Mary and the Problem of Christian Unity

We are living in a remarkable age. As we approach the third millennium of Christianity in the year 2,000, we are watching a world in extremes. Amid the rapid onslaught of secularization and irreligion, we find hordes of people seeking solace in religion.

Amid the ravages of war and violence, we find the comfort and love of those who care for the poor and disadvantaged. Amid the lightning pace of modern life, we find souls searching for deeper meaning by retreating to monasteries and ashrams for solitude.

Two of the most powerful inspirations in late twentieth century Christianity are the drive toward greater unity among Christians of widely differing backgrounds (ecumenism) and the rapid growth of Marian devotion all around the world. This century has seen unprecedented efforts to bring together Christians who have been separated by misunderstanding and prejudice. And just when the ecumenical movement on a formal level seemed moribund, a new surge of grassroots ecumenism is finding ways of bringing together Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians. Whatever the outcome of these efforts, the air of this last decade of the second millennium is filled with the scent of Christian unity. It seems that Christians are grasping every opportunity to reconcile their doctrinal differences and to find the sweet savor of "brothers dwelling together in unity" (Ps 133: 1).

If this is an age of ecumenism, it is equally a Marian era because no century since the birth of Christ has witnessed such an outpouring of devotion to the mother of Jesus. As many observers note, reported apparitions and locutions have multiplied, leading numerous Christians to an unprecedented devotion to the humble handmaiden of the Lord who was privileged to bring the world its Redeemer. In tandem with these grassroots movements, there is a monumental effort within the Catholic Church for the Pope to define as dogma Marian doctrines that have long been present in the Church (Mediatrix, Coredemptrix, Advocate). Whether or not the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church decides to act, there is unlikely to be any diminishing of devotion to the mother of Jesus.

On the other hand, many non-Catholic Christians are mystified by such devotion to Mary. Some feel strangely drawn to honor her, but are afraid of falling into excessive focus on Mary to the exclusion of Jesus. To others, Marian devotion borders on the blasphemous. To still others, Catholics are idolaters. It is not an overstatement to say that no expression of historic Christianity has ever placed Mary in such a high position of honor as has the western Catholic tradition. And even though the Eastern Orthodox Churches have long honored Mary as the Mother of God, they do not have fully developed mariologies as the Western Church has.

The juxtaposition of ecumenical and Marian movements seems odd at best. On the surface, it appears that Mary would be the last subject chosen in an ecumenical dialogue. One might think that all the areas on which common agreement might be achieved should be addressed first, and then deal with the thorny question of Marian doctrine. Better to leave Mary until last. However, I am now convinced that questions about Mary must be addressed up front if any true ecumenism is ever to be achieved.

On a purely human level, no genuine friendship can ignore beliefs which are central to one party while those same beliefs are at best questionable to the other. Further, it is not completely honest for Catholics to pretend that Marian doctrines and devotions are not important and central to our lives. We ought to state openly that the Catholic faith does not allow the Church to ever change its defined dogmas about Mary. On the other hand, we must admit that not everything that goes on under the term Marian devotion is necessary or beneficial for the Church.

What can talk about Mary do to promote the cause of ecumenism? The answer depends on what we mean by ecumenism. One definition, and the one most common, sees ecumenism as a process of negotiation between different churches whereby one church gives up some aspect of its faith and the other partner relinquishes its claim to some of its distinctives. This process proceeds through a number of steps until a lowest common denominator is reached. The result is a church or some other official body which has a reduced form of faith and practice so that it might accommodate each respective member. This has largely been the pattern of ecumenism in the United States and the Western world for the better part of this century. In my judgment, such attempts have been a monumental failure. Mary cannot help with this type of ecumenism. The other definition of ecumenism is not founded on the concept of negotiation, but on seeking together the truth of God’s revelation. It begins with confessing that we don’t apprehend God’s truth completely, and that we must always seek to have the mind of Christ. In this conception, unity of heart and mind does not come from negotiated agreements, but from all parties, recognizing and embracing the objective truth of God.

It is a commonplace that married couples do not achieve success by each giving fifty percent to their marriage, but by each giving one hundred percent of themselves. In the same way, Christian unity comes from full commitment to searching for truth in a spirit of humility. Ecumenism begins with recognizing that unity already exists in God, that Christ is the center of unity, and that the Holy Spirit is the operative agent in bringing Christians together. Mary has everything to do with this kind of ecumenism.

Mary: The Sign of Unity ?
How can Mary help in promoting Christian unity? Many may feel the weight of disunity among Christians and long for a greater oneness in Christ, but can Mary really give us that greater oneness? Mary has been a source of division between Catholics and Protestants for a long time. What good will focusing on Mary bring? How can Christians be one when the very Marian devotions so precious to Catholics are viewed as idolatrous by Protestants? To human eyes, it seems that almost any other Christian doctrine would be better suited to bring unity than doctrines of Mary. And if we think of Mary just as a set of doctrines, that would be true. But Mary is more than a set of doctrines. Mary is a person. She lived her life on this earth as the mother of our Lord with her own character, mind, and idiosyncrasies. These things are true regardless of what we believe about her. Mary is what she is apart from our beliefs.

There is one unmistakable fact that we must remember about the real Mary—the Son of God lived in her womb for nine months. This is how Mary can be an instrument of unity. She united the Logos, the second person of the Trinity, with His human nature in her own body. Mary united more than any human being has ever united. She united God and man in the small confines of her own womb. Ponder this amazing reality. In Mary’s womb, heaven and earth were joined, not as two separate realities, but perfectly united in the one person of the Son of God. No wonder it says that "Mary treasured all these things and pondered them in her heart" (Lk 2:19). It is a reality beyond words.

Mary was the instrument of unity for the body of Jesus Christ and this is why Mary has long been thought of as mother of the church. The church is the body of Christ and Mary was the mother of Christ’s body, both physically and mystically. It is clear from Scripture that Jesus Christ is the key to unity among Christians, but the one Savior Jesus Christ would not be what he is—the perfect God-man—without Mary’s being the means of uniting His divine and human natures in one person.

Mary’s example of obedience and discipleship also forms the foundation of unity. Mary gave herself unreservedly to Jesus her Son. Every Christian wants to be an obedient disciple of our Lord and needs examples of obedience to do so. Mary was filled with grace, and this allowed her to listen to the commands of her God without delay. Mary was on earth what every Christian will become in heaven, filled with grace. Obedience means a readiness to say YES to God, a spirit of humility that says "Let it be" (fiat). Unity cannot be achieved through negotiation. It must come through obedience to the apostolic teaching given by Jesus to Paul and the other apostles. Without a willing spirit, we can never achieve God’s desire for unity. Mary’s life of obedience and discipleship calls us to unity with God through obedience.

The unity we seek is not human but divine. Its source is the divine life of Christ the Redeemer. It is that unity for which He prayed when He said, "Father, that they might be one." This kind of unity doesn’t come from each group of Christians giving up some belief or practice for the sake of unity; it comes from each individual or group submitting to the authority of Christ and from the work of the Holy Spirit bringing oneness where it is humanly impossible. Like salvation itself, Christian unity is not within the grasp of human power. All we can do is open ourselves to the ministry of the Spirit to produce the unity that is impossible through negotiation.

It is because Mary has been such a stumbling block for Christians that a fuller embracing of her person and role will achieve a greater unity than we might expect. If we view Mary apart from Jesus, then Mary cannot help us. Yet she was never meant to be seen apart from her Son. Just as the Magi found Jesus "with his mother" (Mt 2:11), so we find Mary involved with her divine Son, cooperating in His work and plan.

We cannot solve the problem of how to be one in Christ. Not by negotiation, not by one or the other side caving in. But God can solve our problems. God specializes in the impossible, just as He once said to Mary (Lk 1:37). If the Holy Spirit can form within the womb of the Virgin Mary a new entity—the unique Godman—then He surely can bring together Christians divided by history, suspicion and misinformation. Perhaps it’s time for us to stop trying to be unified and let God do what we have failed to do. No one can see precisely how this will happen, but we know it won’t happen without embracing the fullness of salvation in Christ himself.

Mary and the Unity of the Trinity
The unity we seek does not result from negotiated agreements. Our Christian unity must be founded on truth. It must be unity of heart and mind, a permanent oneness that is not shaken by the changing tides of custom and culture. The New Testament concept of unity is nothing less than union with the Holy Trinity. Jesus our Lord prayed that the oneness of His disciples would resemble and flow from the oneness experienced by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: "That they all may be one, Father, as you are in me and I in you that they may also be one in us" (Jn 17:21). Jesus Christ does not want our unity to be like his and the Father’s. He wants our unity to be the same as He and the Father have.

Mary is both a sign and an instrument of the unity coming from the Holy Trinity because she bears a unique relation to each member. Let’s see how Mary is related to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. First, however, a word of caution. In A.D. 431 the ancient Christian Church defined Mary as the Mother of God because the Church wanted to protect the full divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. This title, Mother of God (or better Godbearer), asserted that the child in Mary’s womb was nothing less than fully God and fully man. But the title Mother of God never has been nor should be interpreted to mean that Mary is the mother of the Trinity. Mary bears a distinct relation to each member of the Trinity, but she is not the mother of the Father, nor of the Holy Spirit.

Mary is the daughter of the Father.
When Mary proclaims herself the handmaiden of the Lord (Lk 1:38,48), she is declaring her filial obedience to the will of God. The love she has for the heavenly Father shows itself in her desire to be His vessel of bringing salvation to the world. What better sign of unity than this act of submission to the will of God? If we only follow Mary’s lead, we will find ourselves united in heart as her heart was united with the heavenly Father’s heart.

Mary did not negotiate with God, bargain with Him nor seek a compromise. She acknowledged her dependence on His grace and sought to perform His bidding. The will of the Father is unity for us who profess His Son. We will have unity only when we have submitted ourselves to the Father as Mary did.

Yet Mary is more than a sign. She is an instrument of unity. How is this true? Without her obedience the Savior would not have been born. Some Christians think that if Mary had refused Gabriel’s invitation to bear the Savior, God would have found another woman. There is not the slightest evidence in the New Testament for this view. Mary freely gave herself to God’s will of giving the world its Savior. By her instrumentality Mary united the Father to the world through His Son. In a profound sense, Mary united us to the Father through the Son. And that is how we will find a greater degree of unity today. By seeking to imitate her obedience and by seeking submission to the same Father through the Son she bore.

Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Gabriel proclaimed that the Holy Spirit would come over her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her (Lk 1:35). This is the language of marital love (see Ruth 3:9; Zeph 3:17). Mary was united with the third person of the Trinity in order to give flesh to the second person. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she gave her body to the service of God so that she might receive the fullness of God. And so Mary is a sign of how we too must seek to be filled with the Holy Spirit to do the will of God (cf Eph 5:18). It is the Holy Spirit who brings Jesus Christ today just as He brought the divine Christ to the womb of Mary (cf. Jn 14:17,18). When we are filled with the Spirit as Mary was, we are united to Jesus and we become more united with one another. Mary’s union with the Holy Spirit brought us the Son who poured out the Spirit that we might be united with both Son and Spirit. Her union brings about our union.

Mary is the mother of the Son.
Through her, Christ’s divine and human natures were united into the one person that would save us from our sins. As Jesus’ mother, Mary signals that our unity will only be in and through her Son. When Paul says that Jesus was "born of a woman ... that we might receive the adoption" (Gal 4:4,5), the apostle implies that true unity comes only from being members of the same family—the same family in which Jesus is the firstborn Son.

We cannot be members of many different families that have a tolerance for one another’s beliefs and worship. No doubt tolerance for cultural and historical differences is essential, but that is still not the New Testament ideal of unity. Unity means being in the same family as Jesus ("one Lord"), having the same content of belief ("one faith"), living in the same Church body ("one baptism"). Only then can we be sure that we have the same "God and Father of all, who is over all, through all and in all." See Ephesians 4:4-6.

Mary: God’s Woman of the Hour
Now is the time for unity among Christians. As we approach the beginning of the third millennium since Christ’s birth, we see an almost unprecedented call to unity. Christian leaders the world over have caught a glimpse of Christ’s will that "they may be one, Father, as you are in me and I in you" (Jn 17:21). The desire for unity is laudable and ought to be pursued with vigor. Yet the only unity worth pursuing, the only unity that will last is the unity that already exists in the Holy Trinity. This kind of unity is not something we achieve. It is something given to us as a gift. This unity is infused in our souls and expressed by oneness of mind and heart (doctrine and love).

Truth without love is barren and sterile. Unity without truth is empty and fruitless. Jesus was a kind and compassionate man who proclaimed the truth. The Lord who wept over Jerusalem’s obstinacy (see Mt 23:37-39), and who was moved with compassion over the "sheep without a shepherd," (Mk 6:34) is the same Lord who said that the truth of His words would not pass away (Lk 21:33). If Jesus is our Lord, then we must follow with equal vigor His truth and love.

Insistence on truth at the expense of unity will not do, nor will embracing unity at the expense of truth. Truth and unity are equally ultimate. Yet even now, we must realize the impossibility of reconciling truth and unity with human schemes and ingenuity. The only way to have unity is by having unity in Truth. The truth that brings unity is Jesus Himself who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6). The truth Jesus gives is the complete teaching of His will as expressed in and through the Church of the apostles.

The Church is Jesus’ idea and institution; it is part of the will of Jesus. And it is Christ’s Church that wrote and gave us the Holy Scriptures and the truths of faith passed down from generation to generation. Obedience to Jesus means obedience to Jesus’ Church. It is no accident that Christians have spoken of the Church as our mother for centuries. Classic Christianity spoke this way: the one who wants God as a Father must have the Church as a mother. Why is it necessary? Because Jesus is nurturing our faith through our mother, the Church. And that is why Mary is so important.

Jesus is our model but we must remember that even our Lord learned some of His commitment to truth and compassion from His mother. All we have to assume is that Mary lived her own words to see that this is true. She loved truth enough to consent to Gabriel’s invitation to bear the Son of God (Lk 1:38). She was filled with compassion enough to see God’s "mercy from generation to generation" (Lk 1:50). Mary was a woman of truth and love. Her commitment to God’s truth and love lead her to the unity of the Son of God. Her submissive heart that willingly embraced God’s truth and her devoted love for God brought about the unity of Christ’s human and divine natures into the perfect unity of His one divine person.

So Mary’s commitment to truth and unity is both our model and the means of our unity. She modeled our path to unity by her embrace of the divine Son within her womb. We must embrace Him too. Mary is also the means of our having unity because without her act of submission to God we would not have the one Savior who can unify us.

It is time to lay down our defensive postures, to lay aside our personal and political agendas, to give up our dearest visions for the Church and to embrace the complete will of Christ. I believe that if we could simply be like Mary on that day when Gabriel came to her, we could then say with her, "Let it be done to us according to your word" (Lk 1:38). Perhaps, she could say with us:

Lord, we are your servants.
Heal our divisions and
Let Your Son reign as Lord within.
Let Your Word dwell within us
And make us one.

Meaning what they teach is true and a person who rejects those teachings can rightly be accused of heresy.

I find no Biblical support for the notion that the councils were any more protected from error than were individual local congregations applying the NT prescribed manner of 'having church' listed in I Cor 14. And, the Corinthian church had eveidently been muddling along after being started by ?Paul? most likely . . . with plenty of error in it in spite of extremely kosher Apostolic founder(s).

This authority is not equal to Scripture which of course has primacy of authority in establishing the doctrines of such Protestant churches. They accept the Creeds because what is found in them can be supported in Scripture. I will gladly be corrected by I don’t think these Protestant churches believe the Creeds teach what is right because a group of men just happened to luck out and get it right. Rather what the Creeds teach is true because they can be linked to inspired and inerrant Scripture which gains its inerrancy and inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

I think that's highly correct. Therefore what, I don't quite follow but I think that much is true.

I have to admit I can not remember which Councils are accepted by the Churches of the Reformation. I think it is either the first 5 or the first 7. And remember I am speaking of all persons together in Council not individuals.

Nor I. but I don't think it matters significantly at all. Except for Prottys such as Lutherans, maybe Episcopalians etc., I don't find a lot of 'standing on' any creeds or councils. IT IS SCRIPTURE AND HOLY SPIRIT that one stands on--which is another way of saying--standing on CHRIST THE LIVING WORD AND HIS SPIRIT'S CAPACITY TO LEAD EACH BELIEVER INTO ALL TRUTH--IN HIS WAY--IN HIS TIME.

So your comparison to the leaders in Jerusalem falls short. But I will contend I do not think this Charism existed in the OT for the simple reason there was no Church in the OT. And this was something promised by Christ to His Church. And I use that in a much broader sense than the Catholic definition of Church.

My main point about the Old Testament was a more human inclination/phenomena point--that organized, structured RELIGION--EVEN THAT STRUCTURED AND ORGANIZED BY GOD HIMSELF became rapidly corrupted by human nature. Moses was not up on the mountain THAT LONG before EVEN AARON was corrupted in the building of the golden calf. And, that Pentecost did NOT CHANGE HUMAN NATURE per se.

However, Paul’s writings were after Pentecost. And he exhorted MANY congregations about error that Holy Spirit did not protect them from. And, the degree to which they ignored Paul’s exhortations, they were not protected.

Congregations are not the same as individual Churches independent of any ecclesiastical authority. As such they do not have the protection from teaching error that I mentioned. Anymore than the parish of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis is protected from practicing base heresy.

In my experience and observation, THE MORE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS OF EVEN AUTHENTIC FOLLOWERS OF JESUS WHICH COLLECT TOGETHER IN DENOMINATIONAL CLUBS . . . THE GREATER THE PERVERSITIES AND ERRORS WHICH EVOLVE THEREIN. Actually, when a church gets much above a hundred people, the amount of crud creeping in seems to escalate proportionally to the numbers increase in members/participants.

But your statement brings to mind something else. By what authority did Paul exhort these congregations? No doubt they too read scripture. They probably examined them and felt their interpretation was valid. So why was their interpretation condemned by Paul? And why does no one argue that they would have been justified in starting their own Church?

Of course Paul had an Apostolic CALLING AND AN APOSTOLIC ANOINTING. What I find laughable and deplorable is the CHRONIC ASSUMPTION that successive laying on of hands has EFFECTIVELY transferred such callings and anointings when, in fact, Holy Spirit has 'left the building,' usually long beforehand.

Yet the shell soldiers on as though nothing has changed; nothing is amiss.

I find this almost as deplorable when such as Kenneth Hagin Sr presumes, seemingly, that his son will carry on with as much anointing and kosherness as Dad did. I didn't find that true at the time I was in a service led by Jr. No doubt Dad laid hands on and prayed over Jr. with all the seriousness of the office and anointing that Dad obviously walked decades in. Certainly the humility did not transfer. And I'm skeptical that anywhere near the same level of Holy Spirit's anointing and blessing transferred either.

Which reminds me . . . I think arrogance is one of the most deadly aspects of humanness which destroys both the anointing and the calling. And that it usually takes something incredible--a fierce refiner's fire--like prison in the case of Jim Baker, Chuck Colson--before any measure of the humility and anointing can again or newly be in place.

In terms of the RC edifice, history is replete with arrogant pontifications and brutally arrogant actions on the part of the political powermongering leaders in Rome. And, . . . a gross lacking of Holy Spirit's confirming anointing.

Could it be that Paul ( who termed himself one of the Apostles) did have the authority to discern what was orthodox and what was heresy? If he did where did this come from? Was it of natural or supernatural orgin?

Of course, it was supernatural . . . yet still, even after the dramatic Damascus road intro and after intense teaching by other Apostoles . . . he was still further refined on the back side of the desert as the purest prophetic SPIRITUAL leaders were in both the Old and New Testaments . . . witness also John on Patmos on that score.

I know of no RC edifice custom or practice of sending prospective Popes to the back side of the desert for purification and refinement before installation in office. But then, Prottys don't do any better at that, either.

The fantasy of the RC magicsterical being automatically, in all respects theological protected by Holy Spirit from all error is an utterly outrageous fantasy with no Scriptural AND NO HISTORICAL support at all.

Ok that is a whole other thread topic. So let us just agree to disagree on this one. But will you grant that the Scripture is a source of authority in both Catholic and Protestant churches?

NO! I CANNOT!

The RC edifice hereon HAS REPEATEDLY GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO INSIST THAT !!!!TRADITION!!!!, POWER MONGERING CUSTOM; MAGICSTERICAL PONTIFICATIONS; SENIOR LEADER PONTIFICATIONS ('ex cathedra' is it?) ARE MORE OR LESS EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE to begin with and typically--usually end up trumping, shredding, running rough-shod dismissively, destructively over the top of Scripture quite chronically.

I find that outrageously blasphemous, heretical, idolatrous and hideous to the max.

I think it's reasonably clear in the NT that all kinds of congregations were springing up all over the palce fostered by Holy Spriit through someone who heard some Gospel in a congregation more directly started by an Apostle or someone who'd been in on the whole thing from the beginning. HOLY SPIRIT STARTED CONGREGATIONS quite apart from the direct intervention of Apostles.

And, quite humanly, some did better than others on faithfulness to THE LORD'S PRIORITIES AND TO SCRIPTURE. Obviously, Corinthians was not one of the better models at the time of Paul's writing to them.

I THINK A VERY KEY ISSUE IS SLID OVER AND IGNORED EVEN BY MANY/MOST PROTTY CONGREGATIONS.

PAUL occasionally stated plainly and more often inferred that HOLY SPIRIT WOULD CONFIRM WHAT HE DECLARED BY MIRACULOUS SIGNS FOLLOWING. Ananias and Saphira incidents probably happened much more than were recorded in Scripture, for one. But also positive Holy Spirit affirmations when folks followed God and Scriptural prescriptions and priorities.

I believe that you and I both will live to see the day when such phenomena of Holy Spirit's disciplines and confirmations again are quite ROUTINE--though dramatic.

People will fall over dead for lying to congregations and spiritually anointed leaders--IN MORE OR LESS ALL DENOMINATIONAL CLUBS around the world where there's any true candle of Christ's light still resident much at all.

And, anointed leaders and other more humble folks than in any leadership roles will be walking about and as their shadows touch the unfortunate, the troubled will be healed [and, imho, likely delivered] as was true with Peter.

I think Chinese brother's biography THE HEAVENLY MAN's life experiences are indicative of things to increase in our era.

There have been a number of stories of groups of Chinese Christians traveling home from or to secret worship meetings and having to ford flood swollen rivers . . . and feeling like they were wading maybe in ankle or knee deep waters when those who lived along the banks and who knew how high up on the normal banks the water was--KNEW EMPHATICALLY that the folks walking across the river SHOULD have been well underwater, with the water well over their heads--but quite miraculously, they weren't.

WHEN individuals in a locality worship God in Spirit and in Truth . . . in humility . . . in Christ's Blood and Love, THEN MIRACLES INCREASE. Such will be much more common place in coming months and years. And such will NOT be limited by the RC magicsterical nor any other.

HOLY SPIRIT WILL PERFORM SUCH AS HE WILL regardless of denominational/club label. And such phenomena will be the most glaring indictment of denominational, organizational heresies and hogwasy far and wide of all types including the RC edifice.

GOD WILL HAVE SPOKEN AND CONTINUE TO SPEAK MOST MIRACULOUSLYL AND DRAMATICALLY. HE WILL HAVE THE LAST WORD on all such nonsense. And no one's rationalizations; no one's appeals to their particular brand of !!!!TRADITIONS!!!!; no one's appeals to their particular 'sacred dogmas and customs' will be anything more than a shameful embarrassment to them and those knowledgable about them.

GOD WILL HAVE SPOKEN AND BE CONTINUING TO SPEAK--NOT ONLY HIGH AND LIFTED UP WITH HIS TRAIN FILLING THE TEMPLE but with HIS POWER AND MAJESTY MORE COMMONLY, ROUTINELY DISPLAYED in the darkening times before Armageddon.

...."These men and others were the preincarnate Christ."....

Ergo, when someone says Jesus had nothing to say about Sodom, I point to Him being the one that ordered its destruction. Jesus said "I and the Father are One", so it is really a moot point, but I believe that Abraham actually argued with Jesus, in person, when he was bargaining to save Sodom if he could find a number of righteous people. Another case of there not being even one righteous person to save. Ergo, Mary was just another person, born in sin, needing a Saviour, that had to die on the cross for her own Salvation.

God has mercy on whom He has mercy. He showed mercy on Lot and his family, just as he showed mercy on Noah, and some guy named chuckles. None of us deserved it, we deserved judgment, but received Grace, just like Mary, Mathew, Mark Luke and John. The Grace that was given, the knowledge that Jesus was Christ, was also given to Peter, and THAT is the stone the church was built on, not on a man. It would have made more sense to make Paul the pope, if there was to be such a position, because Peter wouldn't go to the Gentiles, as he was ordered to. The revelation of Jesus as Christ can only be given by the Holy Spirit and that is the foundation of the religion. When there was controversy about others teaching other doctrines in the towns, the only overriding question was were they teaching Jesus as the Christ. Many were trying to place themselves as somehow connected and leading the church on Earth, now that Jesus was gone. That is a CULT. As a Christian leader in the church, you must profess that Jesus leads the church. All believers are saints and a holy priesthood. I don't need a vote from men to know that because Jesus has already said I was.

Other problem verses:

1Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, The Man Christ Jesus.

1Tim 3:2 A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,......hmm I guess a Bishop can have a wife and later it says he has children that are submissive and reverent. But the killer has to be 1Tim 4:1-5. Notice what it says about who the people are that "forbid to marry". Could it be that some have departed the faith( Mary worship), and heed the doctrines of demons?( forbidding to marry)

There is no mention in the Scriptures about a pope, nuns, cardinals, and in other cases outright commandments to not worship idols and not to forbid any foods.

I have differences with most denominations but most are merely differences of opinion. Some are more important than others, but the church is described in Acts and Timothy pretty bluntly. It doesn't look much like the Catholic dogma.

QUIX EDIT NOTE: BLACK VERSION BELOW COLORED ONE:

REPLY to lastchance;

second part.

THE TRUE UNRUBBERIZED HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EDIFICE MAKES THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. Personally, I think that is by God’s design… IF ORGANIZATIONS PLUS GOD whether God in Holy Spirit to leaders or God via Holy Spirit collectively . . . regardless—it would have been sufficient in Moses’ time—no rebellion—but there was. Even Aaron helped with the golden calf.

Again I must say I do not think the Charism was granted to any one group during OT times because this is a Charism reserved for the Church. It was I forgot to say certainly granted to the authors of the books of the OT when they wrote those books. It may also do with Law vs Grace but I have not examined that issue closely enough to reach a conclusion

Certainly The Church era is a new Dispensation/era with new contingencies and spiritual facts. The fulcrum of all Creation and all History (as well as all Truth) was The Cross/Resurrection. I think folks will be wise to keep that firmly in mind out of their RELATIONSHIP with Christ when folks and forces spread abroad the deceptive disinformation to the contrary—clearly on the horizon.

After Pentecost—the same—and in SPIRIT FILLED CONGREGATIONS as with the Corinthians. I think God makes thereby a vivid object lesson point for all Creation . . . ONLY DAILY DIALOGUE; DAILY TAKING THE FLESH TO THE CROSS; DAILY SURRENDER; DAILY ABANDONMENT; DAILY CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE; DAILY FEEDING ON THE WORD; DAILY WORSHIP; DAILY SUBMISSION TO GOD’S HIGHEST AND GOD’S COMMUNICATIONS TO US—KEEP ANY INIDIVIDUAL AND ANY GROUP OUT OF ERROR. NARROW IS THE WAY.

I really have no disagreement with what you say above. The problem is what do you do when from their examination of Scripture a person comes to a conclusion that Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic churches would all define as heresy? What makes heresy so dangerous is not that it is extra biblical but that heretics can always find chapter and verse which on superficial reading supports their heresy. An example would be those who do not believe Jesus is God. They believe this because they are convinced the Bible teaches this.

1. From where so many Prottys observe, the FACTS OF HISTORY demonstrate that the RC edifice did NOT, HAS NOT, CANNOT succeed to demonstrate your premise. If anything, the RC edifice HAS BEEN AND REMAINS AS FULL, AS RIFE WITH HERESY as any Protty club or congregation . . . some would say as any LDS or JW club or congregation. Whatever is contended to have worked for the RC edifice to keep it from heresy—HAS OBVIOUSLY AND REPEATEDLY THROUGH THE CENTURIES SIMPLY NOT WORKED. IT’S A FLAMING OUTRAGEOUS MYTH that it has.

And, it’s a bit of a sad myth—a horribly sad myth, at that. It’s kind of like the alcoholic who’s arrested for his 9th DUI insisting sloberingly, falling-down-drunkenly that he’s 100% sober. It’s embarrassingly and overtly obviously outrageously UNTRUE.

It’s not only been untrue through the centuries with outrageous heresies and bloody actions on the part of Popes and specific eras of RC magicstericals. AND SUCH IS PERSISTENTLY GLIBLY SLID BY/IGNORED by the RC reps hereon. Or, it’s cheekily rationalized in some shallow, bankrupt way. The myth that the RC edifice is currently free of heresy IS BRAZENLY UNTRUE.

Yet additional UNBIBLICAL, IDOLATROUS, BLASPHEMOUS Marion dogma is waiting in the wings to be more formally installed as forced “[UN]truth” for the ‘faithful’ to be obligated to believe. That is sooooo screamingly outrageous to Prottys. It’s the sort of thing that OT prophets would have rent their clothes and sat in sackcloth and ashes over!

I think there’s ABUNDANT though not screamingly glaring evidence in the New Testament that God had a dim view of organized political structured formal groups to get anything right. AS PAUL MAKES CLEAR IN CORINTHIANS—THE HOLY SPIRIT IS EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE OF EACH AND EVERY MEETING. Boy has that been left in the dust by virtually all congregations of every particuclar Christian club brand.

I think God has a dim view of us being able to save ourselves. Which is why I emphasize it is Catholic teaching that the Church is protected from teaching error in matters of faith in morals ONLY because of the promise of Christ and the protection of the Holy Spirit. Not because of the merit of any man. And sinners are found in all Churches. But thankfully so can God’s grace.

I find NO such purported promise of Christ as taught by the RC’s. None.

Regardless, even IF there were such a promise, the RC edifice demonstrates ABUNDANTLY that something went amiss in the arrangement virtually from the beginning in AD400. If anything, it has appeared from an UNrubberized historical perspective that the RC edifice has been MORE FULL of heresy than it has been without it. Sorry to have to say that, Bro, but it’s the truest thing I can say on the evidence.

Blessings,

REPLY to lastchance;

second part.

I find NO such purported promise of Christ as taught by the RC’s. None.

Blessings,

recognition of Protestant authority would be of a necessity.

And I responded then that there is no basis for that. Naturally, diverse pastors in the Protestant universe have authority in their parishes, but no apostolic historical authority exists for them. I only listed what is possible; to recognize a supernatural authority of late interpretations of the Scripture is not possible. This is not "down the nose"; if, for example, the "trail of blood" myth were proven to have a historical value, that might create the authority your seek. Remember, that the authority comes from the deposit of faith Christ Himself gave the Holy Apostles. No authorioty comes from simply reading the scripture and deciding how to properly interpret it, and that is all the Protestant pastors themselves are claiming with their Sola Scriptura philosophy.

Protestants fight like a sack of cats

Yes, and this is sort of, my point: it looks like the Protestant opponents of Catholicism would deploy their energy better reaching unity among those with whom they share the purported basis for that unity, the scripture. You have the same truncated Canon of scripture and you all think it is sufficient for all one needs for salvation, -- so where is your unity?

Catholics would work together with Protestants to agree on some translations as being scripturally true.

I think they do that in some cases. The problem is again that it would require a Protestant version of papal Nihil Obstat Imprimatur, difficult to come by between diverse Protestant groups.

I don't think you really 'get it' wrt Protestant interpretation

Maybe. What I meant to say is that these internal Protestant struggles, e.g. liberals vs. conservatives or pre-millenialism vs. post-millenialism are of no interest to us; what is of interest is that the Protestant foundational beliefs in sola fide and sola scriptura are themselves tendentious interpretations of the scripture, just as much as our belief in Mary as co-Redemptrix is.

that is to be resolved by either direction

Why, historically and scripturally, of course. Christ did not promise the Holy Spirit to inspire everyone, but His Apostles alone.

paganizing and judeaizing influences that were working mightily to influence the church, even in the days of the Apostles

I am yet to see a Protestant who would read St. Irenaeus on free will, St. Justin Martyr on Mary and the Eucharist, or St. Ignatius on obedience to bishops or Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and say: "This is a pagan influence and this is a judaizing influence and this is why". The only Church Father that is read (very selectively) is St. Augustine, -- the least recent and the least universally accepted of them all.

In the interest of space. I have placed my answers in the categories which our posts address. If I screw up the HTML this time I will punish myself by listening to the Best of Disco for two hours.

Evidence of the Holy Spirit acting within Councils of the Church.

"Acts 15:1-3 - 1And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question....6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter."

The account of the deliberations of this Council can be found in Acts.,

"Acts 15 24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:..."

Now I can only conclude from the above that though the Apostles were initially in disagreement about the matter at hand, when brought together in prayer to study and discern the issue they came as a body to accept as a Truth revealed by the Holy Spirit that new Christians need not keep to Jewish custom and or law. I have no reason to think the Holy Spirit was not present in the other Councils. Do you have quarrel with the teachings affirmed and defended by the Councils? If you agree with them do you think they were able to refute heresy by their own virtues or by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Structure of the Church in NT and ante Nicene times. I refer you to the links provided. There was a lot of information available about this on the web. You can also read Eusebius for more insight. I do not cite these as being inerrant religious teachings but as historical accounts of early Church structure. Note the offices of Bishop, Presbyter (priest) and Deacon. There were not a bunch of separate churches in the style of what we would call denominations. There were various Sees which were the seats of the Bishop ( I will not explore the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome at this time). The Bishop was over all the churches in his see. The Priest administered the sacraments and preached and fulfilled his duty under the authority and leisure of the Bishop. The authority of the Bishops was in direct line to the Apostles who received their authority from Christ. This is what the early Church taught and believed. There is no historical evidence for the contrary.

" First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

CHAP. XLII.--THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from(4) the Lord Jesus Christ;... .assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established(6) in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. ... they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,(7) to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe."

CHAP. XLIV.--THE ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES, THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO CONTENTION RESPECTING THE PRIESTLY OFFICE. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office(1) of the episcopate. ... they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions,(2) that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." For the full text see

www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/1stclement.cfm

Epistle of Ignatius To The Magnesians

CHAP. VII.--DO NOTHING WITHOUT THE BISHOP AND PRESBYTERS.

"As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled."

"CHAP. XIII.--BE ESTABLISHED IN FAITH AND UNITY.

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father," for full text see

www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/ignatius02.cfm

A good summary of the above and other sources can be found at The Structure and Worship of the Early Church By Clark Carlton

www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/worship_early_church_ext.htm

This above is an Orthodox link.

On The Promise Of Christ To Protect His Church and the continued presence of the Holy Spirit in guiding and upholding the Church. I am not asking you to agree that this is what these verses mean. But I cite them to show you the Catholic source for our belief in the Charism I have mentioned before.

"Matthew 16.:18-20 Leaving aside the debate over Jesus’ use of the word Petros/Cephas in this text I give you the second part of the passage …. I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ."

In Catholic teaching the above passage both promises Christ protection for the Church against heresy and the authority to act in His name.

"John 16: 12-15 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."

re the above: Jesus promised this to the Apostles. Catholics believe that the Bishops of the Church receive their office in direct line to the Apostles. Therefore the passage above does pertain to the current Bishops (again I must caution I do not mean the person of the Bishop. But when acting in the capacity of his office united with other Bishops under the authority of the Pope in teaching on matters of faith and morals) I welcome an Orthodox posters understanding of this office in the Orthodox Church.

On whether the Catholic Church accepts the Scripture as Her authority. Please note I nowhere say it is the only authority. But to say she does not accept it at all is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Which I am sure you gave without proper consideration of the evidence.

"Dei Verbum- Pope Paul VI

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

... Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text)."

If you want a better understanding of the place of Sacred Tradition you can read the whole encyclical. But this might give you an idea of what Catholics teach on the matter. Simply put Sacred Tradition is those teachings of the Apostles which were preserved within the Church by oral teaching and not by writing.

“But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2). … And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15)”

Some of your assertions I find impossible to answer for they are phrased in such a manner as that old saw “ have you stopped beating your wife”

I wish you would make a distinction between the fallings of a sinful man and the grace that may be made manifest in that man through the mercy of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The best example I can think of is the Epistles of the Apostles. Paul never hesitated to call himself a sinner. Yet both you and I (I presume) would agree that his epistles are part of the inspired, inerrant Word of God which are binding on all the faithful. Catholics do not think this grace ended with the death of the last apostle. Rather we believe that the Church when teaching on matters of faith and morals will not err because the promise made to the Apostles was passed on to the Bishops and is reserved in the Church. This is (we believe) the Church is called the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. It is by grace not by anyone's station or regard.

On Marian doctrines which first kicked started these posts. Please remember you as a Protestant can certainly reject these doctrines they are not binding upon you at all. Catholics are bound to believe these. All the doctrines can be defended biblically and historically. They can I will concede also be debunked under the same criteria. This is where the Catholic teaching on authority comes in. We believe when there is a question about teachings of faith. And different conclusions can be met by those who read and appeal to Scripture on the matter. The Church has the final authority to say which conclusion is the right one. An example would be the Doctrine of The Trinity.

I will call it quits now cause my brain is starting to rebel and play the Gilligan's Island theme song in my head over and over. God bless

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.