Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
In my experience with those who wrestle with conversion to Roman Catholicism—at least those who have professed faith in the gospel, the driving theological issue is authority. How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Rome’s arguments against sola scriptura. I address these remarks to friends struggling with that issue.
Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v 39).
Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.
For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know—really know—that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scripture—especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation—is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.
For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister.
The following theses summarize some of the issues that people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority.
1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, “Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ.” Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bible’s authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as “scripture,” equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel.2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Co 11:2), “…either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made God’s Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.
3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial.
4. To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.
5. This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as “Scripture,” a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not…It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not” (“On the Holy Spirit,” NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
6. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
7. Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
8. Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this “proud address.” Declaring themselves Christ’s replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (“plenitude of power”) over the world “to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.” At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title “pontifex universalis“—precisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who “in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor….” Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?
9. Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.
10. The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).
11. Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.
12. Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, “I am tradition.”
13. Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Rome’s allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Rome’s argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. It’s no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the church’s word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of one’s personal responsibility for one’s commitments to the decisions and acts of others.
14. Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Rome’s claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Rome’s arguments exclaims, “That’s exactly why I can’t be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses.” At this point, it’s important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of one’s ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but it’s not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. We’re both in the same shoes.
15. Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the church’s infallible teachers.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the “already” and the “not yet,” the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of God’s Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”
Jimmy Swaggart - Catholics are not Christians. They belong to a cult and nothing they do is biblical.
Caller - Does that mean that for the first 1,500 years after Christ, until the days of the Reformation, that all those people that you say were not Christian, went to hell?
Jimmy Swaggart - Francis, I think we’ve lost the telephone connection, can you go to the next caller.
I'm tired of this same old and tired argument about the Roman Church "giving" Christians the New Testament or that "Early Christians didn't have much Scripture to be solo about". In all the great deal of study of early church history, have you read anything like this:
We say that this immediate placing of the new books — given the church under the seal of apostolic authority — among the Scriptures already established as such, was inevitable. It is also historically evinced from the very beginning. Thus the apostle Peter, writing in A.D. 68, speaks of Paul’s numerous letters not in contrast with the Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with “the other Scriptures” (II Pet. iii. 16) — that is, of course, those of the Old Testament. In like manner the apostle Paul combines, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of “Scripture” (I Tim. v. 18): “For the Scripture saith, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn’ [Deut. xxv. 4]; and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his hire’” (Luke x. 7). The line of such quotations is never broken in Christian literature. Polycarp (c. 12) in A.D. 115 unites the Psalms and Ephesians in exactly similar manner: “In the sacred books, . . . as it is said in these Scriptures, ‘Be ye angry and sin not,’ and ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.’” So, a few years later, the so-called second letter of Clement, after quoting Isaiah, adds (ii. 4): “And another Scripture, however, says, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’” — quoting from Matthew, a book which Barnabas (circa 97-106 A.D.) had already adduced as Scripture. After this such quotations are common.
What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally” Scripture “ with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.
The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called “The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms” (or “the Hagiographa”), or more briefly “The Law and the Prophets,” or even more briefly still “The Law”; so the enlarged Bible was called “The Law and the Prophets, with the Gospels and the Apostles” (so Clement of Alexandria, “Strom.” vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, “De Præs. Hær.” 36), or most briefly “The Law and the Gospel” (so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenæus); while the new books apart were called “The Gospel and the Apostles,” or most briefly of all” The Gospel.” This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., “ad Philad.” 5; “ad Smyrn.” 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (“ad Philad.” 6). “When I heard some saying,” he writes, “‘Unless I find it in the Old [Books] I will not believe the Gospel,’ on my saying, ‘It is written,’ they answered, ‘That is the question.’ To me, however, Jesus Christ is the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books] — by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better,” etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the “Gospel” as Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the answer in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the well-known saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is first made clear in the New. What we need now to observe, however, is that to Ignatius the New Testament was not a different book from the Old Testament, but part of the one body of Scripture with it; an accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it.
This is the testimony of all the early witnesses — even those which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. For example, that curious Jewish-Christian writing, “The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs” (Benj. 11), tells us, under the cover of an ex post facto prophecy, that the “work and word” of Paul, i.e., confessedly the book of Acts and Paul’s Epistles, “shall be written in the Holy Books,” i.e., as is understood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. So even in the Talmud, in a scene intended to ridicule a “bishop” of the first century, he is represented as finding Galatians by “sinking himself deeper” into the same “Book” which contained the Law of Moses (“Babl. Shabbath,” 116 a and b). The details cannot be entered into here. Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of “New Books” (Ignatius), called the “Gospel and Apostles” (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part of the “Oracles” of God (Polycarp, Papias, II Clement), or “Scriptures” (I Tim., II Pet., Barn., Polycarp, II Clement), or the” Holy Books “or “Bible” (Testt. XII. Patt.).
The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Irenæus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e. g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity. (The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament)
In any study of history, a well-rounded one looks at many sources. I hope you will take the time to read this.
You are free to believe what is in the Scripture, but there is much that you believe that is not in Scripture, including what is Scripture. The Gospels tell us what happens up to the time of the Ascension into Heaven. Acts tells us something of the history of the early Church, but disappoint, because in the case of Peter et al, the native cuts away from him as if, the sincere reader will see, to take it up at a later time. Ditto what happens to Paul, after he comes to Rome. Why leave us hanging? Because Acts is a fragment. The author tells us what he knows, and that is far from being the whole story. The letters by Paul and others attributed to him, are occasional pieces, sermons, and in the case of Romans, something like a treatise. Revelation is an apocalypse, one of a kind, but Christian rather than Jewish as are several others of the time. All this writing is evidence, but evidence, as any lawyer can tell you, is putty in the hands of its interpreter. You, sir, are full of conjecture, but cannot admit it.
“his name wasn’t actually Calvin; it was Chauvin.”
No. His name was Cauvin.
Thank you, I had never seen the prophecy given Marie Julie Jahenny.
“It is nonsense to suggest that Early Christians believed in sola scripture when they did not have much scripture to be solo about until the 4th Century” may hope to tout Catholic “ownership” of the Scriptures but at the completion of the Bible canon before the end of the first century there was nothing resembling the Catholic church in existence.
Your witness about finding Catholicism is perfect. If our
brothers and sisters could change on 3 major, the greatest
sources to God’s grace, they will make it through what is
coming.
Change, come to believe...
#1 - in the Eucharist
#2 - Confession to a Priest
#3 - Mary’s help, the Trinity has given her all graces to
dispense, pray, ask for her help. It’s Jesus and Me and
Mary too. More assistance to get to Heaven. Remember
Cana, Jesus wasn’t ready, He said it but Mary’s requests
are special.
Read this message to a Catholic Seer from Sydney Australia.
God wants us all to believe the same. It’s going to happen.
I am awake to pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy...
~ ~ ~
June 12, 2012
Do not worry about the tomorrows.
I will put all in correct order as needed in time and space. This My child goes for you also regarding your future. My Plans are always perfect in every way as you well know. All differences will be accepted by all parties concerned in love and appreciation. Believe in Me that I know what is best for you and your family. I will take good care of them wherever they may be. I will never forget My little one. You will be fed to overflowing because of your sacrifices by these acts of kindness and love. Your rewards will be a hundredfold and more as you see all the results of your pleas to Me. You can’t imagine the results of these sacrifices you are making all for the love of Me. Hold on tight to your faith and belief on what you have been taught from the beginning of time. My Word, My Ways have not changed and will not change. New ideas and false teachings and prophecies are all the work of My adversary to confuse your mind. There is only one God Who reigns over the One, Holy, Catholic, (Universal) Church. Let ALL who disagree see My Light and be saved by your sacrifices and Masses. You know Truth when it is spoken in Truth by the one who believes in Truth. Come stay with Me.
You are wrong.
I’ve got lots of other points of disagreement with Romanism besides their works righteousness and the papacy. I’ve got big problems with Mariology, Purgatory, Treasury of Merit, indulgences, transubstantiation, the mass, Roman idols and relics, the sacraments, etc. Unless the Lord changes your heart, we will never agree on history or theology, but I will pray for you.
Back at you. I used to feel the way you did until the Holy Spirit moved me.
"The Assumption" not an assumption. Please stay protestant, it would be an embarrassment to have you as a Catholic
If one considers just Founding Fathers then There were no Baptists among the Founding Fathers --> there were
Furthermore, there were 3 Catholics and
The religious freedom fought for was also religious freedom for Catholics from Protestant England, hence the Catholic volunteers and support from Catholic Irishmen, Frenchmen and Poles.
So please don't say that Catholics were not involved in the creation of this nation -- this nation which got it's independence from a Protestant nation after all....
Ha ha! good one NKP_Vet! And excellent responses, CatholicTim and CTrent —> however, he’s not going to bother to read them... some folks are happy in their world of “dem caflicks are rong”
Now if you consider Deists as Protestants, do you also consider Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as "Protestants"?
They were Catholics/Orthodox. Most mainline non-Catholic groups hold by the councils, yes (except the ECUSA and ELCA and PCUSA sort of course), but Pentecostals, Baptists etc -- not exactly (of course this depends on WHICH Pentecostls, which Baptists etc.)
for us Catholics there is the ONE mediator between God and man -- Jesus Christ. you, me, etc. who mediate to Christ do so through Him, the Bridge between God and Man.
Vicar comes from John 21: 16-17 "Feed my lambs... feed my sheep". A Vicar from Latin vicarious is the deputy, an agent for a superior. The Holy spirit is not a deputy or "inferior" hence is not a Vicar
For Catholics, our High Priest is Jesus Christ and He is present at every mass as High priest and sacrifice.
The pope is not called holy because of his own merit, far, far from it -- just as we are God's "holy people" because of God, not because of us, so too the pope is given God's grace
We Catholics believe that the Lord speaks infallibly through the Prophets and on occasion the Holy spirit speaks infallibly through the bishop of Rome -- on occasion and it is the Holy Spirit acting.
“Back at you. I used to feel the way you did until the Holy Spirit moved me. “
The Holy Spirit didn’t move you away from the gospel.
Show one time that the mother of the king was the queen if she hadn’t been queen prior to his birth. The mother of the king is queen only by virtue of having been the wife of the king who was the father of the current king. The RCC teachings about Mary are the result of injecting meaning into scripture.
>>Everything the Church teaches about Mary isn’t about Mary but rather about Jesus and God’s plan for our salvation and sanctification.<<
Let’s take the prayer of Prayer of Pope Pius XII to see what Catholics teach and what scripture says.
[http://catholicism.about.com/od/tothevirginmary/qt/Honor_Immacula.htm]
I’ll use just the bolded excerpts from the prayer.
we cast ourselves into your arms
1 Peter 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. (When did we need to replace God with 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.
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (once again Catholics replacing Christ with Mary)
O crystal fountain of faith
Romans 12:3 according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith." (but Mary is the “fountain of faith” for Catholics)
Lily of all holiness
1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. (for Catholics however, “all holiness” is given to Mary)
Conqueress of evil and death
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (but Catholics claim it was Mary who conquered death)
Convert the wicked
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; (Catholics have even replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary)
Canon means nothing. They had Scripture, and it was called Scripture, at the time of the apostles. Paul's writings were called Scripture by Peter and there was the entire OT.
There are plenty of other doctrines that the Catholic church adheres to that are not any more explicitly spelled out in Scripture than sola Scriptura so that argument against it is not a valid one. It cannot be applied in a case by case basis. If a doctrine like the Trinity can be established by proof texts, so can sola Scriptura.
That same Roman Church recognized very early that when Christians interpret scripture without any authority then what you get is a “my interpretation is as good as yours” result.
The Catholic church is not unified in doctrine. There are significant differences of opinion between the Orthodox and the Roman rite. Not to mention the number of other Catholic rites which exist.
Also, one must recognize that the Roman Church is almost 2K years old and comprises 1/6 of humanity. You have to ask yourself, would our Lord allow 1/6 of humanity to pursue a falsehood in His name? Not likely.
Might doesn't make right.
It's a meaningless argument to make a claim of being right on.
Anyone who accepts Jesus and believes in The Trinity is not the enemy to another Christian, in my opinion.
Anyone does that IS a Christian.
We must be united in purpose, not necessarily denominational affiliation.
Cynical Bear:
Actually, I have answered it and my answer is fully supported by references to the orthodox Church Fathers going back to the 2nd century. Your position is well “your position” or one based on an interpretation that Pastor Bubba Bob Jones made at the First Fundie Church of somewhere.
Revelation 12 does point to Mary as from a literal interpretation perpsective, she was the won who gave birth to Christ. The Catholic Church along with the Eastern Orthodox Church have always used the 4 sense of Scripture method [Literal, Allegorical, with is then divided into the spiritual, moral and anagogical sense of scripture] and Typology, OT points to the NT and NT unlocks the Old [following St. Augustine].
So as the Navare Catholic Commentary notes, The Woman is depicted by features that can apply to Israel, the Blessed Virgin and the CHurch. The passage becomes more clearer and more meaningful in light of Revelation as a whole. For example, ST. Luke, in his account of the annunication, sees Mary as representing the faithful remant of Isael; the angel salutes here with the greeting given Zephaniah 3:14-15 to the daughter of Zion. So here this an allegorical connection to Mary supported by the text.
The Navare Commentary goes on to say that a direct reference to Mary is also supported as she as a Mother, shares the pain of Calvary [Luke 2:35] and who was also prophesied in Isiah 7:14 as a sign [cf. Mt 1:22-23]. St Paul in Galatians 4:26 sees in a woman Sarah, an allegorical reference to the Church our mother.
Another reference to Mary being the Woman is described in the Ignatius Catholic Commentary on this passage, Revelation 12:1-6 describes a woman wearing a Crown indicating a Queen Mother who bears a royal male child; thus a Queen Mother of a Davidic Kingdom reestablished by Christ, who is from the line of David and the Eternal King of Glory [cf 1 Kings 2:19-20; Jer 13:18].
Finally, you bait and switch alot in your post. The issue was Assumption of Mary, not the issue of Veneration which is to show Honor towards something or some person.
Moses died and was buried by God.
Just because Elijah and Enoch were taken up without dying, does not mean that one can (excuse the use of the best word available) assume that it happened to Mary just because Scripture does not explicitly state that she died.
That kind of reasoning, that since Scripture doesn't say something did not happen means we can presume that it did, leaves the door wide open to all kinds of error. We could claim that Peter owned a skateboard park since Scripture doesn't say he didn't.
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.