that he believes it was. But there is no way to verify if in fact it truly was a tradition from the apostles. There are numerous practices which the early Church engaged in which they believed were of Apostolic origin which are listed for us by Basil the Great which no one in the Church practices today. So clearly, such appeals to oral Apostolic Tradition are meaningless.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral Apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 for the justification for such a claim, where Paul states that he handed on traditions or teachings to this Chruch in both oral and written form. Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an appeal is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines that Paul is referring to which they claim they possess and which are binding upon men. In all the writings of apologists from the Reformation to the present day no one has been able to list the doctrines that comprise this supposed Apostolic Oral Tradition. From Francis De Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is this conspicuous absence. Sungenis is editor of a work recently released on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of Tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. It is 627 pages in length. But not once in the entire 627 pages does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed Apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men. All we are told is that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound therefore to submit to this Church which alone possesses the fulness of God's revelation from the Apostles. But they can't tell us what it is. And the reason is because it doesn't exist. If they are of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures? I defy anyone to list the doctrines Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians.
The Roman Catholic authority on Tradition, Yves Congar, makes this interesting observation about the nature of revelation from the Old Testament dispensation:
Revelation is a disclosure of his mystery which God makes to men...a disclosure through created signs, guaranteed by God not to mislead us, though they may be very imperfect. These signs are events, realities, actions and words; but ultimately, at least as regards the Old Covenant, the events and actions are known to us only in words, and written words at that: the writings of sacred Scripture (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 238).
Yves Congar readily admits the principle of sola Scriptura with regard to the Old Testament. The only revelation we possess of that dispensation is the written Scriptures, even though prophets from the very beginning preached and taught orally. Protestants are simply saying that the same principle applies to the New Testament dispensation. To paraphrase Congar: God's revelation in the New Testament dispensation is known to us only in words, and written words at that: the writings of sacred Scripture. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures of the New Testament. This was the belief and practice of the Church of the patristic age and was the principle adhered to by the Reformers which they sought to restore to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of Tradition. The teaching of a separate body of Apostolic revelation known as Tradition which is oral in nature originated, not with the Christian Church, but with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation. Just as the early fathers repudiated this teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.
The Catholic church claims that he’s Christ’s representative here on earth.
He doesn’t live much like Christ did.
It continues to amaze me, the levels to which Catholics will go to excuse or justify the excesses and deviancies of the priesthood and the hierarchy in their church.
I have never met a group of people so willfully blind to the faults of the organization to which they belong. That they will defend the perpetrators of heinous sins and blame the victims for being money grubbers looking for quick cash for their yatchs etc.
Can the Catholic church do ANY wrong in your eyes?
He did not institute the church to be the vehicle for salvation. He did not institute sacraments and tell people that unless they partook, they weren't saved.
Amen
I thought we were on the same page, but sometimes it's good to clarify. I think lies keep being told with the hope that they become accepted as fact.
No, but apostates have done the Church tremendous damage.
You miss the third option.
Don't purse discussions with those that go out of their way to mix subjects and in the process misrepresent the original point, such as your statement above.
Your silence is deafening and speaks more than than the "dozens" of feeble denials, obfuscations, and a running charade of piety. Christian charity compels me to give you another chance to fail:
1) Define scripture and differentiate it from the hundreds of competing contemporary works rejected by Canon.
2) Provide a Scriptural table of contents or listing of the works that comprise Scripture.
3) Provide a Scriptural proof that establishes that 100% of the revealed Word of God is found in Scripture.
If I am misrepresenting your position on house churches, then accept my apologies and define your position. Or at least define the term. That's not too much to ask.
It is truly wonderful that some people who hate the Catholic Church are not members. It’s a genuine blessing that they do not sit beside me at Mass, worship the same way I do, believe in the same tenets, uphold the same traditions, and receive the Eucharist.
I’m so glad that they judge the Catholics and their Church. The same measure they use, will be used on them. My Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, Risen Son of the Living Almighty God, said so in Holy Scripture.
1. “God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary.” (Pius IX: Encycl., Ubi primum, February 2, 1849.) — [p. 12, number 12]
Question: Jesus never taught His disciple to teach that Salvation was through Mary. When did that change?
2. “O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee.” (Leo XIII: Encycl., Adiutricem populi, September 5, 1895.) — [p. 12, no. 13]
Question: Did Jesus deceive His disciples in the following verse?
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6
3. “With equal truth it may be said that of the great treasury of all graces given to us by Our Lord—for grace and truth came by Jesus Christ—nothing comes to us except through Mary’s mediation, for such is God’s Will. Thus, as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no one goes to Christ except through his mother.” (Leo XIII, Encycl., Octobri mense, September 22, 1891.) — [pp. 13,14, no. 19]
Question: If that is true why did Jesus and the Apostles not tell those who they wrote to and preached to?
Do you own those books from the 1800s? Or did you get those quotes online? Mind putting up a link, so we can all see that they are accurate? Or did you get them from some anti-Catholic site, which quoted them from somewhere else?
I have been gathering them from many sources each time trying to make sure it’s authentic. Comments made either by Catholics or those who disagree with them gets me curious enough to try to find the truth. Look at my name! If I’m wrong I want to know but will tell you if you are (as I understand it) as well.
Here is one of the sources. I have many more questions and will be posting them from time to time. If you have proof that the information is not that of the RCC don’t be afraid to let me know but understand that I will check. My name ya see! Hehe
Well, here’s some more stuff to add to your collection.....
And it carries the official sanctions of:
ni•hil ob•stat
n.
1. Roman Catholic Church An attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals.
2. Official approval, especially of an artistic work.
WITH RICHARD CARDINAL CUSHING’S IMPRIMATUR
p.32
Mary is crowned Queen of heaven and earth, dispenser of all graces . . .
p32
4 - She became Queen of Purgatory, where she exercises her power as mediatrix in behalf of these suffering souls.
5 - She became Queen of us sinners, to assist us through the dangers of this life and to help us in difficulties.
6 - She became the ruler of hell, that trembles at her slightest gaze and is defeated by her power.
“Just as a rock extracted from earth will precipitate into the abyss, so will man, left without Mary’s help, quickly slide toward hell.” —Richard of St Victor
p37
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Thy kingdom come; Thy kingdom come through Mary! —Partial Indulgence
p41
“Mary is the tree of life to those who grasp her, and he is happy who hold her fast.” —Prov. 3:18
p43
1 - “Hail Mary, beloved daughter of the Father, Mother of the Divine Son, Spouse of the Holy Spirit, complement of the most august Trinity!”
p45
6 - To her was granted grace greater than that conferred upon all others, ‘that she might vanquish sin in every respect.’
p46
7 - “Mary is the dawn of God because, just as the dawn marks the end of darkness and the beginning of day, so Mary indicates the end of vices and the beginning of virtue.”
9 - God loved Mary so much that He gave her the keys to His heart. ‘No one can go to God without Mary drawing him.’
p47
4 - “Mary, trusting in the word of the angel, destroyed the sin Eve committed by trusting in the serpent.’
.
5 - “She desired the safety of everyone, went in search of it, and obtained it; it was also through her that this salvation was wrought.”
p47
10 - “As Noah’s Ark saved all the animals that entered it, so Mary saves all the souls that entrust themselves to her care.”
p50
8 - “If she were not so holy as she is, how could God appoint her to be the ladder of Paradise, the advocate of the world, meatrix between Him and us?”
p50
4 - “By becoming Mother of God, Mary belongs to the order of hypostatic union; hence she participates IN the infinite sanctity of God.”
*****************************************************************************
And here is a pope’s idolatrous prayer to her, treating her as if she were God Himself.....
Prayer of Pope Pius XII
In Honor of the Immaculate Conception
http://catholicism.about.com/od/tothevirginmary/qt/Honor_Immacula.htm
Prayer of Pope Pius XII
Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty, and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, O Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary, confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Though degraded by our faults and overwhelmed by infinite misery, we admire and praise the peerless richness of sublime gifts with which God has filled you, above every other mere creature, from the first moment of your conception until the day on which, after your assumption into heaven, He crowned you Queen of the Universe.
O crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! O fragrant Lily of all holiness, captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume! O Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin, which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of hell!
O well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cry which rises up from every heart. Bend tenderly over our aching wounds. Convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed, comfort the poor and humble, quench hatreds, sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity in youth, protect the holy Church, make all men feel the attraction of Christian goodness. In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that they are brothers, and that the nations are members of one family, upon which may there shine forth the sun of a universal and sincere peace.
Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications, and above all obtain for us that, one day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which today is sung on earth around your altars: You are all-beautiful, O Mary! You are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honor of our people! Amen.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my Catholic Apologetics and the Defense of the Faith ping list:
Please ping me to Catholic threads where I can help defend our common faith!
Are you forgetting that Christ -- by the Eternal Will of God -- did come to us through Mary? Perhaps you are one of those with a truly hazy concept of the Incarnation (the Word became flesh), who opine that the Most High Creator provided an incredibly detailed plan for salvation but unaccountably had to scrabble around at the last minute to find a Jewish girl who "fit the prophecies" (as if He were bound by prophecies someone else made!) because He forgot He'd have to have a mother for His Son.
There was a movement within the Catholic Church in the 19th century to more explain Mariology more thoroughly. The Church always saw Mary as the greatest of all Saints - graced by God in a unique and special way. It stressed that venerating and imitating her Christian obedience was a path to holiness and that holiness is a step towards Salvation.
Anti-Catholics, particularly apostate Catholics, continually display their ignorance of a very complex subject by quoting excerpts out of context and demanding a one or two sentence defense. It doesn't work that way. Faithful Catholics have done their homework, meditated on a number of thoughts and have embraced the dogma. Those who have not done their homework simply don't get it. It is like discussing the beauty of a sunset with the color blind.
Thanks, will add. I fear that most who call themselves Catholic have no idea what the RCC truly believes and stands for.
The problem you have with your little scenario there is that every time I site something the RCC believes it comes from official RCC sources. Deny all you want but if you don’t know what the RCC really says and stands for you need to study what it says.
Interestingly, while Catholics claim that every thing that reflects negatively on the RCC is from an anti-Catholic *hate* site, they go and post anything they find that reflects negatively on Protestantism and seem to consider it written in stone by God Himself in regard to truthfulness and accuracy.
Double standards are pretty much SOP for Catholics as a whole.
I am sincerely open to receiving any evidence of such.
But that's just what no "Born Again" "Sola Scriptura" Christian has been able to offer me: records, objects, names, places, dates, or any other archaeological, or documentary grounds that would establish the truth of their claim.
We know, for instance, that there were early churches in Colossae, Ephesus, Corinth, etc. because Paul wrote to these churches: he governed them, he commanded them, he told them how to live the Christian life. He was their leader, in the name of Christ. Did they "choose him from within their congregations"? Clearly not.
We know, also, that the first-generation Apostolic leadership chose successors (such as Matthias, who took the place of Judas the traitor), and that Paul trained and ordained second-generation leaders like Titus and Timothy. Again, there is no evidence at all that these successors and church-leaders --- Matthias, Titus, Timothy ---were voted for, chosen, elected, or selected by or from within their congregations. Rahter, they were appointed by those who ordained them by the laying on of hands.
Much of what we know of the Bible itself, we know from post-Biblical soures. For instance, even the authoriship of the four Gospels --- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John --- is not provable from the Biblical texts themseles. How do you know Matthew wrote the unsigned text the Church identifies as the Gospel of Matthew? How do you know that Luke wrote "the Gospel of Luke" and the "Acts of the Apostles"? They are not signed works. Are there any 1st, or 2nd, or 3rd century Bibles that have a table of contents? How do you know what books comprise the Bible?
I'll be helpful for you here. I'll tell you how you know it: you know it from Tradition-with-a-capital-T: that which was handed down to you from the Apostles and their successors, confirmed by the Church authorities in councils and synods comprising those same successors, by this time known as Bishops.
Could you please supply me with an early-- say, pre-4th-century--- list of the books which comprise the Biblical canon? Assuming you have such a list, where did it come from?
Thanks in advance. I'm here to learn.
Here are a couple more for you to contemplate.
“All our hope do we repose in the Most Blessed Virgin, in the all-fair and immaculate one who has crushed the most cruel serpent’s poisonous head and brought salvation to the world.” (Pius IX: Apost. Const., Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.) — [p. 18, no. 39]
So it was Mary who crushed the serpents head?
“The Catholic Church has always and with justice put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God.” (Leo XIII: Encyclical, Supreme Apostolatus, September 1, 1883.) — [p. 32, no. 104]
So all your hope and trust is in Mary rather then God Himself?
“She it was who, immune from all sin, personal or inherited, and ever more closely united with her Son, offered him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father....” (Pius XII: Encyclical, Mystical corporis, June 29, 1943.) [p. 37; no. 128.]
So it was Mary who “offered” Jesus on the cross? So important that neither Jesus or His apostles mention it?
>> Double standards are pretty much SOP for Catholics as a whole.<<
Human nature trying to not believe that a lifelong trust is not what they thought it was.
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.