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.
Yup; your homepage reveals a LOT...
Don't you just HATE when someone will NOT answer the question posed and tries to get you to answer HIS instead?
15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Well, that's what you claimed in post 2238.
Quote:"Thank you; the Catechism is perfect as always. " Unquote.
Now you're saying it's NOT? So if it's not, which parts are imperfect and how do you know? And why do you follow it if it's not perfect?
You KNOW that Jesus has to be told what to do by His MOTHER!
From Luke 2:51, we do know that Jesus was obedient to Mary and Joseph. But He also had some seemingly harsh words for His mother both at the finding at the temple and at the wedding feast in Cana, which had bothered me for many years.
This was cleared up for me a couple of years ago when the Gospel reading was about the healing of a paralytic from Mark 2. In his homily, the priest gave us a multiple choice question. He asked us who Jesus was primarily focused on:
The crowd that filled up the room
The four believers who lowered the paralytic from the roof
The paralytic
The teachers of the law who were thinking He was blaspheming
The priest said the answer was none of the above. he said that Jesus was focused on the Father. As I read and reflected on various Gospel readings after that, I realized the truth of the statement, Jesus was always focused on the Father.
So when Mary told Jesus at the temple how she and His father were sorrowing, He reminded her that He must be about His Father’s business. And when Mary told Him at the wedding feast that they had no wine, He reminded her that the hour for which He came had not yet come. Even so, He did obey Mary and Joseph while growing up and He did change the water into wine.
Haven't you taken that a bit out of context?? One of the favorite tricks of the Enemy! A little selective quoting on your part.
Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
Luther's doctrine?? I think more like Irenaeus (130 - 202).
"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." [Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414.]
Or maybe the doctrine of Cyril.
"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For 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 these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), "The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17.]
Or maybe it was Gregory of Nyssa (335 – 395)
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Second Series: Volume V, Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", p. 439.]
Wait, maybe it was John Chrysostom (349 – 407)
Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast. [John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC.]
Or maybe you should credit Basil (330 - 379)
What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin. [Basil, The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC]
The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. [Basil, Moralia, 72:1.]
Maybe Augustine (354 - 430)
If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema. [Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6.]
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. [Augustine, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 10.]
For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life. [Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II, 9.]
And don't forget Hippolytus (170–235)
There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source… so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatever things they teach, these let us learn. [Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 9.]
I think if you are going to give credit you should give credit where credit is do wouldn't you agree? I think when Catholics want to denigrate those who first promoted Sola Scriptura they should denigrate those who first started the idea don't you think?
And Rome teaches that He STILL obeys His mommy.
It seems so easy to slip a word in here and there to make it fit ones agenda doesn't it? The Greek word translates to soul, not heart.
And Jesus was while here on earth. (But He was God!! - Catholic dude)
It also amazes me the selective use of the ECFs. If they like them they quote them...if not, ignore or discount them.
This insight into catholic thinking is amazing.
My hope is the things I've found and posted there are helpful and of interest and value to someone else besides me, assuming anyone would ever bother to look.
Thanks for that.
It most certainly is. The double talk and hypocrisy is stunning.
The closest I've gotten to Velikovsky was, IIRC, in the book Pole Shift: Predictions and Prophecies of the Ultimate Disaster by John White.
I think I was still in Jr. High(?) when I picked it up, but was way too deep for me. I was looking for something to help explain Cayce's end of times prophecies.
Unlike those who spent their youth in Church and Sunday school, Edgar Cayce's stuff was as close as I got to being interested in organized religion. His story and his readings were very spiritually intriguing to me then, and still are.
Depending on who you talk to, I think I could be fairly high info regarding a few things in the spiritual, supernatural realm, but not so much with Judeo-Christian facts and history.
Most of my life, I've thought "that stuff" was just a boring collection of stories I couldn't make much sense of. Only recently, through reading near death experiences of those who came back with a story to tell, has that belief changed. The material I've posted is what I've recently found since reading the NDE stories.
Sorry to bore you with all of that, but I thought I should answer you more thoughtfully than flippantly.
Well, for one thing the Church does not say what will happen if one does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. We do not have a ruleset for who will and who will not be saved, because we are saved in great part by our works, and not by faith alone. However, the doctrine in question is compatible with scripture because the angel calls Mary "full of grace", "κεχαριτωμενη" (Luke 1:28), which is a past perfect passive tense of "to give grace"; she is one who had been filled with grace by the time the angel speaks. When that point was that she had been filled with grace we don't know but it is a reasonable conjecture that it occurred at the only other significant moment of her life theretofore: her conception. Hence the doctrine.
The statement appears embedded in the question whether this is the understanding achieved by the reader:
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? ορατε τοινυν οτι εξ εργων δικαιουται ανθρωπος και ουκ εκ πιστεως μονον
James chapter 2 is all about demonstrating genuine faith to the world
No because it is not an isolated phrase: it is also repeated "faith without works is dead" and that is the conclusion of the chapter. Not "faith without works appears dead" or "looking from outside one cannot tell it it is dead", -- simply "dead". Not a saving faith.
"Plain meaning" is not necessarily literal meaning. If the passage is allegorical, then the plain meaning is the meaning of the allegory. For example, the plain meaning of the modern American phrase "I was up the creek without a paddle" is that the speaker was in a helpless situation facing an impossible task; not that he was traveling by water.
In contrast, when Jesus says "this bread is my body" there is not allegory present: he adds "do this" in Luke 22:19 and is John 6 Him giving his flesh to eat is a whole earnest and heated discussion. One cannot "do" an allegory and if the meal of the Eucharist were allegorical and not really His body, Jesus would have told his disciples so, rather than losing them.
Likewise in James 2 there is nothing allegorical: several historical persons are mentioned with their works and their faith, the fact that faith is "dead" without works is asserted, and a direct statement is made "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" This is not allegorical speech, except perhaps "dead faith" is a metaphor for faith which does not save.
This goes beyond the thread topic and would require a whole thread of its own to examine
That is because when a Protestant faces these scriptural facts his method is to offer megabytes of obfuscatory pseudo-reasoning to bury the scriptural fact in. No it does nto require a whole thread. The Holy Spirit expressed these two ideas in a few easy to understand sentences. The Eucharist is Christ's body. We are not saved by faith alone. Scriptural facts.
How many times must you be shown that isn't true to stop making the statement?
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.
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.