Posted on 03/07/2014 10:14:06 AM PST by matthewrobertolson
Only trusting the Bible without the Church would be like loving "Romeo & Juliet" and hating Shakespeare's explanation of it.
"Follow" me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/crucifixwearer
"Like" Answering Protestants on Facebook: http://facebook.com/AnsweringProtestants
Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+: http://plus.google.com/106938988929282894016
"Subscribe" to my YouTube videos: http://youtube.com/user/crucifixwearer
I think we should be more attentive to what Jesus says about the church. It is not a good report in Revelations Chapter 1 and 2. For those of you who won’t take the time to read it, the essence of the message is repent and change or He will leave.................................
But the bad news is it applies to us as individuals too since we are the church.
it’s a joke right?!?
you don’t know what it means, but your offended by it.
I put the translation of it in my tagline so the Latin impaired (and I include myself) know and understand that I come in peace, and carry a very little stick.
ADMG
This Protestant criticism of Catholicism is ironic, since there is no support for Luther's doctrine of "the Bible ALONE" in Scripture.
Even more ironically, Luther didn't follow his own dictum, originally removing the book of James from his New Testament, and adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28.
"Romans 3:28 states, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (NKJV).Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek.
Martin Luther reportedly said, "You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text" (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127)
First, I apologize for posting that it was post #5, it was post #20 and also at least one other post.
Post it anyway you like, but if you post it in a foreign language, always include the translation in the same post.
We realize it is the motto for the Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuits.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Are you discussing Scripture alone or salvation by faith alone?
2 Timothy 3:14-16 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
And which one of the ECF's (as Schaff referred to them) recommended praying to Mary -- or anyone other than God Himself? The information you just brought fails to show us that.
As Origen noted [see footnote 424:5265] --- mention of Mary being "ever virgin" rather than just "the virgin" ---- as in virgin birth -- was not present within any ECF writings until after the Protoevangelium of James arrived on the scene, sometime in the late middlings of the second century, which may be somewhat besides the point in one sense, but goes toward part of the shakiness of the very foundation for the "hyper" portion of the "dulia" afforded Mary, alone.
That work (P of J) though accepted by some, for a while, was eventually put aside, but it's effect towards theological assumption and error, is still being felt, making it be next to a 'perfect' theological crime -- since the only perfect crime, as the saying goes, is one that escapes detection.
Th Protevangelium Jacobi (as it is referred to in the links given above) begins in it's very first sentence by telling a lie -- that it was written by James, the Brother of Christ. I mention that aspect, for much of the distinctive "Marionism found even today can find it's own roots THERE, and nowhere else.
Meanwhile, there are ECF's such as Tertullian who wrote of Mary bearing other children, by Joseph --- as the scripture indicates occurred, and which would be no "sin" at all for a Hebrew woman to have produced. Show us-- who can you quote that is much earlier than Tertullian?
Mention of St. Ambrose or most any other that late in history, referring to Mary as the “Mother of Salvation”, means little in regards to praying TO her for salvation, for she was the mother of Jesus Christ Incarnate -- who is our salvation.
Citing Athanasius in the middle of the 4th century (which your "Dr." did not do in what was quoted from him) -- as much as I like that Athanasius otherwise, by his own time period he's been made subject to the beliefs of others, and is valuable to show what was believed in his own time, at least by himself --but which still doesn't make any particular belief or aspect of belief entirely kosher.
Going back to approximately to the middle of the 3rd century for the Sub Tuum Praesidium found in one Grecian location (at first) is still fully 200 years afterthe first Gospel was written, with there being no other theological mention or support for praying TO her then, other than by 'popular belief' such as this one particular prayer.
Two full centuries allows a lot of time for erroneous folk belief to set in. Marianism, among Roman Catholicism, still to this day relies upon 'folk belief' in regards to Marionism within it's own ranks (when it positively supports expansion of the image and role of "Mary", leaning upon folk belief in recent beatification of "Juan Diego", who according to Franciscans in the 1700's whom had charge of the item of veneration (Virgin of Guadalupe painting) did not exist -- for they claimed way back then it was painted by "Marcos the Indian". Their objections led to having it removed from their custody, which up until that time had been maintained by them previously. That whole deal is a train-wreck of religious FRAUD, reliant upon vox populi more than anything else.
The existence of early drawing in catacombs, in light of Mary having born the Christ literally and physically as His earthly mother, and so looked upon as highly favored, blessed above all women, as Mary herself made note she would be seen as -- indicates nothing else much more than that, unless one has it written on the insides of their eyeballs that "Mary" was some ongoing key participant in salvation itself.
Find us any ECF who recommended that we pray TO "Mary" --- or even pray to anyone other than God the Father (though we may find prays directed to the Risen and Ascended Christ -- I don't recall exactly which ECF wrote it in that manner -- and being that Christ and the Father are now again as One -- to pray "to" Jesus Christ could be forgivable, if there being any error there of not addressing prayer to the Great I AM) anytime before the year 300 AD.
I noticed too that you had to go to Schaff, a Protestant, to find extensive ECF coverage, while previously you tried to say the "Protestants" abandoned the ECF's. Are you aware his work was inspired due to previous efforts at Oxford having been seen in his own eyes, and the eyes of those few who were in the know concerning what up to then was quite obscure information -- to be incomplete, even deliberately so, in that those previous efforts (which tended to favor Roman Catholic views) did not fully publish translations in context? With the wider context it can be seen that much of the reliance upon ECF's which RC aplogists lean on, are not *quite* as they are commonly advertised to be. But then again, that is the way the craftiest lies operate, isn't it? If wholesale fraud cannot be spun up out of wishful thinking, then distorting truth itself can be a fine way to mislead, or tell lies when self-justifying.
No sir -- "Protestants" have not entirely set aside ECF's, yet a careful and close reading of them (thanks to Schaff, and a few others, even some additional "Protestants" contemporary to this day) shows just how badly out-of-context [Roman] Catholic apologists all-too frequently quote the ECF's in efforts to wrest support from them, for various aspect of RC theology which were not part of the original, most primitive ekklesia, but came along only by way of later "development".
Face it. There are "Protestants" here at FreeRepublic (and elsewhere!) who know the apologetic, and all the associated twists and turns of associated theology --- better than *most* Roman Catholics.
One thing I have come to appreciate about this forum though-- is the opportunity it continually presents to provide rebuttal for Romanist and Marionist claims.
Once the evidences are dragged fully out into the light of day -- Romanist argumentation wilts under the pressure, e3ven as the adherents and promoters of the same double-down on the prayer-bead postings, and/or launch into personal attack/ heresy hunter modes, in desperate effort to salvage the wreckage.
Ancient graffit art, doesn't quite cut it. Contrary to RC writers present day opinions, the art itself does not show that Mary be PRAYED TO, for reason it shows she was from earliest times highly regarded.
Otherwise, regardless of all the blather, you have also failed to show us any scriptural Apostolic exhortation or recommendation that any should pray to Mary (for much the same reason as above -- high regard does not equal the theological consideration of praying TO Mary or any other- than God Himself) while now to that we can add -- any ECF's from the first 3 centuries.
Bringing commentary which quotes the ECF's, then adds Roman Catholic add-on interpretation, doesn't cut it. Shall we go over the few quotes provided, in closer detail? I'll isolate those from the copious copy/past, then shred the RC synopsis given for them, while you wait, if you care to test that.
Otherwise, try re-reading those things such as written by this Dr. Miravelle yourself, a bit more carefully this time, and see if you can isolate where he jumps to conclusions. As a hint -- alo9ng with his interpretations of ancient catacomb graffiti-art, it is at every time he cites any ECF before the beginning of the 4th century -- then trys to saw "clearly" or similar. He reads into things meaning which cannot be justified by the evidence he's looking at --- which makes it no "evidence" at all for his interpretations.
3 Centuries --- that's 300 hundred years for those of you in Rio Linda.
As further hint --- that which you have brought here, copied from one with a Doctorate in such things, in it's paucity of "early" actual data points (other than a single prayer coming from who knows where) which otherwise must have interpretation as in regards to images (oh, this must mean, etc.) read into them, coupled with then going towards mention of in later centuries having cathedrals and what-not "dedicated to Mary" becries the very developmental nature of those aspects of [Roman] Catholic theology, which itself is the argument (that it was not in the original articles of the church and theology in the church, but instead grew or developed over time--hence is questionable if not outright spurious & erroneous) which you have been challenged here with overcoming.
Much as bring conviction towards metmom being guilty of "Arianism", you have again FAILED, and shall continue to do so, until more fundamental truth concerning the matters is found and confessed to.
But at least now -- the failure is not as bad as the false accusations of "heresy", for this homegrown heresy of hyper-Marionism does have deep roots. Just not all the way to the original theological "seed" of core truths.
“homegrown heresy of hyper-Marionism”
Yeah.....right.....sure.....if you say so.
AMDG
Have you found the epistle which addresses Mary’s intercessory role? How the sign of the cross and other traditions was thrown in the mix is unknown to me other than an admission you cannot find such scriptural evidence.
Thanks for agreeing.
I didn't even have to do all the "work" to establish the fact. Your good Dr. assisted by showing how first-- support for much of the theology in regards to Mary beyond what is clearly enough written of her, and that which may be sensed by way of empathy perhaps -- is FIRST --- nonexistent, then thin, then stronger only several full centuries later. From there it can be seen to pick up more steam as it were...
the evidence (from earliest times) of "belief in Mary" beyond her being the virgin prophesied to bear Christ the Savior (and adored for that reason) is just__not_there.
Can you show from scripture that praying to "Mary" is a theologically sound practice?
I've pointed towards, on THIS thread, how establishing "booths" (tabernacles) dedicated to Moses & Elijah, (and one for Christ too) was interrupted by God the Father speaking audibly from heaven, before the words even got out of Peter's mouth --- but you shine me on, ignoring each and every single item which refutes particular aspects of [Roman] Catholic theology -- yet call us ignorant.
No, mister, we have our reasons (and it is not ignorance) for myself and many others have long examined just about every scintilla and scrap of "evidence" one can consider, doing so over and again for these sort of theological aspects most contentious, yet still reject the "sola ecclesia" which in the end (after edue examination) is much the only basis and imagined standing for *some* of Rome's claims.
I just outlined (with your help!) how the hyper-inflated "regard" for Mary, was a thing which grew --- and that it be a theology not taught by the Apostles, or the first several generations of successors, either.
Why the couple of centuries delay -- if prayers to "Mary" are so necessary for salvation? hmm? answer THAT.
Showing how this theological aspect slowly inflated, is why I'm justified in terming much of Marianism "homegrown heresy". But since it's one that tickles many a' fancy, and seems so "pious" and what-not, it is not only accepted, but demanded that it be so -- or else one be excommunicated (*even!)
Other than one prayer coming from some time in the 3rd century (as I noted -- coming from 'folk belief' for we see no theological support for it contemporary to the time that "prayer"is dated back to -- not until later did such written support for "Marianism" begin to be seen in the records) is there anything much at all concerning praying TO Mary herself, as if she was some sort of hearer with abilities beyond the ability of God himself to hear the prayers of His own adopted children.
Before some time in the 3rd century, it's not there. The support is no where to be found. Hence the view that items of that nature are things of invention.
Right along about that time, other "newish" looking stuff began slithering into -- the "ekklesia" also.
Some stuff, even before that time, was effectively enough stamped out. Other things --- like directing prayers to 'departed saints' rather than God Almighty Himself, seemed "pious" like I said, so wiggled into the picture.
On the other hand, the Jews had long "tradition" of NOT praying to departed ancestors, or past prophets, or long departed but seen as "benevolent" kings, yet pagan nations around them did do those very things.
God called Abram out of such darkness. I shall not return to it.
I'll take, "the God of Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob" or none at all, thank you.
"Hear Oh Israel, our God is One" --- not --- move over Jesus, you are sitting in mommy's chair!
Hey Red
Didn’t you figure it out yet - I’m Catholic and your anti-Catholic.
Guess we’re not gonna agree.
Bye.
AMDG
Hey Blue
You forgot too
I’m Catholic.
Bye-bye Blue
Ad Majoram Dei Gloram
What was the closest he came to doing that?
A 'folk' prayer from the middle of the 3rd century -- with no real theological support from any ECF's previous or nearest contemporary to it.
Then, some underground cavern wall paintings depicting Mary along with others -- in one, with her being imaged in-between two particular others being interpreted to mean that she was ascribed some continuing, heavenly 'intercessory role' --- like --- all along, right from the barest beginnings --- except when what can be found of that is more closely examined, it's more along lines of folk belief, too, arising organically among human beings, in much the same manner Peter's own instincts to build tabernacles dedicated to Moses & Elijah arose within himself --- but which sort of thinking was immediately squashed by God Himself.
Not the most solid of cases...
What charge of "heresy" will be attempted to be pinned on the dissenters this time?
I’m Catholic.
I forgot?
How could I have done that? lol
Right down to the rude tagline... you won't let anyone forgot that.
Now if there was some way to determine if a [Roman] "Catholic" were actually "Christian" or not, that might be a help, for then it would be easier to talk about that dimension of life instead, for you see --- the one isn't universally applicable to the other (though I do hope for everyone's sake there is more overlap of the two "sets" than there at time appears to be).
Promises, promises...
But hey ---
Keep coming to the FR RF and making the usual RC claims we've seen a thousand times, and we'll likely be seeing one another again.
Unless I keel over... or possibly otherwise indicate I have others things to do, which would preclude being able to tell a 'cath-O-lic' the hows and whys of certain particular claims members of their own church's ecclesiastical body often make, are not *quite* as advertised...
But hey, anything but talking about Jesus, or sharing personal testimony about His power, and the grace with which He can be known to deal with a person; like instead going on-and-on "about" the RCC and all it's own special claims for itself, along with convoluted stretches and explanation/justification for all the the contra-biblical theological junk collection some RC'ers seem to think are treasures from heaven, when those are more like yard sale items (theologically speaking).
Yep. I can hardly wait, I'm like, just so excited about the next thrilling episode of talking to the walls.
Jesus? Jesus who?
What's He got to do with it?
He is their hostage?
A point well noted.
xone, is that something Salvation posted in that pulled post?
If so, Salvation, that is an absolutely horrible personal attack on someone just because they don't follow your belief system, shame on you!
The Catholic denomination is NOT God!
I noticed after your horrible personal attack post was pulled, you posted your statement as a question.
Did you ping the RM to keep him/her informed like you seem to like to do when someone disagrees with you?
I certainly hope so, if that is what you said it was a blatant disreguard for the rules here on the Religion Forum. I believe you should apologize to Dr. Thorne, it would be the Christian thing to do.
I have noticed Catholics also accusing non-Catholics of blaspheming the Holy Spirit if they don't believe in some of the unBiblical statements posted about Mary.
And then in the next breath saying how mean "protestants" are...oh my!
At least Catholics are consistent, they excerpt others out of context, just like they do scripture. Why not post the context? Because it doesn't fit the agenda.
Ironic isn't it? Because it seems to me that Catholics weep and wail and gnash their teeth and quote Scripture at anyone who they feel dares to judge THEM.
They tend to be the fastest fingers on the abuse button on the RF.
Usually they aren't too much into quoting scriptures, more often the words of their exalted leaders over the centuries.
But if it is to admonish those that show the error in their belief system, there they are dusting off their Bibles.
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.