Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
None of this is "de fide," and none of it is necessary for salvation.
I thought you'd want to know.
It never says "disregard the Oral Tradition (preaching of the Apostles): neither listen to us nor imitate us; accept nothing from us unless it's in print."
The Apostles' preaching and example was also considered authoritative. That includes Scripture (which is a big part of the Apostolic Tradition) but not "sola" Scriptura.
Ah. You must have missed the part about Kecharitomene (Luke 1)? And the Queen in the Heavens (Revelation 12)?
Sure it can!
It merely INTERPRETS it the way IT wants to!
DUH!
The Church has no authority whatsoever to even CLAIM a ministerial priesthood!
If it did, the ruins of abandoned Protestant sanctuaries in Scotland, Northern Germany and Scandanavia would cause us to draw conclusions you would not like.
HA ha ha!
OH no; I've heard the 'churches' spin about it for years.
All right, I'll see if I can make it plain. DON'T TWIST THE WORDS OF SCRIPTURE TO MAKE IT MEAN SOMETHING IT DOESN'T. And don't play the "did God really say" game with me. I showed you where the Catholic Church eliminated the word "and" from the verse trying to make it say something it didn't to bolster their position. Now, if you want to twist the words to your satisfaction feel free but expect to be shown the truth should you promote your error publicly.
Oh come now. The Catholic Church promoted Mary, a woman, to a ministerial position without authority from scripture or apostolic teaching. She has not just been promoted to a position over that of the Catholic priests but over the pope as well.
"And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations..." 1 Cor. 12:28which provides continuity with the earliest Christians. That's why we quote things like the Didache and the letters of Justin Martyr and the rest of the first-generation Christian sources.
The Protestant tradition does not claim this continuity because it can't. Sorry.
You could check out (for example) Baptist Successionism, an attractive hypothesis which was assaulted by a gang of brute facts, which was first broached in the mid-19th century. It pretty much died out in the 20th century, although I'm told it still has stalwart adherents in Tennessee.
It always helps to get into the history of the Early Christians.
You disagree?
Ok man, if you insist I’m “twisting” Scripture then I guess I must be. After all, you’re using bold lettering so that certainly is proof enough! < /SARC >
By the way, even if you’re right, you’ve only showed an error on Tim Staple’s part but Tim Staples isn’t a priest, much less the Pope. So at best, you still haven’t shown “the Catholic Church eliminated the word “and” from the verse trying to make it say something it didn’t “.
At best (for you) is you’ve shown Tim Staples made an error in his argument (not the Church) (an error by the way if [and that’s a big “if” in of itself] conceded still doesn’t destroy his central argument there)
And for the record also, I didn’t “eliminate the word ‘and’” at all in my point to you.
Go ahead and get that precious last word in; I’ll still be waiting if you want to answer my question reasonably.
What you call "spin" is what, in fact, most Christians have become convince of by the evidence.
Paul did say if anyone taught something they didn't that teacher was to be considered accursed though didn't he.
NOTHING in kecharitomene denotes "full of grace" as has been shown many, many times on these threads.
>>And the Queen in the Heavens (Revelation 12)?<<
Again, not Mary as has been shown.
It's what we were sent to for Catholic Church position.
This is factually incorrect. Mary has no role in the ministerial priesthood. It's the 'ministerial priesthood' which the document "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" referred.
"... She has not just been promoted to a position over that of the Catholic priests but over the pope as well."
Right you are, that Mary has a position over that of Catholic priests and over the pope as well. But as to "promotion," she has been "promoted" in this manner by nobody but God Himself.
Calvin is no particular authority, to me, but I quote this by means of illustration:
| "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."-- John Calvin |
For a little more context:
Luke 11:27. Blessed is the womb. By this eulogium the woman intended to magnify the excellence of Christ; for she had no reference to Mary, whom, perhaps, she had never seen. And yet it tends in a high degree to illustrate the glory of Christ, that she pronounces the womb that bore him to be noble and blessed. Nor was the blessing inappropriate, but in strict accordance with the manner of Scripture; for we know that offspring, and particularly when endued with distinguished virtues, is declared to be a remarkable gift of God, preferable to all others. It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son." [John Calvin, Calvini Opera , Volume 45, 348.]
Like I said: not proof of course, but as far as quoted, an admirable testimony.
But Paul said to be faithful to his spoken word, his example, and his letters --- correct?
That’s your opinion. Not dispositive, I think.
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.