The Collapse of Cultural Catholicism

Standing on My Head ^ | 1/27/11 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

[count-your-change]

In following this thread I’ve seen really.....peculiar?....to be gentle.....statements but that post must be one of the most......peculiar.....of all.
Where do you get this stuff?

“So neither of them had the knowledge they were acting according to God’s sovereign plan. One disobeyed and one obeyed. Both were acting under their own will and own ability to make a free choice. Yet God’s hand was upon both. Is that contradictory? I don’t think so because as I stated before God is outside of time”

[RnMomof7]

I hate to use the term predestined cause there is a lot of baggage attached to it.

Men do not like the term is true..

I will state that from all time God has always known that man would fall and that He would promise them salvation. That being true He also knew how He would save us.

Of course I have no problem with God being sovereign over all the affairs of all His creation.. I will just note this for thought.. If God did not will for man to fall. .Knowing all things He could have put the trees and the snake outside of the garden.. So the fall was not only His will.. but it was in fact His plan by the placement of the trees and the snake ..

So people ask, Why would God not only allow the fall, but actually faciliate it ( I believe ordain it)

Because creation is not about us..it is about God.. if there had been no fall, we would never have seen sin..so we never would have known how Holy and Righteous God is. we never would have seen His wrath or His Mercy.. we would never have seen the fulness of God. I know many will have a hard time with this, but all creation and all the actions of men, including the fall are for His glory

Could God have chosen another way of Salvation? Yes, but He did not. Remember the angels who rebelled did so because they could not abide the idea of God humbling Himself to become one of us.

Interesting ...do we have a source for that ??

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Most Catholics have never critically examined the doctrines of Roman Catholicism. They didn’t join the Church because they found its doctrines to be true, but, as they will tell you themselves, they are Catholic because they were born Catholic.

The reason that they remain in the Church is because that is where they feel most comfortable. Most Catholics will say they are Catholic because in the Church they found the moral framework that they needed for life. It’s a place for their children to form proper values and to learn about God. They like the emphasis in the Church on loving one’s neighbor, right living, and social justice. But doctrine is not important to most Catholics. They didn’t join the Church because of doctrine and they don’t stay in the Church because of doctrine.

Many of the reasons people give for why they are Catholic are just as valid for explaining why they belong to a social club. Unconcerned about doctrine, they pass through life without ever having seriously questioned the veracity of the institution to which they have entrusted their eternal souls.

AMEN, Wolfman. And that is why when Roman Catholics DO begin to read the Bible on their own, they very often are brought to the realization that their church is in error and runs counter to the word and will of God.

And they leave Rome behind in search of the truth that has set free those who believe it.

[RnMomof7]

Just reading what another Catholic said ... maybe you need to talk to him ;)

[RnMomof7]

Excellent observation .. and very true

[lastchance]

I agree 100% (even if we can not fully understand how) that “but all creation and all the actions of men, including the fall are for His glory”

I’ll go even further and state I agree with the teaching that Earth was actually created by and for Christ. Such teaching makes it clear that the Incarnation was God’s will from the begining.

I’ll have to check the sources for the statement about the envy of the rebel angels. It is an ancient one and fits well with their pride and their hatred of us.

[lastchance]

I think they put it poorly and yes a clarification would be helpful.

[lastchance]

What stuff? That God is sovereign? That Adam and Mary and we have free will? That God is not bound by time, being eternal? That His hand is upon us even when our actions do not make that evident? Meaning that God’s knowledge of the ultimate outcome does not negate our choice.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Amen!
.

[count-your-change]

So Adam and Eve were ‘set up’ to fail? But that’s not like they had no choice since “God is outside of time” whatever is meant by that?
Stuff.

[metmom]

What are you doing on this thread making sense?

[topcat54]

I apologize for my comments earlier.

Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you see Isaiah 19 and current events in Egypt?

I consider this to be a more than adequate interpretation of Isaiah 19.

Isaiah 19:1
The burden of Egypt;
&c.] Or a prophecy concerning Egypt, as the Arabic version; a very grievous one, declaring many calamities that should come upon them. The Targum is,
``the burden of the cup of cursing, to make the Egyptians drink.''
The people of the Jews reposed great confidence in the Egyptians their allies; wherefore, in order to break this confidence, it was necessary they should be acquainted with the destruction that was coming upon them, which is the design of this prophecy. Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud:
or a "light" one F17 denoting the speed with which he came, he would come quickly, light clouds move swiftly; the suddenness and unexpectedness of his coming, clouds being rarely seen in Egypt, where was no rain; and the irresistible power with which he would come, for who or what can stop the clouds of heaven? not anything on earth, not armies, nor castles, and fortified places. The Lord is represented as riding in great state and majesty, as a general at the head of his army against his enemies; or as a judge going to try and condemn criminals; he rides upon the heavens, walks on the wings of the wind, and the clouds are his chariot, ( Psalms 68:4 Psalms 68:33 ) ( 104:3 ) so Christ is represented as coming in the clouds of heaven, and as sitting on a white cloud, when he shall come to judge the world, ( Revelation 1:7 ) ( 14:14 ) though these words are not to be understood of that coming of his; and much less of his first coming in the flesh, to which they are weakly applied by Jerom and others; who, by the light cloud, understand the Virgin Mary, as the Christians of Syria; or the human nature of Christ, as Salmero, who relates, that upon Christ's flight into Egypt, and entering into Heliopolis, and the temple there, in which were as many idols as days of the year, they all fell, and so this prophecy was fulfilled F18 but of the Lord's coming to inflict punishment on the Egyptians; so the Targum, ``and, behold, the Lord shall be revealed in the cloud of his glory, to take vengeance on the Egyptians:''
and shall come into Egypt;
not by Sennacherib king of Assyria, and his army, whom he should send to invade it, and enter into it, as some think; but rather by Cambyses and Ochus, kings of Persia; though it seems that what is here foretold should be done, was done, not by means of any foreign power, but by the Lord himself, who did by his own power and providence, or suffer to be done, what was done: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence;
or tremble before him; these were many, the chief of them were Osiris and Isis, Apis, Serapis, Vulcan, Bubastis; some were living creatures, as cats, dogs, oxen, sheep who might move and tremble, in a literal sense; and some were images, "made with hands", as the Septuagint here render the word; and which, as the Targum paraphrases it, should "be broken"; the sense is, that they could none of them save the Egyptians, or deliver them out of their distresses: and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it;
like wax before the fire; even the most courageous among them, their soldiers, their army, with their officers and generals; which were the heart of the people, and their defence, and who used to fight for them, and protect them, but now would be dispirited. (John Gill's Commentary)

[Quix]

THANKS FOR YOUR KIND REPLY.

[Quix]

I think

Angelica’s visit to hell and Heaven outlines rather clearly what The Lord thinks of

cultural pseudo ‘Christianity’ of any label.

http://daaixin.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/prepare-to-meet-your-god-seek-gods-face/

[CTrent1564]

xone:

Thanks for the honest answer and while Luther did not put it into the “Ausburg[sic]” Confession, he still never refuted it.

Perhaps Luther, and Calvin for that matter, did not reject it because it was so well taught during the period of the early Church.

With respect to Mary’s perpetual Virginity, there was no orthodox Church Father, Bishop of Church Council that interpreted the NT in way that led to the conclusion that Mary had any other children besides Christ. In fact, as early as Origen [185-254], in his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew states that Mary was ever-virgin and the tradition that was passed down was that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were Joseph’s children by another woman as again, nowhere does it state that Mary was their Mother. Other Fathers, such as St. Hillary of Potiers in the 4th century in the Latin Church in reflecting on the Gospel of St. John clearly saw when Christ told the Apostle John to behold “Your Mother” and for the Apostle John to “behold your mother” as evidence that Mary had no other children and that John, as the Apostle who Christ loved, was to take care of Mary until she passed [that was also clearly laid out in the canons of the COuncil of Ephesus in 431AD, if my memory serves me correct]

Even before Origen’s time, St. Irenaus in his work “Against Heresies [circa 175 AD]” refers to Mary as “Mary the Virgin” and before that, St. Justin Marytr in his work Dialogue with Trypho [circa 155AD] refers to Mary as the “Virgin Mary” and St. Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Church at Ephesus [circa 107AD] speaks of the Virginity of Mary.

Now, it is interesting for the Fathers of the 2nd century to describe someone as a “Virgin” if they were not one as that is a “binary” description [either one is a Virgin or not, there really is no neutral ground here]. One could refer to Mary as something other than “Virgin” and still maintain the doctrine of the “Virgin Birth” by clearly stating Mary conceived Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit. So what we have is clear teaching from Apostolic Tradition from a large consensus of the Church Fathers affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So the notion of Mary as ever-virgin was well established in the 2nd/3rd century. As we move to the 4th century, we see more clear statements from all the orthodox Church Fathers of the West and East. For example, St. Athanasius [295-373] in his work “Discourse against the Arians{360AD}” speaks of Mary as “ever-virgin.” St. Gregory of Nysaa [335-396] in his work “Virginity {370AD}” speaks of Mary and her perpetual virginity. St. Ephiphanius of Salamis [315-402] in his work “The Well Anchored Man {374AD}” speaks of Mary as the “Holy and Ever Virgin Mary”. St Gregory of Nazianz in his work “Oratation on Holy Lights {381AD}”speaks or Mary as the “Virgin Mary”

St. Ambrose of Milan in his work “The consecration of a virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary” written in 392AD is a treatise defending Mary’s perpetual virginity.

St. Jerome [347-420] writing against the heretic Helvidius “blasts him” for proposing Mary was not ever-Virgin and Helvidius reliance on Tertullian, who had left Catholic Orthodoxy for the Montanist heretical group is clearly articulated by Jerome that Tertullian’s embracing of the Montanist meant he was no longer a man of the Church. Jerome also clearly states, nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we ever read that Mary had other children.

St. Augustine’s writings [354-430] are filled with statements affirming Mary’s perpetual virginity. Some examples here will suffice. First, in his Sermons [391-430] he speaks of Mary as “Virgin conceiving, Virgin bearing, Virgin pregnant, Virgin bringing forth, and Virgin-perpetual”. Second, in a work entitled “On Virginity” written circa 401 AD, he writes in reference to Christ and Mary that in being born of a Virgin, who chose to remain a virgin, Christ wished to affirm Virginity without imposing it. Finally, in another work entitled “Heresies” written in 420 AD, he writes “heretics called Antidicomarities are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined with her husband”.

St. Cyril of Alexandria writing around the time of the Council of Ephesus (431AD) in a work entitled “Against those who do Not wish to confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God” writes that Christ kept his Mother a Virgin even after her child-bearing, which was done for none of the other saints”

So while the need to Define Mary as the Mother of God resulted in that being clearly dogmatized at the Council of Ephesus, as it related to a Christological heresy [Nestorianism], the clear teaching of the Church Fathers on the perpetual virginity of Mary was so well taught that it was never challenged that it needed to be hammered out at a Council, although it is clear the Council of Ephesus in using the title of “Holy Virgin” clearly is a dogmatic statement implicit in the Council of Ephesus 431AD.

In closing, perhaps Luther and Calvin were well versed enough in Church History and the Fathers to realize that the only groups to challenge Mary’s perpetual virginity were the Anticicomarites that St. Augustine referred to [the name literally means against-Mary] and that sect evolved from the Ebionities, a 2nd century sort of Gnostic sect that ST. Ireneaus wrote against and folks like Tertullian in his Montanist period and Helvidius who St. Jerome wrote against.

So while Luther and Calvin did not put Mary’s perpetual virginity into their respective Confessions, they nevertheless did not refute Mary’s perpetual virginity. The rejection of Mary’s perpetual virginity is an even more recent event and novelty.

Once again, thanks for your honesty on the subject

[RnMomof7]

I’ll have to check the sources for the statement about the envy of the rebel angels. It is an ancient one and fits well with their pride and their hatred of us.

Please do..I have heard that the angelic creation then rebellion occurred at different times in relation to the creation of the earth.. not essential information ..but an interesting contemplation.

I have heard also that the angels watch us to learn more about God and that the fallen angels are jealous because there is no salvation for them ...

[lastchance]

“I have heard also that the angels watch us to learn more about God and that the fallen angels are jealous because there is no salvation for them ...”

Also true.

[The Theophilus]

Hey, just out of curiosity, how do you see Isaiah 19 and current events in Egypt?

Already answered

Is there ANY passage in Isaiah 19 that has anything to do with the events in Egypt?

What I particularly like about the passage is the first line that says the "LORD will ride on a swift cloud" but y'all deny that our LORD rode in on a swift cloud in 70AD to lay judgment on the Jews (as our LORD said He would)

I guess our LORD riding on a swift cloud only happens on the Futurists' terms.

[xone]

Mary as the Mother of God

Lutherans don't officially have/nor should have an objection to this title as Jesus is God, Mary was His mother. There is no Scriptural evidence to support her perpetual virginity which is one reason there is no Lutheran doctrine on the subject. The primary reason however, is that the Scriptures are about the Christ and His work, not His earthly mother.

[CTrent1564]

xone:

There is no scriptural evidence on the subject of Mary’s perpetual Virginity, one way or the other. And I can understand from the Confessional Lutheran perspective, something not directly stated or alluded to in Scripture would not be in the Lutheran Confessions.

However, from the Catholic perspective, and I think for that matter, the Eastern Orthodox Perspective as well, who hold to the dogma of Mary as ever-virgin, the issue is what was the “Faith of the Church” and as you well know, the early Church did not hold to “Scripture alone” nor did it hold to “Tradition alone” it held to both Tradition and Scripture and what was referred to as orthodox Apostolic Tradition.

What is very clear is that the Church Fathers, the ones who defended the orthodox Apostolic Tradition against every Heresy starting with the Gnostics in the early and mid 2nd century, the Montanist of the late 2nd and early 3rd century, the Modalist in the early 3rd century, the Arians of the early 4th, the Nestorians of the early 5th, along with the Monophysites of the 5th century and thus defined the Trinity, that Christ was a Divine Person with a Divine and human nature, etc and who read the same NT that you and I read and were the ones who ultimately defined the NT canon in the 4th century all affirmed the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as a Doctrine of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and that belief was and is held in both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, who are both in continuity with the great and ancient Apostolic Tradition that was handed from Christ, to the Apostles to the early CHurch Fathers, etc ,etc.

All of the Sacred Scriptures do speak of Christ, that is true, but Mary’s role in salvation history is singular and unique and understanding her role only clarifies who Christ is, and only helps understand orthodox Doctrines that reflect who Christ is, e.g., Incarnational theology is ultimately tied to the fact that CHrist the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and it was Mary thru whom the Glory of God dwelt in her womb, was born of her, and thus it was thru her that Christ received his flesh and blood.