The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[al_c]

al_c, you're late to the party.

Isn't that the way it always goes? You arrive late and the chees tray is already empty. All that's left is peanuts and those darn after dinner mints. ;o)

[OLD REGGIE]

Regarding the opinions of "fathers" at variance with later Church teaching, the question I ask you is whether you are willing to let ANY authority decide between contending positions and THEN and ONLY THEN rule out other opinions, or do you insist on evaluating the fact situation and rendering a judgement yourself?

The important point James White was making is that at time of the Council of Niceae the "Catholic Church" was not the "Catholic Church of today.

There was no "Pope".
There was no "Primacy" accorded to the Bishop of Rome.
There was no doctrine of Purgatory.
There was no doctrine of Immaculate Conception.
There was no doctrine of Bodily Assumption.
There was no doctrine of Purgatory.

The Church might well have been catholic. It certainly wasn't Roman Catholic.

The question I ask you is are you willing to accept new teachings based on some magic belief that these truths were "always known" but hidden or clearly understood? Be aware that all these new inventions carry the RCC further away from the truth.

Another question. Are you prepared to accept, without reservation, an infallible pronouncement of the Co-Mediator/Mediatrix? (It is coming one day.

[OLD REGGIE]

What was the pope's role in all this? Who knows, exactly. I gather he jumped on the bandwagon started by men more able than he. Was he regarded as primate of the Church? Perhaps less than some of his predecessors, for the role of the pope depends on the strength and character of the men who hold the office, and he is a follower rarther than a leader.

There was no Pope. This office was invented and applied retroactively.

[eastsider]

There was no Pope. This office was invented and applied retroactively.

The Roman pope is the bishop of Rome, who has been around since -- ta, da -- Peter. And his singular authority as the center of unity of the episcopal college has been around since Christ gave Peter his singular authority. (Does the giving of "the keys" ring a bell? : )

[JohnnyM]

don't forget Co-Redemptrix as well.

JM

[OLD REGGIE]

What was the pope's role in all this? Who knows, exactly. I gather he jumped on the bandwagon started by men more able than he. Was he regarded as primate of the Church? Perhaps less than some of his predecessors, for the role of the pope depends on the strength and character of the men who hold the office, and he is a follower rarther than a leader.

There was no Pope. This office was invented and applied retroactively.

[eastsider]

The important point James White was making is that at time of the Council of Niceae ... [t]here was no doctrine of Purgatory. There was no doctrine of Immaculate Conception. There was no doctrine of Bodily Assumption.

If you mean that there was no formal definition of these doctrines at the time of Nicaea, White is right. Formal definitions, like the christological and trinitarian formulae that came out of the great councils, are made in response to heresies that deny these particular teachings of the Church. The most one can conclude from there having been no formal definition of these teachings at the time of Nicaea is that no one had denied those teachings at the time of Nicaea, not that they didn't exist at that time. In this latter sense, then, White is mistaken.

[OLD REGGIE]

Think about it. Is role of Mary just incidental?

Why is it necessary for Mary to be considered "incidental" or a "Perpetual Virgin", "Bodily Assumed", or "Co-Redeemer"? No Protestant denies the Virgin Birth or the Blessedness of Mary. They just don't elevate her to an artificially higher status.

Why do you suppose the name of Mary disappears from Scripture after the accension of Jesus? Is it because her role has been accomplished? Certainly John was alive when Mary died. Why didn't he make note of it or of her Bodily Assumption. Why no NT recognition of her death, let alone her Bodily Assumption?

[eastsider]

There was no Pope. This office was invented and applied retroactively.

See #7684.

[eastsider]

Why do you suppose the name of Mary disappears from Scripture after the accension of Jesus? Is it because her role has been accomplished?

An argument from silence? Surely you can do better than that!

[JohnnyM]

its better than pulling it out of thin air.

JM

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

So in other words you all would agree that there are different ways to reach heaven, and the doctrine of "only one way" is not correct? That as long as you are doing what you feel God is telling you to do you are OKay?

Becky

[eastsider]

its better than pulling it out of thin air.

I posted the connection between the Marian privileges (Perpetual Virginity; Immaculate Conception; Assumption) and the Church several threads back. With this new navigation system, I'm not sure I know how to find it, and I am loath to repost it since it's rather lengthy. The salient point of that post was that there is historical evidence for the Marian privileges as early as the fourth century.

[OLD REGGIE]

I know I can't convince you but I hope you will realize that there may be more to scripture than just the words, and that it is not the number of words used to express a thought but the clarity with which the words are conveyed. I think "Do whatever He tells you to do",Behold your mother"and "Behold your son" are some of the most powerful words in scripture. IMHO you all are missing something very wonderful.

And, do you think you are missing something?

Mathew 12:

46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.
47
48 But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!
50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."

Jesus is not insulting his mother; rather he is telling us we are all the same in the eyes of the Lord. He is not raising her to an artificial status.

[JohnnyM]

ok. Allow me to restate. Where in the Bible is the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception?? I would also like to know what you think about Reggie's question regarding Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix with Christ???

JM

[OLD REGGIE]

Does anyone besides me have a problem seeing these "doctrines" as CHRISTOCENTRIC ??? I don't care what their objective is, even if it IS to glorify Christ, because they fail miserably to do so. The glory of Christ is not exalted by venerating Mary and the saints.

These beliefs serve only to diminish the glory given to Christ. They can serve no other purpose.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

So in other words you all would agree that there are different ways to reach heaven, and the doctrine of "only one way" is not correct? That as long as you are doing what you feel God is telling you to do you are OKay?

Becky, Becky, Becky. You've been on these threads so long and still don't know where I'm comin' from? There is only one way to heaven. Through Jesus Christ. If God is telling you to become a catholic, by all means, go for it. It's one huge mission field.

[RobbyS]

The important point James White was making is that at time of the Council of Niceae the "Catholic Church" was not the "Catholic Church of today.

There was no "Pope". There was no "Primacy" accorded to the Bishop of Rome. There was no doctrine of Purgatory. There was no doctrine of Purgatory. There was no doctrine of Purgatory.

The Church might well have been catholic. P>.

There was no "Pope".

Well, there was a pope of Rome , a pope of Antioch, a pope of Alexandria. The question is what authority he had.

There was no "Primacy" accorded to the Bishop of Rome.

But a primacy was claimed by the pope of Rome, Pope Stephen in the 2nd Century. The Greek sees of course, were loathe to acknowledge it and countered the Roman claim by giving a different interpretation to the verse in Matthew. They didn't want to come under Roman jurisdiction. Such resistance was also found, by the way, from the French Church of the post-Reformation period. Cozy in their relationshion with the Crown, they ignored the popes as much as possible.

There was no doctrine of Purgatory.

WHICH doctrine of purgatory?The dogmatic teaching certainly lacks the embellishments that many Catholics associate with it. Dead Christians "enjoy' a temporary suffering; the suffrage of the Church in some fashion allievates it. Ambroasiater certainly taught something like this. If his was not the general opinion, his was certainly consistent with Catholic opinion in the 4th Century.

There was no doctrine of the Immaculate Conception There was certainly no formulation of it. The doctrine of "original" sin is Augustine's contribution to Christian thought. Are you saying that Augustine's opinion was not biblical?

There was no doctrine of the Assumption.

Blame the Greeks as well. They have the doctrine of the Dormition of Mary, which lends support to the 1950 proclamation of the dogma. Yes, I know they say they don't believe in the Assumption, but I am hard-pressed to tell the real difference between ours and theirs.

It certainly wasn't Roman Catholic.

The question I ask you is are you willing to accept new teachings based on some magic belief that these truths were "always known" but hidden or clearly understood? Be aware that all these new inventions carry the RCC further away from the truth.

Another question. Are you prepared to accept, without reservation, an infallible pronouncement of the Co-Mediator/Mediatrix? (It is coming one day The Marian dogmas are indeed "inventions" if you are willing to accept the archaic defintion of "find, finding-out, or discovery." Heck, the whole of the common law is based on such invention. The Immaculate Conception is something like a conflation of the teachings of the Virgin Birth, the incarnation, and of original sin. You are saying that the Church is wrong to recongize the validity of formal reasoning which draws these together? The doctrine of the co-mediator is a bit lick gilding the lilly. But I have no trpouble with it. It is compatible with the Church's ancient understanding of the role of Mary in the divine drama.

[OLD REGGIE]

Oh please. You really believe that he could study scripture in "the liturgy"?

Be reasonable hopeful, if you never missed a Mass and you had a perfect memory, you could cover the Bible in three years or so. What is wrong with that as a study method?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Do you believe the catholics reach heaven through Jesus Christ?

Becky