We are smart...
Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
SOME Catholics are rabid sex fiends...
OK...
Meanwhile, regarding the Lord's Supper.
St. Paul (c. 40 A.D.)For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [died].
+++
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to the Philadelphians 4:1)
They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
+++
St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.)
We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology, 66)
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachi [1:10-12]…It is of the SACRIFICES OFFERED TO HIM IN EVERY PLACE BY US, the Gentiles, that is, OF THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND LIKEWISE OF THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it. (Dialogue with Trypho, 41)
Sure he did.
FWIW...
1 Cor. 4:14–15Call No Man Father?"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel"
A great admission.
If Catholics believe that, then the following isn't accurate:
Mary was assumed into heaven, she was sinless, she was born sinless, she hears prayers and intercedes for us (ONLY the job of Jesus), it's ok to pray to her, it's ok to bow to her statue, she is the mediator between Catholics and Jesus and many other claims.
ALL self-refuting because they "appears no where in scripture."
When a Catholic answers a long post with a question or the statement "you are wrong" or crickets it is clear that they can not back up their fallacious statements and neither will the Holy Bible.
AMEN!
LOL good point!
Prove it. Prove that what the Catholic Church today calls tradition is the same as what the apostles were talking about.
>>yet it's OK for Protestants to hold to Luther's tradition of Sola Scriptura, which isn't mentioned explicitly (or implicitly) in the Bible.<<
I keep asking Catholics to produce proof outside of scripture that the beliefs they hold are what the apostles taught. To date I have been given none. Catholics can't even prove that what they call tradition is the same as what the apostles called tradition. So I am left with scripture alone as proof of what the apostles taught.
>>St. Paul is recorded in the Bible as instructing his followers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."<<
Once again, prove they are the same traditions.
>>Regardless, the earliest written records of the Assumption of Mary date from the sixth century.<<
See here
>>"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones...[Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),in JUR,III:306]<<
Oh that's rich!!! Now we not only have Jesus returning to earth one more time but we have a guy writing in the 6th century with absolutely no attribution to earlier proof. There is also the claim that the apostles were there yet they gave no mention of such a momentous occasion in any of their writings. Nor did any other writers from the time. In fact, she was so inconsequential to the people of the time no one kept track of where she spent her last days nor was she even mentioned in any writings for 300+ years after Pentecost. Talk about digging a hole.
>>There is no record of Luther's tradition of Sola Scriptura in the early Fathers, or anywhere else, as far as I know, prior to Luther<<
Cyril of Alexandria (376 – 444 AKA prior to Luther)
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 of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures....In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith….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….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 (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts....Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture....receive not the witness of man. [A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), "The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17.]
Cyril (376 – 444)
must be proven by Scripture.
but that tradition must be validated by the written Scriptures.
Irenaeus (AD 130-202 AKA prior to Luther) 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. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874)
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
...the person making the claim has the responsibility to back it up.Thanks metmom.If he or she doesn't then the claim can be summarily dismissed as a fabrication or wishful thinking. It's not *It's true because I said so and you have to prove me wrong.*
It needs to be, *It's true and here are the proofs* can you show me they're wrong?*
Sending some one off on a fools errand demonstrates that the person making the claim has nothing on which to base it.
As taught to Mormons! I'm gobsmacked Catholics use the same evasive tactics...well not really...
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.
BTW That's where Jesus blood went. Oh....God also trumps your "church fathers".
Great point! I’m sure we will hear some double speak on that one.
Are you sure you're not Catholic? The tactics and logic are eerily similar.
“So in order to defend your beliefs you have to use words that are not allowed in the Religion Forum? Wow!”
Is that what I said? No, it is not.
“And yet no Catholic can show any source for the belief in the assumption of Mary or bowing to idols or even that the traditions they claim are the same traditions the apostles were talking about.”
1) Which is more important as an issue: a) Assumption of Mary or b) sola fide and sola scriptura?
You have NO scriptural support for sola fide or sola scriptura - NONE. And you’re complaining about what we believe?
Also, we don’t bow to idols - for idols are really sculptures worshiped as gods. All we worship as God is God Himself.
“Now if you want to believe that stuff that’s your business. But don’t come in here proclaiming to be the Church that Jesus founded trying to convince others to join you and not be challenged.”
Again, you have failed every single time anyone here has ever asked you to post even one verse that actually teaches sola scriptura or sola fide. Every, single time. Oh, you’ll post verses and verses and verses - and none of them will actually teach sola scriptura or sola fide. Nope. Instead they’ll teach about the inspiration of scripture or the importance of faith. They won’t teach what you claim they do.
“Ossibly because we have MORE than two brain cells to rub together.”
That third brain cell apparently died when it came up against “Ossibly”.
“That the pope spoke ex cathedra on this indicates its importance.”
Actually, no, it doesn’t. People might assume that, but it doesn’t. Again, being important to one man - the Pope - does not mean it is “major dogma of the Catholic Church.”
“No, the person making the claim has the responsibility to back it up.”
No. If someone, out of the blue (no pun intended), wants to lash out against the Assumption of Mary the burden is on that person.
“All that said, veneration should not look like worship. Do you agree with that?”
No, for what I assume your premise is is flawed. Two things can look alike and be dramatically different when we know what worship is, what prayer is.
“That leaves us with having to agree on what worship looks like, but we I see no way an honest person can perform certain acts and call them worship, and then perform those same acts and call them veneration. That would strike me as a tap dance.”
So you’ve created a false premise, populated it with a logical development based on that false premise and then come to a false conclusion and say others are tap dancing.
It seems to me that Protestant anti-Catholics have not the faith of children but the minds of children - I mean childish minds. To reduce all worship to what it “looks like” to the eyes of someone already anti-Catholic is laughable. I know of former Protestants, some once very anti-Catholic, and some people who are still Protestant who used to be horrified by the Rosary, statues of Mary, paintings of the Last Supper, crucifixes with a corpus, and so on. They aren’t like that anymore because they actually read about it, thought about it, prayed about it and realized none of the Catholics they know were actually worshiping any of those things. Sometimes I have been stunned at the stupid bigotry commonly accepted by Protestants I know when they say things like, “Well, I know Joe [a Catholic who is kind and generous to them] loves the Lord, but other Catholics are just idol worshipers.” When I respond with, “But Joe does the same things and believes in the same things as those Catholics you call ‘idol worshipers’,” I get comments like, “Well, I know Joe loves Jesus in his heart.” And that idiot can say those other Catholics don’t?
Yesterday, I talked to a mostly Catholic group in a town nearby. The members of the group who were Protestant also prayed a Hail Mary with the Catholics after I talked to them for a while. Those people are open to the truth unlike the Protestant anti-Catholics on FR.
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.