Presbuteros and episkopos appear repeatedly. These men were clearly leaders, i.e, a hierarchy. Diakonos infers more of a servant role. There are documents appearing within 100 years of Jesus' life unmistakably referring to these roles. The development of a sacerdotal role for a priest is the likely result of early Christians being Jews first, familiar with temple worship as per centuries of Hebraic practice. Not my area of expertise, but I find the notion of the priest as having a dual role of both teacher and acting in persona Christi worth thinking about and studying. This also relates to why many (self included) conclude that women cannot be priests. Another fun topic.Mothra said:Thanks. This verse talks about who should replace Judas as one of Christ's apostles. Acts 20 talks about Church elders. I just don't see support in these verses for the establishment of some overall hierarchy consisting of priests, bishops and the pope.curtpenn said:See vv 25 and following. For further development see Acts 20. This is also helpful:Mothra said:I've read it again, and am not seeing the verses you are referencing. It is your position that Acts 1 talks about priests and bishops? Can you cite the specific verses?curtpenn said:See Acts 1 for the origins. Episkopoi, presbuteroi, and diakonoi were clearly in place by the 2nd century at the latest.Mothra said:Where are bishops and priests mentioned anywhere in Acts or in any of the letters?curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/1985.html
Bishop of Tyler Texas
43,960 Views |
421 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Redbrickbear
No, I'm definitely not implying that all traditions are equal. Authority would have no real meaning if that were the case. I'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative. I believe Christ established and vested authority in a visible church. Anyone who breaks with that tradition loses the benefit of its authority to one extent or another.Mothra said:Your position suggests that all tradition is equally authoritative, or its not. Yet, we know of faith traditions and off-shoots of Christianity that were around for centuries (and some still today) that are antithetical to scripture and Catholic tradition. Gnosticism comes immediately to mind - an off-shoot of heretical teachings that lasted around 3-4 centuries. And of course, the biggest off-shoot would be Islam, which of course is the fastest growing faith today, and has millions of adherents. Are these faith traditions authoritative because they've been around for centuries?Sam Lowry said:I don't see how you can know from tradition that the Bible is authoritative, unless the tradition is equally authoritative. The lesser authority doesn't define the greater.Mothra said:Your argument appears to incorrectly assume that for those who hold to sola scriptura, tradition has no meaning or value whatsoever. That is not the case, and that does not appear to be what BT is saying. We can know from faith traditions that the Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation.Sam Lowry said:How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, that is not the point I'm making. I know it's the inspired word of God because that's what my faith tradition teaches. I'm asking you and BTD how you know.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.
This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.
Sola scriptura does not hold that traditions have no value. Instead, it holds that traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. It holds that traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. It was the protestant response to the Roman Catholic Church making traditions superior to the authority of Scripture - many of which were in fact contradictory to scripture (see prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace).
In other words, sola scriptura avoids subjectivity and keeps personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one's spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. That appears to me to have been BT's point, which you seem to have either missed or perhaps are purposely attempting to twist.
Scripture alludes to many Catholic beliefs without stating them expressly, yet you reject these beliefs. So in your view it seems that beliefs must do more than just conform with Scripture. They must be expressly derived from it. This is what brought up the whole sola scriptura issue. But of course the "plain meaning" of Scripture often depends on your subjective interpretation or the interpretation of your particular faith community. This is the problem you've never really addressed.
I'm avoiding any commentary on other posters' intentions or intelligence and would suggest we all do the same. Hopefully we can keep things pleasant and productive.
I reject your all-or-nothing premise, and also leave room for faith and the working of the Holy Spirit, which help us discern what is right and truthful.
I am not sure what Catholic beliefs you allege Scripture alludes to. I only take issue with those that are antithetical to your very own Holy Scriptures, or have little to no scriptural support. As I said early on in this debate, the idea that all scripture is so opaque that it cannot be plainly understood is a theory any reasonable person would reject. Paul said it best: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I believe him.
I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?Sam Lowry said:I'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.Mothra said:Your position suggests that all tradition is equally authoritative, or its not. Yet, we know of faith traditions and off-shoots of Christianity that were around for centuries (and some still today) that are antithetical to scripture and Catholic tradition. Gnosticism comes immediately to mind - an off-shoot of heretical teachings that lasted around 3-4 centuries. And of course, the biggest off-shoot would be Islam, which of course is the fastest growing faith today, and has millions of adherents. Are these faith traditions authoritative because they've been around for centuries?Sam Lowry said:I don't see how you can know from tradition that the Bible is authoritative, unless the tradition is equally authoritative. The lesser authority doesn't define the greater.Mothra said:Your argument appears to incorrectly assume that for those who hold to sola scriptura, tradition has no meaning or value whatsoever. That is not the case, and that does not appear to be what BT is saying. We can know from faith traditions that the Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation.Sam Lowry said:How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, that is not the point I'm making. I know it's the inspired word of God because that's what my faith tradition teaches. I'm asking you and BTD how you know.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.
This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.
Sola scriptura does not hold that traditions have no value. Instead, it holds that traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. It holds that traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. It was the protestant response to the Roman Catholic Church making traditions superior to the authority of Scripture - many of which were in fact contradictory to scripture (see prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace).
In other words, sola scriptura avoids subjectivity and keeps personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one's spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. That appears to me to have been BT's point, which you seem to have either missed or perhaps are purposely attempting to twist.
Scripture alludes to many Catholic beliefs without stating them expressly, yet you reject these beliefs. So in your view it seems that beliefs must do more than just conform with Scripture. They must be expressly derived from it. This is what brought up the whole sola scriptura issue. But of course the "plain meaning" of Scripture often depends on your subjective interpretation or the interpretation of your particular faith community. This is the problem you've never really addressed.
I'm avoiding any commentary on other posters' intentions or intelligence and would suggest we all do the same. Hopefully we can keep things pleasant and productive.
I reject your all-or-nothing premise, and also leave room for faith and the working of the Holy Spirit, which help us discern what is right and truthful.
I am not sure what Catholic beliefs you allege Scripture alludes to. I only take issue with those that are antithetical to your very own Holy Scriptures, or have little to no scriptural support. As I said early on in this debate, the idea that all scripture is so opaque that it cannot be plainly understood is a theory any reasonable person would reject. Paul said it best: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I believe him.
Thanks. I think we see those verses very differently, but I understand your opinion.curtpenn said:Presbuteros and episkopos appear repeatedly. These men were clearly leaders, i.e, a hierarchy. Diakonos infers more of a servant role. There are documents appearing within 100 years of Jesus' life unmistakably referring to these roles. The development of a sacerdotal role for a priest is the likely result of early Christians being Jews first, familiar with temple worship as per centuries of Hebraic practice. Not my area of expertise, but I find the notion of the priest as having a dual role of both teacher and acting in persona Christi worth thinking about and studying. This also relates to why many (self included) conclude that women cannot be priests. Another fun topic.Mothra said:Thanks. This verse talks about who should replace Judas as one of Christ's apostles. Acts 20 talks about Church elders. I just don't see support in these verses for the establishment of some overall hierarchy consisting of priests, bishops and the pope.curtpenn said:See vv 25 and following. For further development see Acts 20. This is also helpful:Mothra said:I've read it again, and am not seeing the verses you are referencing. It is your position that Acts 1 talks about priests and bishops? Can you cite the specific verses?curtpenn said:See Acts 1 for the origins. Episkopoi, presbuteroi, and diakonoi were clearly in place by the 2nd century at the latest.Mothra said:Where are bishops and priests mentioned anywhere in Acts or in any of the letters?curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/1985.html
Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.Mothra said:I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?Sam Lowry said:I'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.Mothra said:Your position suggests that all tradition is equally authoritative, or its not. Yet, we know of faith traditions and off-shoots of Christianity that were around for centuries (and some still today) that are antithetical to scripture and Catholic tradition. Gnosticism comes immediately to mind - an off-shoot of heretical teachings that lasted around 3-4 centuries. And of course, the biggest off-shoot would be Islam, which of course is the fastest growing faith today, and has millions of adherents. Are these faith traditions authoritative because they've been around for centuries?Sam Lowry said:I don't see how you can know from tradition that the Bible is authoritative, unless the tradition is equally authoritative. The lesser authority doesn't define the greater.Mothra said:Your argument appears to incorrectly assume that for those who hold to sola scriptura, tradition has no meaning or value whatsoever. That is not the case, and that does not appear to be what BT is saying. We can know from faith traditions that the Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation.Sam Lowry said:How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, that is not the point I'm making. I know it's the inspired word of God because that's what my faith tradition teaches. I'm asking you and BTD how you know.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.
This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.
Sola scriptura does not hold that traditions have no value. Instead, it holds that traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. It holds that traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. It was the protestant response to the Roman Catholic Church making traditions superior to the authority of Scripture - many of which were in fact contradictory to scripture (see prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace).
In other words, sola scriptura avoids subjectivity and keeps personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one's spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. That appears to me to have been BT's point, which you seem to have either missed or perhaps are purposely attempting to twist.
Scripture alludes to many Catholic beliefs without stating them expressly, yet you reject these beliefs. So in your view it seems that beliefs must do more than just conform with Scripture. They must be expressly derived from it. This is what brought up the whole sola scriptura issue. But of course the "plain meaning" of Scripture often depends on your subjective interpretation or the interpretation of your particular faith community. This is the problem you've never really addressed.
I'm avoiding any commentary on other posters' intentions or intelligence and would suggest we all do the same. Hopefully we can keep things pleasant and productive.
I reject your all-or-nothing premise, and also leave room for faith and the working of the Holy Spirit, which help us discern what is right and truthful.
I am not sure what Catholic beliefs you allege Scripture alludes to. I only take issue with those that are antithetical to your very own Holy Scriptures, or have little to no scriptural support. As I said early on in this debate, the idea that all scripture is so opaque that it cannot be plainly understood is a theory any reasonable person would reject. Paul said it best: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I believe him.
And yet Catholic doctrine includes the following contradictions: prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace.Sam Lowry said:Scripture is central to what we call the deposit of faith, so by definition anything that actually contradicts Scripture would also contradict the magisterium. Nothing can trump Scripture. Even if a pope contradicts it, that pope is in error.Mothra said:I suppose the answer to that question lies in how you define authoritative. If by authoritative, you mean tradition trumps Scripture (including Catholic Scripture) on areas where they contradict, then no, such tradition is not authoritative. But of course that seems pretty elementary, does it not?Sam Lowry said:I'm just trying to establish whether any tradition is authoritative.Mothra said:Your position suggests that all tradition is equally authoritative, or its not. Yet, we know of faith traditions and off-shoots of Christianity that were around for centuries (and some still today) that are antithetical to scripture and Catholic tradition. Gnosticism comes immediately to mind - an off-shoot of heretical teachings that lasted around 3-4 centuries. And of course, the biggest off-shoot would be Islam, which of course is the fastest growing faith today, and has millions of adherents. Are these faith traditions authoritative because they've been around for centuries?Sam Lowry said:I don't see how you can know from tradition that the Bible is authoritative, unless the tradition is equally authoritative. The lesser authority doesn't define the greater.Mothra said:Your argument appears to incorrectly assume that for those who hold to sola scriptura, tradition has no meaning or value whatsoever. That is not the case, and that does not appear to be what BT is saying. We can know from faith traditions that the Word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian faith because that is what has been passed down from generation to generation.Sam Lowry said:How is "Christianity" defined? What did it teach before Scripture was written?Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:No, that is not the point I'm making. I know it's the inspired word of God because that's what my faith tradition teaches. I'm asking you and BTD how you know.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.
This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.
Oh that's easy. Because that is what Christianity has taught since scripture was written.
Now, is the purpose of your comments to try and make a corollary between the "faith traditions" you adhere to that contradict scripture?
My purpose is to find out whether the sola scriptura argument is circular (i.e. based on Scripture), self-contradictory (i.e. based on tradition), or in some other category. Right now it's not clear what the third option would be.
Sola scriptura does not hold that traditions have no value. Instead, it holds that traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. It holds that traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. It was the protestant response to the Roman Catholic Church making traditions superior to the authority of Scripture - many of which were in fact contradictory to scripture (see prayers to the saints and/or Mary, immaculate conception, transubstantiation, papal authority, works instead of grace).
In other words, sola scriptura avoids subjectivity and keeps personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one's spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. That appears to me to have been BT's point, which you seem to have either missed or perhaps are purposely attempting to twist.
Scripture alludes to many Catholic beliefs without stating them expressly, yet you reject these beliefs. So in your view it seems that beliefs must do more than just conform with Scripture. They must be expressly derived from it. This is what brought up the whole sola scriptura issue. But of course the "plain meaning" of Scripture often depends on your subjective interpretation or the interpretation of your particular faith community. This is the problem you've never really addressed.
I'm avoiding any commentary on other posters' intentions or intelligence and would suggest we all do the same. Hopefully we can keep things pleasant and productive.
I reject your all-or-nothing premise, and also leave room for faith and the working of the Holy Spirit, which help us discern what is right and truthful.
I am not sure what Catholic beliefs you allege Scripture alludes to. I only take issue with those that are antithetical to your very own Holy Scriptures, or have little to no scriptural support. As I said early on in this debate, the idea that all scripture is so opaque that it cannot be plainly understood is a theory any reasonable person would reject. Paul said it best: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I believe him.
Please site one official Catholic document that believes this.Mothra said:
... works instead of grace.
Having said that, isn't praying a work or confessing that "Jesus is Lord" a work? It is something that you do.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church dogmas of Mary - that she was sinless throughout her life even before birth, that she was perpetually a virgin, and that she was bodily assumed into heaven - clearly represent added on beliefs and ideas by Catholic authorities, and thus corruption of early Christianity?Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:The problem, with regard to whatever purer version of Christianity you believe was allowed to surface after centuries of Catholic oppression, is that it's largely unsupported by history and tradition.Mothra said:Indeed, your first paragraph is quite true, which is why all church teachings from the early patriarchs must be weighed against the written Word. Where their writings, teachings, and practices diverge from the teachings of the apostles and disciples, we must view them as suspect and seriously question the basis for them.Sam Lowry said:Very, very little of history was written by people who knew their subjects personally. The early Church Fathers are not authoritative in the same way as Scripture. They are authoritative in the same way as any other historical sources who were knowledgeable and close in time to their subjects.Mothra said:The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?Sam Lowry said:Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.Mothra said:Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.Sam Lowry said:Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.....you're asking for a circular argument?Coke Bear said:Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.
Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.
What belief in the magisterium reflects is not faith in fallible human beings. It is very much the opposite. Only with accountability from the worldwide community of believers past and present, with good scholarly methods, with a rational system of canon law, and even then only with the help of the Holy Spirit, can we be confident in the truth.
The alternative is to believe that basically everyone from the 1st century forward, including both the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, got the message significantly wrong until the fundamentalists came along in the 19th century and cleared it up. This is not only speculation bordering on conspiracy theory, but also a breathtaking example of man's faith in his own wisdom.
I understand your position in the second paragraph. I think what you are unwilling to admit is the scripture provides all of the authority we need to judge whether church tradition (there are many divergent traditions, just FYI) and Catholic Doctrine is in-line with Chris's teachings. So while you claim that this is not faith in fallible human beings, unfortunately, when doctrine comes from man instead of the written Word, even if based on certain tradition, it is exactly what I described. Sure, it may have some basis in Truth, but it is not the Truth. And once again, therein lies the problem with basing belief on traditions that do not conform to the written Word.
As for your third paragraph, the idea that Christians were some homogenous group with the same beliefs from the 1st to 19th century, that all believed in Catholic doctrine, simply isn't accurate in the least. Indeed, from the first century on, there were many divergent groups, long before the Catholics became Catholics. While I realize the Catholic tradition considers itself a continuation of the early Christian community established by the Disciples, the truth is Catholicism didn't really become a thing until the 600's, and while it became the dominant Christian religion, it was not the only Christian religion or tradition. So the Catholic's idea that they are merely a continuation of what Peter started is simply inaccurate, and not historical.
History is replete with examples of Christian theologians getting it wrong, and in some cases, it took centuries for bad ideas to be seen as exactly that. Early critics of Catholicism (of which there were many, FYI) were simply burned at the stake and silenced by the Church. It wasn't until Martin Luther's beliefs in the 16th Century questioning Catholicism's teachings (and his avoiding being killed by Catholics) that the true protestant movement took root. So it was long before the 19th Century. It just took hundreds of years for ideas that the Catholics were intent on stamping out (through murder) to become mainstream. So, there was not simply some epiphany that occurred in the 19th Century. Protestantism was centuries in the making.
I will say....even as a Baptist.....its hard to reconcile the idea that modern Evangelical Christianity was what the early Church/Christ movement looked like in the 1st century. But then after a few hundreds years it short of went underground and the Catholic Church just suppressed it/radically changed its doctrine and practice.
[Also, data point that the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are structured in a similar way and teach very similar things to the RCC...and also claim ancient descent from the Apostles.]
While its a simplistic argument....its one that I have basically heard.
"The Catholic institutional hierarchy and Popes corrupted early Christianity and added on man made rites and ideas."
"But what about the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox who act in a similar manner?"
"All these liturgical churches all got corrupted at the same time"
I know lots of honest and very good low church Protestants who make arguments like that....and they are sincere but just not compelling to me.
Oh sure.
As a Baptist I see tons of things in Roman Catholic, Coptic, and Eastern Orthodox among their teaching and practice that are obviously add-ons and additions since the time of the Apostles.
I simply mean that the idea that much of what they claim to be their core teachings and practices (real presence in the Eucharist, priests, bishops) does seem to come from the early Church....or at least they have strong claim to them.
Obviously they disagree with each other on some serious theological issues....Papal supremacy, the later teachings on the sinless nature of Mary, etc.
But I can't discount that they claim an unbroken succession back to the 1st century and claim to represent/still practice much of what the early Church did.
Coke Bear said:Please site one official Catholic document that believes this.Mothra said:
... works instead of grace.
Having said that, isn't praying a work or confessing that "Jesus is Lord" a work? It is something that you do.
Interesting analogy. I can kind of relate to it, I remember when I left the church of Christ, East Texas version, my wife was on me telling me I needed to say "the believers prayer" to be be saved.
I said , if I was relying on my baptism for salvation, which you called a work, why would I then do to another work, reciting "the believers prayer" where you invite Jesus into your heart, when at least Baptism was actually in the Bible.
The fact is all churches have added something, that may not perfectly align with the Bible. The Believers pray is not biblical and really a baptism substitute.
The verses that hit hard were, " If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus" and "If you believe in your heart God has raised Him from the dead" you will be saved. For it's with your heart you believe and are justifed and with your mouth confess and are saved".
You don't have to invite him in, he is God, he knows if you believe in Him.
There are plenty that have confessed and are not saved, there are plenty that have been baptised and are not saved, there are plenty that have recited a believers prayer who are not saved, there are plenty that have done many wonderful works who are not saved.Quote:
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
But, the heart cannot be faked. If you believe in your heart in Him, he knows. And He is faithful to save you.
Don't get so hung up on semantics. You can "know" things by faith. Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)curtpenn said:"We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles..."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
Here's the heart of your fallacy right here; if we "knew" then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. We believe, accept, give intellectual assent to propositional truth, but ultimately we cannot know this side of the grave. I have faith and hope, but no objective proof.
1.Textual criticism.Sam Lowry said:How do you know the Apostles' testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).Sam Lowry said:No, that is not the point I'm making. I know it's the inspired word of God because that's what my faith tradition teaches. I'm asking you and BTD how you know.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
So you're trying to make the point that scripture may not be the inspired word of God.
This argument has taken an interesting turn. BT is exactly right in his assessment.
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
If your beliefs flow from history and tradition, how does sola scriptura follow? Where is the logic in accepting the outflow but rejecting the source?
2. Who is rejecting the source? Sola Scriptura is the logical outflow of the testimony of the apostles. What's under question are history and tradition that do not come from Sola Scriptura, because Sola Scriptura represents the original history and tradition that we believe to be a God-breathed revelation. History and tradition that isn't traced to that original history and tradition as contained in Scripture, therefore, must be claimed as a new revelation on its own.
But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians. The onus of showing something is on you, and you failed, even on the grounds of tradition and reason.curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Believing positively on something based on the silence of Jesus is a foolish and dangerous way to think. It's what people do to corrupt the faith. And I've shown you more than enough biblical principles as well as common sense reason as to why the practice is wrong, so it isn't an argument from silence, really.
Those who divide the honor, glory, and praise that is due Jesus and give it to someone else, and those who promote it, they are the one dividing themselves from the body. Satan smiles at that.curtpenn said:That's a really insulting question and representative of the divisiveness you continually propound. Satan is still smiling.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree to the truth of the historical Jesus. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
If they contained these beliefs, then yes, obviously.curtpenn said:Are they "corruptions"? Were the Nicene, Apostles', and Athanasian Creeds that were the products of centuries of thought and councils "corruptions" of early Christianity?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church dogmas of Mary - that she was sinless throughout her life even before birth, that she was perpetually a virgin, and that she was bodily assumed into heaven - clearly represent added on beliefs and ideas by Catholic authorities, and thus corruption of early Christianity?Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:The problem, with regard to whatever purer version of Christianity you believe was allowed to surface after centuries of Catholic oppression, is that it's largely unsupported by history and tradition.Mothra said:Indeed, your first paragraph is quite true, which is why all church teachings from the early patriarchs must be weighed against the written Word. Where their writings, teachings, and practices diverge from the teachings of the apostles and disciples, we must view them as suspect and seriously question the basis for them.Sam Lowry said:Very, very little of history was written by people who knew their subjects personally. The early Church Fathers are not authoritative in the same way as Scripture. They are authoritative in the same way as any other historical sources who were knowledgeable and close in time to their subjects.Mothra said:The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?Sam Lowry said:Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.Mothra said:Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.Sam Lowry said:Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.....you're asking for a circular argument?Coke Bear said:Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.
Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.
What belief in the magisterium reflects is not faith in fallible human beings. It is very much the opposite. Only with accountability from the worldwide community of believers past and present, with good scholarly methods, with a rational system of canon law, and even then only with the help of the Holy Spirit, can we be confident in the truth.
The alternative is to believe that basically everyone from the 1st century forward, including both the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, got the message significantly wrong until the fundamentalists came along in the 19th century and cleared it up. This is not only speculation bordering on conspiracy theory, but also a breathtaking example of man's faith in his own wisdom.
I understand your position in the second paragraph. I think what you are unwilling to admit is the scripture provides all of the authority we need to judge whether church tradition (there are many divergent traditions, just FYI) and Catholic Doctrine is in-line with Chris's teachings. So while you claim that this is not faith in fallible human beings, unfortunately, when doctrine comes from man instead of the written Word, even if based on certain tradition, it is exactly what I described. Sure, it may have some basis in Truth, but it is not the Truth. And once again, therein lies the problem with basing belief on traditions that do not conform to the written Word.
As for your third paragraph, the idea that Christians were some homogenous group with the same beliefs from the 1st to 19th century, that all believed in Catholic doctrine, simply isn't accurate in the least. Indeed, from the first century on, there were many divergent groups, long before the Catholics became Catholics. While I realize the Catholic tradition considers itself a continuation of the early Christian community established by the Disciples, the truth is Catholicism didn't really become a thing until the 600's, and while it became the dominant Christian religion, it was not the only Christian religion or tradition. So the Catholic's idea that they are merely a continuation of what Peter started is simply inaccurate, and not historical.
History is replete with examples of Christian theologians getting it wrong, and in some cases, it took centuries for bad ideas to be seen as exactly that. Early critics of Catholicism (of which there were many, FYI) were simply burned at the stake and silenced by the Church. It wasn't until Martin Luther's beliefs in the 16th Century questioning Catholicism's teachings (and his avoiding being killed by Catholics) that the true protestant movement took root. So it was long before the 19th Century. It just took hundreds of years for ideas that the Catholics were intent on stamping out (through murder) to become mainstream. So, there was not simply some epiphany that occurred in the 19th Century. Protestantism was centuries in the making.
I will say....even as a Baptist.....its hard to reconcile the idea that modern Evangelical Christianity was what the early Church/Christ movement looked like in the 1st century. But then after a few hundreds years it short of went underground and the Catholic Church just suppressed it/radically changed its doctrine and practice.
[Also, data point that the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are structured in a similar way and teach very similar things to the RCC...and also claim ancient descent from the Apostles.]
While its a simplistic argument....its one that I have basically heard.
"The Catholic institutional hierarchy and Popes corrupted early Christianity and added on man made rites and ideas."
"But what about the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox who act in a similar manner?"
"All these liturgical churches all got corrupted at the same time"
I know lots of honest and very good low church Protestants who make arguments like that....and they are sincere but just not compelling to me.
Redbrickbear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church dogmas of Mary - that she was sinless throughout her life even before birth, that she was perpetually a virgin, and that she was bodily assumed into heaven - clearly represent added on beliefs and ideas by Catholic authorities, and thus corruption of early Christianity?Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:The problem, with regard to whatever purer version of Christianity you believe was allowed to surface after centuries of Catholic oppression, is that it's largely unsupported by history and tradition.Mothra said:Indeed, your first paragraph is quite true, which is why all church teachings from the early patriarchs must be weighed against the written Word. Where their writings, teachings, and practices diverge from the teachings of the apostles and disciples, we must view them as suspect and seriously question the basis for them.Sam Lowry said:Very, very little of history was written by people who knew their subjects personally. The early Church Fathers are not authoritative in the same way as Scripture. They are authoritative in the same way as any other historical sources who were knowledgeable and close in time to their subjects.Mothra said:The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?Sam Lowry said:Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.Mothra said:Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.Sam Lowry said:Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.....you're asking for a circular argument?Coke Bear said:Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.
Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.
What belief in the magisterium reflects is not faith in fallible human beings. It is very much the opposite. Only with accountability from the worldwide community of believers past and present, with good scholarly methods, with a rational system of canon law, and even then only with the help of the Holy Spirit, can we be confident in the truth.
The alternative is to believe that basically everyone from the 1st century forward, including both the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, got the message significantly wrong until the fundamentalists came along in the 19th century and cleared it up. This is not only speculation bordering on conspiracy theory, but also a breathtaking example of man's faith in his own wisdom.
I understand your position in the second paragraph. I think what you are unwilling to admit is the scripture provides all of the authority we need to judge whether church tradition (there are many divergent traditions, just FYI) and Catholic Doctrine is in-line with Chris's teachings. So while you claim that this is not faith in fallible human beings, unfortunately, when doctrine comes from man instead of the written Word, even if based on certain tradition, it is exactly what I described. Sure, it may have some basis in Truth, but it is not the Truth. And once again, therein lies the problem with basing belief on traditions that do not conform to the written Word.
As for your third paragraph, the idea that Christians were some homogenous group with the same beliefs from the 1st to 19th century, that all believed in Catholic doctrine, simply isn't accurate in the least. Indeed, from the first century on, there were many divergent groups, long before the Catholics became Catholics. While I realize the Catholic tradition considers itself a continuation of the early Christian community established by the Disciples, the truth is Catholicism didn't really become a thing until the 600's, and while it became the dominant Christian religion, it was not the only Christian religion or tradition. So the Catholic's idea that they are merely a continuation of what Peter started is simply inaccurate, and not historical.
History is replete with examples of Christian theologians getting it wrong, and in some cases, it took centuries for bad ideas to be seen as exactly that. Early critics of Catholicism (of which there were many, FYI) were simply burned at the stake and silenced by the Church. It wasn't until Martin Luther's beliefs in the 16th Century questioning Catholicism's teachings (and his avoiding being killed by Catholics) that the true protestant movement took root. So it was long before the 19th Century. It just took hundreds of years for ideas that the Catholics were intent on stamping out (through murder) to become mainstream. So, there was not simply some epiphany that occurred in the 19th Century. Protestantism was centuries in the making.
I will say....even as a Baptist.....its hard to reconcile the idea that modern Evangelical Christianity was what the early Church/Christ movement looked like in the 1st century. But then after a few hundreds years it short of went underground and the Catholic Church just suppressed it/radically changed its doctrine and practice.
[Also, data point that the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are structured in a similar way and teach very similar things to the RCC...and also claim ancient descent from the Apostles.]
While its a simplistic argument....its one that I have basically heard.
"The Catholic institutional hierarchy and Popes corrupted early Christianity and added on man made rites and ideas."
"But what about the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox who act in a similar manner?"
"All these liturgical churches all got corrupted at the same time"
I know lots of honest and very good low church Protestants who make arguments like that....and they are sincere but just not compelling to me.
Oh sure.
As a Baptist I see tons of things in Roman Catholic, Coptic, and Eastern Orthodox among their teaching and practice that are obviously add-ons and additions since the time of the Apostles.
I simply mean that the idea that much of what they claim to be their core teachings and practices (real presence in the Eucharist, priests, bishops) does seem to come from the early Church....or at least they have strong claim to them.
Obviously they disagree with each other on some serious theological issues....Papal supremacy, the later teachings on the sinless nature of Mary, etc.
But I can't discount that they claim an unbroken succession back to the 1st century and claim to represent/still practice much of what the early Church did.
I would submit what they claim and reality are two very different things…
This is what I find very interesting as well. Of course, they will argue their traditions are supported by the bible, but they have to interpret the bible in bad faith to do so.Mothra said:
The irony of this entire debate is that Catholics hold scripture to be the divine and inspired Word of God. Thus, to try and argue that traditions that contradict their own bible are valid despite this fact is the height of irony.
Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church dogmas of Mary - that she was sinless throughout her life even before birth, that she was perpetually a virgin, and that she was bodily assumed into heaven - clearly represent added on beliefs and ideas by Catholic authorities, and thus corruption of early Christianity?Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:The problem, with regard to whatever purer version of Christianity you believe was allowed to surface after centuries of Catholic oppression, is that it's largely unsupported by history and tradition.Mothra said:Indeed, your first paragraph is quite true, which is why all church teachings from the early patriarchs must be weighed against the written Word. Where their writings, teachings, and practices diverge from the teachings of the apostles and disciples, we must view them as suspect and seriously question the basis for them.Sam Lowry said:Very, very little of history was written by people who knew their subjects personally. The early Church Fathers are not authoritative in the same way as Scripture. They are authoritative in the same way as any other historical sources who were knowledgeable and close in time to their subjects.Mothra said:The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?Sam Lowry said:Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.Mothra said:Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.Sam Lowry said:Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.....you're asking for a circular argument?Coke Bear said:Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.
Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.
What belief in the magisterium reflects is not faith in fallible human beings. It is very much the opposite. Only with accountability from the worldwide community of believers past and present, with good scholarly methods, with a rational system of canon law, and even then only with the help of the Holy Spirit, can we be confident in the truth.
The alternative is to believe that basically everyone from the 1st century forward, including both the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, got the message significantly wrong until the fundamentalists came along in the 19th century and cleared it up. This is not only speculation bordering on conspiracy theory, but also a breathtaking example of man's faith in his own wisdom.
I understand your position in the second paragraph. I think what you are unwilling to admit is the scripture provides all of the authority we need to judge whether church tradition (there are many divergent traditions, just FYI) and Catholic Doctrine is in-line with Chris's teachings. So while you claim that this is not faith in fallible human beings, unfortunately, when doctrine comes from man instead of the written Word, even if based on certain tradition, it is exactly what I described. Sure, it may have some basis in Truth, but it is not the Truth. And once again, therein lies the problem with basing belief on traditions that do not conform to the written Word.
As for your third paragraph, the idea that Christians were some homogenous group with the same beliefs from the 1st to 19th century, that all believed in Catholic doctrine, simply isn't accurate in the least. Indeed, from the first century on, there were many divergent groups, long before the Catholics became Catholics. While I realize the Catholic tradition considers itself a continuation of the early Christian community established by the Disciples, the truth is Catholicism didn't really become a thing until the 600's, and while it became the dominant Christian religion, it was not the only Christian religion or tradition. So the Catholic's idea that they are merely a continuation of what Peter started is simply inaccurate, and not historical.
History is replete with examples of Christian theologians getting it wrong, and in some cases, it took centuries for bad ideas to be seen as exactly that. Early critics of Catholicism (of which there were many, FYI) were simply burned at the stake and silenced by the Church. It wasn't until Martin Luther's beliefs in the 16th Century questioning Catholicism's teachings (and his avoiding being killed by Catholics) that the true protestant movement took root. So it was long before the 19th Century. It just took hundreds of years for ideas that the Catholics were intent on stamping out (through murder) to become mainstream. So, there was not simply some epiphany that occurred in the 19th Century. Protestantism was centuries in the making.
I will say....even as a Baptist.....its hard to reconcile the idea that modern Evangelical Christianity was what the early Church/Christ movement looked like in the 1st century. But then after a few hundreds years it short of went underground and the Catholic Church just suppressed it/radically changed its doctrine and practice.
[Also, data point that the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are structured in a similar way and teach very similar things to the RCC...and also claim ancient descent from the Apostles.]
While its a simplistic argument....its one that I have basically heard.
"The Catholic institutional hierarchy and Popes corrupted early Christianity and added on man made rites and ideas."
"But what about the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox who act in a similar manner?"
"All these liturgical churches all got corrupted at the same time"
I know lots of honest and very good low church Protestants who make arguments like that....and they are sincere but just not compelling to me.
Oh sure.
As a Baptist I see tons of things in Roman Catholic, Coptic, and Eastern Orthodox among their teaching and practice that are obviously add-ons and additions since the time of the Apostles.
I simply mean that the idea that much of what they claim to be their core teachings and practices (real presence in the Eucharist, priests, bishops) does seem to come from the early Church....or at least they have strong claim to them.
Obviously they disagree with each other on some serious theological issues....Papal supremacy, the later teachings on the sinless nature of Mary, etc.
But I can't discount that they claim an unbroken succession back to the 1st century and claim to represent/still practice much of what the early Church did.
I would submit what they claim and reality are two very different things…
Interesting documentary….obvious produced with an Orthodox positive spin.
But still interesting that Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch still rules out of a headquarters on a street called Straight.
The Hebrews never accepted the deuterocanonical books, i.e. the apocrypha, as part of their canon of scriptures, as did the early church.Coke Bear said:This is not true. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in 107 AD:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8My point is that the Catholic Church canonized (correctly) all 46 books of the Septuagint buse it was what Jesus and His disciples used (and other reasons as well.)BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Luther move the deudeuterocanonical books to the back because he couldn't find Hebrew copies and they did some of them did not find his invented beliefs. (Later we would find a few of these books in Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls preserved most likely by the Essenes.)
But therein lies the problem. The most powerful lies are those that come attached to some truths.Redbrickbear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doesn't the Roman Catholic Church dogmas of Mary - that she was sinless throughout her life even before birth, that she was perpetually a virgin, and that she was bodily assumed into heaven - clearly represent added on beliefs and ideas by Catholic authorities, and thus corruption of early Christianity?Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:The problem, with regard to whatever purer version of Christianity you believe was allowed to surface after centuries of Catholic oppression, is that it's largely unsupported by history and tradition.Mothra said:Indeed, your first paragraph is quite true, which is why all church teachings from the early patriarchs must be weighed against the written Word. Where their writings, teachings, and practices diverge from the teachings of the apostles and disciples, we must view them as suspect and seriously question the basis for them.Sam Lowry said:Very, very little of history was written by people who knew their subjects personally. The early Church Fathers are not authoritative in the same way as Scripture. They are authoritative in the same way as any other historical sources who were knowledgeable and close in time to their subjects.Mothra said:The Church Fathers, as you call them, didn't even know Christ, nor is it likely they even knew his apostles, as the oldest lived at least 100-200 years after Christ. There is a reason their teachings did not become New Testament canon. Moreover, which Church Fathers are you referencing? Are you referring only those the Catholics venerate? Or are you referring to the other fathers as well - those the Greek Orthodox venerate? And what evidence do you have that these early theologians - many of whom held contradictory theologies to each other - are authoritative on the historical record of Christ?Sam Lowry said:Sure there is. It's in the teaching of the Church Fathers, as well as Scripture.Mothra said:Except they're not. There is no historical record of Christ that mirrors Catholic belief. Sorry.Sam Lowry said:Basing your beliefs on the historical person of Jesus Christ isn't a circular argument. It's also not sola scriptura. It's what Catholics are doing when we rely on the historical witness of Church tradition.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sola Scriptura is not based on a circular argument. It is based on the historical revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ - his life, death, and resurrection.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe in sola scriptura, is there any other kind?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So.....you're asking for a circular argument?Coke Bear said:Please show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the bible.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
That's the inevitable result if you abandon the principle of Sola Scriptura in favor of the fallible traditions of man.
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it's what Scripture says - that's a circular argument
Arguing that Sola Scriptura is true because it is the logical outflow of the belief in the historical person of Jesus Christ - that's not.
Again, herein lies the problem with not using scripture as the compass to judge the teachings of fallible man.
What belief in the magisterium reflects is not faith in fallible human beings. It is very much the opposite. Only with accountability from the worldwide community of believers past and present, with good scholarly methods, with a rational system of canon law, and even then only with the help of the Holy Spirit, can we be confident in the truth.
The alternative is to believe that basically everyone from the 1st century forward, including both the Catholic Church and the Protestant reformers, got the message significantly wrong until the fundamentalists came along in the 19th century and cleared it up. This is not only speculation bordering on conspiracy theory, but also a breathtaking example of man's faith in his own wisdom.
I understand your position in the second paragraph. I think what you are unwilling to admit is the scripture provides all of the authority we need to judge whether church tradition (there are many divergent traditions, just FYI) and Catholic Doctrine is in-line with Chris's teachings. So while you claim that this is not faith in fallible human beings, unfortunately, when doctrine comes from man instead of the written Word, even if based on certain tradition, it is exactly what I described. Sure, it may have some basis in Truth, but it is not the Truth. And once again, therein lies the problem with basing belief on traditions that do not conform to the written Word.
As for your third paragraph, the idea that Christians were some homogenous group with the same beliefs from the 1st to 19th century, that all believed in Catholic doctrine, simply isn't accurate in the least. Indeed, from the first century on, there were many divergent groups, long before the Catholics became Catholics. While I realize the Catholic tradition considers itself a continuation of the early Christian community established by the Disciples, the truth is Catholicism didn't really become a thing until the 600's, and while it became the dominant Christian religion, it was not the only Christian religion or tradition. So the Catholic's idea that they are merely a continuation of what Peter started is simply inaccurate, and not historical.
History is replete with examples of Christian theologians getting it wrong, and in some cases, it took centuries for bad ideas to be seen as exactly that. Early critics of Catholicism (of which there were many, FYI) were simply burned at the stake and silenced by the Church. It wasn't until Martin Luther's beliefs in the 16th Century questioning Catholicism's teachings (and his avoiding being killed by Catholics) that the true protestant movement took root. So it was long before the 19th Century. It just took hundreds of years for ideas that the Catholics were intent on stamping out (through murder) to become mainstream. So, there was not simply some epiphany that occurred in the 19th Century. Protestantism was centuries in the making.
I will say....even as a Baptist.....its hard to reconcile the idea that modern Evangelical Christianity was what the early Church/Christ movement looked like in the 1st century. But then after a few hundreds years it short of went underground and the Catholic Church just suppressed it/radically changed its doctrine and practice.
[Also, data point that the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are structured in a similar way and teach very similar things to the RCC...and also claim ancient descent from the Apostles.]
While its a simplistic argument....its one that I have basically heard.
"The Catholic institutional hierarchy and Popes corrupted early Christianity and added on man made rites and ideas."
"But what about the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox who act in a similar manner?"
"All these liturgical churches all got corrupted at the same time"
I know lots of honest and very good low church Protestants who make arguments like that....and they are sincere but just not compelling to me.
Oh sure.
As a Baptist I see tons of things in Roman Catholic, Coptic, and Eastern Orthodox among their teaching and practice that are obviously add-ons and additions since the time of the Apostles.
I simply mean that the idea that much of what they claim to be their core teachings and practices (real presence in the Eucharist, priests, bishops) does seem to come from the early Church....or at least they have strong claim to them.
Obviously they disagree with each other on some serious theological issues....Papal supremacy, the later teachings on the sinless nature of Mary, etc.
But I can't discount that they claim an unbroken succession back to the 1st century and claim to represent/still practice much of what the early Church did.
Warning the Virgin Mary and saints are mentioned.
https://bishopstrickland.com/blog/post/a-brief-update-from-bishop-strickland
Dear Flock of the Diocese of Tyler,
I realize you may have heard information about me that is concerning and possibly confusing.
I thought it would be good for you to hear directly from me, hopefully I can alleviate some concerns and clarify any confusion. As you probably know there was an Apostolic Visitation of the diocese conducted the week of June 19-24. Bishop Kicanas, retired from Tuscan, Arizona and Bishop Sullivan, from Camden, New Jersey spent the week interviewing various people about the condition of the diocese and concluded by interviewing me.
I have not heard from any Church official from Rome since the visitation concluded on June 24. I was not given a reason for the visitation, and I have not received any report since.
Last week an article was published on a website called, "The Pillar", and the article alleged that a meeting was held with Pope Francis where some of the members of the Congregation for Bishops recommended that I be encouraged to resign as Bishop of Tyler. Let me be clear that I have received no communication from Rome regarding this. At this point it is simply and article discussing supposed leaked information from the Vatican.
I have said publicly that I cannot resign as Bishop of Tyler because that would be me abandoning the flock that I was given charge of by Pope Benedict XVI. I have also said that I will respect the authority of Pope Francis if he removes me from office as Bishop of Tyler. I love Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church which He established. My only desire is to speak His Truth and live God's Will to the best of my ability.
In closing let me share my profound gratitude for the support and prayers that so many of you have expressed to me. I continue to love serving as your shepherd and thankfully during all of this I have been able to visit many of your parishes and celebrate our Catholic faith with you.
I am blessed in my personal prayer in which I feel very close to the Lord and supported by the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints. Your prayers are a tremendous support as well. I am at peace with whatever the Lord's call for me is, let us continue to pray for Pope Francis, the Church, and the Diocese of Tyler that we call home.
God bless you and all who are dear to you.
Sincerely in Christ's Name,
Most Reverend Joseph E. Strickland
Bishop of Tyler
https://bishopstrickland.com/blog/post/a-brief-update-from-bishop-strickland
Dear Flock of the Diocese of Tyler,
I realize you may have heard information about me that is concerning and possibly confusing.
I thought it would be good for you to hear directly from me, hopefully I can alleviate some concerns and clarify any confusion. As you probably know there was an Apostolic Visitation of the diocese conducted the week of June 19-24. Bishop Kicanas, retired from Tuscan, Arizona and Bishop Sullivan, from Camden, New Jersey spent the week interviewing various people about the condition of the diocese and concluded by interviewing me.
I have not heard from any Church official from Rome since the visitation concluded on June 24. I was not given a reason for the visitation, and I have not received any report since.
Last week an article was published on a website called, "The Pillar", and the article alleged that a meeting was held with Pope Francis where some of the members of the Congregation for Bishops recommended that I be encouraged to resign as Bishop of Tyler. Let me be clear that I have received no communication from Rome regarding this. At this point it is simply and article discussing supposed leaked information from the Vatican.
I have said publicly that I cannot resign as Bishop of Tyler because that would be me abandoning the flock that I was given charge of by Pope Benedict XVI. I have also said that I will respect the authority of Pope Francis if he removes me from office as Bishop of Tyler. I love Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church which He established. My only desire is to speak His Truth and live God's Will to the best of my ability.
In closing let me share my profound gratitude for the support and prayers that so many of you have expressed to me. I continue to love serving as your shepherd and thankfully during all of this I have been able to visit many of your parishes and celebrate our Catholic faith with you.
I am blessed in my personal prayer in which I feel very close to the Lord and supported by the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints. Your prayers are a tremendous support as well. I am at peace with whatever the Lord's call for me is, let us continue to pray for Pope Francis, the Church, and the Diocese of Tyler that we call home.
God bless you and all who are dear to you.
Sincerely in Christ's Name,
Most Reverend Joseph E. Strickland
Bishop of Tyler
You make a living here with semantics. Ironic. You can believe things by faith and hope for them by faith, but you cannot know.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Don't get so hung up on semantics. You can "know" things by faith. Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)curtpenn said:"We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles..."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
Here's the heart of your fallacy right here; if we "knew" then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. We believe, accept, give intellectual assent to propositional truth, but ultimately we cannot know this side of the grave. I have faith and hope, but no objective proof.
If you don't even know whether or not they contain these beliefs so that you can answer a simple question then you obviously need to spend a bit more time studying the foundational creeds of the denomination you are so determined to criticize over a prayer that isn't dogma and terms that have apparently been contested for centuries.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If they contained these beliefs, then yes, obviously.curtpenn said:
Are they "corruptions"? Were the Nicene, Apostles', and Athanasian Creeds that were the products of centuries of thought and councils "corruptions" of early Christianity?
Jesus is not diminished. This is not a zero sum game. No one I know or know of suggests that Mary or any saint is Lord or God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Those who divide the honor, glory, and praise that is due Jesus and give it to someone else, and those who promote it, they are the one dividing themselves from the body. Satan smiles at that.curtpenn said:That's a really insulting question and representative of the divisiveness you continually propound. Satan is still smiling.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree to the truth of the historical Jesus. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
Another lie from you? Show me where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints. It is clear that early Christians did. That they are not early enough for you is your problem. I failed nothing. You are just invincibly ignorant.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians. The onus of showing something is on you, and you failed, even on the grounds of tradition and reason.curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Believing positively on something based on the silence of Jesus is a foolish and dangerous way to think. It's what people do to corrupt the faith. And I've shown you more than enough biblical principles as well as common sense reason as to why the practice is wrong, so it isn't an argument from silence, really.
While it may be true believing something based on silence may sometimes be dangerous, it may also not be dangerous. The thing is not dispositive in and of itself. You haven't shown anything other than insistence that your own understanding trumps that of the majority of all Christians ever. Satan approved hubris is your fruit.
If all you have to harp on was my choice of the word "know", it would seem to indicate the solidity of my argument.curtpenn said:You make a living here with semantics. Ironic. You can believe things by faith and hope for them by faith, but you cannot know.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Don't get so hung up on semantics. You can "know" things by faith. Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)curtpenn said:"We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles..."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
Here's the heart of your fallacy right here; if we "knew" then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. We believe, accept, give intellectual assent to propositional truth, but ultimately we cannot know this side of the grave. I have faith and hope, but no objective proof.
You do not have to suggest that Mary or any saint is God in order to diminish Jesus.curtpenn said:Jesus is not diminished. This is not a zero sum game. No one I know or know of suggests that Mary or any saint is Lord or God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Those who divide the honor, glory, and praise that is due Jesus and give it to someone else, and those who promote it, they are the one dividing themselves from the body. Satan smiles at that.curtpenn said:That's a really insulting question and representative of the divisiveness you continually propound. Satan is still smiling.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree to the truth of the historical Jesus. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?curtpenn said:Another lie from you? Show me where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints. It is clear that early Christians did. That they are not early enough for you is your problem. I failed nothing. You are just invincibly ignorant.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians. The onus of showing something is on you, and you failed, even on the grounds of tradition and reason.curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Believing positively on something based on the silence of Jesus is a foolish and dangerous way to think. It's what people do to corrupt the faith. And I've shown you more than enough biblical principles as well as common sense reason as to why the practice is wrong, so it isn't an argument from silence, really.
While it may be true believing something based on silence may sometimes be dangerous, it may also not be dangerous. The thing is not dispositive in and of itself. You haven't shown anything other than insistence that your own understanding trumps that of the majority of all Christians ever. Satan approved hubris is your fruit.
[The conservative Catholic writer Michael Brendan Dougherty cuts loose on Pope Francis. Even if you for whatever reason favor Francis's theological and moral liberalism (relative to the Catholic tradition), you should read this, because it explains why Francis is such a revolutionary figure from MBD's view, for the worse. Excerpts:
Quote:
All this is preparation for the ballyhooed "Synod on Synodality," which is literally a conference of bishops dilating on the authority of conferences of bishops. The aim of the Synod, rather plainly, is for a large group of bishops to debate each other about survey material they guided some small number of lay Catholics through in their home diocese, and whether this pile of papers gives sufficient cover for the pope to begin chucking certain moral and dogmatic teachings of the church overboard in favor of newer understandings. It's a truly strange exercise meant to obscure the pope's role in changing the faith. Basically, he's going to ask a bunch of bishops to write up a document showing that the church in general has come to a new understanding of itself.
It's hard to unpack how much of a failure this already is. The very idea of a "Synod on Synodality" is like having a Meeting about Meetings. That uncomfortable guttural sound and hissing you are hearing from Rome is the ecclesial snake choking on its own tail. The pope's constant comments on "backwardness" and condemnations of "ideology" are his attempt to get past the idea that the Catholic faith has real intellectual substance that has been defined, clarified, and distilled through the ages. This process whereby early scriptural and liturgical statements about the divinity of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and God the father are over the centuries expressed in new terms such as "the Holy Trinity" is what St. John Henry Newman called the "development of doctrine." Newman had rules for distinguishing between true and false development, tracing all the way back to St. Vincent of Lrins. "A true development is that which is conservative of its original," Newman wrote, "and a corruption is that which tends to its destruction." The law of non-contradiction applies.
But Pope Francis does not operate like this. …
More:
Quote:
In the 19th century, when the Catholic Church was responding to the age of revolutions by asserting the infallibility of its teaching authority and the pope's peculiar charism of infallibility, some critics worried that papal authority would begin to appear like a special bauble that occupants of the office could use to innovate. Newman was emphatic that papal infallibility was tied up intimately with the infallibility of the church as a whole, and that the power was largely a negative one, built for the purpose of condemning error. Certainly not for pioneering new truths.
But it's quite clear these days that Pope Francis's greatest fans want him to use papal authority to condemn moral, social, and liturgical traditionalists, and even to revise or significantly reform church teaching on the matters associated with moral and social traditionalists: the church's ban on artificial contraception, its reservation of Holy Matrimony to men and women, its reservation of Holy Orders to men. The pope's current head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith the office formerly used to assist popes in guarding orthodoxy now boldly talks about the "doctrine of the Holy Father" as if the personal moral enthusiasms of Pope Francis were binding on all Christians. They even sometimes talk of Christian duty to "the present Magisterium" of the church, rather than the "perennial" one.
Again, even if you wish that the Catholic Church would moderate on some of these issues, pay attention to the shocking fact that Francis is dismantling the Roman church's authority to do so. This is something that won't be noticed by most people outside the relatively small ranks of those like MBD, who pay attention to and respect Church authority. Certainly the media will only praise Francis. But if Francis gets his way, he will have accomplished the change through a revelation that, in a sense, all but annuls the Church's teaching authority.
Think of it: if Francis succeeds in making changes that contradict the Church's past teaching, traditionalists could claim that these changes would be null and void, and Francis would be deposed as pope, in truth (if not in fact). That would turn a minority of Catholics, but a significant minority, and a minority with truth on its side, into sedevacantists ("empty throne," the term used for Catholics who believe there is not a sitting valid pope), and compel a schism. But even for the Catholics who accepted the innovations and I expect most would, for various reasons they will have done so at the expense of negating the binding teaching authority of the Church. If the Church can change its teachings ("develop doctrine") with each passing pope, it makes a mockery of the Catholic Church's claims to authority. Don't like what Rome says today? Just wait, maybe the next papal administration will be more to your liking.
It's easy for me to say, as someone outside the Catholic Church, but it seems crystal clear that the cult of the papacy that emerged from the 19th century, and reached its doctrinal zenith in the formalization of the teaching of papal infallibility, was a terrible mistake. Informed Catholics will rightly say that papal infallibility only applies in very rare cases, under specific conditions. True enough. But what does it mean in practice in a Church where a) many, even most, lay Catholics treat the pope as a kind of oracle, and b) the institutional safeguards that are supposed to prevent the abuse of this charism fail to work?
For example, four cardinals followed the correct procedure after Francis issues his encyclical "Amoris laetitia" some years back, and published "dubia" formal theological questions put to the pope, asking him to clarify what they see as substantial problems in the teaching document. Francis simply ignored the dubia. Two of the dubia cardinals have since died, and a third is holding on at age 94. Francis is never going to answer the dubia, obviously. He simply doesn't care. And neither do most in the Curia. If you can brazen it out under such conditions, you can prevail...] - Rod Dreher
From St Paul's letter to the Corinthians (you know, Sola Scriptura, and all that): For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If all you have to harp on was my choice of the word "know", it would seem to indicate the solidity of my argument.curtpenn said:You make a living here with semantics. Ironic. You can believe things by faith and hope for them by faith, but you cannot know.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Don't get so hung up on semantics. You can "know" things by faith. Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)curtpenn said:"We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles..."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
We know based on the revelation of God through Jesus. Because by faith we accept the testimony of the historical resurrection of Jesus given to us by Jesus' apostles, whose testimony is reliably preserved in the New Testament. And because Jesus was resurrected, he was from God, and therefore his word has the authority of God. And Jesus himself gave the stamp of authority to the Old Testament ("every jot and tittle") and to the word from his apostles (John 14:26).
What is the basis for your faith tradition's teaching that the Bible is the inspired word of God? Is it on the same revelation of God through the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus? If so, that's our shared starting point. And sola scriptura is the logical outflow from that starting point, as explained above.
Here's the heart of your fallacy right here; if we "knew" then it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. We believe, accept, give intellectual assent to propositional truth, but ultimately we cannot know this side of the grave. I have faith and hope, but no objective proof.
That you choose to argue over believing/thinking over actually knowing tells us all we need to "know" about the solidity of your argument.
Who was in heaven at that point? No one. One might argue Enoch, Elijah, and Moses, but the most likely were in Abraham's bosom.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians. The onus of showing something is on you, and you failed, even on the grounds of tradition and reason.
Believing positively on something based on the silence of Jesus is a foolish and dangerous way to think. It's what people do to corrupt the faith. And I've shown you more than enough biblical principles as well as common sense reason as to why the practice is wrong, so it isn't an argument from silence, really.
There were no saints to ask for intercession. It wasn't until the Church had great martyrs such as Ignatius, Felicity, Perpetua, etc. that suffered under Nero, Trajan, Diocletian, etc. that the Church Militant began requesting intercession from the Church Triumphant.
As mentioned, we have prayers asking for Mary's intercession in the 200's.
As you say, early Christians found heresies such as gnosticism, Montanism, docetism, etc., and identified them as heresies. Why then do we find evidence for Marian veneration early on and yet it wasn't classified as heresy?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?curtpenn said:Another lie from you? Show me where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints. It is clear that early Christians did. That they are not early enough for you is your problem. I failed nothing. You are just invincibly ignorant.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians. The onus of showing something is on you, and you failed, even on the grounds of tradition and reason.curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Believing positively on something based on the silence of Jesus is a foolish and dangerous way to think. It's what people do to corrupt the faith. And I've shown you more than enough biblical principles as well as common sense reason as to why the practice is wrong, so it isn't an argument from silence, really.
While it may be true believing something based on silence may sometimes be dangerous, it may also not be dangerous. The thing is not dispositive in and of itself. You haven't shown anything other than insistence that your own understanding trumps that of the majority of all Christians ever. Satan approved hubris is your fruit.
Your opinion of Jesus must be low if you think he is diminished in any way as I work through my Anglican rosary at bed time and recite the Ave along with the Jesus Prayer and Pater Noster.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You do not have to suggest that Mary or any saint is God in order to diminish Jesus.curtpenn said:Jesus is not diminished. This is not a zero sum game. No one I know or know of suggests that Mary or any saint is Lord or God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Those who divide the honor, glory, and praise that is due Jesus and give it to someone else, and those who promote it, they are the one dividing themselves from the body. Satan smiles at that.curtpenn said:That's a really insulting question and representative of the divisiveness you continually propound. Satan is still smiling.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It begs the question only if the two parties in the debate don't already agree to the truth of the historical Jesus. That is the shared starting point of the debate. Are you are admitting you don't believe Scripture to be the word of God? Is that a Catholic position?Sam Lowry said:Sola scriptura begs this question, so it's necessarily part of the debate. That's what we're trying to get across to you.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If you want to make the argument that we can't prove Scripture is the word of God, fine. Just go make it in a thread where that's the debate. It isn't the debate here.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
- no one is saying we have to prove Scripture to be the word of God. You're spending too much time and energy arguing against a point that no one is making. - You're basing an entire belief system on something that cannot be proven, only believed. That is precisely the point I am making. You have no proof of anything. Only belief.
- I "rail" against the things that are either unbiblical, or clearly against biblical principles. Praying to anyone other than God/Jesus is one of those. - Requesting intercession is neither unbiblical nor against biblical principles. You beg the question every time you make such a silly assertion.
- where is your evidence that the early church did in fact practice praying to Mary and the saints, as you claim? - Others have already covered this. If you didn't believe them, doubt you'd believe me.
- how do you know those saints are truly in heaven? How do you know they hear you? Who told you they have the "jurisdiction" over the areas they've been assigned? I believe they hear me just as you believe Jesus hears you. Prove for us that Jesus hears you? I prefer "association" to "jurisdiction". It is a more accurate term. Most of the associations are part of history and tradition. There is much we think we know about the lives of early Christians and martyrs. History didn't end with the Revelation of St John.
- you say there's "pushback" on that type of prayer. Would that include you? Because in another thread, you did not see any problem with them, and in fact you defended them. I defended specific phrases that had alternate explanations to the worst case scenarios you created. I do think some go too far in their leanings re Mary which is just a small part of why I am not Roman Catholic. The Bishop of Rome and his role is my greatest difficulty. Regardless, such beliefs are not salvific and are adiaphora.
- Mary isn't a co-anything. Catholic beliefs about her are completely unbiblical, and even extend into idolatry. Some Catholics DO believe she is co-Mediator. There is currently a movement within Catholicism to dogmatize this belief. Pope John Paul II received more than four million signatures from 157 countries urging him to exercise papal infallibility to pronounce Mary as "Co-Redemptrix [co-redeemer], Mediatrix [mediator] of All Graces, and Advocate for the People of God." Past popes have regarded Mary as Co-mediator. During a radio message in 1935, Pope Pius XI gave the title "Co-redemptrix" to Mary. This is what happens when you don't stop the "veneration" of Mary and recognize it as unbiblical - it grows and grows, and when you don't base yourself in sola scriptura, this is what eventuallly happens. Who knows what can happen in future. You have a current pope who is clearly a progressive, and he's inserted progressive bishops into his College of Cardinals. What Catholics believe today, could easily be dogmatized against by a future pope. - I see no problem with Mary as co mediator to the extent she intercedes on our behalf to her beloved Son. From Wikipedia so take it for what it's worth:
Co-Redemptrix (also spelled Coredemptrix; Co-Redemptress is an equivalent term) is a title used by some Catholics for the Blessed Virgin Mary, and refers to Mary's role in the redemption of all peoples.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-1][1][/url]
According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-2][2][/url]
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-3][3][/url] though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4][/url] Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title should not be used.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Redemptrix#cite_note-autogenerated1-4][4]
[/url]Seems to me you are misrepresenting something. As usual.
Still waiting for you to show where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints, btw.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?curtpenn said:Another lie from you? Show me where I claimed Jesus or his apostles taught or practiced the veneration of Mary or the saints. It is clear that early Christians did. That they are not early enough for you is your problem. I failed nothing. You are just invincibly ignorant.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:But you are making the positive assertion that prayer to Mary and the saints was taught, believed, and practiced by Jesus, his apostles, or the first Christians. The onus of showing something is on you, and you failed, even on the grounds of tradition and reason.curtpenn said:Of course there were bishops and priests. You've "shown" exactly nothing re Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians concerning their beliefs or practices concerning Mary or the saints. You have inferred from silence, just as the early Church inferred from tradition and reason.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, the first Christians were not Catholics. There were no popes, bishops, priests, nuns, etc. and as it's been repeatedly shown over and over in this thread, neither Jesus, his apostles, nor the first Christians believed in or practiced praying to Mary or to saints.Coke Bear said:First Catholics are Christians. We're the original franchise since 33 AD.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Which books of the OT did Jesus quote from or allude to that were removed by Christians?
To answer your question: None of them.
The New Testament never quotes from Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Ester, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Johan, or Zaphaniah. Should we remove these?
I am not saying to remove OT books that weren't quoted in the NT. I'm asking you to expound on your comment - "Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint, which contains all 46 books of the OT, but Protestants removed 7 of them. Yet, they claim to be able to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit." If Jesus or the apostles quoted from a book in the OT that was removed by Protestants, then you'd have an argument. But if you can't name one of those books, then you don't.
Believing positively on something based on the silence of Jesus is a foolish and dangerous way to think. It's what people do to corrupt the faith. And I've shown you more than enough biblical principles as well as common sense reason as to why the practice is wrong, so it isn't an argument from silence, really.
While it may be true believing something based on silence may sometimes be dangerous, it may also not be dangerous. The thing is not dispositive in and of itself. You haven't shown anything other than insistence that your own understanding trumps that of the majority of all Christians ever. Satan approved hubris is your fruit.
St John Paul II and Benedict were almost enough to convince me to swim the Tiber. Francis reminds me why I did not.Redbrickbear said:
[The conservative Catholic writer Michael Brendan Dougherty cuts loose on Pope Francis. Even if you for whatever reason favor Francis's theological and moral liberalism (relative to the Catholic tradition), you should read this, because it explains why Francis is such a revolutionary figure from MBD's view, for the worse. Excerpts:Quote:
All this is preparation for the ballyhooed "Synod on Synodality," which is literally a conference of bishops dilating on the authority of conferences of bishops. The aim of the Synod, rather plainly, is for a large group of bishops to debate each other about survey material they guided some small number of lay Catholics through in their home diocese, and whether this pile of papers gives sufficient cover for the pope to begin chucking certain moral and dogmatic teachings of the church overboard in favor of newer understandings. It's a truly strange exercise meant to obscure the pope's role in changing the faith. Basically, he's going to ask a bunch of bishops to write up a document showing that the church in general has come to a new understanding of itself.
It's hard to unpack how much of a failure this already is. The very idea of a "Synod on Synodality" is like having a Meeting about Meetings. That uncomfortable guttural sound and hissing you are hearing from Rome is the ecclesial snake choking on its own tail. The pope's constant comments on "backwardness" and condemnations of "ideology" are his attempt to get past the idea that the Catholic faith has real intellectual substance that has been defined, clarified, and distilled through the ages. This process whereby early scriptural and liturgical statements about the divinity of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and God the father are over the centuries expressed in new terms such as "the Holy Trinity" is what St. John Henry Newman called the "development of doctrine." Newman had rules for distinguishing between true and false development, tracing all the way back to St. Vincent of Lrins. "A true development is that which is conservative of its original," Newman wrote, "and a corruption is that which tends to its destruction." The law of non-contradiction applies.
But Pope Francis does not operate like this. …
More:Quote:
In the 19th century, when the Catholic Church was responding to the age of revolutions by asserting the infallibility of its teaching authority and the pope's peculiar charism of infallibility, some critics worried that papal authority would begin to appear like a special bauble that occupants of the office could use to innovate. Newman was emphatic that papal infallibility was tied up intimately with the infallibility of the church as a whole, and that the power was largely a negative one, built for the purpose of condemning error. Certainly not for pioneering new truths.
But it's quite clear these days that Pope Francis's greatest fans want him to use papal authority to condemn moral, social, and liturgical traditionalists, and even to revise or significantly reform church teaching on the matters associated with moral and social traditionalists: the church's ban on artificial contraception, its reservation of Holy Matrimony to men and women, its reservation of Holy Orders to men. The pope's current head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith the office formerly used to assist popes in guarding orthodoxy now boldly talks about the "doctrine of the Holy Father" as if the personal moral enthusiasms of Pope Francis were binding on all Christians. They even sometimes talk of Christian duty to "the present Magisterium" of the church, rather than the "perennial" one.
Again, even if you wish that the Catholic Church would moderate on some of these issues, pay attention to the shocking fact that Francis is dismantling the Roman church's authority to do so. This is something that won't be noticed by most people outside the relatively small ranks of those like MBD, who pay attention to and respect Church authority. Certainly the media will only praise Francis. But if Francis gets his way, he will have accomplished the change through a revelation that, in a sense, all but annuls the Church's teaching authority.
Think of it: if Francis succeeds in making changes that contradict the Church's past teaching, traditionalists could claim that these changes would be null and void, and Francis would be deposed as pope, in truth (if not in fact). That would turn a minority of Catholics, but a significant minority, and a minority with truth on its side, into sedevacantists ("empty throne," the term used for Catholics who believe there is not a sitting valid pope), and compel a schism. But even for the Catholics who accepted the innovations and I expect most would, for various reasons they will have done so at the expense of negating the binding teaching authority of the Church. If the Church can change its teachings ("develop doctrine") with each passing pope, it makes a mockery of the Catholic Church's claims to authority. Don't like what Rome says today? Just wait, maybe the next papal administration will be more to your liking.
It's easy for me to say, as someone outside the Catholic Church, but it seems crystal clear that the cult of the papacy that emerged from the 19th century, and reached its doctrinal zenith in the formalization of the teaching of papal infallibility, was a terrible mistake. Informed Catholics will rightly say that papal infallibility only applies in very rare cases, under specific conditions. True enough. But what does it mean in practice in a Church where a) many, even most, lay Catholics treat the pope as a kind of oracle, and b) the institutional safeguards that are supposed to prevent the abuse of this charism fail to work?
For example, four cardinals followed the correct procedure after Francis issues his encyclical "Amoris laetitia" some years back, and published "dubia" formal theological questions put to the pope, asking him to clarify what they see as substantial problems in the teaching document. Francis simply ignored the dubia. Two of the dubia cardinals have since died, and a third is holding on at age 94. Francis is never going to answer the dubia, obviously. He simply doesn't care. And neither do most in the Curia. If you can brazen it out under such conditions, you can prevail...] - Rod Dreher
To piggyback on curtpenn, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a five book set called Against Heresies between 174 and 189 AD that refuted ALL the heresies that occurred during that time.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
If it was believed and practiced by an "early" group of Christians, but it was NOT taught, believed, or practiced by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians, then it does not have authority. Remember that heresies like gnosticism were abound that predated the practice of praying to Mary, and those heresies were shunned for the reason that it did not trace back to Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians. So why should the practice of praying to Mary be any different?
He never once address veneration or intercession.