Posted on 04/05/2005 10:01:52 PM PDT by Coleus
For the last quarter of a century, this non-Catholic has had a pope. Now that John Paul II is gone, I am even more of an orphan than the Christians in the Roman church. For they will surely have another pope, but that one may not be mine, since I haven't converted.
I am sure I am reflecting the views of many Protestants. Who else but John Paul II gave voice to my faith and my values in 130 countries? Who else posited personal holiness and theological clarity against postmodern self-deception and egotism? Who else preached the gospel as tirelessly as this man?
What other clergyman played any comparable role in bringing down communism, a godless system? What other world leader—spiritual or secular—understood so profoundly how hollow and bankrupt the Soviet empire was, so much so that this tireless writer never bothered to pen an encyclical against Marxism-Leninism because he knew it was moribund?
Has there been a more powerful defender of the sanctity of life than this Pole, in whose pontificate nearly 40 million unborn babies wound up in trashcans and furnaces in the United States alone? What more fitting insight than John Paul II's definition of our culture as a culture of death—an insight that is now clearly sinking in, to wit the declining abortion rates in the United States?
In Europe some time ago, a debate occurred in Protestant churches: Should John Paul II be considered the world's spokesman for all of Christianity? This was an absurd question. Of course he spoke for all believers. Who else had such global appeal and credibility, even to non-Christians and non-believers?
Of course, there was the inveterate Billy Graham. There were many faithful Orthodox and Protestant bishops, pastors and evangelists.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Why? Who says? Where is this written?
A bunch of people didn't read the Bible and decide to start a Church. Rather, the Church was started by Jesus and its members wrote Scripture and the Church leaders decided which books were to be canonical. Scripture came from the Church, not the other way around. This is an important point to understand. The Church preceded the New Testament. It is in no way a result of the NT.
As for authority, we will deal with the later.
But I fear you and I might need to define our terms a bit. I define "church" as a group of people called out by God according to His purpose and set aside to God to accomplish His will. Is this how you define "church"?
The Church is that, but it is also more. It has leaders vested with authority to shepeherd and teach. Having the authority to teach must also necessarily mean you have the ability to know what one must teach, in other words to know what is true.
Jesus clearly chose Apostles. They were to go out and teach the nations and baptise them. The Apostles likewise appointed leaders in the communities (local churches) they set up. Paul and others wrote letters of instruction to the local churches.
All were members of the Church, but the Apostles and those they appointed were obviously in a position of authority.
I am always curious as to how people who believe all worth believing must be easily found in Scripture can offer no proof for their belief that authority in the Church ceased shortly after the New Testament was written or canonized.
"And He gave it authority to teach and to impart His forgiveness and grace.."
Where did He do that?
Go and baptize the nations, He told them. This charge required that they teach and perform the sacrament of baptism, which imparts grace as it removes actual and Original Sin.
Also, He told them that they had the power to forgive men's sins. And He established Communion at the Last Supper.
And I would never suggest that one relies on His or her own "opinion". I might suggest that Jesus Himself said that He is giving to each one of us believers a Spirit of Truth -- the Holy Spirit -- who lives in us and with us. My "opinion copunts for nought. The Holy Spirit's leading and instruction is what matters.
The thing is everyone thinks that. Obviously, since we are not in agreement because we are flawed and sinful, some must be wrong or deluded.
The question then is, did God prepare for this and provide us with an arbiter or not?
"The Church" is the instrument of salvation? Where is this written down? Who says this? When did Jesus leave this instruction to His disciples?
You are allowed to think as well as read. Even discarding any Catholic or sacramental type of system, just think about what Jesus told His followers to do. Why did He send them out?
God can (and does) just zap people in the head, giving them epiphanies. But the majority of people brought to salvation are done so by the hard work of preaching, teaching, and caring. We have been given a task to do to help gather souls, bringing them to God. Inasmuch as we are the Church, it is the Church (God's people) that serve as His instrument of salvation. Doesn't that make sense?
She wrote the books of the New Testament? I thought individuals, -- not a collection of believers -- guided by God's own Holy Spirit, wrote the books of the Bible. I'm afraid I don't understand when you say that the Roman Catholic Church wrote the books of the New Testament.
Inspired individuals who were members of the Church wrote the books. And the Church, in council, decided the canon. The New Testament is entirely a product of the Church.
Are you suggesting that Scripture has no authority whatsoever? That the books of the Bible are without authority? That Jesus' own words, as recorded in Scripture, are meaningless? What do you mean? I'm getting more confused.
I mean the Book must be read and understood. If you have a question about what a passage means, the Book does not resolve it for you. Uncomplicated things speak for themselves. But complicated sections and dogmas require an interpreter.
Even you admit as such, as you acknowledge that you read it with the help of the Holy Spirit.
I don't think God ever inteneded for me to know "all". But I do think that God intended for me to know "enough" for my own salvation
And I contend that God wanted us to know more than the bare minimum "required" for salvation. That He gave us a way to rise above the confusion of a million different readers with their own opinions.
I admit "all" was a poor choice of words. We can't know all because our little heads would explode. But I do believe we can know more than the bare minimum with certitude.
SD
Yes, there is and I was mis-speaking or engaging in hyperbole whe I said "everything" is taught explicitly in the Bible. Thank you for the correction.
The claim, which is taught explicitly in the Bible, is that the Scripture has the ability to thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work. Included in every good work are "doctrine", "reproof", "correction", and "instruction in righteousness"
Read the verse again. It in no way says what you want it to say. It says Scripture is "useful" or "profitable" to thoroughly equip. It does not say it is sufficient.
Is believing in the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, for example, a "good work"?
I don't know if believing anything is considered a "work."
It may syrprise you to know that the Church considers Scripture to be materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. All of the material God revealed can be found within, but it is not always explicit. Take for example, the orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ and how He is true man and true God united in the hypostatic union.
Or the formulae describing the interworkings of the Trinity.
None of these are found explicitly in Scripture, yet they arise from studying Scripture and what is revealed in it.
SD
We are honoring those God Himself chose to honor. I see no sin in that.
You know, Jesus said of John the Baptist that there was no man born of woman that was greater than he--not Elijah, not Moses, not even Abraham, the great patriarch of Israel. He honored his cousin above all men in a fashion not unlike the way Mary was honored above all women. Yet John himself said of Jesus, "But He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry" (Mt. 3:11), and "This was He of whom I spoke: He who comes after me has been before me, for He was preceding me" (Jn. 1:15).
When his disciples became jealous for their master's reputation as Jesus' fame spread, John said, "He who has the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom who stands and hears him rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. Then my joy is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease" (Jn. 3:29-30).
Mary, being righteous above all women, would say the same, and like John, would never solicit people to come through her to get to her son, for "He who came after her is greater than her, for He preceded her."
"Saying anything nice about anyone other than God" seems to be the Protestant definition of "worship."
Don't be silly. I can say, "Dave, you're a good guy and zealous for your faith," without treading on God's toes. But would you receive it if I fell at your feet and said, "HAIL, HOLY Prince, Father of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope . . ."? If you did, you would be as guilty as Herod when he recieved the crowd's praise, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man!" and the angel struck him dead.
The Rosary is neither the "most oft-spoken prayer" nor the "centerpiece of Catholic prayer life."
Since the Middle Ages, the Hail Mary has been the most common prayer of all believers who ask the Holy Mother of the Lord to guide and protect them on their daily journey through life (cf. Apostolic Exhortation Marialis cultus, nn. 42-55).The Mass is the centerpiece of Catholic prayer life.
If you say so (and the Mass has it's own problems, Biblically speaking, but we've had that debate several times already and I don't have the time to rehash it here). I don't see devout Catholics carrying Mass beads. I do see them carrying Rosary beads.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Mass is the centerpiece of the Catholic's public prayer life, and the Rosary the centerpiece of his or her private prayer life. Regardless, you cannot deny its pervasiveness or influence. If it were said perhaps once or twice a year--say, at Christmas and the Feast of the Assumption--I might be accused of nitpicking. But when it has been standing policy for several centuries to encourage Catholics to say it daily, it's no longer a side-issue, but a central one.
Now, what is "the criteria for worship" that you mention? How do you define it?
A fair question. In both Hebrew and Greek, the word translated "worship" carries the meaning of prostrating one's self, of total submission and devotion. In action (and as implied by the English word), worship also involves ascribing "worth-ship" to its object, praising its attributes.
Does this mean that any praise of any person other than God is worship in the Biblical sense then, as you tried to imply before? Of course not! But there's certainly a distinction between praising Mary's submission to God and raising the Messiah and ascribing to her attributes that belong to God alone (see my post #514)!
Consider, for example, the attribute of mercy. Many, many Catholics, both here on FR and those I've known well in my personal life, have said quite plainly that they go to Mary, "Because after all, wouldn't you do what your mother told you?" Ignoring the fact that this makes it seem that Jesus is beholden to a daughter of God, the very presumption of this argument is that Mary is somehow more merciful, more willing to hear their entreaties, than God is. Frankly, even if it were not a clear violation of Scripture to view any person as a mediator between God and Men but the Man Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), it would still seem silly to me to go through another when God has made His throne directly available to us (Heb. 4:16).
Look at it another way: Suppose that you had dear friends whom you loved very much and had told that they could come to you anytime for anything. Suppose that some of them continually went to your mother first and got her on your side before approaching you with a request. Would you not be insulted that they feel the need to manipulate you in such a way?
It all amounts to sharing God's glory with another. A simple, "Mother Mary, please pray for me," probably would do little enough harm (though it would tend to suggest that she was omniscient that she could respond to millions of requests for prayer a day), but interposing "Hail Mary" over meditations on God and His Christ and winding up with a prayer to Mary that couldn't be considered anything other than worshipful by any objective observer goes far beyond that.
As I've said from the beginning, if it's all clear in your minds, that's between you and God. But before you start Protestant-bashing (and you do, frequently), you should know what we are looking at and reading that convinces us in all good concience that Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are not compatible. That's not to say that no Catholic is a true Christian (I know many who are), but that the RCC's teachings are incompatible with its claims to be the one, true Church that Christ founded.
Yep. And I don't think any Catholic thinks that Mary thinks any different about her Son. Regardless of the flattery.
Mary, being righteous above all women, would say the same, and like John, would never solicit people to come through her to get to her son, for "He who came after her is greater than her, for He preceded her."
John prepared and pointed the way to Jesus. Mary does the same thing. I find your comparison apt. I think many miss what it is we do at Mass and have little to compare our Mary words to.
It seems excessive compared to a vacuum. But compared to the adoration given to Jesus in Mass (and in Eucharistic adoration, etc.) it is not.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Mass is the centerpiece of the Catholic's public prayer life, and the Rosary the centerpiece of his or her private prayer life.
That I can accept. But remember, the Rosary is a reminder of the life of Jesus. It's about Him.
Look at it another way: Suppose that you had dear friends whom you loved very much and had told that they could come to you anytime for anything. Suppose that some of them continually went to your mother first and got her on your side before approaching you with a request. Would you not be insulted that they feel the need to manipulate you in such a way?
You take a cynical view of the thing. And a very individualistic one. We acknowledge that we are one family, one communion of saints. It does not seem strange to us to ask others to join in our petitions and prayers.
Protestants want to cut to the chase, find the minimum, focus on the self. You ask "why bother with saints, when I can go to the Lord myself?" We ask "why go by yourself when you can go as part of the community of saints?" It is not manipulation, it is unity, communion.
SD
I did not get that impression from your words below
Actually, protestants like to see what scripture teaches clearly. There are, of course, doctrines like the deity of Christ where there is not an overt statement, but many passages that teach it.
It looked like you believed it was true as a declared infallible statement from the church, not from the word of God.
You seemed to be comparing it to other Catholic dogma that you believe as truth because it is taught by the "infallible" church .
As you see it is not. There is overt teaching on this, not just hints. But there is no scripture to support those Catholic dogmas or practices to which you compared the Deity of Christ.
First, no one says that "useful" or "profitable" mean "sufficient". Paul is saying that the man of God can be complete, capable, proficient, and qualified because he has available to him God-breathed Scriptures. The term, artios means, "fitted, complete.", or "complete, capable, proficient", "able to meet all demands" - Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker. Second: ejxartivzw means "completely outfitted, fully furnished, fully equipped, fully supplied". What else could it mean that one "is fully equipped," if not that one is sufficient for a task?
Main Entry: suf·fi·cient
Pronunciation: s&-'fi-sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sufficient-, sufficiens, from present participle of sufficere
1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end <sufficient provisions for a month> b : being a sufficient condition
2 archaic : QUALIFIED, COMPETENT
- suf·fi·cient·ly adverb
synonyms SUFFICIENT, ENOUGH, ADEQUATE, COMPETENT mean being what is necessary or desirable. SUFFICIENT suggests a close meeting of a need <sufficient savings>. ENOUGH is less exact in suggestion than SUFFICIENT <do you have enough food?>. ADEQUATE may imply barely meeting a requirement <the service was adequate>. COMPETENT suggests measuring up to all requirements without question or being adequately adapted to an end <had no competent notion of what was going on>.
I don't know if believing anything is considered a "work."
Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?"John 6:28,29
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
It may syrprise you to know that the Church considers Scripture to be materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient
Well, I take it that you do not subscribe to the partim-partim view. Opinions seem to vary widely within R.C. as to exactly what constitutes ‘tradition’, and I have as yet to see an infallible definition.
Cordially,
You are right...there are some pretty strange things there all right.
My way? Wrong...CHRIST is the only way. Don't add to Him.
You're totally glossing over the rough parts of the text. I'm not denying what "fully complete" means. I am arguing that the text is in any way saying that Scripture is the only thing needed for the man of God to be fully equipped.
The Scripture itself says Scripture is "useful." Not that it is sufficient. Scripture is necessary for the man of God to be complete. I don't disagree about that.
But it doesn't say "only Scripture" is useful. I know you wish it did, but it doesn't. Doesn't the man of God need faith and grace, among other things?
SD
You continue to distort the issue. I have said quite clearly that there is nothing wrong (and everything right) with going up to one's brother or sister in Christ and saying, "Hey would you mind praying with/for me?"
But that's not what the Rosary does. It superimposes Mary on every aspect of God's provision in Jesus Christ that you are supposed to be meditating on, and then finishes with a prayer that ascribes to Mary attributes and roles that belong to Christ alone, including the role of mediator and advocate.
Again, if you're at peace with that and you sincerely believe that can be reconciled with the Scriptures, the Lord is your judge, not I. But I and hundreds of millions of others can't, and we must, in good concience such as is informed by the Scriptures above all else, regard this devotion to Mary (or indeed, to any other saint) as a kind of idolatry.
Tyndale was the first to translate, print and distribute the complete New Testament from early Greek versions into Old English. The King James version was completed about 115 years later and included at least 85% of the translation previously made by Tyndale. His translation was therefore "approved as accurate" by the King James translators. Would there have been Protestants in England without both versions having been made available to the common people? Good question. To me, Tyndale and others like him are truly saints.
Leviticus 12:
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
" 'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "
Cordially,
No - not true. Dogmatic approaches to contemporary issues have evolved over time. Abortion, as an issue of mortal sin, wasn't an issue until the 20th century. The Church did not speak of a culture of life until the last 100 years.
My point is we develop differing core values on issues, but you and others liken those to broader "beliefs." We need to stop focusing on "beliefs" and start focusing on the "BELIEF."
We are all "Believers" whether protestant or catholic. Christ didn't say - "Take this, you protestants -this is my body, the bread of heaven . . ." No . . . For gosh sakes, he celebrated his last supper with the man who betrayed him. Christ's "communion" is meant for all of us.
Dogma, based on man's response to then-contemporary life, has divided us.
Let me ask you - rhetorically, is the celabacy requirement on priests a product of "Belief" or a product of the "Church?"
That Mary followed the Law in this respect is no admission of guilt. (For that matter, no woman was "guilty" of the "sin" of bearing children, especially given the charge to "go forth and multiply.")
SD
I agree that it doesn't say that only Scripture is useful. But that is not what Sola Scriptura represents. Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. It doesn't say that there are not other, fallible rules of faith or teaching, or even traditions that we can refer to and learn from. But these are all by definition inferior to and subject to correction by the Scriptures, because the Scriptures are God-breathed. Being God-breathed, the Scriptures are the very speaking of God and are therefore the highest authority.
I also agree that the man of God needs faith and grace. But suppose the man of God wants to know what God says about these things? I refer you again to the counsel of Cyril of Jerusalem, who as all the Church Fathers did, said:
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 ... 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. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments.
Cordially,
The sin is not in the bearing of children, obviously, so what is a sin offering for? And for what what did the priest make atonement, if not sin?
Cordially,
Then it's not a "proof text" for Sola Scriptura, and I wish it would stop being used as if it were.
But suppose the man of God wants to know what God says about these things? I refer you again to the counsel of Cyril of Jerusalem, who as all the Church Fathers did, said:
I don't really have a problem with this. The problem is with those who will only accept "bumper sticker" theology rather than:
And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments.
Even as we speak, I am battling Nestorians on another thread. Others refuse truths about the Trinity bceause they can't find it explicitly laid out in Scripture.
At some point, if one is going to go deep into theology one either needs to work through the mental exercises, or remain silent.
(Please, don't take that personally. You have always seem well-studied. It is not you I am complaining about.)
SD
I don't know. But Mary, like Jesus, followed the law pro forms, even if it didn't strictly apply.
SD
My point was that we, as Christians, do look at the totality of the Word of God to see what it teaches. This is quite a bit different than the gymnastics Catholic teachers use to buttress claims of, for example, the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I find myself in full agreement with your excellent post.
ampu
600
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.