BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.

Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.

---

John's purpose wasn't to define Marian Dogmas.

The siblings mentioned in the Gospels actually have other parents. James and Joseph are mentioned as "brothers" and believed by protestants to be Jesus' actual brothers. But we are told later that they are actually sons of Mary the wife of Clopas, most likely cousins.

St. Jerome, who translated the bible into Latin, openly mocked Helvidius because he believed that Jesus had siblings born of Mary. His statement was,

"The axe of the Gospel must now be laid at the roots of the barren tree and the tree must be delivered to the flames with its unfruitful leaves, so that he who has never learned to speak might learn at length to hold his tongue."

ShooterTX said:

---

Jesus was the firstborn. In Jewish law it is the firstborn who is supposed to take care of the parents. Jesus gave this role to John, not because he had no siblings but because it was his authority to choose her care taker. He chose John because at the time of his death, no one was in closer relationship to Jesus than John. Its is believed that many of His siblings didn't believe he was the Messiah until after his resurrection. So John is a logical choice and it's a great honor for John to have been chosen for this role.

---

This is completely inaccurate. No where in the Jewish culture does this right or responsibility exist. The firstborn was required to care for their aging parents. If they die, that role would belong to the other siblings. If they did NOT take care of an aging parents, that would be a grievous sin against the commandment to honor thy father and mother. Jesus would never have been complicit in allowing a "sibling" to commit such a sin.

John was entrusted because Jesus had no other siblings. Luther and Calvin both believed this as well. The notion that Mary had other children crept into Christianity long after the original "reformers."

---

And yet you give no explanation for why John never mentions any of the miracle of Mary outside of the immaculate conception.
Why wouldn't John mention even one of these crazy things that you Catholics believe about Mary?
Mary was supposedly the first sinless human, and no mention of it at all? That's an insane belief. Not a single scripture prophesize about her being sinless, not a single one that states the she was sinless... yet multiple scriptures talk about the sinlessness of Jesus.

No explanation... just a big "trust me bro".... typical.

---

Maybe the assumed that the eventual readers would understand the evidence presented in -

• Luke 1:28 - (kecharitomene) Mary perfectly and completely graced
• Genesis 3:15 - Total enmity with Satan implies sinlessness
• Luke 1:42 - Supreme blessing among all women
• Luke 1:47 -Saved preventively, not remedially
• Revelation 12:1 -Glorified, radiant woman image of total holiness

This was understood for 1500 years (which even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli believed) before the so-called "reformers" had to separate themselves further from the Church.

Finally, to piggyback on what other have stated, I'll ask you the following:

Why didn't John use or define the word, "Trinity?"
Why didn't John discuss the hypostatic union or Jesus being Homoousios?
Why didn't John tell us how determine what scripture is and what is not?
Why didn't John tell us that Mark or Hebrews is scripture?

I apologize if this seems rather snarky. I merely want this to demonstrate that NOT everything is going to be explicitly called out in scripture. Christ left a Church for us to determine what is scripture and to develop doctrine.

Some doctrines are of a higher order of truths than others. For instance, the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit (affirmed in AD 325 and 381, respectively) are of a much higher order of importance than the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness or perpetual virginity. All are true, but the former are more important than the later.

---

Left us a church (not 45,000 to Pick and choose from) not a book. Couldnt even sola scriptura until the Catholics put it together.

Everyone on this board would have never even seen a written scripture the first few hundred years of the Catholic Church so it was almost exclusively for almost everyone oral and lots of tradition woven in, as is explocitly written in what we now have each of our homes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

---

I said that it put me in good company with the ancient church fathers that Newman was referring to, not with Newman. You STILL can't comprehend it correctly.

I understand that you have to believe what you have to about Newman - it's because you can't read honestly, rather you have to read things so that your Church is always correct. It forces you to deny the reality that is right in front of your face, and look totally irrational.

I'm absolutely convinced if the RC posiiton was that Augustine loved apples, and I showed you a direct quote from him saying "I most certainly do NOT like apples" - you and your RC brothers would be here saying "but Augustine doesn't say he always doesn't like apples", or "that's not what he said, you took him out of context", or "here is a quote where he does say he loves apples" and then proceed to post a quote where he doesn't say that at all. Sadly, you are beholden to your Church and what it teaches, and it MUST be right, and so you must defend it at all costs, even if it goes against objective reality. And even if its overt and rank idolatry and heresy. It's really sad to witness. Roman Catholics really need to be honest, and open their eyes, if they every are going to get out of this mind trap.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

---

I said that it put me in good company with the ancient church fathers that Newman was referring to, not with Newman. You STILL can't comprehend it correctly.

---

Well, I wish you had made that clear. Newman might have believed in sola scriptura at some point, but the Church Fathers obviously never did. There's no particular need to involve him in that debate.

Why are we talking about Newman, again?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

---

I said that it put me in good company with the ancient church fathers that Newman was referring to, not with Newman. You STILL can't comprehend it correctly.

---

Well, I wish you had made that clear. Newman might have believed in sola scriptura at some point, but the Church Fathers obviously never did. There's no particular need to involve him in that debate.

Why are we talking about Newman, again?

---

If you couldn't comprehend that from my post of Newman's quote, then again, it goes to your lack of comprehension.

And as we can clearly see from Newman's quote, he admitted the church fathers may have not officially professed sola scriptura, but they ultimately put it into practice. That's why we're talking about Newman. And add to that Augustine who also believed in sola scriptura, and you have the early church evidence for sola scriptura that your Roman Catholic Church denies exists, and swears that it is merely an invention of the Reformation.

You're wrong, your church is wrong. But we know you both can't be objective and honest with the church fathers and with early church history. It would undermine your church's authority claims. It forces you to deny objective reality, just like with Augustine's quotes on the Eucharist. It's a big part of why I talk about Newman, Augustine, the Eucharist, Mary, etc - to show everyone just how mind trapped you and your colleagues are. If it opens your eyes and causes you to wake up, then great. If it doesn't, then it at least shows other people just how false and untenable Roman Catholicism really is.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

---

I said that it put me in good company with the ancient church fathers that Newman was referring to, not with Newman. You STILL can't comprehend it correctly.

---

Well, I wish you had made that clear. Newman might have believed in sola scriptura at some point, but the Church Fathers obviously never did. There's no particular need to involve him in that debate.

Why are we talking about Newman, again?

---

And as we can clearly see from Newman's quote, he admitted the church fathers may have not officially professed sola scriptura, but they ultimately put it into practice. That's why we're talking about Newman. And add to that Augustine who also believed in sola scriptura, and you have the early church evidence for sola scriptura that your Roman Catholic Church denies exists, and swears that it is merely an invention of the Reformation.

---

So we're back to what Newman believed again. I'll refer you to the passages above. Augustine was already addressed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

---

I said that it put me in good company with the ancient church fathers that Newman was referring to, not with Newman. You STILL can't comprehend it correctly.

---

Well, I wish you had made that clear. Newman might have believed in sola scriptura at some point, but the Church Fathers obviously never did. There's no particular need to involve him in that debate.

Why are we talking about Newman, again?

---

And as we can clearly see from Newman's quote, he admitted the church fathers may have not officially professed sola scriptura, but they ultimately put it into practice. That's why we're talking about Newman. And add to that Augustine who also believed in sola scriptura, and you have the early church evidence for sola scriptura that your Roman Catholic Church denies exists, and swears that it is merely an invention of the Reformation.

---

So we're back to what Newman believed again. I'll refer you to the passages above. Augustine was already addressed.

---

I think its been shown that you didn't have the evidence that you claimed you did. You'll always think you did, because you'll always read into everything that backs your church, nothing more, nothing less. Its one of the biggest impediments with talking with Catholics - they simply won't let themselves be honest with the texts. Augustine is a clear example of this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.

---

Umm, yeah, THE final authority:

"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."

You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.

---

That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:

Quote:

---

"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.

Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.

For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.

These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.

---

Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:

Quote:

---

Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.

---

Quote:

---

Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.

---

Quote:

---

In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."

---

In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.

---

So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?

Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.

Read his quote again:

"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)

He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.

---

It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.

Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

---

I said that it put me in good company with the ancient church fathers that Newman was referring to, not with Newman. You STILL can't comprehend it correctly.

---

Well, I wish you had made that clear. Newman might have believed in sola scriptura at some point, but the Church Fathers obviously never did. There's no particular need to involve him in that debate.

Why are we talking about Newman, again?

---

And as we can clearly see from Newman's quote, he admitted the church fathers may have not officially professed sola scriptura, but they ultimately put it into practice. That's why we're talking about Newman. And add to that Augustine who also believed in sola scriptura, and you have the early church evidence for sola scriptura that your Roman Catholic Church denies exists, and swears that it is merely an invention of the Reformation.

---

So we're back to what Newman believed again. I'll refer you to the passages above. Augustine was already addressed.

---

I think its been shown that you didn't have the evidence that you claimed you did. You'll always think you did, because you'll always read into everything that backs your church, nothing more, nothing less. Its one of the biggest impediments with talking with Catholics - they simply won't let themselves be honest with the texts. Augustine is a clear example of this.

---

I'm sorry if I seem biased. I guess it's a peculiar affliction of us Romanists.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think its been shown that you didn't have the evidence that you claimed you did. You'll always think you did, because you'll always read into everything that backs your church, nothing more, nothing less. Its one of the biggest impediments with talking with Catholics - they simply won't let themselves be honest with the texts. Augustine is a clear example of this.

---

No matter how many times you type this. No matter how much you feel that you want to believe this it's NOT going to make it true. We've already shown, many times, how you have taken his quotes completely out of context.

You simply cannot accept that the Church has studied his writings for 1500 years, declared him a doctor and a saint, and yet still never came to the conclusion that you and your infinite wisdom has been able to deduce.

You accuse Catholics of reading backwards. The pot is calling the kettle black here. You are reading your view into him and it is false.

Do you sincerely believe that the Catholic Church would declare a man a saint and a doctor if he didn't believe in the real presence, and he also believed in solo scripture?

But hey, keep it up! Maybe you'll convince yourself one day.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

---

Never did that and would never do that as a Christian

Bizarre take

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

---

Never did that and would never do that as a Christian

Bizarre take

---

Your words, so yes you did.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think its been shown that you didn't have the evidence that you claimed you did. You'll always think you did, because you'll always read into everything that backs your church, nothing more, nothing less. Its one of the biggest impediments with talking with Catholics - they simply won't let themselves be honest with the texts. Augustine is a clear example of this.

---

No matter how many times you type this. No matter how much you feel that you want to believe this it's NOT going to make it true. We've already shown, many times, how you have taken his quotes completely out of context.

You simply cannot accept that the Church has studied his writings for 1500 years, declared him a doctor and a saint, and yet still never came to the conclusion that you and your infinite wisdom has been able to deduce.

You accuse Catholics of reading backwards. The pot is calling the kettle black here. You are reading your view into him and it is false.

Do you sincerely believe that the Catholic Church would declare a man a saint and a doctor if he didn't believe in the real presence, and he also believed in solo scripture?

But hey, keep it up! Maybe you'll convince yourself one day.

---

You've NEVER shown that I took him out of context. I showed that YOU WERE. Do I need to point to it again?

All you can do is appeal to authority. I can show you from his own writings. I even checkmated you by getting you to confess that your church considers the Real Presence to mean that the disciples were "eating the flesh that they were seeing" and drinking the "blood that was shed on the cross"... and then I showed a DIRECT QUOTE where Augustine said, "You WILL NOT eat this body that you see, or drink this blood that will be shed on the cross".

You guys are so brainwashed, that you couldn't even see the debate was over at that point.

And why would it be so surprising for your Church to canonize a church father who didn't believe what your church teaches as a saint? It wouldn't be the first time.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

---

Never did that and would never do that as a Christian

Bizarre take

---

Your words, so yes you did.

---

Mmmmmmmmk

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

---

Never did that and would never do that as a Christian

Bizarre take

---

Your words, so yes you did.

---

He meant honoring Mary as much as Jesus did. He's tried to explain this several times.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

---

Never did that and would never do that as a Christian

Bizarre take

---

Your words, so yes you did.

---

He meant honoring Mary as much as Jesus did. He's tried to explain this several times.

---

Since Jesus - according to Scripture - never prayed to Mary, mentioned her as part of the path to Salvation, or ever gave her titles like Fre3dombear does here. my point is very much proven if Jesus is the example.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

---

Never did that and would never do that as a Christian

Bizarre take

---

Your words, so yes you did.

---

He meant honoring Mary as much as Jesus did. He's tried to explain this several times.

---

Since Jesus - according to Scripture - never prayed to Mary, mentioned her as part of the path to Salvation, or ever gave her titles like Fre3dombear does here. my point is very much proven if Jesus is the example.

---

Different point, but okay.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

---

Never did that and would never do that as a Christian

Bizarre take

---

Your words, so yes you did.

---

He meant honoring Mary as much as Jesus did.

---

So, why aren't you Roman Catholics doing that, then?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, why aren't you Roman Catholics doing that, then?

---

We do.

Does your Jesus break the 4th commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother?

The Catholic Jesus does break commandments.

I supposed your Jesus in your made-up religion believes that Jesus does break the commandments.

What a shame.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think its been shown that you didn't have the evidence that you claimed you did. You'll always think you did, because you'll always read into everything that backs your church, nothing more, nothing less. Its one of the biggest impediments with talking with Catholics - they simply won't let themselves be honest with the texts. Augustine is a clear example of this.

---

No matter how many times you type this. No matter how much you feel that you want to believe this it's NOT going to make it true. We've already shown, many times, how you have taken his quotes completely out of context.

You simply cannot accept that the Church has studied his writings for 1500 years, declared him a doctor and a saint, and yet still never came to the conclusion that you and your infinite wisdom has been able to deduce.

You accuse Catholics of reading backwards. The pot is calling the kettle black here. You are reading your view into him and it is false.

Do you sincerely believe that the Catholic Church would declare a man a saint and a doctor if he didn't believe in the real presence, and he also believed in solo scripture?

But hey, keep it up! Maybe you'll convince yourself one day.

---

You've NEVER shown that I took him out of context. I showed that YOU WERE. Do I need to point to it again?

All you can do is appeal to authority. I can show you from his own writings. I even checkmated you by getting you to confess that your church considers the Real Presence to mean that the disciples were "eating the flesh that they were seeing" and drinking the "blood that was shed on the cross"... and then I showed a DIRECT QUOTE where Augustine said, "You WILL NOT eat this body that you see, or drink this blood that will be shed on the cross".

You guys are so brainwashed, that you couldn't even see the debate was over at that point.

And why would it be so surprising for your Church to canonize a church father who didn't believe what your church teaches as a saint? It wouldn't be the first time.

---

Like I said, keep typing.

Many have demonstrated how you have misrepresented the context, but you still keep typing like the Energizer Bunny. Maybe some misled junior high kids might believe you if you type it enough.

Please explain how the Catholic Church would call a man a Doctor of the Church if he didn't believe in the Real Presence.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So, why aren't you Roman Catholics doing that, then?

---

We do.

Does your Jesus break the 4th commandment of Honoring thy Father and Mother?

The Catholic Jesus does break commandments.

I supposed your Jesus in your made-up religion believes that Jesus does break the commandments.

What a shame.

---

Jesus made images and statues of his mother and bowed and prayed to them, sang hymns about her, built churches in her honor, called her "Co-redeemer", "The ALL HOLY ONE", "the salvation of my soul", and said that she was sinless, perpetually pure, and bodily ascendant into heaven, just like him? Wow, who knew?

You: "The Catholic Jesus does break commandments" - probably the only thing I've ever agreed with you on.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think its been shown that you didn't have the evidence that you claimed you did. You'll always think you did, because you'll always read into everything that backs your church, nothing more, nothing less. Its one of the biggest impediments with talking with Catholics - they simply won't let themselves be honest with the texts. Augustine is a clear example of this.

---

No matter how many times you type this. No matter how much you feel that you want to believe this it's NOT going to make it true. We've already shown, many times, how you have taken his quotes completely out of context.

You simply cannot accept that the Church has studied his writings for 1500 years, declared him a doctor and a saint, and yet still never came to the conclusion that you and your infinite wisdom has been able to deduce.

You accuse Catholics of reading backwards. The pot is calling the kettle black here. You are reading your view into him and it is false.

Do you sincerely believe that the Catholic Church would declare a man a saint and a doctor if he didn't believe in the real presence, and he also believed in solo scripture?

But hey, keep it up! Maybe you'll convince yourself one day.

---

You've NEVER shown that I took him out of context. I showed that YOU WERE. Do I need to point to it again?

All you can do is appeal to authority. I can show you from his own writings. I even checkmated you by getting you to confess that your church considers the Real Presence to mean that the disciples were "eating the flesh that they were seeing" and drinking the "blood that was shed on the cross"... and then I showed a DIRECT QUOTE where Augustine said, "You WILL NOT eat this body that you see, or drink this blood that will be shed on the cross".

You guys are so brainwashed, that you couldn't even see the debate was over at that point.

And why would it be so surprising for your Church to canonize a church father who didn't believe what your church teaches as a saint? It wouldn't be the first time.

---

Like I said, keep typing.

Many have demonstrated how you have misrepresented the context, but you still keep typing like the Energizer Bunny. Maybe some misled junior high kids might believe you if you type it enough.

Please explain how the Catholic Church would call a man a Doctor of the Church if he didn't believe in the Real Presence.

---

For someone who just can't process things correctly or be honest, I'm not at all surprised that you still think I'm the one who was misrepresenting the context. You have no answer to the checkmate, so all you have now is to try to insult my position.

And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".

^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".

---

It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.

---

Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.

Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And again - the Roman Catholic Church has canonized and made Doctors of the church many church fathers who didn't agree with their teaching. So I have no idea why you think that wouldn't be possible for Augustine. For heaven's sake - your church made a Doctor of the Church someone who wrote a whole book on the pure idolatry and heresy of Mary, which said things like "Mary is the salvation of the universe, in her hands I rest my salvation".

---

It's not my fault that you still won't accept that St Alphonsus wrote his book using 18th century poetic, Italian language that sounds strange to a protestant American in the 21st century. But when one keeps looking for the Catholic boogie-man, they are bound to find him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

^^^ Again - rational, honest, and regenerate believers with the Holy Spirit know what I'm talking about. The saddest thing is how the unregenerate who are brainwashed actually think that saying such things are okay.

---

Catholics aren't the brainwashed ones. We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years. It is some protestants that have been so poisoned by the evil one that continue to fight against what the Church truly believes. Sadly, it's many protestants that keep posting falsehoods about the Catholic Church that are the brainwashed ones.

Fortunately, the internet is reveling the Truth to protestants, LDS'ers, Muslims, and Atheists. They see that they have been falsely led astray by those that may or may not know the truth. Those that have had their eyes opened are coming back to the Church the Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Maybe one day, the scales will fall from your eyes.

---

Evidently, Roman Catholics think that a husband sending love letters to another woman can get away with the "it's just poetic language, honey" excuse.

"Same faith for 2000 years" - LOL. In one ear, out the other.

It's all so, so incredible how blind people like you are. It is absolutely bewildering.

" We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years"

Meaning what?

Judaism has been around thousands of years longer than Christianity, and the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day still failed to recognize the Messiah.

Older never meant 'more true'.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" We have followed the same faith for nearly 2000 years"

Meaning what?

Judaism has been around thousands of years longer than Christianity, and the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day still failed to recognize the Messiah.

Older never meant 'more true'.

---

It's also patently false. To think that the RCC today is the same faith as that of the first churches in Acts is a stunningly ridiculous denial of basic history and simple facts. No matter how many times that view has been shown to be completely false, they still repeat it. It's inexplicable, the mind trap of RC.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.

And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .

---

Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

---

You asked who equated Mary with Christ.

You said so in the thread title.

You are now trying to evade points 1 and 2.

---

Never did that and would never do that as a Christian

Bizarre take

---

Your words, so yes you did.

---

He meant honoring Mary as much as Jesus did. He's tried to explain this several times.

---

Since Jesus - according to Scripture - never prayed to Mary, mentioned her as part of the path to Salvation, or ever gave her titles like Fre3dombear does here. my point is very much proven if Jesus is the example.

---

More fruitful fir you to focus elsewhere. Let's try this again -

Who is the woman in Revelations? Is it Mary yes or no?

No, let's stay focused on Jesus' words in the Gospels.

When did He ever say to pray to Mary?

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, let's stay focused on Jesus' words in the Gospels.

When did He ever say to pray to Mary?

---

Nah. Youre switching topics.

When did He say to say the sinners prayer? The nicene creed? Grace Before Meals prayer? The trinity?

You do realize where the text of the Hail Mary comes from right? Now protestant Christians are against Bible versus? Or just the ones you're unwilling to contemplate?

Oh what tangled webs we weave when confused.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, let's stay focused on Jesus' words in the Gospels.

When did He ever say to pray to Mary?

---

Nah. Your switching topics.

---

Nope, staying ON topic.

First, Jesus is a primary source on Mary. The plain fact that Christ never commanded believers to pray to Mary or referred to her as a co-anything is pretty strong evidence that Marianism is wrong to any degree.

Now as to the Revelation account, you may note that Mary is not named. This is symbolism, not in any way a citation of Mary having Divine authority.

I understand this practice is very much something you wish to do and defend. So the moral character of it is something between you and the Lord. But the notion that it's acceptable, let alone proper, to promote this behavior to believers who see it as sin, is plainly wrong on its face.

It might compare praying to Mary like drinking alcohol. That is, if there is nothing wrong in doing so, it would still be wrong to push someone to such an act of they had reason to consider it wrong.

It's truly disappointing that you do not understand this.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, let's stay focused on Jesus' words in the Gospels.

When did He ever say to pray to Mary?

---

Nah. Your switching topics.

---

Nope, staying ON topic.

First, Jesus is a primary source on Mary. The plain fact that Christ never commanded believers to pray to Mary or referred to her as a co-anything is pretty strong evidence that Marianism is wrong to any degree.

Now as to the Revelation account, you may note that Mary is not named. This is symbolism, not in any way a citation of Mary having Divine authority.

I understand this practice is very much something you wish to do and defend. So the moral character of it is something between you and the Lord. But the notion that it's acceptable, let alone proper, to promote this behavior to believers who see it as sin, is plainly wrong on its face.

It might compare praying to Mary like drinking alcohol. That is, if there is nothing wrong in doing so, it would still be wrong to push someone to such an act of they had reason to consider it wrong.

It's truly disappointing that you do not understand this.

---

Who is the woman? Mary? Yes or no?

3 or less characters.

You can do ittttttttttrtt

Yes.


Or


No

Choose

(You veered wayyyyyy into la la land in your last post. Keep it simple this next one)

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, let's stay focused on Jesus' words in the Gospels.

When did He ever say to pray to Mary?

---

Nah. Your switching topics.

---

Nope, staying ON topic.

First, Jesus is a primary source on Mary. The plain fact that Christ never commanded believers to pray to Mary or referred to her as a co-anything is pretty strong evidence that Marianism is wrong to any degree.

Now as to the Revelation account, you may note that Mary is not named. This is symbolism, not in any way a citation of Mary having Divine authority.

I understand this practice is very much something you wish to do and defend. So the moral character of it is something between you and the Lord. But the notion that it's acceptable, let alone proper, to promote this behavior to believers who see it as sin, is plainly wrong on its face.

It might compare praying to Mary like drinking alcohol. That is, if there is nothing wrong in doing so, it would still be wrong to push someone to such an act of they had reason to consider it wrong.

It's truly disappointing that you do not understand this.

---

No one believes that Mary has divine authority. Coke Bear is only trying to correct such misunderstandings.