The Reformation is over. Catholics 0, Protestants 1

triablogue ^ | April 13, 2015 | Jerry Walls

[RnMomof7]

I'm going to transcribe an article that Jerry Walls wrote when he was a grad student at Notre Dame:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am nearing the end of three very happy (with a brief interlude) years as a graduate student in the philosophy department at Notre Dame. The philosophy department is quite lively and stimulating and I have learned a great deal about my discipline.

Along the way, I have also acquired an education of another sort–namely in the ways of the Roman Catholic Church. My education in this regard has been informal and piecemeal, to be sure. My insights have been gathered from diverse sources: from lectures, from letters to the Observer, from articles in the conservative magazine Fidelity, from interaction with undergraduates I have taught. But most of all, I have learned from numerous conversations with students and faculty in the philosophy and theology departments, many of which have involved a friend who is a former Roman Catholic seminarian. While my informal education in these matters hardly qualifies me to speak as an authority, Roman Catholics may find interesting how one Protestant in their midst has come to perceive them. I can communicate my perceptions most clearly, I think, by briefly describing three types of Catholics I have encountered. 

First, I have met a fair number of conservative Catholics. Those who belong to this group like to characterize themselves as thoroughly Catholic. They stress the teaching authority of the Church and are quick to defend the official Catholic position on all points. For such persons, papal encyclicals are not to be debated; they are to be accepted and obeyed. Many conservative Catholics, I suspect, hold their views out of a sense of loyalty to their upbringing. Others, however, defend their views with learning, intelligence, and at times, intensity.

At the other end of the spectrum of course, are the liberal Catholics. These persons are openly skeptical not only about distinctively Roman doctrines such as papal infallibility, but also about basic Christian doctrine as embodied in the ecumenical creeds. It is not clear in what sense such persons would even be called Christians. Nevertheless, if asked their religious preference, on a college application say, they would identify themselves as Catholics. I have no idea how many Catholics are liberals of this stripe, but I have met only a few here at Notre Dame.

It is the third type of Catholic, I am inclined to think, which represents the majority. Certainly most of the Catholics I have met are of this type. I call this group "functional protestants."

Many Catholics, no doubt, will find this designation offensive, so let me hasten to explain what I mean by it. One of the fundamental lines of difference between Catholics and Protestants, going back to the Reformation, concerns the issue of doctrinal authority. The traditional Roman Catholic view, as I understand it, is that its official teachings are guaranteed to be infallible, particularly when the pope or an ecumenical council exercises "extraordinary magisterium" when making doctrinal or moral pronouncements. Protestants have traditionally rejected this claim in favor of the view that Scripture alone is infallible in matters doctrinal and moral. This was the conviction MartinLuther came to hold after he arrived at the conclusion that both popes and church councils have erred. After this, his excommunication was all but inevitable.

When I say most Catholics are functional Protestants I simply mean that most Catholics do not accept the authority claims of their Church. In actual belief and practice, they are much closer to the Protestant view.

This is apparent from the fact that many Catholics do not accept explicitly defined dogmas of their Church. For example, I have talked with several Catholics who are doubtful, at best, about the Marian dogmas, even though these have the status of infallible doctrine in their church. Such Catholics have often made it clear to me that they believe the basic Christian doctrine as defined in the creeds. But they frankly admit that they think their Church has taken some wrong turns in her recent history. Where this is the case, they do not feel compelled to follow. As one of my functional Protestant friends put it: "I am a Roman Catholic, but I am more concerned about being Catholic than about being Roman."

That many Catholics are functionally Protestant is also evident in their attitude toward the distinctive moral teachings of their Church. The obvious example here is the Roman Catholic teaching that all forms of "artificial" birth control are immoral. The official view was reaffirmed explicitly by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, and has been reiterated again and again by Pope John Paul II. Nevertheless, as the article on Humanae Vitae in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion noted, "the papal ban is simply being ignored," and "a concrete authority crisis has thus emerged."

I attended the recent debate on abortion between Fr. James Burtchaell and Daniel Maguire. It is interesting to me that Fr. Burtchaell who eloquently defended the conservative view on abortion, admitted to a questioner that he rejects his Church's teaching on birth control. I could not help but wonder: is Fr. Burtchaell, Catholic statesman though he is, also among the functional Protestants?

This raises, of course, the deeper issue here: to what extent can a member of the Roman Catholic Church disagree with the official teachings of his Church and still be a faithful Catholic? Can one reject the teaching of a papal encyclical while remaining a faithful Catholic? If so, can he also reject a doctrine which the pope has declared infallible?

I have put these questions to several Catholics. Conservative have assured me that the answer to both the latter questions is no. Others insist the answer is yes.

This brings me to a final point concerning functional Protestants: they do consider themselves faithful Catholics. I have  often pointed out in conversation with such Catholics that their views differ little from mine. Why then remain Catholic I ask. In response, these Catholics make it clear to me that they love their Church and intend to remain loyal to it. More than one has compared the Church to his family. One's family makes mistakes, but one does not therefore choose to join another family.

I am not sure what to make of this response. It is not clear to me that one can line up behind Luther in holding that the Popes and councils have erred in their doctrinal and moral pronouncements, and still be a faithful Catholic.  But on the other hand, things have changed since the 16C. It is no longer the case that a Catholic will be excommunicated for holding what Luther held. Perhaps this is just another sign that the Reformation is–despite the pope's best efforts–finally taking hold within the Roman Church. 

Jerry Walls, "Reformational Theology found in Catholicism," The Observer, Thursday, April 23, 1978, p8.

[af_vet_1981]

>>Do you see the emerging church as still evolving or progressing ?<<

The what??? Doing what??? This concept of "church" being some organization brings some really weird comments.

It seems to me, in your own comments, that you have divorced the Church from Protestantism by writing "Most Protestant "churches" are simply daughters of the Catholic Church and retain many of her errors." So I think it is natural to ask the above question. Is the Church evolving and progressing ?

[Faith Presses On]

Yes, I agree that professing Chrisians and the cause of Christ are often hurt by how things are discussed, and not just in the Religion Forum on Free Republic. Not remaining Christ-like may very well be one of main reasons why the country is turning less Christian, as many Christians engaged in politics don’t do so. It’s not Christ-like to refer to male homosexuals by the “fa” word, and to engage in racial stereotypes about black people, just for two examples.

[af_vet_1981]

Their entire faith is based on following the musings of a man who lives in an apartment tucked inside one of the largest, richest museums in the world. That we don't do the same is unfathomable to them.

Odd that; I'm not even certain to whom you refer, nor would I know his last name were who I think you probably mean. On the other hand, you must defend Martin Luther for he is foundational to the Reformation. If he has evil fruit, and is a false apostle, his disciples are, shall we say, exposed.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matthew, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses fifteen to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[xone]

On the other hand, you must defend Martin Luther for he is foundational to the Reformation. If he has evil fruit, and is a false apostle, his disciples are, shall we say, exposed.

A meaningless construct considering the evil roles of many 'Vicars' that are ignored simply because they originated in Rome instead of Germany. As for false apostles, the Roman 'gospel' doesn't hold up to the Gospel enunciated in scripture. Roman teaching requires for salvation many things not contained in the Gospel of John. As a result it is shown by Scripture to be false.

[CynicalBear]

>>Is the Church evolving and progressing ?<<

Your question indicates a total lack of understanding as to the meaning of the word ekklesia. It is therefore irrelevant to scripture and impossible to answer.

[Faith Presses On]

A person’s beliefs aren’t private and without an effect on other people, and that is all the more true about what people who identify as Christian believe.

What we believe to be true determines what we do. If you believe it’s cold out, you’re going to try to dress accordingly.

And we know, just for two instances, that what atheists and Muslims believe determine what they do, down to their last belief. It’s how they look at things.

In Christianity, while evangelical Protestants and Catholics share some beliefs, there are also some major differences between those of the two. One of them is justification. Evangelicals believe that believers in Christ are saved by faith in God’s grace alone. Grace means God’s mercy and forgiveness, which He has offered to us by the sacrifice of His Son, who paid for our sins on the Cross. We merely have to believe that Jesus is God’s Son who died for us and accept His forgiveness for all of our sins.

The Catholic belief is that we are saved by God’s grace and our own works - that in effect both God and ourselves are our saviors, or God partly saves us, and we also partly save ourselves. That Catholic belief no doubt arises from confusion over the fact that works are necessary for a Christian, but they are not saving. If a criminal commits a terrible crime, no matter what “good works” he does, he cannot never undo that he did the crime and the actual damage from it, and we all have committed terrible crimes against God, which have required the death of His Son so that we might be forgiven.

Remember, God’s will is that things be done as they are in Heaven, which isn’t sin and forgiveness, but perfection. Our sin is always against the perfection that God is, and wants for us, and has prepared for us in Heaven. On earth, though, we are still unable to be perfect.

So good works aren’t perfection. Our sin violates God’s perfection, and good works can’t undo what’s done, or its harm. Even our being sorry can’t. What it takes for our relationship to be restored with God is His mercy and forgiveness, and He pays the price for our sin against Him.

But while our good conduct can’t save us, then, it can show our sincerity towards God. If you are truly sorry for sinning against God, and appreciate His forgiveness of the great unpayable debt He’s forgiven us of (which was the subject of a parable Jesus told in Matthew 18), then you will act like it. Again, if you believe all this then it will show up in how you act. The differences in belief lead to some insurmountable differences between evangelicals and Catholics, despite our agreement on some tenets of Christianity and morality in general.

Here on Free Republic, it is a given that Christianity will be discussed and the disagreements will be voiced. Christianity is the motivator for the politics of many if not most of the people here. We talk about our Christian beliefs, and evangelicals and Catholics don’t agree. Each is going to assert the rightness of our own beliefs where there is disagreement. If you look back at threads from many years ago now, the same debates were going on.

As you make the distinction between faith and politics, too, this is a political board. It’s not an evangelical or Catholic run board, where one church’s beliefs are given deference. I used to post on Christianity.com’s forums and while anyone could post, Christianity was given deference, and certain evangelical doctrines in particular.

It says something about Catholicism, I believe, that many Catholics here in effect want criticism of their church’s beliefs and practices banned. If they can’t discuss Christianity and their church’s beliefs here, how can they out there, with those who reject Christ, and where there are no moderators to go to? And how can they want free speech stopped here, but say they want it protected throughout the country?

[daniel1212]

The sophistry of Staples has been already refuted, as below which deals with reiterations here.

Staples sophistry, take 2.

Having exposed Staples misdiagnosis on “The Protestant Achilles' Heel,” Morgana simply proceeds to provide another opportunity to expose cultic Catholic devotion which drives them to deny what Scripture reveals and compel Scripture to support teachings which are part of the many traditions of men that developed over time. While RCs cannot see Scripture as the only supreme sufficient (in formal and material aspects) standard for faith as described in my prior rebuttal, yet in-credibly they see the “Immaculate Conception” in Scripture, which is neither taught nor required in Scripture.

In my new book, Behold Your Mother - A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, I give eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate Conception..Here, I will present some snippets from three of these biblical reasons for faith. But first, I must say I am sympathetic to my Protestant friends, and others, who struggle with this teaching of the Catholic Faith. Romans 3:23 says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I John 1:8 adds, “If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression... Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact.

Here the sophistry begins by arguing that since salvation and God being a Savior can mean being protected from sinning then this supports the premise that Mary never sinned. However, the former does not equate to the latter, and which remains to be established.

But what about “all have sinned,” and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him?” Wouldn’t “all” and/or “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No Christian would dare say that!

And the reason “No [true] Christian would dare say that!” is actually a refuting argument against the Immaculate Conception! For the reason why no true Christian would dare say that Christ sinned is because He is plainly declared to be without sin many times. (2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22; cf. Jn. 8:45; Heb. 7:26) And which is consistent with how the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions notable deviations from the norm — which the sinless state of Mary certainly would be — even of far less primary persons. from From extraordinary age (Methuselah), to not dying (Enoch), to length of fast, to miraculous birth (Abraham and Sarah), to extraordinary height (Ogg) or strength (Samson) or toes (Goliath), or holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel) to supernatural transport (Phillip), to the extraordinary length of celibacy of Anna, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to virgin birth (Mary), to diet (John the Baptist), to the sinlessness of Christ, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, to the signs of an apostle, etc. Yet despite this the Holy Spirit says nothing about Mary being either sinless, or a perpetual virgin, or created beings being prayed to. And instead what He does teach weighs towards the norm for Mary having sinned and sexually cleaving in marriage.

Thus the argument for unrecorded Marian exception has no warrant, but instead only warrants her being as others in these aspects.

Romans 5:12 will deal with original sin...Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited.

Actually, we inherit a spiritually dead Adamic nature that is prone to sin, and thus all do sin in time, except one who was God incarnate. And while we enter into the effects of the actions of others, yet we are not judged for what we are not culpable for, but judgment is always according to what we ourselves have done in the respective judgments of redeemed and lost, (2Cor. 5:10; . 20:11-15) and in accordance with light and grace given. (Lk. 12:48)

The question remains: how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of “all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is. Indeed, there is much biblical support,

Which audacious claim is typical of RCs who are all to willing to see whatever is needed or desirable to support Rome, and as if this support was the basis for their veracity, which they are not. And even to relying on arguments their own church does not officially teach, but who will dismiss ours on that basis and tell us we need to rely on Rome to interpret Scripture.

And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”... First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.”

Wrong. His own RC Bible for America does not say this “full of grace,” as the word for “full” is not even there. Kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6.

CARM finds,In Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.... More technical data from source here: In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious extrapolations in seeking to justify this invention.

However, seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB correctly translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."

When you add to this the fact that St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle...The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being...But only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

Mary is not given a name (see below) and nor said to be “full” of grace, and uniquely so, nor from what i read does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

See more on this issue here as White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene:

"This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.

Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!

Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would almost be expected to be found in the immediate context.

And indeed, in context that the angel was simply telling Mary she was graced of the Lord is confirmed in v. 30, “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour [charis] with God,” (KJV), or as in the RC DRB: “hast found grace with God.”

The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common...

The fact is that the angel simply does not, but simply tells her that she is graced, as she was. Which is like the greeting given to Daniel, “O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong,” (Daniel 10:19) Likewise, literally in Greek, the angel tells Mary “Hail” [rejoice], graced [one], the Lord is with thee: blessed thou among women.”

In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named...What’s in a name? A lot according to Scripture!

But there is no name change here, as unlike cases such as “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham,” (Genesis 17:5) “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel,” (Genesis 32:28) ”Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone, (John 1:42) Mary is never addressed as “full of grace,” but is said to have found grace with God, and thus it is said of her, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,” and “henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,” (Lk. 1:42,48) And which does not say “more blessed than all women” due to Mary having surpassing virtue. And in fact, as Ratzinger admits, Mary “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal,” (God and the world, p. 296) while the Holy Spirit is far far more descriptive of the sacrificial labor of Paul, to whom He never manifestly attributes sin after his conversion.

Nor is “blessed art thou among women” a unique type of appellation, as Scripture also says, “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.” (Judges 5:24)

Thus there is nothing in Lk. 1:28 that teaches or even infers Marian sinlessness, which we can be sure the Holy Spirit would have stated if that was the case as He did with other notable exceptions to the norm, especially among principal persons.

2. An Ancient Prophecy—Genesis 3:15:..I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Not only do we have the Virgin Birth here implied because the text says the Messiah would be born of “the seed of the woman” (the “seed” is normally of the man), but notice “the woman” is not included as “the seed” of the devil. It seems that both the woman and her seed are in opposition to and therefore not under the dominion of the devil and “his seed,” i.e., all who have original sin and are “by nature children of wrath” as St. Paul puts it in Eph. 2:3. Here, we have in seed form (pun intended), the fact that the woman—Mary—would be without sin, especially original sin, just as her Son—the Messiah—would be. The emphasis on Mary is truly remarkable in that the future Messiah was only mentioned in relation to her. There can be little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary and their absolute opposition to the devil.

In-credible! The RC again examples he can see what he wants to if it can support his Roman religion. Note first that though I agree the seed of the women is Christ, both Hagar and Rebekah are said to have seed. (Gn. 16:10;24:60) . Meanwhile the Hebrew words in this entire verse actually only says, “put/place enmity/hostility between woman between seed seed it/he bruise head thou shalt bruise heel.” And much commentary has been written about how this is best translated and what it precisely means. Thus the “little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary” being both sinless is based upon a text for which there is much doubt about its precise rendering and meaning,

And while I agree with the text Staples quotes, yet nowhere does it say the women is uniquely different from the rest of mankind, as it only distinguishes between the seed of the devil and seed of Eve, which prophetically would be between the lost and Christ coming ultimately through Mary, or perhaps between demons and Christ. “Seed” is singular, but it can refer to a single line of decedents. And as Christ genealogy is full of souls who were lost at least at one time, the only exclusion of any seed that is not fallen is the sinless Christ. The seed of the women no more excludes her from being fallen then it does the parents of Mary.

Behind the Roman reasoning is the premise that a sinless vessel is essential for Christ to be sinless, but which is fallacious. 1 Sam.2:2 and Rev.15:4 states that there is "no one holy as the Lord" and "Thou only art Holy." Yet God used impure men to bring forth His pure expressive word to men, and if God could preserve Mary from sin then it is certain He could preserve Christ from being contaminated from the impurity of the vessel through which His body was supplied. For Hebrews 10:5 states that “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.”

And it is also argued, that "The human male determines the sex of the offspring. His entrance into the unfertilized egg of Mary caused it to develop without the expected duplication of the female X chromosomes. When an artificial egg duplicates its chromosomes in response to artificial stimulation. the result is female" D. Hocking from his Christology course (animal studies). And thus “The blood type of the Son of God was a separate and precious type unlike any other, it had no sin. Because of this method of conception, it is not possible that Mary could have supplied any of her Adamic blood for Jesus who was to be the spotless lamb of God.” “The Holy Spirit who is God, protected His sinlessness, as God the Son entered the womb and the egg of Mary and took upon Himself a human nature in addition to His divine nature (clothed himself in humanity Phil. 2:5-8). There was no change of nature but an addition, adding humanity to His deity.” (http://www.letusreason.org/rc11.htm)

I am not sure if I agree that the sin nature is dependent on the male seed, but if God can produce a male from a female virgin then He can certainly bring forth a perfect sinless male from a fallen vessel tainted by sin.

Note also here that Staples is not arguing for a binding, infallible interpretation of Gn. 3:15, while Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God") which defines the infallible (which presumed status only pertains to the actual pronouncement) dogma of the Immaculate Conception relies upon a Vulgate translation [and thus the Douay Rheims] of Gn. 3:15 which changed the “he” to “she shall crush thy head,” and thus that “the most holy Virgin” “was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.” (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm)

However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia (Immaculate Conception) states, The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

As with others, the official Roman Catholic Bible for America translates this,

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”

The approved notes (1970 ver.), while also noting the Traditional Messianic exegesis, explains this saying, “They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman.” (http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm)

RC apologist Jimmy Akin also states,
Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I’m sure you know what I am talking about.

...The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman... just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew. (www.jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315)

The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:

“The Hebrew text of Genesis 3:15 speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church. (Source.)

The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin.

As a reformed source states, “He” .. in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced “hoo” and can also mean “it.” Many think it means “it” in reference to collective offspring of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. In the LXX, however, it is rendered autos “he,” indicating that the passage should be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing the head. “He [Jesus] will crush the serpent’s head.” (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)

More here.

The Hebrew Masoretic text reads that one who will crush the serpents head is in the masculine, speaking about Christ, and the NT does not mention Mary of doing this, but that “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (Hebrews 2:14,15) Glory be to God.

3. Mary, Ark of the Covenant: The Old Testament ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. It was a picture of the purity and holiness God fittingly demands of those objects and/or persons most closely associated with himself and the plan of salvation. Because it would contain the very presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s staff—it had to be most pure and untouched by sinful man (see II Sam. 6:1-9; Exodus 25:10ff; Numbers 4:15; Heb. 9:4).

In the New Testament, the new and true Ark would not be an inanimate object, but a person—the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new and true Ark be...

This is another attempt to glorify the creature rather than the Creator, God blessed for ever, as it is Christ who best fulfills the typology of the ark of the Covenant.

• God commanded Moses to “make an ark of shittim wood,” which wood represents the humanity of Christ, “And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it,” (Ex. 25:10,11) and which gold can be seen to represent glory. And thus the wise men brought gold as a gift to Christ (not Mary), and was girded about His loins and breast with a golden garment, (Dan. 10:5; Rv. 1:13) which also is never said of Mary.

• The Ark, once made, was moved via poles, so as not to be directly touched by sinful man (Ex. 25:12-16; II Sam. 6:1-9), yet which men Mary was touched by, as well as Christ. And the former was ritually defiled by giving birth, and thus observed the required days of purification, (Lk. 2:22-24; cf. Lv. 12:2,6-8) and then brought the required living creatures to the priest “for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.” (Leviticus 12:6,7)

But the sanctity of the Ark corresponds to the spiritual purity of Christ, who being the Lamb of God is alone said to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” (Hebrews 7:26) “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” (1 Peter 2:22) “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Which is never said of Mary. Yet Catholics have the audacity to make Mary was sinless, even as binding doctrine, when Scripture nowhere teaches it, and we can be confident that it would say so if that was true, and especially if was a binding doctrine, just as it clearly records the sinlessness of Christ and other extraordinary or otherwise notable aspects of its subjects, even far lesser ones.

• And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold....And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end:...And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims (Exodus 25:17,19,22) On top of the ark was the mercy seat on which rested the cloud signifying the presence of God, between two cherubs of gold. The Greek word (Hebrews 9:5) for “mercy seat” is hilasterion, meaning “that which makes atonement.”

This easily corresponds to Matthew 17:4,5, in which Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, can be seen to answer to the two cherubims, and who talk with Christ under a bright cloud, and in which context all are called to commune with Christ, the atonement: “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” thus directly communing with God. (cf. Heb. 10:19) And which is said to Peter, James and John, whom Paul later states (Gal. 2:9) appeared to be pillars of the church (if not in that order), thus this call to directly commune with God via the mercy seat under the cloud is to the church.

• “And in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” (Exodus 25:21)The Ark contained the 2 tables of the Law, which testimony in the NT becomes grace and Truth, and the Scriptures uniquely state Christ was “full of grace and Truth.” (Jn. 1:14) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:17)

• And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go after it. (Joshua 3:3) And it was Christ, not Mary, who said “Follow me,” (Mt. 4:19) and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,” (John 10:27) as Christ alone was God manifest in the flesh. (Jn. 1:1-3,14; 20:28; 1Tim. 3:16)

• “And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them.” (Numbers 10:33) And Christ, not Mary said,”I go to prepare a place for you.” (John 14:2)

Therefore it is Christ, not Mary who is clothed with gold, and declared to be undefiled, sinless, and the atonement/mercy seat, with two cherubs of glory on each side, by whom believers commune with God under the cloud of glory, and whom constrains the testimony of grace and Truth, and goes before believers.

And thus by God grace Staples compulsion of Scripture to support vain traditions of men is once again exposed, which he inventively adds to within the rest of his book (which is not dealt with here), promoting the Mariolatry of the false Mary of Catholicism, thinking of mortals above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) to his own condemnation and those who sadly subscribe to this. It is the Lord who is high and lifted up, not any Queen of Heaven, which is only found among pagans. But despite what Scripture says and fails to say, likewise many Catholics basically insist,

“But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem...” (Jeremiah 44:17)

[roamer_1]

Odd that; I'm not even certain to whom you refer, nor would I know his last name were who I think you probably mean. On the other hand, you must defend Martin Luther for he is foundational to the Reformation. If he has evil fruit, and is a false apostle, his disciples are, shall we say, exposed.

Who must defend Luther? Who called him an apostle? Why would you suppose Gamecock (a Calvinist) or anyone here to be a disciple of Luther? Why do you believe that Luther is the foundation of the Reformation?

No one here follows Luther. Luther is just a man.

[af_vet_1981]

Who must defend Luther? ...
Why do you believe that Luther is the foundation of the Reformation?
No one here follows Luther. Luther is just a man.

If not, it should be easy for you to confess " I renounce Martin Luther, and all his evil works."

Although there had been significant earlier attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church before Luther — such as those of Jan Hus, Peter Waldo, and John Wycliffe — it is Martin Luther who is widely acknowledged to have started the Reformation with his 1517 work The Ninety-Five Theses.

[LurkingSince'98]

Thats nice

AMDG

[roamer_1]

If not, it should be easy for you to confess " I renounce Martin Luther, and all his evil works."

Why should I renounce what I am not joined to?

Shall I also renounce the Roman church and all her evil works (which are endless)?
Shall I renounce the pope of Rome and all his evil works (which span centuries)?

Yes, I guess I shall:

I hereby renounce every evil work of man, every religion, sect, order, and denomination, and will adhere to none of them.
I will follow NO man, regardless of power, regardless of popularity, regardless of succession or lineage.

I am a disciple of Yeshua the Messiah, and him alone. I will stand upon the Word of YHWH and I will endeavor to keep his commandments.

YHWH is true and every man is a liar.

There, does that cover it?

[af_vet_1981]

Here is another example

[CynicalBear]

>>No one here follows Luther. Luther is just a man.<<

It seems that the mind of a Catholic cannot conceive of the ekklesia of Christ not tied to some carnal man. They seem to find some kind of solace in their own mind tying others to some carnal man as they are tied to the pope. The true ekklesia of Christ is evidently foreign to them.

[CynicalBear]

>>If not, it should be easy for you to confess " I renounce Martin Luther, and all his evil works."<<

What "works" of Luther would you want us to renounce? Luther, as many other men, had parts of what he said and did that were clearly right and needed. Other of his works and deeds not so much. Or is your blanket statement simply a trap?

[xone]

Luther is just a man.

And he wrote some things that had no honor. He talked about anti-semitism, the popes acted upon it. But some Catholics here don't see the latter as a problem. No poisonous evil fruit, no 'false apostleship even when they are a 'Vicar', nothing even when one of their 'saints' engages in them. No credibility in their words.

[roamer_1]

It seems that the mind of a Catholic cannot conceive of the ekklesia of Christ not tied to some carnal man. They seem to find some kind of solace in their own mind tying others to some carnal man as they are tied to the pope. The true ekklesia of Christ is evidently foreign to them.

IKnowRight? I see this over and over again - They seem SO very tied to their histories and authorities, the 'wisdom' of men, that they think they can knock down Protestantism by tearing down their histories and authorities - They HAVE to make Luther, Calvin, Wesley and Zwingly WRONG because in their frame of mind, Protestantism should collapse at that point.

It is hard for them to understand that someone can pick up a KJV, read the Word, and simply believe. It can't be that simple, can it?

And how on earth can the Church be wherever two or more have gathered? Whaaaat? No gaudy building, gold and silver, and pews and liturgies and incense and robes and choirs and collection plates and...

How can it be so?

*chuckles*

[xone]

it should be easy for you to confess

Luther is a man long dead. His anti-semitism didn't survive to the founding documents of the denom named by Catholics for his followers. 'Confess'? Please try another tact DQ.

[roamer_1]

And he wrote some things that had no honor.

And he wrote many things that were wise, and stood fast in a massive struggle... Standing upon his faith in YHWH. There is much to Luther's credit (as far as men can see)... But he is but a man. Sinful, sometimes short sighted, and full of foibles... Like every man. I don't think I denigrate him in the least in that, and I daresay he would be the first to admit it. Nor do I mean to denigrate the (orthodox) Lutherans, who are a good and faithful people (yourself included). I think that any one of them would be quick to admit that they are disciples of Christ, and not Luther.

He talked about anti-semitism, the popes acted upon it. But some Catholics here don't see the latter as a problem. No poisonous evil fruit, no 'false apostleship even when they are a 'Vicar', nothing even when one of their 'saints' engages in them. No credibility in their words.

That is perfectly correct, except in that you failed to mention that the Roman church did as such for hundreds and hundreds of years. Not letting Luther off the hook by any means, but his writings, by comparison, are insignificant.

[xone]

I agree completely.

[Faith Presses On]

Good day, Mrs Don-O.

Actually, it doesn’t seem to me from where I sit that you’re in agreement. Or else, why write what you did about Psalm 8, Mary, and as you put it, man “not being entirely contemptible”?

It’s important to keep the issues straight. Despite the glory given man by God, there is still a judgment and Hell. Read John 3 again. Man if he doesn’t believe on Jesus is under God’s wrath. There is no mention of him having glory or being made in God’s image there. Those things didn’t keep Adam and Eve from being expelled from Eden, either. Whenever God’s judgment is mentioned, the glory given to man by God and being made in His image is never mentioned, to my recollection, and certainly not as any defense of man.

Yet for all that, does man’s guilt make him “entirely contemptible”? That’s very vague because the question needs to be asked, contemptible to whom? To God, or other people, or himself? And why? There are so many ways for him to be contemptible and to so many different beings that without more qualification it’s a point without much meaning. If you can explain that more, please do.

But what’s more, where is that concern in the Bible? We have value in being made by God Himself. That’s where our value comes from - our maker. He values us in that He gave His own Son to die for us. That’s hardly holding us in contempt of being. But He does hate sin, and He says His wrath is on those who don’t repent and believe on His Son for salvation. And we need His Son because our sin makes us worthy of eternal death, separation from a holy God, and suffering in Hell. Those are just facts. We have great value in being made by God in His image, but we are also sinners against Him, deserving eternal death. God offers us reconciliation, though, through the sacrifice of His own Son, which is needed to atone for our sins against Him. This is merely the Gospel.

If it comes back to the argument of there being “something” in man that is worthy because he chooses to believe in Jesus, what are we that we haven’t received? Paul asked that question, when condemning boasting and elevating oneself over others. I heard R.C. Sproul say recently that if you believe in Jesus, and others don’t, is it because you believe you’re morally better than they are, or smarter than they are? That’s where “works” thinking leads, and that’s why in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, the Pharisee compared himself favorably to others, believing himself better and even thinking to thank God for making him a better person than other people, while the publican didn’t make such comparisons. He looked only at the fact that he was guilty before God. Actually, we don’t have full answers on many things, and Paul writes that we don’t exactly know why God bestows grace on some and hardens others, and then Paul asks who is man to question God? We know we are sinners against God. That should be our one concern.

Recently I responded elsewhere here on justification and the idea of exalting Mary, and if you don’t mind, I’ll include parts of those replies here too:

“””””””I know what motivates most of the Protestants posting here. Love for Jesus, and pain at Catholic doctrine that gets people only just so close to Him, and no further. That love for Him makes it impossible for us to pray to anyone else, or glorify anyone else, and doctrines that teach otherwise are painfully repellent to us. We are going by what the Bible reveals, and while the Catholic Church justifies teachings on the grounds of “what the Bible might have left out,” the Bible doesn’t contradict itself and wouldn’t contradict any truth revealed outside of itself, and it also has a completeness.

When the same lesson is taught over and over, giving the same message, there has to be a very compelling reason to modify it. And it is never just wholly violated, either.
If you go back to Genesis, where the Bible begins to talk about Noah, it says at that time man “began to call on the name of the Lord.” Just the name of the Lord. The Bible is about Him. The Alpha and the Omega. It drums home the point again, and again, and again, and again, and so on, that NO ONE is like Him and is in any way to be treated like Him when it comes to the things that belong to GOD alone.”””””””

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3282029/posts?page=132#132

“””””””When someone claims to be saved by faith and by works, they are claiming that they are partly saved by Jesus (whom they need because of their “bad self,”) and partly saved by themselves (their “good self,” who, as the atheists say, doesn’t need God because it’s already good.)

“To be partly “saved by works” is to, like Satan, claim a partial independence and non-need for God. It’s also to claim that both God and self are sources for good. This flies in the face of what Paul wrote, though, that we have nothing to boast about because there isn’t anything good in ourselves we haven’t received from God.”””””””

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3278414/posts?page=204#204

“If you look at Mary and the apostles, whenever someone tried to credit them, they gave the glory to GOD instead. And that is true fellowship with them, then, doing as they did. Would they want us looking to them, as examples? Yes! As they were inspired and strengthened by hearing about other people’s faith.

“But if they only exalted the Lord, and didn’t want people to exalt them, why would anyone think they’d ever be pleased with being exalted? And if that exaltation had been in the original church, then they would have been exalted right then. We would have a long history of all that happened to Mary after Jesus’ ascension, for example. And the church would have regarded Jesus’ brothers as royalty, and those lines would have been acknowledged all the way down to this day. Jesus and the church came from the Jews, and the Jews kept just such records of genealogy. Yet almost all of that knowledge about Mary, Jesus’ brothers, and the apostles was deliberately lost, and that’s because it would have taken away from glorifying Jesus alone.”””””””

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3282029/posts?page=132#132

“”””””” And the main reason why they, and I too at times, post on the Catholic Church is that its doctrines grieve us.I started out neutral on the Catholic Church, open to it, even after I read the Bible about ten years ago, but at this point it gets worse in my eyes all the time.

“One thing grievous about it? I remember Father Corapi (who I know has since left the priesthood) speaking on prayer, and saying that people ask him to pray, and he said, “But I don’t have power. Mary has power. Jesus has power. The saints have power.” And the Catholic radio station in the Buffalo area, where I used to live, was doing a fundraiser once when the radio host said, “Maybe Mary is inspiring you to call. Or the Holy Spirit.” Their phone number is 877-888-6279, or as they put it, 877-888-MARY. And not long ago a Catholic (author) on the (radio) station in the state where I live now was asked what chapter of the new book he’d written, which is something of an overview of all Catholicism, meant the most to him, and I wondered to myself if his answer would point to Mary, and sure enough, he said it was the chapter he wrote on Mary.

“Those are just a few examples of something so troubling to Bible-believing Christians, giving the Lord’s place to someone else. Putting aside the Old Testament for a moment, you can’t find a single instance of someone besides God being exalted in the New Testament, and it being approved of by God. In fact, when Herod gave a speech and the people started to say, “the words of a god and not of a man,” because he allowed the people to say that and didn’t instead correct them and give the glory to God, he was eaten by worms from the inside on the spot. And the whole Bible is consistent with that bright line. Only God is a God.”””””””

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3282029/posts?page=336#336

The sort of prayers to Mary that Cynical Bear posted to you are just the sort of thing God reveals in the Bible not to be His will. Yet over time they came into and were built up more and more in the Catholic Church, and given Catholic beliefs on their church, they have to defend them.

Many Catholics seem to have faith in their church above anyone or anything else. Evangelical Christians have faith in God and His Word, which means defending both even when we don’t understand or things seem to go against them. We remain faithful. We aren’t that way with churches, though. Catholics, though, tend to be with theirs, and while you can’t go wrong with defending God and His Word (how can you?), with churches you truly can. This is from another reply on that very subject:

“””””” Anything critical of the Catholic Church can’t be tolerated. Something to be considered is that Protestants consider God - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - to be perfect. And we consider God’s Word to be perfect. We do not, though, consider a church or the church on earth to be perfect. But Catholics do, and that leads to all sorts of twisting, lying and lack of forthrightness, humility, and integrity in order to protect the Catholic Church - as if that somehow pleases God, when God says that He shows no partiality. Even though it’s only supposed to be some very narrow things about the Catholic Church that are infallible, nobody is quite sure what and just about everything and everyone associated with it gets defended, right or wrong, or something wrong gets dismissed as just individual conduct or old news or exaggeration or the messenger is blamed for reporting the bad news. There’s the attitude of the defense attorney and “of course my client is innocent.” But the things that serve the Lord are the unvarnished truth, justice, and humility - not reflexive contortions to defend people and institutions because they are in “His church.””””””

If you try to defend something as perfect that simply isn’t, you aren’t following the truth, and you are merely being defensive and spin doctoring.