BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You just described the circular argument - "Bishops are appointed successors to the Apostles and thus carry the same apostolic authority. It says so in the bible, which only we can inerrantly interpret as such - because as successors to the Apostles we have apostolic authority to say so".Redbrickbear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Cite these protestant sources about Mary's free choice. What scriptural argument do you have? The angel clearly said to her "You will", not "Will you?" God chose her, it was His will as the angel Gabriel indicated. Could Mary have thwart it? Regardless, if it so happens that it was in fact her choice, then you've destroyed your argument about her "saving mankind". Because if it was possible for her to reject it and for God to select another woman in her place, then the plan would still have gone on without her. Jesus' arrival to earth was not contingent upon her choice. God would not have thrown up his hands in the air and said, "Great, she refused! NOW what are we going to do? Mankind is screwed!"Quote:
It seems like your rejecting Mary's free will. I find that interesting. In all the protestant sources that I searched; they affirmed that Mary DID have a choice to consent. I'd suggest that you do some research with some trusted protestant scholars.
Loving her does not take away love or glory for Jesus. I love my children dearly. That does not take away my love for my wife. Love is exponential and infinite.
In Luke 11:27-28, Jesus highlights the importance of spiritual kinship over biological ties. He is not redirecting her praise.
You know very well that I am not implying that. My point is that Mary has always been part of God's plan since the beginning. Her role is significantly more important than Judas'. It seems like you're trying to take a jab at my view. Oh, well.
Well, I've provided definitions and explained the differences between the two. Either I didn't explain well enough and you don't understand or you just don't care to understand.
We have reached am impasse on Mary. I've shown that she has always been honored throughout Church history. You don't see it like that. We each have our own opinions. My job is merely present information as thought by the Church. My job isn't to change your mind or anyone else's. That role belongs to the Holy Spirit.
We'll have to agree to disagree and move on.
Peace, brother. I will continue to pray for you daily.
Bad argument using your children. You don't give them titles, roles, or the affection you give your wife. When you elevate Mary to the role of Co-Mediator who you pray to, sing to, crediting her for "saving humanity", you are giving attributes to her that belong to Jesus and taking away the honor and glory due Jesus alone by sharing it with Mary. A much better example would be if you had another woman in your life besides your wife whom you go on dates with, talk intimately to, have pictures of her all over your house, and when you want something you ask her to ask your wife, instead of asking your wife directly. Do you honestly believe your wife is going to buy your argument that you're not taking anything away from the love meant for her?
In Luke 11, it was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to give clear and direct teaching that we should honor and venerate his mother Mary to the level that you Catholics do, if it were that important. But he didn't, and that says something. You can deny it all you want, but he clearly redirected the focus away from Mary instead of affirming the praise for her. It's right there in scripture. It'd be dishonest to say that he didn't.
You have only shown Mary was honored in Church history from extra-biblical church tradition and not from the original apostolic church in Acts or anywhere else in Scripture. That's the inescapable conundrum for you. And even then, the early church didn't "honor" Mary nearly to level that Catholics do now. It has strayed so far from early church tradition, much less Scripture, to a level of blatant idolatry that should be so easy to detect, but it isn't among Catholics, and that is worrisome. It is an indicator of how dug in Roman Catholics are into preserving their tradition and life-long belief systems over pursuing actual truth. It's like frogs in water slowly going to a boil, and they just don't sense that they should jump out. Like I said before - if you can't see the heresy and idolatry in calling Mary "sovereign", "god of this word", "mediator between sinners and God", and "placing your salvation into Mary's hands" or you actually think these are defensible, then you're so far gone that you're NEVER going to see it - outside a miracle from God. That miracle is what I will be praying for, for you and all other Roman Catholics.
Its a really good post. As Luther pointed out, RCs live in a fear, brought on by the belief that their salvation is through the church, and that they can easily lose their salvation. And to openly disagree with the church on any significant matter is effectively sinning. What the church says is sacred. So if the church says that worshipping Mary in all its forms is just Veneration, it must be so. So people treat Mary as an idol, and it's OK according to the church. They've turned Christendom's revered Mother of Christ into a marketing tool imo. Rather than venerate, they idolize and mystify her as a powerful spirit being. Clear to all but the RCs (whom I love as brothers/sisters in Christianity).
The RCC's argument is circular - "Only we can interpret the Bible inerrantly. It says so in the Bible, and that's our inerrant interpretation".
I'm not Roman Catholic (Southern Baptist) but I don't find their logic circular....just not compelling.
They claim that Jesus left his Church to his Apostles to safe guard, lead, and teach (and their successors) and that what the Church (as a body) determines to be religious truth...is then religious truth period.
What you lose on earth also in heaven/rock of Peter stuff.
Basically real Christianity is what the Bishops of the Roman Church say it is.....they created the canon of the Bible that came from the Bishops admitting what books would be allowed into the canon and kicking the rest out. If they are revealed a mystical teaching (Mary free of original sin from the moment of her conception, etc) then it is True and faithful Christians should believe it.
(The Orthodox Church of course makes basically this same argument...they just have less Ecumenical councils so less innovations/less new teachings)
So if you do think the Bishops as appointed successors to the Apostles have the right to make doctrine for the Church then there is nothing strange about it.
If you think they lack this authority then of course you naturally become Protestant.
Its a interesting theological discussion....and I can see both sides honestly.
Honestly they don't claim to rely solely on the Bible for that authority….(the one they codified) so it's not circular.
They claim oral/traditional descent as well
I will try and look up their exact argument but they base there authority in oral tradition and not just the Bible
*here it is
[I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."]
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm