Catholic vs. Presbyterian

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

[Gamecock]

Catholic vs. Presbyterian

Question:

Could you tell me the difference between the Presbyterian church and the Catholic Church.

Answer:

Short question, potentially very long answer.

I'll try to focus briefly on some basics, beginning with the foundational matter of authority.

The Roman Catholic Church understands the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, as do we, but alongside the Bible, stands the authority of the tradition of the church, the decrees of its councils, and the ex cathedra pronouncements of its popes. Tradition, councils, and popes tell the faithful what the Scriptures teach and can add dogma to what the Scriptures teach (for example, the immaculate conception of Mary). We regard this as man exercising authority over the Word of God rather than sitting in humble submission before it.

In contrast, this is what we confess to the world in our Confession of Faith (a statement which we believe faithfully summarizes what the Bible teaches, but which is wholly derived from the Bible, subordinate to it, and may be corrected by it):

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God....

6. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men....

7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other that not only the learned but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them....

9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

(Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, "Of the Holy Scripture")

With particular reference to the Church, we hold that Christ alone is the Head of His Church, and that there are no princely rulers in the church, but elders and preachers gifted by the Spirit and called to rule and teach in local churches in subordination to the Word of God. Again, our Confession:

6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof." (WCF, Chapter 25, "Of the Church"; see Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22, 1 Peter 5:2-4)

Christ is the King and only Lord of the church. He rules us by His Word, the Holy Spirit who first inspired it continuing to work now by enabling us to understand, believe, and obey the Scriptures. Elders and preachers are gifts He gives to the church to guide and help us understand and obey the Word, but they are not infallible.

Our Confession again,

1. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. (WCF, Chapter 30, "Of Church Censures"; see Acts 14:23, 20:17,28, Heb.13:7,17, Eph.4:11,12, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 5:17-21, etc.)

2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain and remit sins, to shut the kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word and censures, and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures as occasion shall require. (WCF, 30.2)

1. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as a commonly called synods or councils, and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church. (WCF, Chapter 31, "Of Synods and Councils")

2. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of his church, to receive complaints in cases of maladministratiion, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission. (WCF, 31.2)

3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both. (WCF, 31.3)

4. Synods and councils are to handle or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical, and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs ... [exceptions stated]" (WCF, 31.4)

A key point here is our understanding that church authorities are to act "ministerially" and based always on the Word of God. They cannot make laws in addition to God's revealed Word, but must labor to understand that Word properly and then declare it to the church and base their governing and disciplining actions upon it. We do not claim for any merely human governors of the church a magisterial authority.

From this fundamental difference in regard to authority and to the relative roles of the Bible, tradition, decrees of councils, and edicts of popes, flow the other differences. Why do Presbyterians not pray to Mary and the saints? Because the Bible nowhere tells us to do so; it is an invention by gradual accretion in the tradition of the church. And because, on the other hand, the Bible tells us that "there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," who is our Great High Priest, through whom we have boldness to come to God's throne of grace (1 Tim.2:5, Hebrews 4:14-16). Christ is all the intercessor we need (Heb.7:23-28).

There are fundamentally different approaches to worship, which might be summed up this way:

Roman Catholic:

Whatever the tradition and councils have given us is what we do in public worship.

Presbyterian:

We give to God in worship only what is revealed in His Word as pleasing to Him (see Lev.10:1-3, Exodus 20:4-6, Mark 7:1-8).

While we are looking at worship, we observe that Presbyterians differ fundamentally with Roman Catholics in regard to the Lord's Supper. We both agree that Christ Himself ordained the observance of communion by His church and that this involves bread and wine. From that point on we agree on almost nothing. But let me try to summarize:

Roman Catholics:

By the grace received in his ordination the priest has power to utter the words of consecration by which mere bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ for sacrifice on the altar, and by receiving this mystical body (and blood) of Christ the faithful receive Christ Himself bodily and His grace to wash them clean of all their sins.

Presbyterians:

(a). The minister is not a priest; Christ alone is our priest in the sense of interceding for us before God by sacrifice. The minister is a servant, who declares the Word so that the faithful may understand what is taking place.

(b). The power of the minister is to declare what the Scriptures teach, not to say words that change bread into Christ's body.

(c). The bread and wine symbolically represent the body and blood of Christ. When Jesus at the Last Supper said to His disciples (of the bread), "This is My body which is broken for you", He was standing before them in His body, whole and intact. He meant this bread symbolizes My body. (When He said, "I am the door to the sheepfold," He was similarly speaking symbolically, or "I am the light of the world").

(d). There is no sacrifice of Christ on any altar, for He offered Himself once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:26-28, 10:10). So perfect and acceptable was the sacrifice of the God-Man of Himself for sinners that no other sacrifice is required. When on the cross He said, "It is finished," He meant not only his suffering of death, but also His making atonement by His suffering. By that "one sacrifice for sins for all time," that "one offering." "He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb.10:12,14). We hold it to be a great dishonor to Christ's once-for-all atoning work on Calvary to claim that His body and blood continue to be offered as sacrifice for sin. This is why we speak of the communion "table", not altar.

(e). The faithful receive Christ by faith, not physically. The elements are signs. They point to Christ and what He has done to atone for our sins. They point to Him also as our risen and living Savior and Lord who is present in His Church by the Holy Spirit, continuously offering Himself to believers. The bread and wine call us to draw near to Christ by faith, to receive forgiving and sanctifying grace from Him, to grow in our union with Him. But it is all spiritual and by faith.

I could go on listing differences, but two very important ones remain. I will deal with the most important last.

Presbyterians believe that God's Word is a sufficient revelation of His will for our lives (see above, Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1, especilly Sections 6 and 7, and read 2 Timothy 3:15-17).

We think it is an arrogant usurpation of Christ's authority for church rulers to presume to have authority to add to His word rules and commands. Where does the Bible require ministers in Christ's church to be celibate? It doesn't, but rather teaches the opposite (1 Tim.3:2-5,12, see 1 Cor.9:5). But Catholic authority requires Catholic priests to take vows of celibacy, which are contrary to human nature and create terrible stumbling blocks leading to sin (which is now being plastered shamefully all over the public media). For centuries the Catholic Church told its people they must refrain from eating meat on Fridays; to do otherwise was sin. Now it's okay. It was a sin. Now it's not. The church says so. But the Bible does not say one word, except Colossians 2:20-23 (and 1 Timothy 4:1-5).

Appeal may be made to Matthew 16:19 (and 18:18), which read this way: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (and vice versa). There! The church officers make a binding decision on earth, and heaven will ratify it. But the passage actually says exactly the opposite. The second verbs in each case ("shall be bound" / "loosed"), are future perfect tenses, properly translated: "shall have been bound / loosed". So that the correct reading is: "Whatever you bind / loose on earth shall have been bound / loosed in heaven". That is, officers of the church on earth must base their decisions on what heaven has already determined. And what would that be? That would be what "Heaven," that is, God, has revealed by the Spirit in His Word, the Scriptures.

But the most important issue concerns salvation. We believe the Bible teaches that the all-sufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ and the perfect obedience of Christ, offered to His Father in our behalf and given to us as God's gift in the declaration of justification is all the basis for salvation that a sinner needs. See Romans 3:19-30, Philippians 3:2-9, Galatians 3:10-13, Romans 8:1-3. We believe that we receive this gift only by faith, Ephesians 2:8,9. Good works enter in as the fruit of saving faith, as its outworking in our lives. But the moment I throw myself on the mercy of God trusting in Christ's saving work for me, I am then and there and once and for all justified in God's sight and nothing I do after that in the way of good works can add to what Christ has done or to God's justification.

This has gone on quite long. As I noted at the beginning, your question is very short. Maybe you were looking for something other than what I have given you. But I do want to close with a few clarifications.

"Presbyterian": This is from the Greek word in the NT, presbyter, meaning elder. Presbyterian churches are churches which believe that Christ governs his church through the work of elders, a plurality of elders in each local church, and councils of the elders of the churches in a region or a nation.

Historically the "Presbyterian" churches were churches of the Protestant Reformation in Scotland and England that shared with other Protestant churches on the Continent a common understanding of Bible doctrine that is often referred to as "Reformed" (and historically associated with John Calvin in Geneva, Switzerland). In the 1640s the pastors and teachers of the Church of England met to officially reform the English church in the light of Scripture. Among other things they spent several years writing the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. These have since been the defining documents of Presbyterian churches.

Unfortunately, in the last 100 years or so, many Presbyterian churches have wandered away from their Confession because, at bottom, they were accepting man-made philosophies and ideas as being more true than the Bible. So not all "Presbyterians" believe what I have given you above. But those who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and who still believe - as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church does, by God's grace - the summary of its doctrines in the Westminster Confession, would agree with what I have told you.

I hope this is helpful to you. I have not meant in any way to offend, though sometimes stating things starkly can have that effect. I have tried to be clear about the differences, which is what you asked, and I cannot pretend that I do not think truth is on one side and not on the other. You, of course, may speak with equal frankness and I welcome a reply or further questions.

The Lord guide you in His paths of truth and righteousness. (DK)

About Q&A

[narses]

Your claims lie tattered and debunked. Next?

[trollcrusher]

"Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary" Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Hær., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus; common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown [Nirschl, Haus und Grab der allerh. Jungfrau (Mainz, 1900); Mommert, Die Dormitio (Leipzig, 1900)]; but in 1906, J. Niesen brought forth new arguments in favor of Ephesus (Panagia Kapuli, Dülmen, 1906). The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem. The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise "De Obitu S. Dominæ", bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book "De Transitu Virginis", falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, pp. 6-7 Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Holy_Mary/index.html __________ Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, FEAST OF THE, 15, Aug.; also called in old liturgical books PAUSATIO, NATIVITAS (for heaven), MORS, DEPOSITIO, DORMITIO S. MARIÆ. This feast has a double object: (1) the happy departure of Mary from this life; (2) the assumption of her body into heaven. It is the principal feast of the Blessed Virgin. Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady's death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis. According to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August (Baeumer, Brevier, 185). In Egypt and Arabia, however, it was kept in January, and since the monks of Gaul adopted many usages from the Egyptian monks (Baeumer, Brevier, 163), we find this feast in Gaul in the sixth century, in January [mediante mense undecimo (Greg. Turon., De gloria mart., I, ix)]. The Gallican Liturgy has it on the 18th of January, under the title: Depositio, Assumptio, or Festivitas S. Mariæ (cf. the notes of Mabillon on the Gallican Liturgy, P. L., LXXII, 180). This custom was kept up in the Gallican Church to the time of the introduction of the Roman rite. In the Greek Church, it seems, some kept this feast in January, with the monks of Egypt; others in August, with those of Palestine; wherefore the Emperor Maurice (d. 602), if the account of the "Liber Pontificalis" (II, 508) be correct, set the feast for the Greek Empire on 15 August. In Rome (Batiffol, Brev. Rom., 134) the oldest and only feast of Our Lady was 1 January, the octave of Christ's birth. It was celebrated first at Santa Maria Maggiore, later at Santa Maria ad Martyres. The other feasts are of Byzantine origin. Duchesne thinks (Origines du culte chr., 262) that before the seventh century no other feast was kept at Rome, and that consequently the feast of the Assumption, found in the sacramentaries of Gelasius and Gregory, is a spurious addition made in the eighth or seventh century. Probst, however (Sacramentarien, 264 sqq.), brings forth good arguments to prove that the Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary, found on the 15th of August in the Gelasianum, is genuine , since it does not mention the corporeal assumption of Mary; that, consequently, the feast was celebrated in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome at least in the sixth century. He proves, furthermore, that the Mass of the Gregorian Sacramentary, such as we have it, is of Gallican origin (since the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary, under the influence of the apocryphal writings, is older in Gaul than in Rome), and that it supplanted the old Gelasian Mass. At the time of Sergius I (700) this feast was one of the principal festivities in Rome; the procession started from the church of St. Hadrian. It was always a double of the first class and a Holy Day of obligation. The octave was added in 847 by Leo IV; in Germany this octave was not observed in several dioceses up to the time of the Reformation. The Church of Milan has not accepted it up to this day (Ordo Ambros., 1906). The octave is privileged in the dioceses of the provinces of Sienna, Fermo, Michoacan, etc. The Greek Church continues this feast to 23 August, inclusive, and in some monasteries of Mount Athos it is protracted to 29 August (Menaea Graeca, Venice, 1880), or was, at least, formerly. In the dioceses of Bavaria a thirtieth day (a species of month's mind) of the Assumption was celebrated during the Middle Ages, 13 Sept., with the Office of the Assumption (double); To-day, only the Diocese of Augsburg has retained this old custom. Some of the Bavarian dioceses and those of Brandenburg, Mainz, Frankfort, etc., on 23 Sept. kept the feast of the "Second Assumption", or the "Fortieth Day of the Assumption" (double) believing, according to the revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schönau (d. 1165) and of St. Bertrand, O.C. (d. 1170), that the B.V. Mary was taken up to heaven on the fortieth day after her death (Grotefend, Calendaria 2, 136). The Brigittines kept the feast of the "Glorification of Mary" (double) 30 Aug., since St. Brigitta of Sweden says (Revel., VI, l) that Mary was taken into heaven fifteen days after her departure (Colvenerius, Cal. Mar., 30 Aug.). In Central America a special feast of the Coronation of Mary in heaven (double major) is celebrated 18 Aug. The city of Gerace in Calabria keeps three successive days with the rite of a double first class, commemorating: 15th of August, the death of Mary; 16th of August, her Coronation. At Piazza, in Sicily, there is a commemoration of the Assumption of Mary (double second class) the 20th of February, the anniversary of the earthquake of 1743. A similar feast (double major with octave) is kept at Martano, Diocese of Otranto, in Apulia, 19th of November. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II, pp. 6-7 Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Holy_Mary/Feast_of_the_Assumption.html

[verdadjusticia]

1) Sola scripture is not taught in the Sacred Scriptures.

Of course it is 2 Tim3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”

vedadjusticia answers:
Pitifull!! That’s it ha? Your whole sytem of belief is scripturally based on that one line? It does not say ONLY SCRIPTURE. You say that ONLY scripture is. That one line does not say “ONLY”.

---

RnMomof7 WROTE:
Even your church fathers knew that scripture was to be the FINAL authority in matters of faith (what sola scriptura means)

“Ignorance of prophetic diction and unskillfulness in interpreting Scripture has led them into a perversion of the point and meaning of the passage.” (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35)

“In order to solve as easily as possible this most difficult problem, we must first master the knowledge which the Divine Scriptures give of Father and of Son, that so we may speak with more precision, as dealing with familiar and accustomed matters.” (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 3, 2)

Verdadjusticia RESPONDS: This is pathetic. He does not say ANYTHING about ONLY scripture (self interpreted by anyone)being the FINAL AND ONLY in neither quote!

“Let this, then, Christ-loving man, be our offering to you, just for a rudimentary sketch and outline, in a short compass, of the faith of Christ and of His Divine appearing to usward. But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God. But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them, who have also become martyrs for the deity of Christ, to your zeal for learning, in turn. (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56)

Again does not say anything about ONLY scripture as FINAL authority.

Moreover, right in the quote that you give he says “But we impart of what we have learned from inspired teachers who have been conversant with them”. What do you think that means?

---

“Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;” but be wise, as himself saith, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” (Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, 2)

Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; ... For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes. For have ye now merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for your father, when ye have been born by the church as your Mother. (Augustine, On the Nicene Creed: a Sermon to the Catechumens,

Verdadjusticia RESPONDS:
He’s teaching them to follow the Creed, do you know what creed is? No creed is written in scripture. Your every example not only don’t teach the self interpretation of the bible as the ONLY source of revelation, nor the FINAL authority , BUT they actually mention oral traditions.

---

Verdadjusticia CLOSING OBSERVATION:
You have not posted one example from scripture that says that ONLY the bible self interpreted by anyone is the SOLE and FINAL authority? You have not even been able to find one from oral tradition, (which you don’t adhere to anyways).

Here’s is clear instruction which precisely addresses the failings of your “ONLY the bible self interpreted by anyone is the SOLE and FINAL authority”:

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS [ A. D. 434 ]

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. [Here, perhaps, someone may ask: “If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?” Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Anus, Eunomius, Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another; Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still another, Nestorius. And thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. ....

[verdadjusticia]

The whole text of St. Vincent of Lerins is in this thread, it’s #162

[Diamond]

The truth is that the Assumption is based on sources other than de Transitu, and also earlier than de Transitu (both Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia will tell you that), and there is no evidence at all that de Transitu was condemned because it taught the Assumption of Mary.

So, the condemnation of the Transitus writing of the Assumption of Mary (reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas) is not really a condemnation of the Transitus writing about the Assumption of Mary. Okaaaay. Now, if in that era there were already an established doctrine in place that rather counterintuitive hypothesis might serve as a plausible explanation, but such is not the case. The only way to believe that the condemnation of the Transitus writing of the Assumption of Mary is not really a condemnation of the Transitus writing about the Assumption of Mary is to presuppose the very thing in question.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, de Transitu was a theologically redacted version of the traditions in the Liber Requiei Mariae:

The earliest narrative is the so-called Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary's Repose), a narrative which survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation.^[4] Probably composed by the fourth century, this early Christian apocryphal narrative may be as old as the third century. Also quite early are the very different traditions of the Six Books Dormition Narratives. The earliest versions of this apocrypha are preserved by several Syriac manuscripts of the fifth and sixth centuries, although the text itself probably belongs to the fourth century.[5]

Later apocrypha based on these earlier texts include the De Obitu S. Dominae, attributed to St. John, a work probably from around the turn of the 6th century that is a summary of the "Six Books" narrative. The story also appears in De Transitu Virginis, a late 5th century work ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis that presents a theologically redacted summary of the traditions in the Liber Requiei Mariae. The Transitus Mariae tells the story of the apostles being transported by white clouds to the deathbed of Mary, each from the town where he was preaching at the hour.

You have, at the earliest, stories from the 3rd or 4th century. So where did the teaching originate? "Oral traditions"? Epiphanius of Salamis, who lived near Palestine and thus would have been in a position to know of such purported traditions, in AD 377 stated that no one knew of the eventual fate of Mary. It is an incontrovertible fact that no one within the church taught this doctrine for six centuries, and those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by Pope Gelasius as heretical. Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, was the first, and the second was Gregory of Tours, A.D. 590. As referenced earlier, after quoting from Gregroy, Smith states,

"...The Abbe' Migne points out in a note that " what Gregory here relates of the death of the Blessed Virgin and its attendant circumstances he un- doubtedly drew (procul dxbio hausit) from the Pseudo-Melito's Liber de Transitu B. Mariae, which is classed among apocryphal books bj pope Gelasius." He adds that this account, with the circumstances related by Gregory, were soon after introduced into the Gallican Liturgy."

So to say that there is no evidence at all that de Transitu was condemned because it taught the Assumption of Mary, but in spite of it, is to assume the very thing in question, and to gloss over the fact that the Transitus literature of that era that is the ONLY KNOWN EXTANT SOURCE of a teaching purporting to relate to an actual historical event consists of heretical writings that are regarded by historians as complete fabrication and worthless as history. Since the dogma of the Assumption entails positive historical claims about an actual event, pleading an absence of evidence that de Transitu was condemned because it taught the Assumption of Mary ignores six centuries of silence from the Church, and cannot obscure the historical fact that the ONLY known historical source of the dogma is spurious heretical writings condemned by two Popes. The real absence of historical evidence to support the dogma is that of individuals who were personally present, or else were in contact with the events through unimpeachable sources.

The bottom line is that the Assumption is not taught on the basis of historical evidence, but in spite of it, for theological reasons. There is not a shred of historical evidence that this dogma was taught within the church for six centuries. The only known sources of a dogma purported to relate to an actual event,are spurious, pious forgeries and outright fabrication containing admitted absurdities written by heretics.

These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of ERclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius,Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., (Cambridge: James Clark, 1991).

Cordially,

[narses]

Yawn. Your argument in tatters you warble. Sad.

[YHAOS]

“I am very sorry indeed that I should have done anything to give you the impression that your participation in this thread, especially as touching conversing with me, was anything but entirely welcome.”

You’re taking things entirely too personally. Keep in mind, I’m responding to the doctrinal learnings of two distinct persons. I’m not blame storming. I might say that I’m looking for explanations, but that could be construed as confrontational or inflammatory. Let’s just say understandings are my objective. And, the issue I raise lies in a much larger context than my participation in this thread.

I don’t propose to suggest that barbecuing is an acceptable method of dealing with heretical thoughts or behavior in modern times. Since (in the Catholic view) being heretical condemns one to being outside the Church (“not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics”), what is the practical consequence of being heretical as so far goes the unity of the Judeo-Christian tradition of Western Civilization? You’ve partially answered my question, but I want you to see more clearly what I am about.

[Diamond]

Which of the facts I have presented lies tattered and debunked? Can you give me an example?

Cordially,

[GCC Catholic]

Then the comparisons I was using are apples and oranges all around. Thank you for the clarification and God bless.

[verdadjusticia]

To: RnMomof7

Verdadjusticia HAD POSTED:
2) Sola scriptura is an example of the logical fallacy of begging the question, in as much as the canonical scriptures never identify what is and what is not Scripture.

RnMomof7 STATED:
Jesus clearly defined what was OT scripture..The Holy Spirit defined NT scripture

Verdadjusticia ANSWERS:
Jesus Christ did not say what books are in the Old Testament, the bible you use has books missing compared to the Catholic bible. You go by “bible only”, the bible does not say how many or what books, (Not a problem for Catholics, we go by oral and written tradition.) THEREFORE, according to your belief system YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO ANSWER, scripture does not say what books are in the Old Testament.

RnMomof7 Salso SAID: The Holy Spirit defined NT scripture

Verdadjusticia ANSWERS: I only answered on the O.T., to not ignore your response , but I really only intended to focus on your answer to the New Testament. You said that The Holy Spirit defined NT scripture. That response undermines your whole belief system that CLAIMS ITS AUTHORITY ONLY FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURES. (Again, not a problem for Catholics, we go by oral and written tradition.).

Your belief requires that every doctrine you hold be found in the pages of the Scriptures. However, the Scriptures fail to answer one all-important question: What is scripture?

When you go to the store and buy a Bible, chosen from a hundred different bound Bibles, it’s easy to forget that this is not how the Bible was originally available. The New Testament was originally 27 separate letters sent to separate people about various issues. You believe that those 27 letters, now conveniently collected into one volume, are the sole source of faith. This leads to a problem. There is no passage in any of the 27 letters which states:

“The following books, and only the following books, are Sacred Scripture: Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts, I and II Romans; I and II Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; I and II Thessalonians; I and II Timothy; Titus; Philemon; Hebrews; James; I, II, and III John; Jude; and Apocalypse”.

BUT, THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE. So what’s your authority? No matter what you say-”inner guidance of the Holy Spirit,” “the testimony of the early Christians,” “historical evidence,” or even “the Catholic Church,” etc. - you violate your own rule that all authority is in the Scriptures.

Few of the letters are even self-authenticating. Only the Apocalypse and, maybe, one or two of St. Paul’s epistles claim to be inspired. To claim that any of the other books of the Bible is inspired forces you to violate your own rule. The Bible is silent, nonetheless you speak.
Many of the letters are anonymous. To call St. Matthew the author of Matthew or St. John the author of II John requires you to violate your rule again. The Bible never says that Matthew wrote Matthew or that John wrote John, that St. Mark wrote Mark, St. Luke wrote Luke and Acts, that St. John authored I, II, and III John, or that St. Paul composed Hebrews.

The only evidence that the traditional authors of the Gospels and Epistles mentioned in the preceding paragraph are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul is Catholic Tradition. The only evidence that the 26 books of the New Testament are inspired, excluding the self-attesting Apocalypse, is the authoritative proclamation of the Catholic Church. You reject that authority, so with what do you replace it? The only evidence that - only the Old Testament and the 27 letters that are in our New Testament are inspired - is the authoritative proclamation of the Catholic Church. You reject that authority, so with what do you replace it?

The Catholic Church, after three centuries of thoughtful consideration, canonized the 27 books of the New Testament. Some of them, like Hebrews and the Apocalypse, were considered by some to not belong to it, but the Catholic Church declared otherwise. Other works, like I Clement, the Shepherd of Hernias, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistles of Ignatius, etc., which were thought by many to be inspired, were left out. We even decided to leave out St. Paul’s Letter to the Laodicians, despite that he mentions it in Colossians 4:16:
And when this epistle [to the Colossians] shall have been read with you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodicians; and that you read that which is of the Laodicians (Col. 4:16).

There were bible books that were disputed, controverted, in some places acknowledged, in others rejected; and among these we actually find the Epistle of St James, Epistle of St Jude, 2nd Epistle of St Peter; 2nd and 3rd of St John, Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse of St John. There were doubts about these works; perhaps, it was said, they were not really written by Apostles, or Apostolic men, or by the men whose names they carried; in some parts of the Christian world they were suspected, though in others unhesitatingly received as genuine.

In this class of ‘controverted’ and doubtful books, there were some to be found which are not now in our New Testament at all, but which were by many then considered to be inspired and Apostolic, or were actually read at the public worship of the Christians, or were used for instructions to the newly-converted; in short, ranked in some places as equal to the works of St James or St Peter or St Jude. Among these are the Shepherd of Hermes, Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, Apostolic Constitutions, Gospel according to the Hebrews, St Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans, Epistle of St Clement, and others. Why are these not in our Bible to-day?
There was a class of books floating about before 397 A.D., which were never acknowledged as of any value in the Church, nor treated as having Apostolic authority, seeing that they were obviously spurious and false, full of absurd fables, superstitions, puerilities, and stories and miracles of Our Lord and His Apostles which made them a laughing-stock to the world. Of these some have survived, and we have them today

We know the names of about 50 Gospels (such as the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas, and the like), about 22 Acts (like the Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla, and others), and a smaller number of Epistles and Apocalypses. These were condemned and rejected wholesale as ‘Apocrypha’-that is, false, spurious, and uncanonical.

Who can deny any of this? The Church existed before the collection of letters that we today call the New Testament Bible; she made the Bible; she selected its books, and she preserved it. She handed it down; through her we know what is the Word of God, and what is the word of man; and hence to try at this time of day, as many do, to overthrow the Church by means of this very Bible, and to put it above the Church, and to revile her for destroying it and corrupting it- what is this but to strike the mother that reared them; to curse the hand that fed them; to turn against their best friend and benefactor; and to repay with ingratitude and slander the very guide and protector who has led them to drink of the water out of the Savior’s fountains?

[Mad Dawg]

Oh. The "you" was a corporate you, not a personal you?

I'm so confused.

Since (in the Catholic view) being heretical condemns one to being outside the Church (“not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics”), what is the practical consequence of being heretical as so far goes the unity of the Judeo-Christian tradition of Western Civilization?

Help a sick guy out here: what post is that section in quotes from?

Here's a big generalization, probably unfair: A lot of protestants take too "binary" a view of things, IMHO. (so funny to me: the Dominican 'colors' are black and white, yet we're always arguing for nuance.

As I said elsewhere there is almost always something to affirm, nothing that can be said to be is entirely bad, since existence itself is a good. It's very often a matter of stress, of the order in which one says things, and so forth.

As a sort of thought-experiment or observation, in front of an abortion clinic, papist me would be a great deal more likely to be marching and praying with an OPC Presbyterian or a SBC Baptist, (technically, I suppose, heretics and schismatics) than with a modern Episcopalian. (I may be a rat, but that ship is certainly sinking!) Heck, I'd be more likely to be with the groups I mentioned than with Patrick Kennedy, (now excommunicated, Deo Gratias) or with Stretch Pelousy.

Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I think OUR differences here are not the threat to the role and place of the Judaeo-Christian in our Countries weltanschauung as is the bastard child liberal progressivism and atheistic humanism.

YOu should read me when I 'm awake Sometimes I make sense!

[Mad Dawg]

My eyes, my eyes!

No offense but the dyslexics in the crowd (moi, for example, would probably throw up before they reached the end to that post. At the risk of seeming to be the condescrnding jerk that I am, maybe we could converse privately about how to post a big chunk o stuff without having it look like alphanumeric hash.

[Mad Dawg]

Someone posted and article here on FR entitled “Meetings Make You Stupid”. I e-mailed it to all the Elders and Pastor and very quickly was asked to resign which I took as sort of my own “Damascus Road experience”.

There is a God and He loves us! LOL!

The standard joke for us, which bears repeating, is "I don't believe in organized religion; I'm a Catholic."

Have a good day, brother.

[narses]

Snort, laugh. The cut-n-paste claimed proclamation of a Pope that was debunked. Try reading the many posts to your false claim about the Dogma of the Assumption.

What denomination do you claim?

[verdadjusticia]

Mad Dawg WROTE:
If you are validly baptized you are a Christian and a member of the body of Christ, grafted into his death and rising. In some sense the old man is dead and the Spirit of Christ is in you. You are in the one and only Church.

verdadjusticia ADDS:

This statement is inaccurate, as it would only apply to validly baptized infants of Protestant parents before the child reaches the age of reason. An adult Protestant is outside of the Catholic Church. Though the Church today uses politically correct euphemisms, properly speaking, clearly saying the real thing, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are heretics.

Mad Dawg WROTE:
This is why when a baptized person, reared and “formed” in another communion wants to become a full-bore (I’ve got the boring part down, anyway) Catholic, though we loosely speak of “conversion” IMHO the only proper language is that so-and-so is admitted to full communion. The implication is that SOME communion already existed.

Verdadjusticia ADDS:
A validly baptized Protestant can simply decide to be Catholic, be willing to reject all his heretical ideas, and he is no longer a heretic. His other sins still have to be confessed to a priest. If he is willing to confess his sins to a priest, and he is fully repentant for his sins, and he dies before he can confess his sins, he can be saved. It is called a perfect act of contrition. This is only possible if he truly intended to confess his sins to a priest.

I believe that this confession to a priest is the number one obstacle that keeps Catholics, specially men, from coming back to the Church after they reach the teenage years. It’s quite embarrassing to tell someone else your sins of the flesh, but that is why God instituted it. It takes real remorse to humiliate yourself like that. Christ allowed Himself to be crucified for our sins, all we have to do is embarrass ourselves for forgiveness of ours.

Because of this embarrassment of confessing our sins, very few Catholics are saved. AND Protestants keep away. Men need to MAN UP!

[Mad Dawg]

So, the condemnation of the Transitus writing of the Assumption of Mary (reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas) is not really a condemnation of the Transitus writing about the Assumption of Mary. Okaaaay. Now, if in that era there were already an established doctrine in place that rather counterintuitive hypothesis might serve as a plausible explanation, but such is not the case. The only way to believe that the condemnation of the Transitus writing of the Assumption of Mary is not really a condemnation of the Transitus writing about the Assumption of Mary is to presuppose the very thing in question.

I don't think so.

First, like a lot of apocryphal NT stuff, the book is HIGHLY fantastic! Magic Palm branches and people's arms withering and Peter like some wonder-worker far beyond anything in Acts!

There's another fine and fantastic book called the Acts of Pilate. It makes a fine theological point, that Jesus "harrowed" hell. But it makes it with entirely incredible details. It is also rightly excluded from the canon, but few think IHS did not harrow hell or cite the exclusion of the Acts of the Apostles as evidence for that claim.

In general, though, while all along there were adversaries both within and without the Church, the Church does not view the establishment of Dogma as a prosecutorial proceeding in a United States courtroom. So the arguments which pick at the case won't necessarily strike us as conclusive or dispositive.

It's as if we were playing two different games. You're asking for a proof beyond reasonable doubt. And I think that approach may lead to errors. For example, you say:
Now, if in that era there were already an established doctrine in place that rather counterintuitive hypothesis might serve as a plausible explanation, but such is not the case.

What if it were not "an established doctrine" (don't see how it could have been, since it wasn't defined until the last century) but a proposition gradually gaining adherents and waiting for an 'account' which did not involved floating biers and withered arms, but careful thought.

To me, one of the interesting seams between Catholics and Protestants is how we think about God, time, and eternity. That difference leads me to think that the following assertion, though necessarily vague, is not at all counter-intuitive: The Dogma of the Assumption of Mary comes down to: Mary "now" or "currently" enjoys what all the saints will enjoy after the last judgment.

It's not all that dissimilar to the sort of "conceptual surround" of the Immaculate Conception,which is that the effects of Our Lord's atoning work reach throughout all time. They reached His mother in a unique way so that -- unlike us who are saved from sin after we fall in -- she was saved BEFORE she fell in.

(None of this is meant to be persuasive or argumentative. It's meant to give a taste of our thinking.)

So Mary is, among other things, as eschatological figure to us. She can be viewed as the "already having come true" of the promises made to all the saints who one day will be sinless and united with their resurrected and spiritual bodies.

To me, once my very calvinist seminary made clear the notion of proleptic eschatology and once I immersed my thought in that notion, what is said about Mary quickly became less and less "counter-intuitive" and much more of a "why not?" (I'm a great disappointment to my professors. heh heh heh.)

Another difference inn attitude is thaT SOME Protestants SEEM to me to have a view that the Church was at its spiritual and dogmatic best in the early days, and that the challenge of subsequent years is to cling to that archaic purity.

The view we have, I think, is that the promise that the Spirit will lead the Apostles into all truth, works against the sort of "inevitable decline of the Dharma: view which is, I think, more Buddhist than Christian. It's no shock to us that a strand of thought back then, would be contemplated, debated, worked over, refined, and then finally be fit for promulgation.

[Diamond]

It's as if we were playing two different games. You're asking for a proof beyond reasonable doubt. And I think that approach may lead to errors...What if it were not "an established doctrine" (don't see how it could have been, since it wasn't defined until the last century) but a proposition gradually gaining adherents and waiting for an 'account' which did not involved floating biers and withered arms, but careful thought.

Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful post.

I am not asking for historical proof beyond a reasonable doubt, although that might not be such a bad thing to do, if such were even possible, with respect to adherence to dogmas with anathemas attached to them. I am asking for reliable, historical evidence for a dogma that entails historical claims about a putative event in history

I am not asking for theological reasons or justifications of the dogma. It seems to me reasonable that claims about actual historical events should be backed up with some sort of reliable account of individuals who were personally present, or else were in contact with the events through unimpeachable sources, as is the case with the New Testament. Instead the only known source (a theological redaction of earlier tales) by which the teaching is known to have entered the Church are spurious, pious forgeries and outright fabrication containing admitted absurdities written by heretics.

Development of doctrine is a related subject to this, but it's probably not worth going into at this point.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Snort, laugh.

So I warble and you snort. I'm not sure of what use to put this sort of information, but thank you anyway.

The cut-n-paste claimed proclamation of a Pope that was debunked. Try reading the many posts to your false claim about the Dogma of the Assumption.

I have read them. The proclamation of a Pope that "was debunked"? You haven't done your homework. If you had, you would have known that the Decretum has been questioned by some historians and is accepted as authentic by others. But it really doesn't matter because if it is not authentic it creates another problem because then you have Pope Hormisdas reaffirming a phony decree. Not only that, but Pope Nicolas I authoritatively cites the Decree of Gelasius and attributes it to him. Why would Pope Nicolas authoritavily cite a phony decree and falsely attribute it to Pope Gelasius?

Cordially,

[narses]

You are a hoot. Further your thesis that the Dogma was condemned before it was approved has been debunked by multiple posters.

What denomination are you?

[Mad Dawg]

This statement is inaccurate, as it would only apply to validly baptized infants of Protestant parents before the child reaches the age of reason. An adult Protestant is outside of the Catholic Church. Though the Church today uses politically correct euphemisms, properly speaking, clearly saying the real thing, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are heretics.

Will you at least grant that your position tends to the more rigorist side? I think a lot of ignorance is a good deal more invincible than people consider, and that some of the resistance to the Church is because of our failings.

I do htink there is an adult responsibility to test all things and to hold fast to that which is good. On the other hand, my childhood best friend was thoroughly indoctrinated against the Catholic Church, to the point where I would think it would take therapy before he would be able to consider the issues anything like objectively.

As for moi: My favorite person to study in college was Thomas Aquinas. Dante was a joy and delight and still is. Eckhardt appealed and still appeals. It is clear to me that (a) God was saying, "get a clue, you need to be a Catholic and a Dominican;" and (b) that being Catholic never occurred to me as a possibility for me, until after I'd been an Epsicopal minister for a decade and could see for myself what a disaster 'my' church was.

I think I and my life path have suffered for my blindness, but I think there were what you might call invincible aspects to it.