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.
That is the Catholic teaching that faith is necessary for salvation. This does not teach that faith alone is sufficient for salvation.
John 20:29 (NKJV) Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
This teaches the Catholic teaching that faith comes not from observation of miracles but from the historical knowledge of Christ preserved in the Holy Church. It does nto teach that the faith alone is sufficient for salvation.
You then mention that the Holy Church is not herself free from abuse. That does not prove that salvation is by faith alone.
as for the rallying cry slogans of the Reformation, if split apart from one another, sola fide from sola gratia --- makes argument against them something of straw-man form
Sola Gratia is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Sola Fide is a heresy. Places in scripture where salvation by faith alone is taught are plentiful (Eph. 2:4-10, for example). Places where salvation by faith alone are none, and direct scripture in full context condemns the Protestant view (James 2:16-26). So yeah, separated they are.
Hebrews 11:1-2 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good testimony.
Catholic teaching (yes, faith is necessary and very important for salvation, and comes to us from the testimony of the Church) not related to the heresy of salvation by faith alone that you are attempting to defend.
the Scriptures do not say "the Church" makes the rules, particularly chiefly or only one portion of the Church alone being able to supersede or be over and above the word-of-God as that can be "heard" (Romans 10:17)
The Scripture does not know several churches. It knows one Catholic Church, -- it attaches no qualifiers to the word "church" except geographical ones. It also teaches against having parts or "denominations" inside the Church (1 Cor. 1:10). And that One Church is the rule of faith as is clear from Matthew 16:19.
Romans 10:17
Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. "Hearing" indicates a live person teaching, -- probably, a priest; other than that how does this quote support Protestant theories?
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Exactly. So Protestantism is condemned by the Word of God squarely.
What in this long copy-paste indicates a contradiction in the teachings of the Holy Church? Note that we Catholics are thinking people and we have opinions. To show me that one father thinks one thing and another something else is not yet a proof of contradiction. Also, no one teaches that the confession of Peter is anything but a profession of his faith, which them prompts his elevation by Christ.
Moreover, the Matthew version of the Lord’s Prayer is up north at the time of the sermon on the mount. The Lucan version appears to be both later in His ministry and in the vicinity of Martha and Mary, who were from Bethany.
The simplest explanation would be that they were different instances. It’s easy enough imagining the words to be different, so also easy to understand that both versions are valuable and both to be used.
Especially as it was already in the scriptures and chanted by the Jews LORD'S PRAYER, THE:
...
The doxology added in Matthew, following a number of manuscripts, is a portion of I Chron. xxix. 11, and was the liturgical chant with which the Lord's Prayer was concluded in the Church; it occurs in the Jewish ritual also, the whole verse being chanted at the opening of the Ark of the Law.
...
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.And it gets worse. You know the Sermon on the Mount raised the stakes, so that overt murder and overt adultery are NOT the measure of sin, but any trace of lust, or any hint of anger without due cause, will bring the condemnation of violation of the law.
Romans 7:7-8 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. (8) But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.So we have it now that even dissatisfaction that leads to wrong desire was sufficient to condemn Paul, and James would further say that such a "victimless" sin, and seemingly so harmless, renders one a violator of God's entire law, and subject to all the horrific consequences stated therein. As someone who has defended clients under Illinois law, this is a defense I know in advance I could never win. God knows every secret passage in our hearts. No matter how outstanding we may appear to the world, all of us have transgressed some aspect of the law of God's perfect love.
Please show where John "taught" that the sign in heave was Mary. I know that is what your Church teaches but I don't recall ever seeing that John taught that.
>>The teachings of Protestant charlatans from Luther on are indeed accursed.<<
Ok, so you think the "Protestant charlatans" as you call them are accursed. Since I'm don't align with Protestants and agree that many of them are also teaching "another gospel" that's not the subject we are talking about. We are talking about ANYONE who teaches "another gospel". Paul said "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" Now, if you choose to defend the Catholic Church I'm asking you to show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.
He sure got THAT right: foolish, base, and weak...and way outta my league, it might appear.
LOL I can assure you that he heard nothing from her. Catholics go far enough out on a limb claiming she can hear them.
Where does it say she did sin? And remember, it would not be enough to show that she sinned in some small way.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
Even your own apologists acknowledge the fact that the false notion of Mary being sinless is not, and cannot be, substantiated in Scripture.
Nor can they appeal to the ECFs.
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.
•Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul ; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt ; and that for her sins also Christ died ( Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
•Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");
So which one is it??
There are other contradictory positions taken by the ECFs. Here is how catholicism deals with this:
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages.
The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.
So the burden of proof is not upon those denying the immaculate conception. Rather the burden of proof is upon the catholic church to offer proof for the immaculate conception from Scripture which they admit they cannot do nor can they appeal to the ECFs!
So again I ask....what is this belief based on?
As a Catholic, when I pray my Rosary, I meditate on the Mysteries of our Redemption: these are the first two. It is out of respect for the significance of these events that I choose to capitalize.
The significance of the Annunciation is that Jesus was conceived; the Visitation shows that the Unborn Jesus was recognized within His mother's womb by John the Baptist, also as yet unborn. In our time, it is also an example for the world that life, human life, exists in the womb, not simply a "product of conception" to be aborted.
Thanks for asking, and God bless you!
Simply for being Jesus' mother, Mary deserves respect: but to know her is to love her, and to love Her Son even more!
You’re right. That was quite a visit alright!
Shouldn’t everything pertaining to what Jesus did also be capitalized then? Perhaps all caps.
Thank you for all of your comments. That quote is from the message of March 20, 1996:
The Woman Adorned With The Sun
if you say: "we have no use for Her Heart", know that in reality you are saying: "we have no use for the Lord's Heart!"While "ymmv", I have found a treasure trove of ineffable value with the messages in True Life In God and pass them along for others who might not know of them.
learn, feeble man, that My Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of your Mother are so united that in their perfect unity those Two Divine Hearts become One;
I tell you solemnly: if you acknowledge Her Heart, not only will you be acknowledging My Heart but also the Father's;
have I not said that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?
if I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, My Heart, too, is in the Father and His Heart is in Mine;
to say that We are not inseparable and One, is to deny My Word;
do not be the slave of your spirit and do not be won by the arguments of the world;
Often the reactions some have to TLIG have been almost as instructive as the messages have been.
oh creation! My Soul is in utter dismay when so many of you deny Her Heart! and My Angels tremble for that day I will pronounce these people, guilty! but for those who honoured Her and loved Her, the Gate of Her Heart will be open for you to step into heaven; and I will say to you who love and honour Her: "come! your love for Her was so great on earth that today you may come to your room and before My Holy Temple bow down;"I believe we are to honor our parents, both earthly and heavenly, and I don't see any need to break that Commandment regarding either.
Fear of God? You betcha!
There was a time when many things pertaining to Jesus were in caps, as the Words He spoke were separated from other text by color or formatting. The caps are my choice, as a sign of respect.
Peace be with you, and a Joyous Christmas!
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.