Which is merely more assertion of papal propaganda, which in reality it rests upon the premise that Scripture tradition and history only mean what she says in the face of conflict.
Thus the classic recourse of no less than Manning:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”
Under this premise, church law is supreme, as Leo_xiii asserted, reasoning that since Rome claims it is of God, thus it cannot conflict with Scripture, meaning Rome autocratically compel it to support her, or as that is not even necessary, to exclude it from contradicting her, which it manifestly does .
it was not an authority given to the Moonies, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to Joel Osteen, or Billy Graham, or to DeprogamLiberalism. It is the same authority given by Christ that informed the selection of the canonical texts. It is the same authority with the power to bind and the power to loosen.
By which basic logic you have just nuked the NT church (again) as in reality, as shown by ignored, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Nor is the power to bind and loose some new thing, as explained, but temporally this was one which the OT mag. possessed, (Dt. 18:7-13; (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14; cf. Mt. 18:15-17) as did husbands and fathers over their wives and daughters, respectively, (Numbers 30:5-8) and which is given to the civil authorities as well, (Ps. 105:22; Rm. 13:1-7) while the spiritual aspect is provided for all holy believers of faith. (Mt. 18:18-20; James 5:16-18)
Mary gifted at the Annunciation with the Holy Spirit as “full of grace,”
You are profaning, taking the name of the Holy Spirit in vain by adding to His words that which He never said. Which scholars know. For as shown but ignored,
The word for “full” is not even in Lk. 1:28, as 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. 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 left this invention.
Your own official RC Bible for America does not say “full of grace,” and 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."
For as 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
Mary is said to be “full” of grace, or uniquely so, nor from what i find does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, as per RC argumentation, 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 say of Mary what Rome does, 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!
now in the words of St. Bernard becomes the “Mediatrix of all Graces.”
Which is utterly absent in Scripture and contrary to Christ being the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) whom the Spirit points us to "that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."(Hebrews 4:16) Yet Rome presumes to add to the words of the Holy Spirit that which He did not say and contrary to what He did.
Not some wooden cross in front of podium where someone strums a guitar,
So much for the RC charismatic movement and multitudes of Latino RCs.
and at times accompanied with a foot-stomping dance labeled as “Sunday Services” that take place in whatever local First
Never seen it myself in over 30 years, while a certain man named David was also censured for his overly enthusiastic worship, while as a former RC/lector CCD teacher i can well attest to the typical perfunctory professions and dead ritualized worship of RC masses ("Sing like Protestants" my former priest exhorted). The problem is less with the pot that boils over than the one that does not or hardly simmers.
It took 300 years to assemble the canonical texts.
Actually the majority of Scripture which the NT look to for substantiation as being complimentary and conflative were so manifestly established that there was no dispute with the Jews over the abundant reference to them, while the NT texts existed and were in circulation from circa 90 AD, without being a project of a magisterium, unlike RC doctrine. Meanwhile, as said and substantiated , contrary to RC propaganda, the canon was not fully settled until over 1400 years after the last book was written, and only over Luther's dead body.
This process of authenticating the written Word was by Divine Revelation
Which is simply another reiteration of your refuted assertions, as this either makes the common people as realizing this Revelation since they correctly discerned both men and writings as being of God - without an infallible magisterium - or it spins Divine Revelation as seen in Scripture to be a conclusion that was reached via the debate of committee consisting of factions. Contrary to your idea that Trent's definition was like Peter confessing who Christ was, instead the canon was a subject of debate, andsettled after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) Wiki, Metzger (pg. 246) "> apparently as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.
In addition, it is a matter of debate whether the canon of Trent is exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils. As Rc apologist Gary Michuta found, "The question of Esdras' [note: nomenclature can be confusing] canonical status was left theoretically open." "Forty-two voted that the status of these books should be passed over in silence. Eight bishops did not vote. The majority won, and Trent deliberately withheld any explicit decision on these books." - Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (Michigan: Grotto Press, 2007), pp. 240-241; http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/04/09/silence-and-the-problem-of-catholic-canon-certainty.
And for him, all of God’s unwritten Word as stated in John 21:25 got lost to the desert air.
While the validity and viability of the teaching office it is certainly affirmed under SS, invoking John 21:25 provides a virtual bottomless amorphous unverifiable pit of "tradition" out of which an autocratic entity can both claim support for itself and extraScriptural tales. Thus the issue remains to be the basis for the veracity of RC Truth claims. Under RC teaching, one must even have faith in the instruments and stewards of Scripture and believe Rome to even know what it consists of, and assuredly means. Under which it can never contradict her.
BipolarBob is joined at the hip with CommerceComet into thinking that the veneration of saints, the offering of incense, and the lighting of candles is a form of idolatry and that Catholic rituals are “ripped off from pagans.”
Actually, one of your own invoked sources (Newman) confirms,
the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class [that's you]...
In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us.
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}
The introduction of Images was still later, and met with more opposition in the West than in the East. - John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power; www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html
And the Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary)
And to ascribe to created beings the ability to hear and respond to multitudinous prayers addressed to them in Heaven, which only God is shown able to do (even any personal interaction btwn created beings from each realm require both to be in the same realm, even if via a vision) is blasphemy.
The crucial distinction between veneration and worship is too much to occupy the minds of shallow Bible Christians.
Actually, since Scripture does not provide this except by example, in which only pagans made supplication to created beings in Heaven, and ascribed uniquely Divine attributes to them, then it is RCs who manifest they cannot see to see the abstract distinction between veneration and worship which Rome makes, while being too shallow to avoid acting according to the description Scripture provides of idolatry.
For as said ,
One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, even with adulation, attributes, glory and titles never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers addressed to them, and beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them. Which would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine by playing word games they avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
Instead they should do what Mary and every believer in every prayer to Heaven did (and I should do more of), which was to pray directly to the Lord, not secretaries. But they must truly become born again for that.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?
Instead Caths basically say,
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. 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... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)
Never mind that in Exodus 20, God commanded Moses to build the Ark of the Covenant,
As well as the brazen serpent, both of which Israelites ended up worshiping, and we see them no more on earth. But the difference is that God expressly and specially commanded these to be made, versus making unto yourselves such things, and the latter of which is what Rome and RCs do, vainly imagining that the power to bind and loose was some new thing, which it was not, and provided her autocratic authority which even Scripture is made subject to, which it is not.
. In the New Testament cases, physical things (the cloak, the shadow, handkerchiefs and aprons) were used to effect cures.
The abuse of which precedent Rome engages in as well as so many so-called "faith teachers."
Dr. David Anders has after a lifetime of scholarship politely labeled it to be a “confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic.” Dr. Anders is not alone.
No, such are aberrations from the multitudes of what Scripturally God calls wise souls, which rarely are the intellectual types, and your few examples no more support the premise that such are to be followed because of their intellectualism than Bruce Jenner is because of his athleticism
. Both are deceived souls who succumbed to the specious seduction Rome, which her most cultic devout are driven to defend, regardless of what it exposes them and her to be.
Dr. Jay Richards is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Who IDs and speaks as an evangelical (creationism, Free market, Climate Change etc.). and works with such, and along with many other converts would hardly concur with the pre V2 view of those in your sect, informal or not. Thus what your examples of seduced intellects manifest is that while such may concur on many basics, as do evangelicals, yet there is disagreement btwn them and popes, past and present, and with other RCs, with far left liberals and far right traditionalists sharing the same Roman umbrella, as Rome implicitly sanctions such diversity
.
While the overall fruit of historical evangelical faith is that of a far more unified people in conservative beliefs. In addition, despite the fruit of intellectualism being overall very liberal, there have been and are many evangelical intellects of like stature of their counterparts who have not converted to Rome, but oppose it.
It is your argument by intellectualism that is intellectually bankrupt.
The rest of your rehearsed Roman rhetoric is a poor excuse for an argument, a valid one for Rome that has not been refuted yet being absent, for the world to see.
WVKayaker, response seems typical of Bible Christians to all of this: “blah, blah, blah ad infinitum!”
A worthy summation of your wannbe intellectualism, which instead is an argument against Rome, and the premise that the wise swim to Rome, with her esoteric claims and secret knowledge and accretions of traditions of men and of pagans, while also holding to enough Scriptural Truths to give her the appearance she needs to deceive the majority of her adherents.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, (Colossians 2:18)