Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
Catholics believe Jesus established a Church and the Holy Spirit works within that Church, not in opposition to it.
We also realize the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion.
It really amazes the number of people who will apply Scripture willy nilly tossing around new meanings and applications like cheap party favors. When people are so proud of being able to snap a verse out whenever asked a question but not at all worried about whether the verse applies, that doesn't impress me as a respect for the Word. It's just what you said, sinful pride in having a snappy answer whether or not it's the right one.
Better yet , read post 100 many times and you will eventually understand it.
No wonder Jesus suffered terribly in the Garden, thinking of these sola scriptura types and their pride.
Even the kook that wrote it doesn’t believe it.
>> “It really amazes the number of people who will apply Scripture willy nilly tossing around new meanings” <<
.
Its unfortunate that people such as yourself that haven’t read the scriptures don’t understand that the word of God is a plain text, self explanitory treatise on life, and all that is needed is to read it aloud: “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”
You deny yourself the truth, and the sweet peace of assurance that is transmitted thereby. You allow yourself to believe that it really means something other than what it plainly says, and that is the saddest thing in the world.
.
Uh... no. That's a horrendous leap from my pointing out there is more to know than what was written to you saying the Church bases its Faith on anything but Christ (written and in the flesh). Sorry, no sale.
Most aspects of the Church come from Scripture or can be found in Scripture (albeit sometimes obliquely). Other aspects were given us by Christ as a Deposit of Faith directly to the Apostles or passed from the Apostles as their own observation or understanding of an issue.
I'll explain our view of the doctrines you cited...
Immaculate Conception: True, there are no explicit Scriptures and proof-texts to give you. However, there are allusions in Scripture, starting in Genesis with the Proto-Evangelium. Part of the promise of salvation was that there would be enmity between the woman (Mary) and Satan and her Seed (Christ) would crush the serpent's head while he struck at His Heel. There is an equality of enmity that can suggest there is no time that the enmity will not exist, and therefore no time that She is not in a state of Grace in opposition to the serpent.
This can be carried forward to the greeting by the Angel (Luke 1:28). He greets Her as "full of grace"... not "anticipating grace"... not "future grace"... already full of God's grace.
Another argument is God's simple command to Honor Your Father and Your Mother. Mary is Christ's Mother and as He honors Her, we follow His example.
Another way to see it is that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Just as the old Ark carried the tablets of the Law, the manna from Heaven and the rod of Aaron so She carried the Word made Flesh, the Bread come down from Heaven, and the High Priest/King in the order of Melchisadech. The Ark was a thing pure, holy and undefiled in both instances. In the case of Mary, that included the stain of original sin. The Glory of the Lord came upon both Arks in the same way in the same Biblical wording.
The Assumption: You're right... no Scripture on this one. However, is this that great a stumbling block? Even before our redemption through Christ, we find that Enoch did not die but was taken by God to Heaven (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5). Christ rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven. Mary's tomb was opened and found to be empty. The Assumption was the conclusion of the early Church through many writings and sermons. Again, Christ was the living Law... and He honored His Mother.
Peter as the First Pope: Scriptural verses and explanations already given throughout this and other threads. We may disagree on the interpretation of these Scripture verses... but then, that's why the Church has teaching authority. Personal interpretation gives us disunity and division.
The Popes: Look at it this way... look at what the Protestant churches did once they threw off the Pope... they made their own popes. Whether it's the Archbishop of Canterbury, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen or any one of a million pastors... men are constantly being elevated as teachers to explain and interpret Scripture. God knew we needed that so He gave us the Church with a Pope to hold the doctrines firm.
I'll give you all of the Epistles as Scriptural proof of the popes. Unless there were disagreements and errors in the Church, there was no reason to write the Epistles. They were written from the authority given the Church to hold the doctrines firm. I will now point (for the third time on this thread) back to Isaiah 22:22 to show that among the ministers in the House of David, one was chosen as Prime Minister and given the Keys of the Kingdom. So, the Church wrote letters (Epistles) to the churches for reproof and correction from its teaching authority... the Apostles were the primary teachers of the Apostolic age and ministers to Christ's Earthly Kingdom... there is a Prime Minister among the ministers of Christ's Kingdom... I give you the Pope.
Mary, Queen of the Universe: Her Son is the Divine Son of David Who will Rule for all eternity. Read your Scripture... starting with Solomon, the mother of the king is seated at the king's right hand in the Davidic custom. It isn't a great leap of faith that Christ so honored His Mother in His Divine Davidic Kingdom. For if it isn't David's Kingdom He leads and rules, God's Covenant to David was not fulfilled.
Purgatory: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 shows that there was a Jewish tradition. In Matt 12:32, Our Lord says, "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." The implication here is that there are sins in the world to come which will be forgiven. Since no one may enter into Heaven in sin, there must be a time of forgiveness prior to entry to Heaven for these souls. 1 Cor 3:11-15 gives an oblique reference to the fire that will try all men's works in the life to come that he might be saved.
Eucharist (Implicit?! You've got to be kidding...): This one has always baffled me as being a source of controversy among Christians. Between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John, there are many differences... one thing that is given prominence, though, is Christ telling His followers to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood--even to the point of losing followers. It's that important. Protestants take this as metaphor, and Catholics take His Words at face value on Faith. Heck, even St Paul--who missed out on the actual events of the Last Supper--was commanded by Christ to bring the Mass to the gentiles (1 Cor 11:23-34). Here is an article with many Biblical citations for the Eucharist.
I know from many years on FR that I have probably wasted my time laying this out for you... but it seemed important at the time. If you truly want to learn and not just 'yip' like a little dog, there is much to read. Rather than attacking the Church for what you think it is, read the Catechism and discover your Mother.
Note: Even Martin Luther had no problems with the above doctrines and said so.
Also, remember that the Epistles were written not as a Catechism for the early Church with every doctrine of faith. Rather, they were written to bring back into conformity what had lapsed in the churches. From that understanding... the lack of many of these things above take on a greater significance--because they weren't a source of controversy in the early Church. Indeed you can find early Church writings and sermons on all of the topics.
God bless you.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the “corner stone”, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
There are a number of problems with this... and it all goes back to the problem of the article in question... Sola Scriptura. Your interpretation is entirely at odds with everyone else's who has challenged me on this thread... and, frankly, at odds with about every theologian I can think of--Catholic or Protestant.
The first reference to "rock" is the first time Christ has called him "Peter" or "rock". Christ isn't simply acknowledging him (Like... Hey, Joe!), He is calling Peter to a higher purpose.
The second reference to "rock" isn't referencing our Heavenly Father. You could make the case that it's referencing Christ Himself... but that isn't supported by the context either. Most who oppose the Catholic view see it as strictly Peter's confession of faith and Peter receives no higher calling here.
Here's the problem with the Protestant interpretation... Jesus spoke Aramaic with His Apostles, not Greek. In the Aramaic, "rock" is kipha and there is no other word for it. So, the original text actually calls Peter "kipha" and Christ follows it that upon this "kipha" He will build His Church.
He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
There are a number of problems with this... and it all goes back to the problem of the article in question... Sola Scriptura. Your interpretation is entirely at odds with everyone else's who has challenged me on this thread... and, frankly, at odds with about every theologian I can think of--Catholic or Protestant.
The first reference to "rock" is the first time Christ has called him "Peter" or "rock". Christ isn't simply acknowledging him (Like... Hey, Joe!), He is calling Peter to a higher purpose.
The second reference to "rock" isn't referencing our Heavenly Father. You could make the case that it's referencing Christ Himself... but that isn't supported by the context either. Most who oppose the Catholic view see it as strictly Peter's confession of faith and Peter receives no higher calling here.
Here's the problem with the Protestant interpretation... Jesus spoke Aramaic with His Apostles, not Greek. In the Aramaic, "rock" is kipha and there is no other word for it. So, the original text actually calls Peter "kipha" and Christ follows it that upon this "kipha" He will build His Church. The Catholic view is that the "rock" is both Peter in the physical sense and his confession in the metaphysical sense.
Sorry for the double post. I thought I stopped it in time and added a little on the second one...
Virtually the whole of old Rome, that would be modern Europe, is “pagan” once again. If Christ’ Church converted something like 25% of the Empire by say, AD 180—as several reputable historians estimate—why is it that something like 80% or more of modern Europeans identify themselves as non-religious, agnostic or atheist?
If the Roman Catholic Church is so terrific, why is it so incredibly ineffective on its home turf? I wonder what percentage of the city of Rome today are practicing Roman Catholics? I bet it was higher in the 2nd Century...
There are a couple of replies that should suffice. The first is that Revelation tells us that the Church will be under significant strain in the last days. Just as Israel was raised to martyrdom (as shown in Daniel and Maccabees) and Christ was raised to die on the Cross, so too will the Church suffer for the Glory of God.
The second reply can be found in Post 86.
it is my personal belief that we are indeed in the end times, because we are witnessing the great falling away from the Church as Paul explained in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed”
the falling away from the Catholic Church in the last 40 years is stunning, like nothing that has been experienced in 2,000 years.
when Jesus returns, will He find faith on the earth?
the two witnesses of Revelation, which is the Church, if they are not dead, they are close. i see a lot of rejoicing that the two witnesses are dead.
so yes, you are quite correct that the Church is falling apart, but there will be a remnant of believers looking up to the clouds for the return of Jesus to receive His Bride.
Been there done that. Neither interpretation is correct as neither interpretation fits with the rest of scripture. The whole male, female argument doesn’t hold water. Throughout scripture it is made clear that the Rock is God (Jesus is God) and that one verse doesn’t deter from that. The verse that is used to establish Peter as the rock that the church is built on has no other support in scripture but Jesus being the Rock does. To replace Jesus as the Rock with Peter is totally against scripture.
It's honestly upsetting that when anyone has serious questions they won't get any serious answers from the Sola crowd and definitely no requests to expand on the thinking behind the questions. They will get what boils down to a half dozen pat answers, frequently supported by Scripture taken out of context or otherwise interpreted to mean anything but, “ ... what it plainly says”.
Perhaps, "Moses lit off on a camel" means he lit his cigarette since that's what it plainly says. A verse about smoking is needed so a verse about cigarettes is found and applied. Fundamentalists smoke only Camel brand, moderates any type of non-filter, and liberals say the verse implies any sort of cigarette is just fine. Of course the plain reading of what it plainly says is clearly applied in an absurd manner. Yet that, I have now learned, is the very essence of Sola Scriputa.
It is far sadder to see someone floating along in their “sweet peace of assurance” than anything else I can think of be cause such a state is about as far from fear and trembling as I can imagine. Over the past few months I have finally realized the sort of people who fit a particular situation in the Word that I have sometimes wondered about. Those who believe they are right and are so tranquil and self-assured about their faith that it induces in them no fear are the very ones who will be shocked at the response when they say, "Lord, Lord" and are told, "I never knew you".
Regards
Again. It begs the question: Which Scriptures? In the time of Christ there was no fixed Canon. Nor was there a fixed canon of Christian Scripture for generations after the Apostles. It also begs the question: who is to decide when the meaning of Scripture is unclear. No one doubts the primacy of the Bible, nor its inspiration. But the Apostles themselves had in their own hands only the Jewish texts, and the personal witness of the Apostles was the main means by which the Gospel was spread. Those Scriptures that were of burning importance were those that dwelt most specifically with the Gospel. The New Testament is more than anything else, or ONLY a commentary on those passages that relate to the life and mission of Our Lord. But we have no evidence whatsoever that either the Jewish Scriptures or the New Testament Scriptures were widely distributed over the Christian Church. Indeed, there seems not to have been in the West anything like the sort of commentary or Tradition that was the basis of the Talmud. The Christian Scriptures were in fact an alternative for the Rabbinical commentaries that eventually become the Talmud. Paul found hostility against his preaching wherever he went , but he still won many converts among western Jews.
Where do you get this? The Church is two witnesses? That's the first I've heard of that interpretation. I guess you could say Israel and the Church (Revelation does say they return from the dead... the new Israel?).
Normally, I've heard reference to the Law and the Prophets (or Moses and Elijah by name)... but that is usually taking a Revelation-fulfilled-by-Destruction of Jerusalem-approach. The Law lives again in Christ (fulfilled) and the Prophets are the Apostles and their successors. It's interesting to contemplate but we will know for sure in the occurrence.
As to the health of the Church... it is weakening in western culture, no doubt... but it is strengthening in Asia and Africa. What we need are bishops who will stand up for the Church with no hesitation or calculation. I think it was Archbishop Fulton Sheen who said that the call to be a bishop is a call to martyrdom... not many in the western world seem ready for sacrifice any more...
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.