"The Penguin"
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
"Where do nuns come from?"
Nuns are not and never have been ordained. Only Protestants ordain women. There were, however, women deaconesses who were consecrated in a particular way which distinguished their position from that of the sacramental/liturgical priestly orders, in the early Church. The Synod of the Church of Greece has determined to reestablish this role for women quite recently.
"As you can see, this also does NOT say that an individual Christian cannot be guided by the Holy Spirit to understand God's scripture."
Padre, what assurance is there, when one hears any random Christian interpret the bible, that it is the Holy Spirit and not a demon which is doing the guiding? The people in ECUSA and other apostate branches of Anglicanism seem quite convinced that what appears to the likes of you and me to be the Zeitgeist guiding them is indeed the Holy Spirit.
I'll ask one last time. Where in Scripture does Jesus teach the church He established would teach error?
Time to enter this discussion...
Luther believed that Jesus Christ was present, Body and Blood, in the Eucharist. His disagreement with Rome was whether the elements remained their essence, along with becoming His Body, after the consecration. However, he, along with the practically the entire Christendom before him, believed that Jesus was actually present.
Again, the question is, why don't you?
Regards
The entire idea of accidence/essence seems to me to be medieval philosophical nonsense that misses the point. The sacrament of Communion is not in any way about the bread or the wine - those themselves are symbols, but spiritually, when a Christian ingests these symbols, they are covenental signs symbolizing that we are actually "ingesting" Christ himself. We are (spiritually) ingesting Christ's body and blood - as commanded in 1Co. 11 and Jo. 6 - but the bread and wine never changed physically. They are physical stand-ins communicating a spiritual reality.
These are just my own musings, and should not be construed to reflect any particular group.
I wouldn’t say Saint Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Ephraem, or Gregory got the idea of Mary being the “Queen of Heaven” from reading the scripture. I think they erroneously reasoned 1) God is King, 2) our Lord Jesus is His Son, 3) Mary is our Lord Jesus’ mother; therefore Mary is Queen. This reasoning, IMHO, is flawed. Mary may have been the physical mother of Jesus but that’s as far as it goes.
It is a mistake to think that the early church fathers, for all the wonderful guidance they provided, did not have their theological flaws. Many of these men came from pagan and idolatrous environments. They did not have the luxury of 2000 years of writings to refer to (which, btw, we still can’t seem to get our doctrine right).
Athanasius had his faults. Criticism of Athanasius follows:
He justified these tactics with the argument that he was saving all future Christians from hell. Athanasius stubbornly refused to compromise his theological views by stating, "What is at stake is not just a theological theory but people's salvation." (Olson, 172). In this assertion that violence was justified in defense of theology and the church, Athanasius, some hold, laid the foundation for theological concepts such as just war and the inquisition.
I bring Athanasius’ flaws up simply to illustrate that the early church fathers were no different than you or I and subject to error. Just because four or five got together and stated Mary was Queen of Heaven doesn’t make it so. We should remind ourselves that throughout history greater men of God (e.g. Elijah, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul etc) all stood up to the religious leaders of the times and told them they were wrong. Some listened. Some did not.
Throughout history man has always held there to be a Queen of Heaven. For example:
The only occurrences of the phrase "Queen of Heaven" in the Bible are in reference to a false pagan goddess (see Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). Jesus' mother Mary is never described as having any kind of exalted position in Heaven. The Bible does not record Mary's death. In fact, Mary is never even mentioned after Acts chapter 1, verse 14. Mary was a godly women through whom God chose to bring forth His beloved Son (Luke 1:26-38). The Bible gives us no reason to believe, though, that Mary was sinless or is now exalted as the "Queen of Heaven."
Mary is to be respected as the earthly mother of Jesus, but she is not worthy of our worship and she cannot hear our prayers. The Bible nowhere indicates that anyone other than God is to be worshipped or revered. The Bible nowhere indicates that anyone other than God can hear or answer our prayers. Jesus is our only advocate in Heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If Mary were to speak to us today from heaven, she would say the same as the angels do when people try to worship them -- "Worship God!" (Revelation 19:10; 22:9).
As far as Luther “slight” disagreement on the Eucharist, it should be remembered that Luther held the same view as Wycliffe. Wycliffe, as we remember, was excommunication, his bones dug up and burned for his views on transubstantiation.
I was researching something else and came across the article on abortion and the early church fathers. I thought that was an incredibly interesting article and I didn’t want to lose it so I posted it. I was a little surprise to discovered abortion to be so prevalent in the early days of the church.
I don't know about your criticism of Saint Athanasius. I don't know who Barnes and Rubenstein are so I'll leave that alone.
"I wouldn’t say Saint Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Ephraem, or Gregory got the idea of Mary being the “Queen of Heaven” from reading the scripture. I think they erroneously reasoned 1) God is King, 2) our Lord Jesus is His Son, 3) Mary is our Lord Jesus’ mother; therefore Mary is Queen. This reasoning, IMHO, is flawed."
You read scripture and came up with a different opinion, that is your right to do so. They came up with that opinion from reading scripture. Look to the respect shown the mother of the King in the old testament. For example:
1 Kings 2:16-20: ""Pray ask king Solomon- he will not refuse you- to give me Abishag the Shunammite as my wife." Bathsheba said, "Very well, I will speak for you to the king." So Bathsheba went to king Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king's mother, and she sat on his right. Then she said, "I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me." and the king said to her, "Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you.""
Who in the early church opposed that opinion? The Arians? Even though there are false queens of heaven there can be an actual queen of heaven, just as there are false gods and a real God.
"If Mary were to speak to us today from heaven, she would say the same as the angels do when people try to worship them -- "Worship God!" (Revelation 19:10; 22:9)."
ABSOLUTELY!!! "do whatever He tells you." 100% in agreement with you there. That is the teaching of the church.
What the church actually teaches and what people think the church teaches is where we get these disputes.
One last little nugget for you that sums that up well:
Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation.
Who said that? Martin Luther in a sermon on March 11, 1523.
1) Scripture is sufficient for all things (“Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)
When the Church Fathers, including St. Athanasius, affirms the sufficiency of Scripture, they do not exclude, but SUPPOSE Tradition! For example, after St. Athanasius says "The Sacred Scriptures are sufficient to indicate the Faith in Christ", he adds "There are many books of our teachers which, if any one will read, he will in some manner understand the interpretation of the Scriptures and might know what he desires" (Athanasius, Orat. C. Gent., N. 1)
When Vincent of Lerin states "the canon of Scripture is perfect and is abundandtly sufficient to itself and to anything else", he adds that the Faith must be safeguarded, "first by Law of Divine Authority (Scriptures) and then by the Tradition of the Catholic Church". (Commonit., CC. I-II). He declares the reason for this double security in his famous sentence "because not all men accept the same sense of Sacred Scriptures, on account of their loftiness...hence, it is most necessary, on account of so many errors, that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be drawn according to the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic sense" (Commonit. C. II).
The statements of the Fathers are therefore different then what you are trying to prove - that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation. The Fathers have always minded the Apostolic Succession, whose teaching and understanding is to be the course and rule in INTERPRETATION of Scriptures. They DO NOT separate the Scriptures from Tradition. Therefore, not all truths are clear from Scripture alone. What is clear is not clear enough to all the faithful. Proof of this is the Real Presence of the Eucharist - "clearly" stated in Scripture, but not believed by many Protestants of who read the Scriptures.
Nothing the Fathers say about Scripture excludes the Tradition of the Church, as it chronolicially and theologically PRECEDED Scripture.
Regards
While I understand transubstantiation (and I would argue consubstantiation) was the prevailing views within the Church for many centuries, there is no scriptural evidence that the bread and wine physically or spiritually changes or that God's grace is "poured" into a believer through the Eucharist. God imputes His righteousness to us through His Son.
It is totally upon God's grace that we rest in His Son. He does not infuse His righteousness to us time and time again through our taking of the Eucharist or one of the other six sacraments. We cannot do anything to merit God's favor including filling ourselves up with God's grace through the Eucharist. It is through Christ that we find favor with the Father. Communion is only a proclamation as Paul states.
No, I never did download it. There was some failure notice or another, but at this point it's moot. I'm getting a new system and changing from dial-up. Remind me in about a month or so.
***Only Protestants ordain women.***
Try again.
Antarctica.
"The Penguin"
The conversation had begun earlier, and this verse was also posted which was part of the context for the discussion.
A. 1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him
As you can see, this applies to your question: "Padre, what assurance is there, when one hears any random Christian interpret the bible, that it is the Holy Spirit and not a demon which is doing the guiding?"
First, you point out the critical issue....interpreting the scripture. The bottom line is the scripture. The scripture, certainly inspired by God, is also letters, words, sentences, etc. on a piece of paper. Try as one might like, there is only a certain range of interpretation that one can get out of scripture. If one goes too far in any direction, then an understanding of the scripture itself will highlight something in error. It is good that you are pointing out that we are interpreting the scripture. (In terms of the ECUSA, they have tossed out most of scripture and declared it not to be written by God. They have rejected that important understanding that all scripture is inspired by God, so it is no surprise that those who reject scripture will go astray.)
Therefore, a diligent Christian can come to scripture and can expect (1 Jn 2:27 above) that God will provide guidance.
If a child asks his father for bread will he give the child a stone or a snake? Of course not. Fathers love their children. If this is true of earthly fathers, how much more will it be true of our heavenly Father.
I've read that argument and, with all due respect, it is a bit flimsy. First, to compare God with King David or David's nature is a bit of a stretch. God's way are not man's ways. This view imputes a man's value onto God.
Our Lord Jesus made no differentiation between His mother and any other believer in the crowd.
The Pharisees followed tradition. They were wrong.
The Bereans searched the scriptures. They were right.
Do we see a pattern here?
Actually, no. Unless the Pope is personally posting here on FR, typing his doctrinal references out infallibly whilst performing the role of supreme pontiff (which is frankly a sight I'd like to see - the Holy See on his throne, in full regalia typing away on a laptop, or better yet, instant messaging on a cellphone), or unless you are citing the chapter-and-verse, actual "supreme pontiff" pronouncements supporting your own espousements of Catholic doctrine, everything that you maintain to be Roman Catholic doctrine is just your own personal interpretation of what that doctrine or Scriptural interpretation is, unless you can cite the papally infallible source documents that back up your interpretations.
Until then, we're just two guys (you are a guy, aren't you?) offering up our personal beliefs and interpretations of the Truth. No offense taken, and none intended. And if the Pope is posting on FR, be sure to ping me to the thread.
So we should be like the Bereans and follow the Old Testament only? That's your argument?
Regards
*sigh* the old "keep 'em ignorant and stupid, and dependent on the clergy" argument. Things would be a lot easier for the RC's if that were still the case....Too bad the Proddies had to go and make the bible available in every language, so men could read it for themselves....
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.