Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Rome Can Only Appreciate, Rather than Prove the Immaculate Conception
Fallibility ^ | May 1, 2013 | Michael Taylor

Posted on 03/26/2015 11:36:04 AM PDT by RnMomof7

Why Rome Can Only Appreciate, Rather than Prove the Immaculate Conception

Should we believe something because we think it is true, or should we think something is true because we first believe?  For example, if you believe that extra-terrestrials have visited the earth, then you are likely to believe in UFO sightings and  alien abduction stories, and conspiracy theories about government coverups as confirmation of what you already believe.  This doesn’t mean that you believe that every UFO sighting or abduction story is real.  Nor does this mean that you buy into every conspiracy theory out there.  But if you are already inclined to believe in ETs (perhaps you or someone you trust has had a “close encounter” of some kind), then you are likely to view the “evidence” in a way that confirms what you already believe.

On the other hand, you may be skeptical, even if in principle you are open to the idea of extra-terrestrial life.  Perhaps you view the vastness of the universe as probability for the existence of intelligent life on another planet, but doubt that anyone has developed the technology that would enable interstellar travel.  In this case, UFO sightings, abduction stories and conspiracy theories probably won’t persuade you to change your mind, since there may be plausible alternative explanations for all of these alleged phenomena.

The question, then, is on what basis should you believe the claim that extra-terrestrials have visited planet Earth?  The only rational answer is to believe on the basis of credible evidence.  As Carl Sagan said it, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

The same can be said of the claims of Christianity.  For example, take the claim “He is risen.”   This is an extraordinary claim, and no reasonable person ought to accept it without extraordinary proof.  That doesn’t mean we have to put our finger into the holes in Jesus’ hands in order to warrant belief.  But it does mean we need more than hearsay.  Providentially, we do have extraordinary evidence to back up this claim.  An empty tomb that was under guard, hundreds of eyewitnesses, an otherwise improbable and inexplicable growth of Christianity, and no alternative explanation that has any plausibility whatsoever.  In short, all the evidence points inescapably to one conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth died and rose again.

But what about the claim that Mary of Nazareth was conceived without sin?  This too is an extraordinary claim and so it too requires extraordinary proof.   But when we examine Scripture, we see no evidence that anyone thought Mary was conceived without sin nor any evidence that she was exempted from Adam’s curse.   While there are traditions about her sanctity from the womb and throughout her life, the church is mostly silent on the issue of her conception until the middle ages, and even then most theologians either didn’t see how it was possible for Mary to be conceived without sin or they outright denied it.  The list of those opposed to the doctrine reads like a Who’s Who of the medieval church:  Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Anselm of Canterbury, just to name a few.

But then in the early 1300s, two English Franciscans (William of Ware and Duns Scotus) came up with a way to overcome the objections that the doctrine was a “superstition” (so Bernard) or that it could not be reconciled with the uniqueness of Christ’s redemption (so Aquinas).  William used the argument from conveniens (Latin for “convenience”), which used the formula, potuit, decuit, fecit:  God could do it, it is fitting that He would do it, therefore He did do it.  Since Mary’s Immaculate Conception was both possible for God and fitting (on the grounds of the medieval supposition that never too much can be said of Mary), then it follows that God must have preserved Mary from contracting original sin, and so her conception was “immaculate” (stainless).

Scotus, for his part, theorized how God was able to preserve Mary from Original Sin without denying her need for redemption.  The eternal God, who sees all things as present,  must have applied the merits of the redemption to Mary before the redemption actually took place.  Thus Mary’s redemption was by exemption.  Instead of grace taking away the power of original sin after contracting it,  she was graced by not contracting it in the first place.

Without commenting on the merits (or demerits) of such arguments, take a step back and notice what is going on.  Despite the fact that Scripture and Tradition are at best silent on the issue, there is an undeniable desire on the part of many in the medieval church to believe in Mary's immaculate conception anyway.  How does this differ from the UFO enthusiast looking for reasons to justify his belief in ETs?  ETs could exist given the vastness of the universe, it is fitting that ETs would have visited Earth by now, given the age of the universe, therefore they did!  

Surely it is within God’s power to preserve someone from original sin; no one disputes this.  In fact, this would have been an extremely efficient way of redeeming the entire human race–not just Mary!  But to date, there is no evidence that God has preserved anyone from original sin, not even Mary. (Jesus being God cannot contract sin, and so was not “preserved” from it.)

Unless of course you count alleged supernatural events such as apparitions as evidence.  William of Ware put a lot of stock in the legend that Bernard of Clairvaux, soon after his death, appeared to a lay brother in a white garment with one small stain: his denial of the Immaculate Conception.   St. Bridget of Sweden (d. 1373) claimed that Mary appeared to her and personally confirmed the Immaculate Conception.  In 1830, just twenty-four years before the formal declaration of the Immaculate Conception as a must-believe dogma, St. Catherine Labouré claimed to have had a vision of Mary as the Immaculate Conception standing on the world with rays of light emanating from her hands to illuminate the earth.  The vision was framed with the words, “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.”  This image is on the popular miraculous medal available at most Catholic kitsch stores.

Just as the medieval imagination was fertile ground for believing in visions as confirmation of doctrines, so the Romanticism of the late nineteenth century paved the way for sentiment to triumph over reason.  On December 8, 1854, after having consulted with 603 bishops (56 of whom dissented), Pope Pius IX issued the bull, Ineffabilis Deus, which formally (and infallibly) defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and put the Catholic Church ® on a dogmatic  path of no return.  Not surprisingly, shortly after (1862) the definition a major Marian apparition took place that had the effect of confirming the doctrine in  pious imagination.  Near Lourdes in France, a girl of 14 named Bernadette Soubirous claimed that Mary appeared to her and said, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”  The miraculous healings that followed could only serve to confirm the already existing belief.

The parallel to belief in ETs  is instructive.  Since the dawn of the space age and the realization that the stars are within our grasp, there has been a corresponding increase in  UFO sightings, abduction stories and the like.  Movies, science fiction novels, T.V.,  and the occasional Roswell documentary have collectively helped to solidify belief in ETs for those who already believe in them and predispose others to the idea that there just might be some intelligent life “out there” after all.  When all of these phenomena are combined with a speculative theory that can explain how these phenomena might be possible, the result is fairly analogous to what has happened in Roman Catholicism with respect to Mary.  The major difference, of course, is that no one is required to believe in ETs.  But Roman Catholics are required to believe in the Immaculate Conception.  (And the theory that Mary was abducted into Heaven, also known as the dogma of the Assumption.)

When the Protestant reformers began to jettison longstanding beliefs and practices that were not in accord with scripture, they did so with the conviction that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that only scripture could count as evidence that is extraordinary since only it is divinely inspired.   Tradition, reason and even experience could also be brought to bear as confirmation for what is already found in scripture. But they could not substitute for a clear foundation in scripture. Jesus and the apostles relied on scripture for that kind of extraordinary evidence, Protestants think it only prudent to do the same.  And so the process for accepting or rejecting a dogma of the church is rather straightforward.  Justify the belief before you believe in it, and don’t ask anyone to believe in it until you have.

Roman Catholicism has reversed this process any number of times throughout its history, especially since the Reformation,  and has gone on to dogmatize beliefs that have little to no basis in scripture and sometimes little to no basis in tradition.  Instead, Rome takes into consideration a hodgepodge of mutually reinforcing streams of “evidence,” such as liturgical practice, pious devotion, private revelations, the polling of bishops and speculative arguments about how “fitting” the doctrine is.  And if this isn’t enough, the matter can be settled definitively by an infallible papal decree, which means the doctrine must be held to be true simply by virtue of the fact that a pope intends to define the belief as a revealed dogma.

All too often in Roman Catholicism, the tail has wagged the dog–or dogma in this case.  Too often Rome has formally defined longstanding beliefs before it has produced good evidence for those beliefs.  Would it not be more prudent to first examine whether there was sufficient proof for those beliefs to begin with?

Having studied historical and systematic theology in a Pontifical school of theology, I have witnessed this dog-wagging process over and over again:  Begin first with the supposition that a belief is true (or at least accept the fact that you’re stuck with it), and then work backwards to find out how the belief came about in the first place and how it coheres with the rest of the content of the faith.  If you think the doctrine is defensible, all the better.  If you don’t, then try to salvage the doctrine by coming up with a more palatable interpretation.

For instance, Catholic theologian, Richard P. McBrien, says this of the Immaculate Conception:


The dogma of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary was exempt in a unique and exceptional way from the normal and the usual impact of sin, or, more positively, that she was given a greater degree of grace (i.e, God was more intensely present to her than to others) in view of her role as the “God-bearer.”  So profound is her union with God in grace, in anticipation of her maternal function and in virtue of the redemptive grace of Christ, that she alone remains faithful to God’s will throughout her entire life.  She is truly redeemed, but in an exceptional and unique manner.  The Immaculate Conception shows that God can be, and is utterly gracious toward us, not by reason of our merits but by reason of divine love and mercy alone (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, [San Francisco: Harper, 1994],  1101)

McBrien is widely regarded by conservative Catholics as a dissenter, and we can see why.  Although he claims to affirm the doctrine, he does so in a way that fails to affirm the traditional propositions of exemption from original sin and life long sinlessness.   Instead, he interprets the dogma as an example of God’s graciousness in redemption apart from our works, as if the original intention behind the doctrine were to affirm a more or less Protestant principle of sola gratia.

For McBrien, the Immaculate Conception really tells us more about God than it does about Mary.  In this way, the otherwise disagreeable aspects of the dogma are rendered innocuous and so, in good conscience, he can go about his merry way satisfied in the knowledge that the Immaculate Conception  is really “so much more” than a mere affirmation of Mary’s sinlessness.

I’d say this is fairly representative of how theology is done in many liberal Roman Catholic seminaries and theology schools.  Virtually no importance is given to the idea of testing whether or not the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are true.  Some of my systematic theology classes reminded me of the music appreciation class I had as an undergraduate: Sit back, listen and “appreciate” how the doctrines of the church play together like a symphony.   When examined, I was not asked if I thought a belief was true or not; nor was I required to back up my beliefs with any kind of evidence.  That would have been too much like the scholasticism of a bygone era.   Instead, I was asked to name my favorite systematic theologians and articulate how they had integrated the dogmas of the church into their various systems.

In retrospect, I can see why Dogma Appreciation 101 was all my systematic theology courses could ever be.  Once a doctrine is formally defined by Rome, then the truth of the matter is moot.  Why argue against a doctrine if you’re stuck with it?  And why defend a doctrine that needs no defending?  The only recourse is to “appreciate” it.  If you happen to agree with the doctrine, all the better.  If you do not, then try to make it say something more to your liking.

Once you are a member of a denomination that believes itself to be incapable of teaching error in matters of faith or morals, then theology can only ever be an exercise in appreciating infallible truths.  There still may be room for “synthetic” efforts to articulate the dogmas of the church in an ever more fresh and meaningful way.  But there can be no room for any true “analytic” efforts to evaluate whether or not the dogmas of the church are still worth believing in light of the evidence, or as is more often the case, the lack thereof.

Live long and prosper.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: mary; salvation; sin; worship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-225 next last
To: SpirituTuo
>>Sexual abuse has never been a policy or doctrine of the Church.<<

That's a cop out. The Catholic Church's long-standing cover up of sexual abuse makes it policy whether you like it or not.

Assigning the faults of some Protestant denominations on all non Catholics is disingenuous at best. Individual Christians are not obligated to accept the positions of those institutions as Catholic are obligated to accept the positions of the Catholic Church. For true believers affiliation with some organization is not their identity nor the views of that organization their views. If you want to assign beliefs to all not Catholics then we are free to assign the "who am I to judge" view of Francis to all Catholics.

201 posted on 03/31/2015 6:36:33 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo

I am not struggling with anything. I am adamantly opposed to rewriting history and rewriting the Bible to conform to certain dogmas, doctrines, and ideologies. I first learned that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a Bible study class taught by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. When we were going over the passages mentioning Jesus’s brothers and sisters, the priest did not say...oh, there’s an error here, they really meant to say cousins...or here’s another whopper I’ve heard over the years, the brothers and sisters were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. No, the priest did not put any spin on it all. He simply presented the Bible as it is written. Period. Something ALL Christians should do, regardless of religious denomination. Is that asking so much? To stay true to the Word of God without making things up, without speculation or manufacturing dogmas? Not ALL Catholics think the same way you do. Some of us actually do put the Word of God first. It is not necessary to make religion more complicated than it needs to be. Our primary source of knowledge about Mary, Joseph, and Jesus-—as well as Jesus’s brothers and sisters comes directly from the Gospels. Who came up with theory that Mary was always a virgin? It certainly is no where to be found in the Bible. And neither is there any requirement that priests must be celibate-—quite the contrary -—priests are specifically permitted to be married according to Scripture. No one has the right to rewrite the Bible or rewrite history IMHO.


202 posted on 03/31/2015 6:50:29 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines; SpirituTuo

“”Who came up with theory that Mary was always a virgin?””

Sex was created, for a husband and a wife, as a gift, a blessing.

Only Rome makes it. It’s OK for the great unwashed masses as long as it used for procreation. But for those with a “higher” calling it is out of bounds.


203 posted on 03/31/2015 6:56:03 AM PDT by Gamecock ("The Christian who has stopped repenting has stopped growing." A.W. Pink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

There could be some other issues at work here. I don’t want to dig too deep into it. But I know some Catholics-—underscore the word some-—who have some issues with women. They recoil at the thought of women being near the altar in any way or in any capacity, including as altar girls, Eucharistic Ministers, lectors. I don’t want to be accused of speculation. I’m from the Sgt. Joe Friday school: Just the facts please. But it is a well known fact that many early Church leaders were contemptuous of women, thought they tempted men in the wrong direction, and some even had issues with physical intimacy between a husband and a wife...which may in part explain why this entire yarn was fabricated that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage which is of course totally absurd.


204 posted on 03/31/2015 7:06:09 AM PDT by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

I will say that there are certain hyperlegalistic branches of Protestantism that will do the same thing. Sadly some of them self-identify as being of the Reformed branch.


205 posted on 03/31/2015 7:26:39 AM PDT by Gamecock ("The Christian who has stopped repenting has stopped growing." A.W. Pink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

While you are right that marital relations are a gift, and a blessing, you are wrong about the rest. It was Jesus who said those who would make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom should do so (Matthew 9:12). Jesus Christ Himself was unmarried, as was John the Baptist. I would say those are two really good examples to follow. Enjoy the actual teachings of the Church on marriage and sexuality:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”143

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm


206 posted on 03/31/2015 9:48:50 AM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Really?? So, who speaks for your denomination? Who makes policy or doctrine? My examination of non-Catholic Christians shows great disunity and no real authority. How can anybody know what they believe is true, when nobody seems to know?

Even in denominations of the same name, e.g. Lutherans, ECLA and Missouri Synod are day and night. Presbyterians are the same way. So who is right?

If you say you are right, of your own accord, why should anybody believe you? How do you know you are right? How do you know your reading of a passage of the Bible is accurate? You don’t. It is all your opinion.

Do you see that there is no unity, rather rapid division among non-Catholics? Unity is a key element of Christianity. How is there unity among Christians when a large portion of them are supporting divorce, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts, just to name a few.

The answer is really quite simple. Luther and the like set themselves above and apart from the Church Jesus instituted. They determined the Canon of Scripture was invalid. They did these things of their own accord. What is the result?

The result is disunity and apostasy. Other “reformists” couldn’t even agree amongst themselves. What they could agree with was they were anything but Catholic. How has that worked out for them?

I can respect someone whose beliefs are different from mine. I can respect someone who knows why they believe what they do. I can respect someone says they are continuing to learn and challenge their beliefs. However, I don’t have time for someone who seeks only to cast themselves as something they are not.


207 posted on 03/31/2015 10:02:01 AM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo
>>Really?? So, who speaks for your denomination?<<

Denomination? Where in scripture or the teaching of the apostles do you find the concept of "denomination"?

>>How can anybody know what they believe is true, when nobody seems to know?<<

By searching scripture. This "nobody seems to know" stuff comes from putting faith in man rather than seeking the council of the Holy Spirit.

>>If you say you are right, of your own accord, why should anybody believe you? How do you know you are right? How do you know your reading of a passage of the Bible is accurate?<<

1 John 2:26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

>>Do you see that there is no unity, rather rapid division among non-Catholics? Unity is a key element of Christianity.<<

Unity in wrong is still wrong.

>>Luther and the like set themselves above and apart from the Church Jesus instituted.<<

Christ didn't institute a nicolaiton hierarchical organization such as the Catholic Church. Also the self admitted inclusion of pagan beliefs and practices totally eliminates the Catholic Church from any consideration.

>>They determined the Canon of Scripture was invalid.<<

Nonsense. The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews first. The Catholic Church added to what the Jews considered scripture with no authority to do so. Luther simply attempted to return to what God gave the Jews authority to keep as scripture.

If you want to put your faith in the fallible men of the Catholic Church that's your decision to make. I choose to trust the Holy Spirit to guide me in understanding what Jesus and the apostles taught. Paul wrote that anyone who taught what they did not teach was to be considered accursed. What the Catholic Church teaches and what other "denominations" teach that does not comport to what the apostles taught is not to be relied upon.

208 posted on 03/31/2015 11:22:27 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You keep saying this:

Nonsense. The oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews first. The Catholic Church added to what the Jews considered scripture with no authority to do so. Luther simply attempted to return to what God gave the Jews authority to keep as scripture.

However, you never explain what you mean. Please, what are you speaking of?

Actually, when it comes to denomination, it first appears in 1Corinthians 1 10-16.

“Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”

You appear to be taking the stance that you alone decide what is right, and that the Holy Spirit tells each person the proper interpretation of Scripture. Is that true?

If that is true, then why do people have widely different opinions? Is the Holy Spirit telling the truth to one person, but a lie to another? In short, while we differ in opinion and belief, we can’t all be right if we claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding a hierarchy, Scripture is silent on what Jesus may or may not have said. However, we do scriptural references to bishops, priests and deacons (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5) (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15) and (2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7) We also see recognition of the hierarchy in letters from Ignatius of Antioch to churches he passes on the way to Rome for execution in 110 AD.

Here is a sample:

“Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

While you are wise to read the Scripture and trust the Holy Spirit, as well as recognizing the law God has written on the hearts of man, you may consider how it is you came to know what you hold true. Who taught you, and who taught them, and so on until the Reformation? And then, consider whether


209 posted on 03/31/2015 11:57:48 AM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo
>>However, you never explain what you mean. Please, what are you speaking of?<<

Romans 3:2 ...First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

That tells us that it was the Jews who God entrusted His word not the Catholics. The apocrypha WHICH THE CATHOLICS ADDED LATER was NOT part of scripture. This nonsense about the Protestants taking parts of scripture out is a lie. Protestants went back to what the Jews, to which God had entrusted His word, had decided was scripture.

>>Actually, when it comes to denomination, it first appears in 1Corinthians 1 10-16.<<

Again, absolute nonsense. Paul was scolding them for exactly what Catholics do. Catholics are the ones who proclaim "I follow Peter" or at least his successors. Did Peter die for you? Did the pope?

>>You appear to be taking the stance that you alone decide what is right, and that the Holy Spirit tells each person the proper interpretation of Scripture. Is that true?<<

1 John 2:26 I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him.

NOT the Catholic Church. NOT some "magisterium". And it will be you and you alone that answers, NOT some group. Put your faith in that group of it's leaders and suffer the fate of that leader or group. Time and time again it's shown how the Catholic Church has been teaching something other than what the apostles taught. Paul called those people accursed.

>>If that is true, then why do people have widely different opinions?<<

Probably the same reason the Catholic Church is wrong. Self interest rather than submitting oneself to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Many chose to allow others to make the decision thinking they will lesson the responsibility for themselves. Who knows? Jesus never said everyone would understand. Allow others to make your decisions for you as to what you believe and your faith is in them, not Christ.

>>we can’t all be right if we claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.<<

Do you listen to the Holy Spirit or the Catholic Church?

>>Regarding a hierarchy, Scripture is silent on what Jesus may or may not have said.<<

I think not.

Revelations 2:6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitan means "conquerors of the people" or those who would lord it over the laity like the "magisterium" does. Then we have Jesus attitude toward the Pharisees which is analogous again to the Catholic Church hierarchy.

I will put my trust in the promised Holy Spirit to enlighten me as to what scripture teaches. Catholics put their trust in some fallible men who have proven themselves in many cases to be evil. Choose this day who you will serve.

210 posted on 03/31/2015 1:52:50 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Yes, the Jews are the Chosen People. The Septaguint was written by the Jews and decided by the Jews and codified in 130 BC, that would be before Catholics. Martin Luther decided to use what the Jews of his day were using and thus decided to throw out the books.

Again, you are confused. The Septuagint was what the Jews used, and used it before and during the time of Christ, and Gospel writers, and thus was included in the Canon.

“The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE,[19][20][21] initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well.[7] The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament.[22]”

“Over several centuries of consideration, the books of the Septuagint were finally accepted into the Christian Old Testament, by A.D. 405 in the west, and by the end of the fifth century in the east. The Christian canon thus established was retained for over 1,000 years, even after the 11th-century schism that separated the church into the branches known as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Those canons were not challenged until the Protestant Reformation (16th century), when both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches reaffirmed them.”

I think you are confused. It is non-Catholics who broke off and said they followed Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Wesley, Knox, etc.

You didn’t answer the question about what the Holy Spirit tells each person. Does each person receive the same message? If they don’t why not? I don’t think you can logically answer the question for the simple fact that not even non-Catholics agree amongst themselves.

You make a blanket statement the Catholic Church is “wrong,” yet you give no reason for your opinion.

Listening to the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit are not incompatible. The logical fallacy you are using there is called false choice or option.

Your reference is not in context and is not relevant to a discussion of hierarchy, rather it is a specific reference to a specific group. Besides you are giving an interpretation.

While you are correct in the interpretation of Nicolas from Greek to English, the jury is still out if Revelation was speaking of the Deacon Nicolas, or in general. Those closest in time, such as Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Clement, all finger him. However, some modern scholars disagree.

Regarding the Magisterium, it is not lorded over anybody. Anybody is free to accept or reject it.

While you place your trust in yourself, you seem to forget that your interpretation of the Bible and religion come from others. You are not the sole author of your opinion. Someone had to tell you about all the topics about which you claim knowledge. That is true for just about everybody in every field of knowledge. Even great discoverers have a foundation laid by someone else.

It is your choice to reject or accept the Church Jesus Christ founded 2000 years ago. It is your choice to accept the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed down to the Apostles. It is your choice to accept or reject the Church Fathers. These are your choices which you are free to make. Consider however, whether you trust in your opinions, which have been fostered in your life of less than 100 years, or the minds of almost 2000 years, specifically those who were disciples of the Apostles, as well as some of the greatest minds to ever walk the Earth.


211 posted on 03/31/2015 6:56:27 PM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


212 posted on 03/31/2015 7:16:23 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

How is it personal?


213 posted on 03/31/2015 7:38:30 PM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo
"You are confused" ... "you place your trust in yourself" ... etc.

All such statements are mind reading.

214 posted on 03/31/2015 7:40:35 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo
>>You make a blanket statement the Catholic Church is “wrong,” yet you give no reason for your opinion.<<

I consistently provide scripture to prove Catholicism is wrong.

>>Listening to the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit are not incompatible.<<

I most certainly is. The Holy Spirit would never sanction inclusion of paganism for one thing.

>>Regarding the Magisterium, it is not lorded over anybody.<<

You're joking right?

>>While you place your trust in yourself<<

No, I place my trust in Christ alone.

>>It is your choice to reject or accept the Church Jesus Christ founded 2000 years ago.<<

Once again, no, I am part of the ekklesia Jesus Christ founded. The Catholic Church in no way can be that ekklesia.

The Holy Spirit through Paul told us that anyone who teaches something the apostles didn't teach is to be considered accursed. The Catholic Church surely falls into that category.

215 posted on 04/01/2015 6:17:24 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

As one can easily verify, it was the Catholic Church which assembled the canon. All Scriptural discussion start there. It was only Luther and later who altered the canon.

Speaking of Luther, these are some of his statements regarding the Bible, as well the Catholic Church itself. Please enjoy and contemplate them!

“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304

and

“Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.” Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522.


216 posted on 04/01/2015 8:45:03 AM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo
>>It was only Luther and later who altered the canon.<<

What did Luther take out?

>>Speaking of Luther, these are some of his statements regarding the Bible, as well the Catholic Church itself. Please enjoy and contemplate them!<<

Why should I contemplate what Luther said? I don't follow Luther. Catholics are obsessed with Luther for some reason and somehow think because they follow man all people follow some man. It makes no sense to me.

Let me know if I have to put it in all caps and bolded if it will help you understand but I don't follow Luther nor do I care what he said.

217 posted on 04/01/2015 9:34:47 AM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Here is a good article pointing out the salient points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

One should contemplate what Luther said as it affirms what Catholics have been teaching all along. In legal terms, it is called exculpatory evidence.

Without using emotional language, one can easily understand the significance of Luther in the history of Christianity. However, using your term, it would non-Catholics who are obsessed with trying to knock down the Catholic Church.

Regardless of your insult, I don’t assume you are a follower of Luther. However, your stated points of view were influenced by Luther, and the other Protestant luminaries who followed him.


218 posted on 04/01/2015 10:57:48 AM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: SpirituTuo

I tell you that I don’t care what Luther said or did and you come back with a link about what Luther said and did? That’s bizarre!


219 posted on 04/01/2015 1:13:37 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Not really. Other people are reading the thread, and those other people may have been influenced by Luther and his fellow Protestant leaders. Still others may not be aware of what Luther wrote, and may bring other questions to mind.

If a person debating the beliefs of the Catholic Church doesn’t understand the significance of Luther and the rise of non-Catholic Christians, then there really can’t be much of a discussion.

Modern non-Catholic Christian theology, generally speaking, isn’t a product of today, rather it is a product of the Reformation and forward. Knox, Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther didn’t walk in lockstep, they required each other to act as foils off which they defined their own beliefs. Luther used the Catholic Church as his foil. However, there are foundational teachings shared by Protestants, not shared by Catholics, as well as foundational teachings shared by all Christians.

And just for fun, should one be a Calvinist and believe the “call no man father” thing, here is what John Calvin called Martin Luther:

“Adieu, most renowned sir, most distinguished minister of Christ, and my ever-honoured father.”

Letter to Luther, January 21, 1545. Found at: http://www.reformedliterature.com/calvin-letter-cxxiv-to-luther.php?print=on


220 posted on 04/01/2015 1:43:54 PM PDT by SpirituTuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-225 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson