Posted on 02/09/2015 12:47:13 PM PST by RnMomof7
Perhaps the most important aspect of the continuing controversies between Protestants and Catholics is the area of epistemology, or how we human beings know things--in this case, how we know divine truth. The question "How do you know?" is central to the Catholic polemic as it is presented to Protestants by some of the former's ablest contemporary defenders. 1 Unfortunately, these apologists not only commit a fundamental error in the target they direct this attack against, but they also miss a fatal flaw in their own logic.
The first mistake lies in the confusion of modern "evangelical" Christianity--almost universally identified by Catholic apologists as "fundamentalism"--with the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Many Catholic apologists have honed to near perfection the technique of blasting to smithereens the anti-creedal, anti-historical, anti-intellectual positions of "Bible-Only" fundamentalists. By focusing their attention on the "no creed but Christ" foolishness of the latter and wrongly equating it with the classical Protestant formal principle of Sola Scriptura, they attempt to expose what they believe to be a glaring inconsistency in something they rather generically call "the Protestant view". 2
After discarding this caricature as hopelessly false, the defenders of Rome then attempt to establish the authority of their Church by building a step-by-step inductive argument, or more simply stated, by gratuitously piling up "historical" facts as if such can stand on their own outside of their basic interpretive framework. In so doing, they ironically end up exposing a basic inconsistency in their own apologetic! This inconsistency appears when the Catholic principle of how humans know divine truth meets its Protestant opponent on the field of historical battle. Let us try to follow their reasoning.
The Bible--"Just Another Ancient Book"?
The argument usually begins by admitting up front that it is not going to treat the Scriptures as if they are divinely inspired, but merely as legitimate historical documents. It then proceeds to build a chain of "purely" historical evidence--passages of Scripture, quotations from early Christians and Councils, etc--which is supposed to show that Christ instituted a Church with certain properties, properties which are today found only in the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy.
In a debate on Sola Scriptura with Patrick Madrid (then of Catholic Answers), James White asked Madrid how he could know that the Roman Church is the one true Church. Madrid responded as follows:
This is how I know, Mr. White. I can look independent of what I see in Scripture. In fact, I'm not going to even treat Scripture as an inspired document for the moment, just for the sake of argument. I'm going to look at whether or not a man named Jesus Christ lived. Can I prove that historically? Yes. Can I prove that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead and appeared to many people who as eyewitnesses claimed that He died and rose from the dead? I can prove that. In two minutes I can't prove it for your satisfaction, but I think we would all agree that those things are true. I can demonstrate through non-Christian, unbiased sources, in fact sometimes actually biased against the Christian position, that Jesus Christ instituted a church. We can look at the writings of these early Christians, not only the apostles but also the men and women in the post-apostolic era. I can look at the Scripture and see what, independent of whether or not I believe it is inspired, I can look and see a description of the church that Jesus established. All of you know the verse in Matthew 16 verse 18, "On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." Mr. White and I would argue all night long over what the rock is, but the fact is Jesus established a church. The next point is that as I look at Scripture I see that the church is described as having certain functions, certain attributes, certain characteristics, certain jobs that it has to perform, and I can compare and find out, well, historically, yes, I can show that that was done, through the writing of the Scriptures. So if I believe that Jesus is God, and I believe that His promise is true that He founded a church, then I have to say, this is the next step, I have to say, does that church, is there a church today which fits that description which is doing all the things that Jesus said. If that's true, if I can find that, and I have, by the way, it's the Catholic Church, then I know that what is described here in this book is the same church that I see today. So when that church tells me, Jesus said in Luke 10:16, "He who listens to you listens to Me, he who refuses to hear you refuses to hear Me," when I hear that Church speak I know that it is Jesus speaking through the church.
Notice that Madrid's argument follows the familiar evidentialist pattern of much of "evangelical" Protestantism, though it is used by him not to establish the authority of the Bible, but of the Roman Church 3 --a fact which reveals that there are two competing ultimate authorities in the debate: Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Magisterium. It is then marshalled against a caricature of the Protestant position--which, it is said, amounts to believing the Bible is inspired simply "because it says it is". 2 I quote Madrid again, from his essay "Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy":
Another problem for Sola Scriptura is the canon of the New Testament. "There's no inspired table of contents" in Scripture that tells us which books belong and which ones don't. That information comes to us from outside Scripture. Our knowledge of which books comprise the canon of the New Testament must be infallible; if not, there's no way to know for sure if the books we regard as inspired really are inspired. it must be binding; otherwise folks would be free to have their own customized canon containing those books they take a fancy to and lacking the ones they don't. And it must be a part of divine revelation; if it's not it's merely a tradition of men, and if that were so, Protestants would be forced into the intolerable position of championing a canon of purely human origin.
The Catholic doesn't have this problem, claim Madrid and the others, because he has an external authority--the Church--to tell him that the Bible is inspired and which books are contained in it. Madrid continues:
Sola Scriptura becomes "canon" fodder as soon as the Catholic asks the Protestant to explain how the books of the Bible got into the Bible. Under the Sola Scriptura rubric, Scripture exists in an absolute epistemological vaccuum, since it and the veracity of its contents "dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church." [quoting the Westminster Confession of Faith]. If that's true, how then can anyone know with certitude what belongs in Scripture in the first place? The answer is, you can't. Without recognizing the trustworthiness of the Magisterium, endowed with Christ's own teaching authority (c.f., Matt. 16:18-19; 18:18; Luke 10:16) guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26; 16:13), and the living apostolic Tradition of the Church (1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2), there is no way to know for certain which books belong in Scripture and which do not. As soon as Protestants begin to appeal to the canons drawn up by this or that Father, or this or that council, they immediately concede defeat, since they are forced to appeal to the very "testimony of man and Church" that they claim not to need.
The problem with this line of reasoning should be manifestly obvious. Notice the numerous Scriptural references Madrid cites as part of his proof that we need the Church to tell us what the Scriptures are. Since he has already told us that no one (particularly Protestants, of course) can know the Scriptures apart from the witness of the Church, how then can he cite these passages of Scripture as part of his "proof" for how he knows those Scriptures in the first place?
The problem is particularly acute when we examine the central passage of Scripture Madrid cited--Matthew 16:18-19. These verses supposedly imply that the Church will be infallible (so that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it). But on the Catholic premise that the infallible witness of the institutional body of bishops is necessary in order for one to "know for sure" that the book of Matthew is legitimate while, say, the Gospel of Thomas is not, how can the book of Matthew be used as part of a "proof" of the existence of that infallible body of bishops? Thus, the Roman apologist uses Scripture to support his claims about the infallible Church and then inconsistently asserts that no one can know what Scripture is until the infallible Church tells him so!
These facts show us that despite the assertion that the authority of the Roman Church can be "proven" by the use of the New Testament records "merely" as legitimate historical records, exactly the opposite is occurring. Madrid and all Catholic apologists who use this type of argument are tacitly assuming from the get-go that they "know for sure" what books are trustworthy historical records, nay, even infallible historical records! On what basis do they reject the numerous heretical writings, many of which also claim to be presenting the "catholic" (universal) faith?
Those Marvelous, Unbiased, Infallible Catholic Historians
But the problems don't stop with this disingenous use of Scripture.4 Catholic apologists treat all of Church history with the same question-begging, "neutral" evidentialism. I will not even attempt to get into detailed refutations of Catholic historical points as historical points. Such is beyond the limited scope of this essay, and at any rate, has been done by others far better than I ever could. 5 My focus is on the inconsistent epistemology that is used by the Catholic apologists.
If we were to take the principle that such apologists apply exclusively against Sola Scriptura and make it into a general principle, it would be this: infallible external confirmation is a prerequisite for any claim to "know for sure" that a chosen ultimate authority is the correct one. Very well. If this principle is true, we should rightly expect Catholics to jump at the chance to show us such an infallible external proof for their Church, especially if they are going to parade through the town square proclaiming that Sola Scriptura is invalid because it has no infallible external proof. It seems obvious that if the identity and supreme authority of Scripture must be "proven" by means of an infallible external authority, then so must the identity and supreme authority of "the Catholic Church".
Oddly, this challenge goes unanswered. Though Catholic apologists often like to point out that even heretics quote the Bible in support of their errors, I have yet to find even one Catholic apologist who honestly attempts to grapple with the fact that many heretics (both past and present) also claim to be "the Catholic Church". 6 With tongue in cheek, I must ask these apologists how they can "know for sure" that the particular organization they are defending is the real "Catholic Church". How do they "know for sure" that the Protestant Reformers--or for that matter, the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses--weren't right after all?
Never ones to follow the supposedly Mormon-esque "I know its true because I feel it in my heart" tactic they wrongly attribute to classical Protestants, these heroically "objective" warriors tell us they have an answer to our query. They ask us to wait patiently while they zealously weld into place beam after beam of historical data, following a blueprint only they can see. Soon, they point proudly to the veritable skyscraper they have built, and note with triumph that its shadow overwhelms the pitiful shack of Protestant "novelties" that were seemingly spun from whole cloth barely five centuries ago.
Unfortunately for them, this massive edifice of historical trivia turns out to be utterly useless as a "proof". This is so because the very apologists who are compiling the evidence are not themselves infallible, and so, on their own criterion of knowledge, they cannot really "know for sure" that they are dealing with history fairly. How do they "know for sure" that they have not left some relevant historical facts out of the picture, or allowed their own peculiar biases to warp their reading of history, or perhaps even that the "historical" sources they are drawing upon are not clever frauds which have simply not been detected yet? 7
All these questions reveal that the use of historical evidences as a ground of faith in the trustworthiness of the Roman institution is a well-meaning, but nevertheless misguided tactic. Such evidences do have their place--as warrants, or supports, of the trust these Catholics already had in their Church (although they can still be challenged by Protestants). But if, as the Roman defenders tell us, the warrants for our faith must be infallible, these warrants can never serve as the foundations, since they, like the apologists who adduce them, are fallible.
If one still doubts the validity of my reasoning here, just ask why, if the historical skyscraper produced by Catholic apologists is really so incredible, really so "obvious", why does it not convince Protestants like James White, who is at least as well-informed about Church history as Patrick Madrid? And why can a James White or a William Webster produce similar skyscrapers that appear "obvious" to Protestants but not to Catholics? One begins to suspect that it is just not enough to say one's faith is true because it is "historical".
Conclusion
The claim that the identity and supreme authority of the Roman Catholic institutional Church can be established to be true solely by the use of non-inspired historical writings (which include those writings known as "the Bible") is false for two reasons.
First, it tacitly assumes the very thing that it is supposed to be proving. Both Catholics and Protestants take the Scriptures as reliable sources of information about God even if any given individuals in either camp cannot produce external supports for it. Protestants at least admit that this is what they are doing. Catholics, on the other hand (particularly the apologists), propose to treat Scripture "only as a historical document", which they then use to build up the authority of their Church. But in so doing, they ignore the fact that they are assuming that they "know" what books constitute "Scripture"--the very thing they deny that can be done apart from their Church!
Second, the claim that the identity and supreme authority of the Roman Catholic institutional Church can be established to be true solely by the use of non-inspired historical writings neglects to factor into its equation the fact that historical arguments are by their nature fallible, since they are constructed by fallible people who can never know all the facts and their inter-relationships with perfect clarity.
Thus, the apologetic tactic used by many Roman Catholic apologists today actually undermines the very "certainty of faith" it is supposed to safeguard. The Catholic tells the Protestant that he cannot know that Scripture is trustworthy since he doesn't have an infallible Church to vouchsafe the canon to him--that he has only a "fallible collection of infallible books". But the Protestant need not be nervous about admitting the truth of the last phrase, for he is still in a better epistemological position! He can simply reverse the argument and point out that the Catholic cannot know that Rome is the true Church, since all he has is "a fallible collection of (possibly false) historical trivia".
Hence, like the fundamentalists they so vehemently oppose, the argument of today's Catholic apologists rests in what one of their number, Patrick Madrid, termed "an absolute epistemological vaccuum". The irony is too delicious to ignore.
Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.
Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.
Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.
Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.
Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.
Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.
Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.
Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.
Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.
Wisdom is far closer to being Scripture than a bok such as Tobit, and if it was written before the Lord's death (33-34 AD) by Solomon, then Wisdom 3:12-22 would be a very significant prophecy, yet the evidence almost conclusively makes it a pseudo-graphical work, falsely attributed to Solomon, and with the prophecy possibly being written after the fact.
And it seems inconceivable that none of the NT refers to it, while it much parallels Is. 53, and v. 18 is similar to Ps 22:8 which Mt 27:43 best corresponds to.
From http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/wisdom-of-solomon.html
“Thus the author of Wisd is quite capable of constructing sentences in true period style (12:27; 13:11-15), and his fondness for compound words is almost Aeschylean. His manner at times has the light tough of Greek lyric poetry (17:17-19; 2:6-9; 5:9-13), and occasionally his words fall into an iambic or hexameter rhythm. He employs…Greek philosophical terminology,” D. Winston, the Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Doubleday 1979), 15-16.
“These characteristics, in addition to the author’s many favorite ‘theme words and expressions which recur throughout the work, argue for unity of authorship, and make the hypothesis that Wisd is a translation of a Hebrew original virtually untenable,” ibid. 16-17.
Now the book clearly intimates Solomonic authorship. But I don’t think one can seriously contend that Solomon wrote in Greek—especially the kind of Greek we encounter in Wisdom.
So that would make the work of forgery. My theory of inspiration does not extend to inspired forgeries. But Dyer may beg to differ.
“No consensus has thus far emerged regarding the date of Wisd, and various scholars have place it anywhere between 220 BCE and 50 CE,” ibid 20.
“There are further considerations, however, which point to the reign of Gaius ‘Caligula’ (37:41 CE) as the likeliest setting for Wisd,” ibid. 23.
Some scholars have pointed out that there are many words in the Wisdom of Solomon which indicate that the book was composed in the ea rly Roman era. For example, David Winston presents a list of 35 terms in the book that are not extant in Greek literature before the Imperial period [first century A.D.], and C. Larcher presents a similar, albeit shorter (24 words), list with some variations. ...significant evidence that the Wisdom of Solomon was probably not written before Augustus's reign.
Against this Augustan dating are a large group of s cholars who believe that the Wisdom of Solomon was most likely composed during t he reign of the Roman emperor Gaius Caesar (A.D. 37-41), better known as Caligula.
Given the aforementioned linguistic and historical evidence, the Wisdom of Solomon may be dated to the early Imperial period. The cumulative evidence from the book's vocabulary shows that it was probably not written before the Augustan age. While the arguments adduced by those who believe that the book was most likely composed during Caligula's reign are possible, they remain inconclu sive. Therefore, I see no reason to limit the book's composition to such a precise dating without additional evidence. In the end, I believe that the book was most likely composed some time during or between the reigns of Augustus and Caligula (probably before the letter i ssued by Claudius in A . D . 41). 69 However, even this range of dating cannot be known with certainty. Andrew T. Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterp retation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses, THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 2010 pp. 8,13,18,22,23,27,31; http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/9192/Glicksman_cua_0043A_10055display.pdf?sequence=1
It is also true that a part a book that expresses truth does not make the whole of it inspired of God and true, as Jude's reference to the book of Enoch shows (and even a demon testified in favor of an apostle: Acts 16:17) B
In addition were the doubts among RC scholars as to the book of Wisdom being Scripture proper.
Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:
►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)
►“While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)
Theologian Cardinal Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ):
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.
Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan
38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html)
● Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)
His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
Jerome wrote in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings,
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)
Much more on this here , by God's grace.
Then were do we stop? Of course with God there is no past or future, but Divine revelation relates to us in this realm of time, and uses the term "eternal/everlasting" in distinction to it. And thus to use God inhabiting eternity to justify a one time event as happening continually makes a mockery of Divine revelation, and the Lord's supper, which itself has a time limit - till the Lord returns.
Consistent with your recourse, every event from creation to the birth of Christ to His second coming as well as the Lord's supper will be literally taking place for ever.
Instead, the Lord's supper is a commemoration of the Lord's death in which the church is to remember how the Lord's body was broken and His sinless blood poured out for them as a body, and which sacrifice the elements represent, and thus declare/proclaim His death for the body of Christ by manifesting that caring love for each other as being part of that blood-bought body in sharing food during that actual communal meal.
Which is what the only detailed description of it in the life of the church teaches . (1Cor. 11:20-34) And thus by going ahead and eating while others had none, shaming them that had not and were hungry, then the apostle said they were not actually coming together to eat the Lord's supper, but their own. Thus they were to come to fill their belly, but to effectually recognize each other as being part of that body for whom Christ died, which is the body that was the focus here, and in the next chapters.
Of course it does! And Jesus had already died on the cross and risen from the dead when Adam and Eve sinned. Jesus was already sitting on the throne in heaven when He was born a babe of Mary. It all transcends time after all right?
It’s amazing that they can make the statement that the sacrifice of the mass transcends time but must give it a beginning at the last supper. And, like you said, evidently forget that it ends upon His return.
You fail to show where my argument is off on any levels. When you reject a doctrine based upon the absence of Christ personally commanding anyone to write, when He did so in Rv. 1:19 and by His Spirit and angels elsewhere, then you are essentially arguing “only what Christ said in the gospels is what Christ taught, or only recognizing that as authoritative. Which is one of the problems with this parroted polemic.
That is the argument we Catholic use against being Bible-only.
Which is also an invalid argument.
Don’t confuse worship and prayer. Catholics only worship God.
And so one can kneel before a statue and praise and adulation of the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and make offerings and supplications to such as having Divine power in Heaven, which was never done in Scripture except to God, and not cross that invisible line btwn "hperdulia" and "latria."
I think you refer to Catholics praying to the Saints or to Mary. In this case, it is to ask them to pray to God for us. It is the same way someone would ask a friend or buddy to ‘put in a good word for me.’
But which ignores the manifest separation btwn realms - which is consistent with the principle of separation seen throughout Scripture - and of powers in which only God is addressed in prayer to Heaven, and alone in Heaven is shown able to immediately know the all thoughts/prayers of mortals on earth addressed to Him.
Communication btwn created beings in Scripture always required a one to one personal encounter in the same realm, while the Holy Spirit never shows any mortals except pagans addressing anyone else but the Lord in prayer to Heaven.
No does elders and angels in a future time of judgment offering up prayers as memorial to God, as priests did with incense in the OT, constitute prayers being addressed to them and knowing all these thoughts of men toward them.
Moreover, the Spirit sets forth Christ as the only Heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) and as uniquely qualified to be so, having been tempted like as we are, yet without sin, (Hebrews 4:15) and who ever lives to make intercession for believers, (Heb. 7:24) and by Him believers have immediate access into the Holy of holies to commune with God. (Heb. 10:19)
In addition, the Lord's own instructions on prayer specify "Our Father who art in Heaven, " not "our Mother/saint/angel," and the Holy Spirit in born again believers cries "Abba, Father," (Gal. 1:6) not "Mama, Mother."
The fact that believers can call upon Christ (Acts 7:59; Rm. 10:13; 1Co. 1:2) testifies to His Deity and oneness with the Father.
Over 200 prayers to God vs. 0 to anyone else in Heaven, renders extrapolating PTDS out of earthly relations to be presumptuous at best, and essentially is adding to God's word.
I think more time should be spent praying for unity within the body of Christ which I believe includes Protestants and Catholics. When Christ separates the goats from the sheep I don’t see much about their theology nor do I find theological discourse between Christ and the Thief on the Cross.
I happen to be Roman Catholic but I pray for my Protestant siblings in Christ as well as my RC SIC.
Pax!
Where do we stop? We follow Jesus, of course. Jesus specifically waited to the beginning of His Passion before instituting the Eucharist. And hence, we transcend time to Calvary. If He did not want it to be so, He would have instituted it after the miracle of fishes and loaves (John 6:54).
“must give it a beginning at the last supper” Because that is when it was instituted. It could have been instituted after the miracle of fishes and loaves (John 6:54), but Jesus waited until the Last Supper.
“And, like you said, evidently forget that it ends upon His return.” Like I said?! Rubbish.
No, Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He could have done it after the miracle of fishes and loaves, (John 6:54), but there is a reason why it is at the Last Supper.
Wonderful. We are making progress.
Now, show me, from Scripture, where Christ told anyone to write Philemon. Why is Philemon in the Bible?
Show me, from Scripture, why the heretical Protestants removed Maccabees from Scripture, even though for 1,500 years it was in the Bible?
And please use Scripture to support your answers.
Can't cite the Catholic religion in scripture either...Therefore the Catholic religion is non scriptural...But more than that, the scripture condemns the Catholic religion from one end of the New Testament to the other...
And Mary...And angels...And numerous dead people that find your keys, sell you houses for you, keep you healty, find jobs for you, choose what color lipstick you wear, water your lawn and the list goes on forever...
What? “When you reject a doctrine based upon the absence of Christ personally commanding anyone to write.” If you’re going to make up your own arguments and then prove them wrong, there is really no point in a discussion.
Scripture tells us not to be Bible-only:
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” John 21:25.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:14
Statues are reminders, same as photographs. You run-on sentence says statues have “Divine powers and glory” Rubbish.
“But which ignores the manifest separation btwn realms “ Well, thanks for the laughs. Between realms? Wow. What realm are you on?
Well, yes we can. Christ established a Church, not a Bible.
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18
“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1Tim 3:15
Now, show me from Scripture where Christ told His followers that His religion would be based on a book?
No, the whole comment "the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass transcending time" is the Rubbish.
ROFL!! We know better.
That leads into Psalm 120!!! :-)
>>Where in Scripture did Jesus say to write anything down?<<
You were shown multiple places. Continuing down that rabbit trail won't make you look any better.
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.