Posted on 08/15/2013 7:03:11 PM PDT by annalex
Once a woman in the crowd surrounding Christ and His disciples cries out to Him:
Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. (Luke 11:27)
What is it? We have, clearly, an act of venerating Mary. Note that the Blessed Virgin is venerated properly: not on her own but as the mother of Christ. Yet the reason for venerating is indeed concerning: it is her physiological and physiologically unique relationship with Jesus that is emphasized. That is not yet paganism with its crude theories of gods giving birth to other gods, but it is lacking proper focus and Jesus corrects it:
Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:28)
|
| The Virgin with the Child on her knees and a prophet pointing at the star. Catacomb of Priscilla, late 2nd c. Source |
Having gotten past this linguistic hurdle, we can understand clearly what this passage, Luke 11:27-28, does: it establishes veneration of saints based not on their blood relation to Christ but on their obedience to God. It is in that sense that we venerate Our Lady: given that Christ is the Word of God personified, she heard and kept both Him in person as her Child and His teaching, figuratively. In Mary the essence of sainthood is seen in the flesh as well as in the mind. We could say that by the late second century at the latest, when we find evidence of the veneration of both the prophets and the Mother of God in the catacombs, the two reasons to venerate a saint: his martyrdom as in the case of Polycarp, or his obedience to the Word, as in Mary, -- unite into a single practice.
Please show the post where anyone said that. Thread and post number please.
I agree. Please show the teaching about the assumption of Mary in scripture.
Where's Luther's doctrine of "The Bible alone" in the Bible?
Listen to your haughty self ... ‘the problem for you’. You are a sad case, making assumptions based upon little or no information about the one you accuse, yet so sure of your superiority. That is the source of haughty, FRiend. May God have mercy upon you. We prayt you are not successful in causing others to stumble int he shadow of your haughty accusations.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
If this is a caucus thread, my sincere apologies. I will withdraw from the thread now.
Martin Luther was only marginally better than the Popes. His arrogance for instance in adding the word “alone” into the Romans 3:28 text and his subsequent comment about it testify that he is not someone who should be relied on any more then the RCC. You see, that’s the problem with following a man or men rather than Christ and what the apostles taught as recorded in scripture.
Given that your question about the “Bible alone” is rather misleading I’m thinking. Sola Scriptura simply means that whatever men teach needs to be consistent with what scripture teaches. Paul referenced the concept rather succinctly.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Jesus Himself said scripture is where we find truth.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Search the number of times He said “it is written” then do a search on what He said about tradition or getting information from other source besides scripture.
BTW I don’t purport to follow Luther, Calvin or any other man. In fact, I believe the Protestant religions to be nothing more than that daughters of the RCC.
Now, about the scriptural evidence of the assumption of Mary.
It is not a caucus thread, but the reference to making assumptions was mind reading. It was “making it personal.”
Agreed.
...on any more then the RCC.
But what if the Catholic Church (the "Roman" prefix is a Reformation-era pejorative) is the Church that Christ founded?
If we simply consider the Bible as an ancient document, since it is better attested than any other contemporaneous document, we learn that Jesus claimed to establish a church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail.
Is this Church still in existence?
To determine whether the Catholic Church today is Christ's Church, one must examine history. The Bible Itself cannot answer the question as to whether the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.
You see, that’s the problem with following a man or men rather than Christ and what the apostles taught as recorded in scripture.
But how do you know that Scripture contains what Christ and the Apostles taught, if you don't trust the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, which wrote, preserved and canonized the Scriptures?
What if the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, the Church which preserves the apostolic "traditions handed down by word of mouth or by letter"? (Tradition and the Living Magisterium).
Given that your question about the “Bible alone” is rather misleading I’m thinking. Sola Scriptura simply means that whatever men teach needs to be consistent with what scripture teaches. Paul referenced the concept rather succinctly.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.What Scriptures were the Thessalonians searching? It must have been the Old Testament, since most New Testament books were as yet unwritten. This proves too little.
Moreover, Scripture itself recognizes teaching authority outside Scripture.
"I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18) Note that Jesus did not say, "I will leave a book." Nor did He.
Scripture calls Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Tim 3:15
Jesus tells his followers to take disputes "to the church." (Mat 18:17) Not churches. Not the Old Testament Scriptures. And not the New Testament Scriptures, since they were as yet un-canonized, and in some cases unwritten.
Jesus Himself said scripture is where we find truth.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
You could call this, "Sola Old Testament," since Jesus was referring to the Old Testament here. The New Testament was yet to be written.
The reason for trusting that the New Testament is the Word of God, is because Christ's Church wrote, preserved and canonized Scripture.
Search the number of times He said “it is written” then do a search on what He said about tradition or getting information from other source besides scripture.
Again, Jesus was speaking of the Old Testament. If we were to follow this reasoning to its logical end, we would have to reject the New Testament, because Jesus never refers to it. He couldn't have, since it didn't exist.
Prior to the writing of the books of the NT, all that existed for Christians were the memories of the Apostles --Oral Tradition. ("Hold fast to the traditions you received" 2 Thess. 2:15). Some of this "deposit of faith" was eventually recorded in writing --Written Tradition (Scripture).
Regardless, Jesus cites Authority outside Scripture. Jesus commands his disciples to take disputes "to the church," the Church which He founded.
Jesus also cites "the chair of Moses." "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe..." (Mat. 23)
Finally, and most importantly, Jesus cites Himself as the ultimate Authority.
BTW I don’t purport to follow Luther, Calvin or any other man.
Arguments from authority are the weakest kinds of argument, but authorities aren't worthless. Some are very good, but no human authority is perfect.
In fact, I believe the Protestant religions to be nothing more than that daughters of the RCC.
In a sense, yes.
Now, about the scriptural evidence of the assumption of Mary.
Now about the need to find scriptural references for every religious teaching. It seems to me that you're presuming the necessity of the doctrine of "Scripture alone."
-----
Thanks for a thoughtful post.
Thank you for that admission. It then, however, undercuts every argument that I've ever seen other Catholics use to try to support the church.
Are you really appealing to the authority of Scripture to deny the authority of Scripture?
Thank you. It will.
Obviously he did not. Works show faith because they are the tangible part of faith, not because they mysteriously "follow" it.
To insinuate that all Protestants have dead faith
I did not. I know Protestants who have true faith, but then their faith is, a working, Catholic faith. What I did say, and I repeat, is that Protestant faith as described by Protestants themselves, faith without works, is dead faith, and the Holy Bible is with me on that. Luckily, some Protestants avoid the traps that their charlatan leaders set for them.
I showed you where your faith is proclaimed dead in the Bible. Did it make an impression on you? Are you going to convert to the true working faith now? Or perhaps, the Bible is not the rule of faith after all?
:)
The "you" was plural "you",as in "you Protestants". That post of mine, 955, began with "As a whole,...".
I am not informed and don't pretend to be about any individual Protestant. Many are wonderful God loving people, -- and no wonder since your faith originally came from the wonderful God loving Catholic Church. I am very well informed of the Protestant doctrine: I visited Protestant churches while my wife was still Protestant and I have read Protestant apologetics. Your faith, that is your specific Protestant corruption of Catholic Christian Holy Faith, -- is public knowledge and a frightening problem for anyone seeking Christ, for you cannot find living God with dead faith.
I'm appealing to Scripture to contradict Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone."
Luther's doctrine isn't in the Bible. That's a logical contradiction.
But disposing of Luther's false doctrine doesn't denigrate Scripture. In fact, it makes a reasoned argument for the inspiration of Scripture possible, since the Authority (Christ's Church) that wrote, preserved and canonized Scripture is infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals.
If we can trust Christ's Church, we can trust the Bible. If we can't trust Christ's Church, we can't trust the Bible.
How so?
If one considers the Bible simply as a historical document, one can see Christ establishing a church against which the gates of hell would not prevail (Mat 16:19), and declaring it authoritative in settling disputes. (Mat 18:17).
In a logical sense, how could the Bible tell us whether today's Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded? I suppose an Apostle could have written that "in the year 2013, the church that will be headed by Pope Francis is the Church that Christ founded." But the Apostles didn't do that.
To determine whether today's Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, one simply has to examine the historical record. It's obvious to me that the Catholic Church can trace Its origin to Apostolic times. But I can't do the historical research for you or anyone else.
But as Cardinal Newman said, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
That the Bereans sought evidence of prophesies about Christ in the Bible, the Book that contains the prophesies, is ahem, unsurprising, is it? What is that supposed to prove? -- that the Bereans were not imbeciles? How is any doctrine deriving from this episode at all?
Where does the Bible say that no teaching may come from the Apostolic Church apart from the Bible? Words of Christ indicate otherwise:
I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. [...] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:16,26)For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things [the Council proceeds to abolish Mosaic Law written in the Bible] (Acts 15:28ff)
Your other distinctly Protestant dogma, Sola Scriptura is itself completely anti-scriptural and not compatible with the Holy Scripture, -- see above. And this: in Matthew 18:15-20 Christ gives the Christians the rule of faith, and teaches them how to resolve disputes. He says: "hear the Church". Please explain why at this moment, when the Heaven is put at our disposal, there is no mention of the Bible if that were supposed to be our rule of faith?
Your (plural) two fundamental distinctive doctrines, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura both are recipes of men that contradict the Holy Word.
James 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
But I don't recall any Catholics posting the rest of the passage in their bid to try to justify claiming works is needed for salvation. Cherry picking Scripture is dangerous. Now people are being led to think that salvation is attained by working for it, when Scripture never says that.
Galatians 2:15-26 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
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.