MegaChurch or Catholic Church?

Hi, metmom,

Sorry for the delay; I'd been a bit swamped, and I'd also missed/forgotten these questions of yours!

You wrote:

First off, those doctrinal differences you listed are a result of NOT following Scripture, of setting themselves up as authority outside of Scripture. Unless you can demonstrate that they USE Scripture to back up their beliefs, then you can't legitimately attribute them to sola scriptura.

I've demonstrated (in the links above) that they certainly CLAIM (and believe themselves) to be following "Scriptura alone"; and if you accuse them of not "truly" following "Scripture alone" simply because they don't agree with you, then I'm not quite sure what to say to you... since they could say the very same thing about you! (How, for example, would you prove that you truly follow "sola Scriptura", and that you haven't set yourself up as an "authority outside of Scripture" while claiming to do the very opposite?) I don't see how you could.

Not every issue is salvific either.

That's certainly true... and that's why I chose critically important issues for my three examples (e.g. abortion [the murder of unborn children], homosexual activity [a grave sin], and whether or not you [and I] are damned for worshipping on Sunday and "taking the mark of the beast on our foreheads", as the SDA's claim). I don't think any reasonable person could deny that murder, the legal recognition/blessing of homosexual sex, and damnation for violating the Third Commandment are "non-salvific".

Only cults make them that and that's a good way of ID'ing a cult.

Well... let's be careful, here. You're essentially claiming that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a cult... and they could say the very same thing about your local faith group, yes?

Any group that teaches something is needed besides faith in Christ, is a cult.

Now, you *know* that's not true! St. James teaches that we also need good works (James 2:24), St. Paul teaches that the greatest needed thing is selfless love (1 Corinthians 13:13), and Jesus Himself says that the first commandment is to "love the Lord Your God with all your mind, heart, soul and strength" (followed by loving one's neighbour after oneself) (Matthew 22:35-40). Jesus also warned that those who neglect to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc., will be relegated among the goats (i.e. the damned), since they didn't do those things unto Him (Matthew 25:31-46). Faith is utterly necessary... but NOWHERE does the Bible say that one needs faith ALONE. That was another error of Luther which you inherited from your own forefathers (through no fault of your own).

Additionally, there are some significant differences between the Roman rite and the EO, things that Rome says ARE salvific and the EO say are not.

You'd have to be more specific on that point... since I've studied Orthodox teachings quite a bit, and I know of only one issue which might fit that category (i.e. the teaching on artificial contraception); on that point, the Orthodox Churches do not agree among themselves... which is an almost-inevitable symptom of breaking away from the Chair of Peter (i.e. a breakdown in doctrinal unity always follows a breakdown in spiritual unity). But do remember: I say that "sola Scriptura" is a false, man-made, dangerous doctrine, but I do not say that it is the source of all evils... or that those who rightly reject "sola Scriptura" cannot go astray in other ways. That's simple common sense: the fact that a man may be brilliant in science (e.g. Stephen Hawking), for example, does not prevent him from being severely misled on other issues (e.g. Hawking's atheism). Just so, with the Orthodox Churches... though the proofs for the Catholic claims vs. the Orthodox Churches is a much longer story.

And both claim to be the *original* Catholic church with the other being the schismatics.

That is partially true (in a sense, both ARE the "original" Catholic Church, though there is indeed a schism).

Both the Roman church and the EO claim to use Scripture to back themselves up, so how are they any different from what you're condemning in non-Catholics?

First of all, do be careful in describing my position as "condemning"; I'm pointing out the errors of "sola Scriptura", and I'm warning people away from that unbiblical, man-made, self-contradictory, destructive philosophy. It might be said that I'm "condemning" the errors which led so many people (including Luther, Calvin, etc.) astray... but don't go farther, and assume that I'm "condemning" any given *people* (or groups of people); that is not so, nor is it at all necessary.

Secondly: one key difference is something which I've repeated, almost until I'm blue in the face: we definitely use Scripture (we love and embrace it as the inerrant, Written Word of God)... but we do not use Scripture ALONE (but you do). Have I failed to make that point sufficiently clear? I'm not sure how I could be clearer, frankly.

Third: the Orthodox Churches go astray mainly because they have broken from Peter (i.e. the Pope), and they've embraced nationalistic Churches instead of the universal ("Catholic") nature of the Church of Christ. Do be clear on this: they are still members of the True Church (they have valid Sacraments, their priests are valid priests, etc.); they are simply in a painful state of being estranged. And again: they also reject the pernicious man-made error of "sola Scriptura". Again: the explanations of "Catholic vs. Orthodox" is a complex and long one (which would probably require a separate thread of its own)... but since neither the Orthodox nor Catholics "use Scripture" in the way that you do, in a way that it was never designed to be used (i.e. ALONE), this really doesn't apply to your point (or help your case) at all.

And then there are plenty of offshoots of fringe groups of nuns and priests who are ordained or whatever they call nuns, and Catholics constantly remind us that those vows are irrevocable. *Once a priest, always a priest* is the byword.>br>
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (by which a priest [or deacon, though that's a separate issue] is ordained) leaves an indelible (i.e. cannot fade or be removed) mark on the soul, yes; once a priest, always a priest. Hypothetically, a priest who dies estranged from God (i.e. in a state of unrepented mortal sin) would be a priest even in hell... to his everlasting shame.

And these groups of nuns and priests are pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. And they're Catholic.

Yes... but they are wrong and/or disobedient and/or sinful Catholics (whether priests or not, nuns or not, religious brothers or not, deacons or not, etc.--that makes no difference whatsoever)... and (N.B.) there is a sure way to TELL whether they are astray or not. A priest who embraces the legalization of abortion is provably violating Catholic moral teaching (which has never changed in the sense of being revoked/contradicted by other Church teaching... and it never will); the same cannot be said for a non-Catholic minister who claims to follow "Scripture alone". Non-Catholic "sola Scriptura believers" have only their personal views/tastes and their local pastors to follow, with no hope of a "final court of appeals" for any such salvific issues. That's why there are thousands of such denominations/groups.

I am rather pressed for time myself for the next almost three weeks. BUSY schedule for the rest of the month.

I will FReepmail myself a reminder to address you post at a later date, perhaps even the beginning of Oct.

So, I am not ignoring your comments but just don’t have the time to address them as thoroughly as I’d like.

No worries; I’m not paid by the hour! :) Take your time, and I’ll watch my ping list in the next weeks/months.

Mrs. Don-o,
As usual, I wish you well.

In regards to bowing, it is an interesting collection of verses, but that isn’t the issue at stake in regards to the treatment of dear Mary as a demigod.

best.

But she is not being treated as a demigod (or demigoddess or godlet,or hemi-semi-demiurge,or pixie, faerie queen, elf-maiden or anything of that sort.)

We Christians are monotheists, you know!

She's being treated as Kecharitomene. We call her Blessed.

She prophesied that we would.

“But she is not being treated as a demigod (or demigoddess or godlet,or hemi-semi-demiurge,or pixie, faerie queen, elf-maiden or anything of that sort.)”

Oh, clearly she is adored, bowed down to, statues kissed, etc. She is prayed to instead of God. Many “saints” are treated the same way.

We Christians are monotheists, you know!

“In theory, of course. In practice, not so much. I doubt many Catholics know what monotheism means (not here on FR).

“She’s being treated as Kecharitomene. We call her Blessed.”

She was singled out to bear Messiah as a vessel. For this reason, she was highly favored. The RC turned that into more than God says. Unfortunately, many Protestant groups turn it into less than God said. She was blessed to be chosen by God for this duty.

“She prophesied that we would.”

Many of us recognized she was blessed to be chosen. Many more -and probably a bigger number - elevate her beyond the meaning of God’s simple statement through the angel.

AMPU, you might want to read a a little of this dialogue between dutchboy88 and myself. Starting at :

#292

and continuing to #50

D-88, like any sensible person, realizes that the issue is not bowing, or kneeling, or any such gesture in itself. The issue is whether a creature is giving supreme adoration to God or to a creature --- because very creature is not only "less" than God, but infinitely less than God. Every creature's very existence is contingent upon the God Who Is.

The Bible illustrates a vast spectrum of gestures of honor to human beings, and even holy things (the Ark of the Covenant) and holy places (the Temple; the City of Jerusalem) to which people very properly gave honors such as bowing and even prostration. This is not a case of unfaithful Jewish apostates worshiping idols. These are the customary obsequies of a devout and courtly society.

MDO,
We will disagree on the meaning of the act and the justification you put forth. There are a number of reasons for this disagreement, which I will summarize.

Pulling from the posts you linked...

“This “Great Sign,” the queen in the heavens, is the mother of Jesus’ brethren, those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus. There we have her pictured, in highly symbolic terms, as both Queen-Mother (in relation to Jesus) and as Mother of all the faithful. Also as a figure of the Church: Lady Ecclesia. These are all related images.”

The woman in Revelation is not dear Mary, but Israel. Mary is not the queen of anything, anywhere in Scripture.

“So the better foreshadowing of Mary in the OT is maybe that glimpse of how King Solomon treated Bathsheba.”

Please differentiate between your opinion that this is foreshadowed and a revelation that it is foreshadowing. In this case, we have no revelation, but an opinion. This opinion did not exist until hundreds of years after dear Mary trod the earth.

“This gives us a royal Biblical cultural orientation on what sort of honor was considered apt and right for a Queen Mother:”

Of which dear Mary is not any kind of...

“Similarly, Mary is the “most highly favored” -— the Angelic Salutation tells us at least that much.

No, she is not the most highly favored one. She is greeted as “highly favored.” She was highly favored by being chosen to bear Messiah.

“Hence the Catholic term for the honor accorded her, “hyperdulia,” which means the highest degree of honor given to a human person.”

Note: “Among those born of women, none is higher than John the Baptist.” - Jesus.

So again, while I understand the backfilling that occurred centuries after the event as paganism crept into the church, it remains wrong.

Now, on to this post I am responding to...

“D-88, like any sensible person, realizes that the issue is not bowing, or kneeling, or any such gesture in itself.”

Partly true. Angels consistently told humans to rise. They knew it was inappropriate for the human to bow before them.

“The issue is whether a creature is giving supreme adoration to God or to a creature -— because very creature is not only “less” than God, but infinitely less than God.”

Partly true. The issue isn’t giving “supreme adoration”, but adoration as more than human. While you and many others may rightly claim you are not giving adoration, but respect, I would guess that hundreds of millions do not share that with you.

“The Bible illustrates a vast spectrum of gestures of honor to human beings, and even holy things (the Ark of the Covenant) and holy places (the Temple; the City of Jerusalem) to which people very properly gave honors such as bowing and even prostration. This is not a case of unfaithful Jewish apostates worshiping idols. These are the customary obsequies of a devout and courtly society.

People didn’t bow down to the Ark, but to the God of the Ark. Nor the Temple, but to the God who identified His presence in the Holy of Holies. It was always about God.

There is absolutely no record of an Apostle or other Christian bowing down before Mary. For this reason, we are not talking about the Apostle’s tradition. It was unknown to them. We are talking about a non-Christian practice that crept into the church after the Apostles.

You can attempt to justify this practice with references to OT courtliness, but surely you do not argue we are in the OT times.

**I may as well have said, “Don’t you know that there are Martians in my back pocket.” She was unaware that the Catholic Church taught this. No idea.**

We still need lots of catechesis for adults.

Your not seeing Mary as the Great Sign in heaven (Revelation 12) may be due to a certain unawareness that images can have multiple significance, since they work on the symbolic and not necessarily in the literal level. Hence the images of Israel, Daughter Zion, Daughter of Jerusalem, Mary, the Church addressed by John in his epistles as "the Elect Lady and her children" --- these are overlapping symbols, with overlapping significance.

Your opinion is certainly not authoritative for me (sorry!) -- nor mine for you, I'm sure --- and of course any discussion that simmers down to "opinion vs opinion" will end in frustration. But since we are interested in evidence, let me offer this:

Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. Who, in our opinion, is this male child? That’s a reference to the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2, where we read:

Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron [Ps. 2:8-9].

Jesus fulfilled this Messianic prophecy.

The fact that the male child is caught up to the throne of God is a reference to Jesus’ Ascension into heaven, so we have another confirmation that the male child is Jesus.

And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.

This does not exclude the insight that the Woman also represents Israel, since the "sun and moon and (11 or 12) stars recalls where Joseph (in Genesis) says he's dreamed that his mother and father, and brothers (the heads of the tribes of Israel)--- represented by sun, moon and stars---- will down down o him. SO, Israel is represented by this Woman.

She has, moreover, other offspring, those who are faithful to the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 12:17). So she is Ecclesia (as John would say, Elect Lady), the mother of the faithful. This may surprise you, but the Catholic Church does not have "official" dogmatic interpretations for most of the Bible, verse by verse. We have scholars who publish commentaries, and the commentaries vary from person to person, just like amongst the Protestant, Evangelical and Reformed brethren. The whole thing has not been dogmatized. There is much that is quite mysterious.

I have always appreciated the multiple-meaning approach of the more symbolic things in Revelation.

DMO,

“Your not seeing Mary as the Great Sign in heaven (Revelation 12) may be due to a certain unawareness that images can have multiple significance, since they work on the symbolic and not necessarily in the literal level.”

Well, no. I’m a seminary graduate. I understand symbolism in prophetic scripture.

“Your opinion is certainly not authoritative for me (sorry!)”

I understand that an RC must submit to whatever the magisterium comes up with. It is unfortunate. I am not under that limitation.

“But since we are interested in evidence, let me offer this:

“Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. Who, in our opinion, is this male child?”

I believe the male child is Christ, as Genesis 3:15 sets the stage for this war - the descendent of eve, versus satan. Israel is the seed of the woman and gave birth to Messiah.

“And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.”

Well, no MDO. Your inference starts with a belief that Mary is that woman and from there seeks to find evidence. It remains an inference that ignores the context.

“This does not exclude the insight that the Woman also represents Israel, since the “sun and moon and (11 or 12) stars recalls where Joseph (in Genesis) says he’s dreamed that his mother and father, and brothers (the heads of the tribes of Israel)-— represented by sun, moon and stars—— will down down o him. SO, Israel is represented by this Woman.”

This is correct by both the description and the context from Genesis to Revelation.

“This may surprise you, but the Catholic Church does not have “official” dogmatic interpretations for most of the Bible, verse by verse.”

Frankly, I find this to be “convenient.”

“There is much that is quite mysterious.” There are portions of the Scriptures that have several possible meanings. There are a couple passages that no one has much of an idea of what is meant. Those are quite small. Language, structure, culture and context all go into choosing among the alternatives. The important doctrines are clear and a child can understand them.

Your post is offered in your usual classy, heart-felt way, which I always appreciate. I will be candid as to a friend here. It is an inference that brought Mary into the passage with you. She isn’t there in the context. This common catholic Mary-sighting in Revelation has a purpose - it is used to elevate her to “queen level”, in order to justify beliefs and opinions that do not arise out of Scripture, nor the Apostles tradition, nor in the NT Church. God never calls her a queen, or immaculate or most other things that are discussed on this thread. It is enough that HE favored her by choosing her to bear Messiah.

Best and Merry Christmas to you my friend.

"I understand that an RC must submit to whatever the magisterium comes up with. It is unfortunate. I am not under that limitation."

I understand that an Evangelical, or Reformed, or Non-demon or whatever (I don't mean this mockingly: I don't know what you call yourself) must submit to whatever his own honest and (seminary!)-educated best guess comes up with. It is unfortunate. I am not under that limitation."

:o)

I like your good-will and I do pray for your well-being and redemption, as I pray for myself and all my dear ones. I like to think of Christ's strong right arm, His saving arm and hand stretched out for us, since He is more eager to save us that we ever were to be saved.

I trust Him. And I entrust you to Him.

Thanks and back at you!

Greetings to both of you!
I’ve been reading your discussion. May I say, please, that you two are a wonderful example of what ecumenism is all about: sharing your beliefs with one another in a respectful, kind, intelligent way. Your discussion was not only interesting, but pleasant to read. The bottom line is, for me anyway, that you were an exemplary team that shows how followers of Jesus don’t have to agree on everything. Your common ground was Christian charity, and it showed throughout the posts!
Thank you both and God bless you!

Thanks for complementing both of us. Not sure about me, but...

I agree entirely about MDO. She is gracious and kind and generous and I consider her a good FRiend.

We don’t agree on everything, but we share a common belief in much... Likely the majority.

Best to you

You are very kind! Thank you very much. I hope nobody is busy documenting my falling-short and my sinful mistakes. Eek!

AMorePerfectUnion is a oood un' to dialog with, because one can sense the good will and the generous tendency to try think things through from the other person's POV.

I try to follow good examples like that.

Handshakes all around!

Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God:

There's the source of so many Catholic failures...

"There's the source of so many Catholic failures...

Can you logically support your position that the Catholic Church is in error in regarding Mary as Theotokos? The transitive property of equality says that if a=b, then b=c. If a=b and b=c, then a=c. If Jesus is 100% human and 100% God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is therefore the mother of God.

Why the Megachurch?

What About the Eucharist?

The Problem