Posted on 05/31/2013 2:44:05 PM PDT by NYer
No its not. Scripture references Scripture, but it NEVER says Scripture Alone. As a matter of fact Scripture never defines Scripture or provides a Table of Contents. The Bible only exists because the Church wanted to establish a Lectionary to identify which writings it felt were legitimate to be read during the Liturgy of the Word in the Mass.
"No other source has proven infallibility.
When we see through the eyes of faith earthly proof is not needed. If you have faith why do you need proof?
Well, tell ya what. You go right ahead and rely on mans tradition while I will follow the example set by Christ and voiced by Paul when he commended the Bereans for “searching the scriptures daily to see if what they said was true”. You have the Pharisees as examples, I have Christ. Your “tradition” includes pagan rituals, symbols, and holy days. My scripture has only the inspired by God words that promise enough information to assure me of salvation. No Catholic is assured of salvation. I am.
You do every time you open the Bible because it was the Traditions that became Scripture and it was the Traditions of the Mass that dictated it become compiled into a Lectionary.
The notion that the Church was a teaching institution relying exclusively on Oral Tradition for the first 40 years after the Pentecost and then nothing more than a librarian for the next 1970 years is absurd.
No it wasn’t. It was words the Holy Spirit gave the writers as promised by Christ. Why do Catholics always try to take credit away from God and try to convince people it was they who gave us scripture? It sounds absolutely Satanic to me. >>The notion that the Church was a teaching institution relying exclusively on Oral Tradition for the first 40 years after the Pentecost <<
Give us a break. How many times did Christ say “it is written”? Did He ever refer to tradition other than to condemn it? I repeat, Paul commended the Bereans for checking with scripture to check to see if even what he taught was correct. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would “bring to their remembrance”. John 14:25 “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Christ didn’t say that to the RCC magesterium. He did however promise every believer the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for guidance.
Jesus was only speaking of the Old Testament, not the New which had yet to be written. Now ask yourself how many times Jesus said "You have heard" followed by Jesus changing what was written.
"He did however promise every believer the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for guidance."
Jesus promised a Paraclete to guide His Church. If He promised an indwelling spirit to guide how do you explain so many, many different Protestant interpretations and doctrinal differences? Maybe those voices aren't the Holy Spirit, but something far more sinister leading away from the unity He calls us to.
I can’t believe you actually typed and sent that statement. The “you have heard” reference was to something people “heard”, aka word of mouth, aka “tradition”. Jesus NEVER changed what was “written”. Putting the sentence in the way you did appears to be intent to deceive. Again, Jesus NEVER changed what was written and I would challenge you to show me one instance.<<
>>Jesus promised a Paraclete to guide His Church.<<
Please give the scripture for that. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit and that was to all believers.
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
Falling for the line that only the RCC has that “advocate” or “helper” is once again contrary to scripture and Catholics had better remove themselves from under that deceptive regime or “partake of her sins and receive her plagues”.
>> If He promised an indwelling spirit to guide how do you explain so many, many different Protestant interpretations and doctrinal differences?<<
That’s a very easy one. Once again people rely on the guidance of “the organization” rather than rely on scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When a person is “taught” by error they will skew scripture to match the teachings of that organization. Look at most all of the Protestant church organizations. They still retain many of the pagan practices of the mother church they came out of.
>> Maybe those voices aren't the Holy Spirit<<
Of course they aren’t. Look at references to “the church fathers”, Luther, Calvin or any other source rather than scripture for their beliefs.
>> but something far more sinister leading away from the unity He calls us to.<<
God does not call us to unity with those who preach “another gospel”.
If you were familiar with the Gospel you would know that I am referring to Matthew chapt. 5 in which Jesus redefined the Ten Commandments. Were the Ten Commandments mere Tradition too?
God authenticated his Apostles with signs and wonders. These same authenticated Apostles and disciples were inspired to write the new testament scriptures.
Once the God inspired most of what would be the New Testament and closed the canon the sign gifts petered out.
What you call Oral “tradition” during the time of the Apostles was written down within the lifetime of the Apostles.
Later novelties also called “tradition”, unknown to the Apostles and the early church was never authenticated by God via the sign gifts.
That belief, in one form or another, extended to Mary, just as it did for Moses, Elijah and Enoch. And it was believed from the earliest Church history. The Church didn't realize that the progeny of Martin Luther required that Scripture be the only source of belief. It foolishly thought that Church teachings (as Paul so often taught) were what the people of the Faith should believe. In their entirety.
"Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus" - Luke 1:1-3
Peace be with you
Perhaps if “you were familiar with the Gospel” you would have understood that.
The Assumption of Mary was unheard of for 400 years after the resurrection.
"This is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).
How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source. Mariologist, Juniper Carol, gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:
An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).
Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:
The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).
Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:
The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150)."
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html
That “assumption” is the correct term. A belief system based on assumption, speculation and the need to attract pagans.
>> And it was believed from the earliest Church history.<<
Show from any writings of the apostles that they either believed that or taught that. You do say that the apostles were the early “Catholic Church” right.
>> The Church didn't realize that the progeny of Martin Luther required that Scripture be the only source of belief.<<
Nice try buddy but I don’t follow Luther. He was after all a Catholic who retained much of the error of the RCC.
>> It foolishly thought that Church teachings (as Paul so often taught) were what the people of the Faith should believe. In their entirety.<<
Foolishly indeed! Paul didn’t teach the assumption of Mary, praying to the dead, purgatory, or any of the pagan practices or symbols of the RCC. Only cult members blindly follow “in their entirety”.
You just proved that they wrote it down so there would be a record to refer and look back to. No relying on “word of mouth”.
The Gospel of Luke was written some 40 to 70 years after the ministry of Jesus and then not widely distributed for another hundred years. It was fed by the Oral Teachings of the Apostles and witnesses which continues to this day.
Even though Protestantism no longer opposes it, Jesus did indeed change divorce.
Then explain it!
Seems like a majority vote is the RESULT.
Heck; even the MORMONs have UNANIMOUS votes!
Hello!
What does the CHURCH say the penalty is!!!?
Sigh...
When the Holy Spirit speaks; the Magic guys aren't needed.
And yet the Magic guys end up telling us what the NT means.
Can't Anything be uncircular here?
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.