This is from a discussion I'm having with a Protestant named Bob, here.
Bob said:
I’d like to address some of your points. How could 2 Peter 2:1 be about protestants only? In fact we already see in Revelation 1-3 where the Lord Christ Himself is rebuking various churches for holding to false doctrines.
In regards to your church we could look at a number of examples of its teachings and see if they line up with Scripture. Take Mary’s sinlessness. No one in the New Testament taught she was without sin and in fact acknowledges her need of a Savior in Luke 1:47. To claim she would was without sin would contradict Romans 3:9 for example. Have you ever read The Glories of Mary by Alfonso Ligori?
Do you also believe that all grace comes through Mary?
What is your definition of Sola Scriptura? I want to know if we agree on what it is before I can agree with you that its false.
Here is what a couple of Roman Catholic scholars say about the woman of Rev 12:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
“a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”
You use Matthew 19:21 as the basis for indulgences but the verse in context has nothing to do with the idea of “the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven”. There is no mention of any kind of sacrament in this passage. I don’t get it.
Even the Old Testament passages don’t support this idea. It is true there can be and usually consequences of sin in our lives but there is no promise in Scripture that these consequences will be alleviated because of some sacrament.
Where does it say in Matthew 19:21 or anywhere in Scripture that one man’s treasure in heaven can be used for others? Where does it say in Scripture that the church can use these “extra treasures” for others?
Trust me. I don’t want to scare you but i want to understand how you arrive at your beliefs that Roman Catholic doctrines are true.
If by the merits of Christ all mankind is saved then why is there a continual warning about hell? If all are saved, then there can be no hell.
Getting back to the claim that Mary was without sin based on Luke 1:28 here is what a New Testament Greek lexicon says what the words “favored one” mean: “To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharit?mén?, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitó? declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitó? is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5) In charitó? there is not only the impartation of God’s grace, but also the adoption into God’s family in imparting special favor in distinction to charízomai
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)
As you can see, it does not mean she was without sin. It does not even mention it.
Again, Matthew 18 has nothing to do with traditions or doctrines but only with church discipline. Good exegesis requires us not to go beyond what is written. Claiming its about Traditions is to go beyond what this passage is saying.
I’ll address your other points next.
My response:
Hi Bob,
I’d like to address some of your points. How could 2 Peter 2:1 be about protestants only?
Did I say Protestants ONLY? I meant Protestants ALSO. There have been many heresies which the Catholic Church defeated in 2000 years.
In fact we already see in Revelation 1-3 where the Lord Christ Himself is rebuking various churches for holding to false doctrines.
True.
In regards to your church we could look at a number of examples of its teachings and see if they line up with Scripture.
Awesome! Let's also look at the Reformers doctrines. You've yet to show any evidence of their being in Scripture. You just sort of expect us to take your word for it.
Take Mary’s sinlessness. No one in the New Testament taught she was without sin
This is very repetitious. We already discussed it above. Do you think that you repeating Protestant lies is going to make them true? I repeat, St. Luke taught the doctrine in verse 1:28 where he calls her "kecharitomene" which means "always full of grace."
And no one in the New Testament denies that teaching.
and in fact acknowledges her need of a Savior in Luke 1:47.
True. She received these mighty gifts of God because of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is her Savior also.
To claim she would was without sin would contradict Romans 3:9 for example.
No, it wouldn't because St. Paul says in Rom 5:14 that some have not sinned:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Have you ever read The Glories of Mary by Alfonso Ligori?
Yes. I love the book. I call myself "De Maria" partially because of St. Alphonsus "de Marie" Liguori and partially because of St. Louis "Marie" de Montfort.
Do you also believe that all grace comes through Mary?
Is Jesus "all grace"? Was He born of Mary?
What is your definition of Sola Scriptura? I want to know if we agree on what it is before I can agree with you that its false.
YOU tell me. It is your doctrine. But when you tell me, make sure to show me from Scripture.
Here is what a couple of Roman Catholic scholars say about the woman of Rev 12:
Raymond Brown and J.A. Fitzmyer, editors of the Jerome Biblical Commentary (2:482):
“a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.”
1st. What's your point? Do you believe everything these Catholics teach? If you did, you would be a Catholic. Because they are both faithful Catholics.
2nd. These two Catholics are mistaken. I can prove they are mistaken but I've already explained several other doctrines and you, "don't get it." So, what's the point?
3rd. I'll tackle that in a separate article.
You use Matthew 19:21 as the basis for indulgences but the verse in context has nothing to do with the idea of “the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven”. There is no mention of any kind of sacrament in this passage. I don’t get it.
I can tell that you don't understand it. Your question is completely illogical. The reason no sacrament is mentioned is because it is "extra-sacramental". The fact that you ask this question and the way you word the question indicates that you are faking it. You are trying Do you know what the prefix "extra" means?
extra-
a prefix meaning “outside,” “beyond,” freely used as an English formative: extrajudicial; extraterritorial; extra-atmospheric.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extra
Even the Old Testament passages don’t support this idea. It is true there can be and usually consequences of sin in our lives but there is no promise in Scripture that these consequences will be alleviated because of some sacrament. Where does it say in Matthew 19:21 or anywhere in Scripture that one man’s treasure in heaven can be used for others? Where does it say in Scripture that the church can use these “extra treasures” for others.
You said you don't get it, leave it at that. God doesn't expect everyone to be a theologian.
Trust me.
That is the last thing in the world I will do. You have admitted that you don't have faith in anything you don't understand. Therefore, it is doubtful to me that you can believe in God. Since the very idea of God is well beyond ANY MAN'S UNDERSTANDING. Therefore, no, I do not trust you.
I don’t want to scare you
What makes you think you scare me?
but i want to understand how you arrive at your beliefs that Roman Catholic doctrines are true.
I already told you.
If by the merits of Christ all mankind is saved then why is there a continual warning about hell? If all are saved, then there can be no hell.
Now it sounds like you're just making noise. The Catholic Church teaches that the righteous are saved. Not the wicked. You interpreted my statement in a manner that goes against that which I believe and that which the Catholic Church teaches.
Getting back to the claim that Mary was without sin
Why? I already explained it to you about five times in about three articles on Devin's blog. Are you going to believe me if I explain it again?
based on Luke 1:28 here is what a New Testament Greek lexicon says what the words “favored one” mean: “To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharit?mén?, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitó? declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitó? is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. (See huiothesía [5206], adoption, occurring in Eph. 1:5) In charitó? there is not only the impartation of God’s grace, but also the adoption into God’s family in imparting special favor in distinction to charízomai
That is a Protestant Lexicon which passes on Protestant doctrine. Here is a Catholic Translation:
In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. So, here's what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)
"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) As you can see, it does not mean she was without sin. It does not even mention it.
Yes, it does. You, just "don't get it." In the meantime, you repeating the lies of your blind guides will not make them true.
Again, Matthew 18 has nothing to do with traditions or doctrines but only with church discipline. Good exegesis requires us not to go beyond what is written. Claiming its about Traditions is to go beyond what this passage is saying.
It is you going beyond what is written, since that verse does not limit itself church discipline to anything.
|
I’ll address your other points next.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi De Maria--there's one point I'd like to suggest you zero in on.
ReplyDeleteWe read in Matthew 18:
[15] "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
As I read his words, Christ is only speaking about church discipline. However, the passage still represents an enormous difficulty for Bob.
Protestants believe in an invisible church, although some pay lip service to a visible one. Still, none of them believe that (1) their denomination constitutes the entirety of the Church or (2) all Christians outside their denomination are by default outside the Church.
So, as per the Protestant conception of the faith, all 'true believers' are within the body of Christ, in spite of their doctrinal differences.
If one denomination believes that double predestination is a perspicuous teaching of the Bible or drinking alcohol is a sin according to Scripture, and another denomination denies these beliefs, members of both will most likely not deem those of the other to be so deep in error as to be outside the bounds of Christianity.
But if the pastors and elders of a local church belonging to the first denomination require for membership assent to double predestination or the sinfulness of alcohol consumption, and decide that the matter is so serious--because of the scandal caused--that excommunication is called for as per Matthew 18:15-18, the force of this act is completely blunted by the absence from the Protestant paradigm of the Church as a visible entity.
So, if the believer decides to leave his denomination behind once and for all and find a local church of another denomination that he can join because the pastors and elders there deny double predestination or the sinfulness of alcohol consumption, this individual remains within the body of Christ, going by the Protestant conception of the faith, because he has not committed apostasy, for example, or denied Christ's status as the eternally-begotten second person of the trinity.
Thus, I would ask your Protestant interlocutor, (1) to which Church was Jesus referring, (2) what use is an excommunication if the person can leave his denomination and still remain in the body of Christ by joining another, and (3) how can the authority of one group of pastors and elders trump that of another such group if the Church is invisible?
Hi De Maria--there's one point I'd like to suggest you zero in on.
DeleteWe read in Matthew 18:
[15] "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
[18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
As I read his words, Christ is only speaking about church discipline.
I agree. But discipline is not limited to nondoctrinal matters. If you consider Church history, the Bishops, Arius and Athanasius used this very procedure to resolve their differences in doctrinal understanding. They brought their differences to the Church and Arius was declared a heretic. While Athanasius stance was declared orthodox.
So, in my opinion, discipline is not limited to non-doctrinal matters. This verse is about discipline in all matters having to do with the Faith of Jesus Christ.
What do you think?
However, the passage still represents an enormous difficulty for Bob.....
ReplyDeleteThus, I would ask your Protestant interlocutor, (1) to which Church was Jesus referring, (2) what use is an excommunication if the person can leave his denomination and still remain in the body of Christ by joining another, and (3) how can the authority of one group of pastors and elders trump that of another such group if the Church is invisible?
Excellent points! I'll do so as soon as I get a chance.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You have the same problem. An excommunicated RC can go to another part of the city, state or country and pick up where she left off. Who is to know?
DeleteThere's a big difference, Bob. A Protestant just moves.
DeleteAn excommunicated Catholic must face the fact that the Catholic Church has the power of God to bind and loose.
In other words, say that a Catholic does move to another city and pick up where he left off. EVERY TIME that Catholic goes to the Sacraments in disobedience of the excommunication, he is heaping coals upon his soul. The Parish priest may not know he is excommunicated. But God does. And this man may appear to be a regular Catholic. But spiritually, he is killing himself. The same rule applies as that which St. Paul explained in 1 Cor 11:
1 Corinthians 11:27-29
King James Version (KJV)
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
So, its not the same thing at all.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
DeleteThe Protestant church also has the power to bind and loose.
Though the Protestant may go to another church he is under the judgement of God. He may fool man but he cannot God.
De Maria,
DeleteThe Protestant church also has the power to bind and loose.
Though the Protestant may go to another church he is under the judgement of God. He may fool man but he cannot God.
So an excommunication in a Baptist Church will hold even in a Methodist Church?
I know that some Protestants believe that contraception is sinful. Tell me if this scene is possible.
DeleteSay that a couple believe in using contraception. They reveal this to their Pastor and the Pastor repeatedly admonishes them that it is wrong. Finally, he excommunicates them.
They turn around and look for a Protestant Church where the Pastor approves of contraception. He says, "Don't worry about that guy. He doesn't know what he's talking about."
Coult this happen?
If so, who wins? Which Pastor has more authority before God?
I would think an excommunication in one Protestant church would hold in another if there are solid grounds for it. Excommunication is a serious matter and is not to be done lightly.
DeleteDepends on what kind of contraception you are talking about. There are contraception's as you know cause abortion and some that don't. Knowingly taking that would be a sin.
Do you think all contraception is sin? If so, on what biblical grounds?
AnonymousFebruary 2, 2013 at 9:34 PM
DeleteFirst thing I want to mention is that you didn't answer my question. You have changed the subject, essentially. My question, again, is this:
If so, who wins? Which Pastor has more authority before God?
I would think an excommunication in one Protestant church would hold in another
Do you have any evidence that this is so?
if there are solid grounds for it.
Who decides what is solid evidence? If the first Pastor says there is solid evidence, but the second Pastor says there isn't, who decides?
Excommunication is a serious matter and is not to be done lightly.
That is Catholic Doctrine as well.
Depends on what kind of contraception you are talking about. There are contraception's as you know cause abortion and some that don't. Knowingly taking that would be a sin.
True. But not the point we are discussing. We are discussing whether the excommunication of one Protestant Church will hold in another. Considering the scenario I just mentioned, I don't think it can.
Do you think all contraception is sin? If so, on what biblical grounds?
Yes. The sin of Onan. But that's a different question which we can discuss later, if you don't mind. Right now I'm interested in whether an excommunication in one Protestant Church will hold in another. If not, then Protestant Churches do not bind and loose with the authority of Heaven behind them.
From Bob,
ReplyDeleteOne of the things RC's need to establish is that RCC was the church established by Christ and His apostles. Remember: Rome is over 1000 miles from Jerusalem. Rome was not the only church at this time but was one of several along with the church in Jerusalem and Antioch. We also know from history that the papacy did not develop until much later. Consider: "ALTHOUGH CATHOLIC TRADITION, BEGINNING IN the late second and early third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop...He often shared his position of prominence with James and John...However, there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the "fact" is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 25,29). "
We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222)."
Both of these authors of these statements are RC scholars.
Hi Bob,
DeleteI'm glad you're here. When I'm on someone else's blog, I sort of feel an urgency to answer every objection which is presented because sometimes the owner of the blog cuts the discussion short. Here, however, I'm the boss and we can take our time discussing every question in detail. Would you mind terribly if I simply take one point out of all that which you just posted and examine it in detail before we move to the rest?
This is where I'd like to start:
From Bob,
One of the things RC's need to establish is that RCC was the church established by Christ and His apostles.
I'm curious about that because Protestants can only trace their lineage back to Luther and the Reformation in the 1500's at best. YET, you believe their doctrines.
Therefore, why must the Catholic Church prove that it is established by Christ and the Apostles before you believe Her Doctrines?
Just curious.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
DeleteThis is fine with me. Protestants (for the most part) will base their doctrines on Scripture. I consider myself a Sola Scriptura Protestant. That means my doctrines must be grounded in Scripture or they are not authoritative or binding. This position does not depend on "linage" but on Scripture alone.
The Roman Catholic makes authority claims based on history that it claims it can be traced directly back to the apostles. This claim must be proven historically and not assumed to be true. This is why we must look at the papacy and see if it did exist in the NT and beyond. I already posted above that the papacy was not part of the NT church. In fact, its never mentioned as an office of the NT church. See I Tim 3. Without the papacy in the NT, it cannot be sustained that the RCC is the church that Christ established.
De Maria,
DeleteThis is fine with me. Protestants (for the most part) will base their doctrines on Scripture. I consider myself a Sola Scriptura Protestant. That means my doctrines must be grounded in Scripture or they are not authoritative or binding. This position does not depend on "linage" but on Scripture alone.
Awesome answer. I love it. Here's what I'd like to know. Since you call yourself a Sola Scriptura Protestant, does that mean that you think can tell me what the Bible means? Do you believe you have authority over me? Or do you consider yourself infallible?
Or is my opinion on the meaning of Scripture equal to yours?
The Roman Catholic makes authority claims based on history that it claims it can be traced directly back to the apostles.
True.
This claim must be proven historically and not assumed to be true.
I have a list of all the Popes from today all the way back to Jesus.
This is why we must look at the papacy and see if it did exist in the NT
Why is this not enough?
John 21:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jesus has there appointed Simon as the Shepherd over His Flock. So, why is that not enough?
and beyond.
Scripture says that an office which is vacated will be filled.
Acts 1:20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
2 Timothy 2
King James Version (KJV)
1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Where does Scripture teach that the authority of the Church will end with the Apostles?
I already posted above that the papacy was not part of the NT church.
And I posted that the Papacy is part of the NT Church. Your post was a simple opinion. My post is based upon Scripture. Does your simple opinion trump Scripture?
In fact, its never mentioned as an office of the NT church. See I Tim 3. Without the papacy in the NT, it cannot be sustained that the RCC is the church that Christ established.
What do you mean that it is never mentioned? You mean that you want to see the word "Pope" or "Papacy" in Scripture?
Because if that is true, then I don't see the words "Sola Scriptura" in Scripture either. But you believe that. And worse. You believe in "justification by faith alone" But Scripture says "faith alone is dead" and "justified by works and not by faith only."
Could I get some clarification on that then? Do you mean that you want to see the word "papacy or pope" in Scripture? or what?
Hi De Maria,
DeleteIn regards to understanding what the Bible means in its various contexts we can. We have ways to understand such as word meanings and historical contexts coupled with at times with other passages of Scripture that may shed some light on various passages and verses. I’m not infallible. No one is. No church is either. As for authority I have no authority over you nor you over me. Now there are authorities in churches such as pastors and elders that have authority over their congregations.
If we come to different conclusions about a passage of Scripture then we both cannot be right. One of us is wrong or both of us. What we must do is to present the facts for each of our conclusions and go from there.
Having list of popes is not enough. For one, we already know there was no supreme leader of the church in the first few centuries. We also know from the New Testament that Peter is never referred to as the supreme leader of the church and none of the apostles address him or appeal to him in this manner. We also have no record of Peter passing his apostolic authority on the another man.
In John 21:15-17 Jesus is not making Peter into some kind of supreme leader of the church. Rather He is restoring and commanding him to watch over the flock. The other apostles also had this same responsibility. Read John’s letters for example.
Never said the authority of the church ended with the apostles.
My post that the papacy is not mentioned in the New Testament is not an opinion but fact. Just study the New Testament. It’s not there even in concept. It is never referred in any passage. There is no supreme leader position in the New Testament church. Peter, never refers to himself either as the supreme leader of the church.
Hi Bob,
DeleteHi De Maria,
In regards to understanding what the Bible means in its various contexts we can. We have ways to understand such as word meanings and historical contexts coupled with at times with other passages of Scripture that may shed some light on various passages and verses.
Although all that you have said there is true, I didn't ask a question concerning how to understand Scripture.
I’m not infallible.
That's what I asked. Good to know. Because in your discussion with me, you act as though you are infallible. But I never thought you were.
No one is. No church is either.
I didn't ask this question. We can address it later.
As for authority I have no authority over you
I'm glad we agree. But you sound as though you think you do. I just wanted us to be clear on that.
nor you over me.
Agreed.
Now there are authorities in churches such as pastors and elders that have authority over their congregations.
I'm glad you agree. I accept the Pope and the Catholic Church as authorities over me.
Whom do you have as authority over you?
If we come to different conclusions about a passage of Scripture then we both cannot be right. One of us is wrong or both of us. What we must do is to present the facts for each of our conclusions and go from there.
Sounds good. No sense repeating stuff over and over, right?
Having list of popes is not enough. For one, we already know there was no supreme leader of the church in the first few centuries.
You keep saying that, but you don't speak for me. I do know and so do all Catholics, that there was a Shepherd appointed by the Christ and we can trace the Church from Christ, through Peter to Pope Benedict the XVI.
Just because you don't believe the evidence, doesn't mean the evidence isn't true. All you are doing is producing denials. Denials are only evidence of your state of mind. I have evidence from the annals of history that the Church always had a Leader, which was first appointed by Christ and the office continues to this day.
We also know from the New Testament that Peter is never referred to as the supreme leader of the church and none of the apostles address him or appeal to him in this manner. We also have no record of Peter passing his apostolic authority on the another man.
In John 21:15-17 Jesus is not making Peter into some kind of supreme leader of the church. Rather He is restoring and commanding him to watch over the flock. The other apostles also had this same responsibility. Read John’s letters for example.
Which other Apostle did Jesus Christ single out and say, "Feed my sheep"?
Which other Apostle did Jesus Christ single out and say, "strengthen thy brethren"?
Show me from Scripture.
Never said the authority of the church ended with the apostles.
Good. We agree.
My post that the papacy is not mentioned in the New Testament is not an opinion but fact.
That's not the question I asked. I asked if you wanted to see the word "papacy" or the word "pope"? Because I see the papacy instituted when Jesus called St. Peter the Rock upon which He formed His Church. And I see the Papacy when Jesus appointed St. Peter the Shepherd of His entire flock.
Just study the New Testament.
I study the New Testament every day.
It’s not there even in concept.
Since the Pope is the Shepherd of Christ's flock, it is explicitly in the New Testament.
Since the Pope holds the keys to the Kingdom, it is explicitly in the New Testament.
It is never referred in any passage.
You have simply ignored in Scripture that which you don't want to believe is there. But the Papacy is explicitly taught in the pages of Scripture.
There is no supreme leader position in the New Testament church. Peter, never refers to himself either as the supreme leader of the church.
Nor does the Pope. The Pope is the Servant of the Servants of God.
You are asserting that there was a pope in the 1st-2nd century. The problem is that there is no historical evidence. Consider again from 2 RC scholars on this issue:
Delete"We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).
and
there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the "fact" is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 25,29)."
There is also other indirect evidence that there was no papacy in the 1st and early 2nd century.
The first bishop of Rome to claim to be the successor of Peter was Stephen around 250.
Peter was one of the main leaders of the NT church. Of that there is no doubt. However, the other leaders of same rank was James and John and Paul.
AnonymousFebruary 3, 2013 at 12:14 AM
DeleteHi Bob,
The first thing I want to note is that I provided Scriptural evidence, the Word of God. But you, the Sola Scriptura Protestant provide the word of man.
You are asserting that there was a pope in the 1st-2nd century.
Correct.
The problem is that there is no historical evidence.
Yes, there is.
Consider again from 2 RC scholars on this issue:
They may be Catholic. But they are mistaken. I happen to know that one of them is a Priest. Father Raymond Brown. I don't know about the other. In any case, they are simply mistaken.
"We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).
Note that your evidence was written in the year 2001. But the writing I am providing is from the year 189. Depending on how you look at it, that is either the early or late 2nd century. At that time, St. Irenaeus is already talking about the history of the Church and therefore talking about the period from the time of the Apostles to the year 189 ad:
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
and
there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the "fact" is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 25,29)."
There is also other indirect evidence that there was no papacy in the 1st and early 2nd century.
The first bishop of Rome to claim to be the successor of Peter was Stephen around 250.
Peter was one of the main leaders of the NT church. Of that there is no doubt. However, the other leaders of same rank was James and John and Paul.
St. Irenaeus, writing in the year 189 ad also says:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
Note that St. Irenaeus can trace the Bishops of Rome down to the Sts. Peter and Paul and calls it the greatest and most ancient church known. Obviously, he saw evidence of the Papacy at that early time in history.
Therefore, there is much evidence for the Papacy from the time of Christ. But in all cases, whether in Scripture or in history, you ignore that evidence simply because you don't want to believe it.
There is no historical evidence that Peter or Paul established the churches in Rome. Here are some historical facts concerning Peter founding the church at Rome and the problems with it:
DeleteThe Catholic Encyclopedia admits this about Peter,
“...we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).”
“A "bishop" is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it likely at all, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 14).”
“according to The Catholic Encyclopedia "Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts of Asia Minor" shows that PETER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BISHOP OF ROME FOR MUCH OF THE TIME THAT HE "HAD THE KEYS"! IT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT THAT PETER WAS NOT THE BISHOP OF ROME BEGINNING WITH THE START OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH that began on the Pentecost after Jesus was resurrected (Acts 1-2). NOR COULD PETER HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN BISHOP OF ROME FOR MUCH OF THE THIRTY-PLUS YEARS AFTER THAT TIME AS HE TRAVELED WITHIN ASIA MINOR AND TO JERUSALEM REPEATEDLY.
“The Catholic Encyclopedia admits,
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter (Joyce G.H. Transcribed by Robert B. Olson. Power of the Keys. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).”
Most likely the churches at Rome in the first century were house churches and founded by people who heard the gospel from others such as at Jerusalem which is several hundred miles from Jerusalem.
I'm not ignoring Scripture. Here is another reference on the church in Eph 2:20-21 in reference to the foundation of the church. -"built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord;"
Notice what is missing: no mention of a supreme leader bishop. Peter is not even singled out here but all the apostles are mentioned.
Anonymous February 4, 2013 at 12:48 AM
DeleteThere is no historical evidence that Peter or Paul established the churches in Rome.
1. That statement is not accurate. There is plenty of historical evidence, you just reject anything that is not taught by Protestants.
2. I already posted evidence that Sts. Peter and Paul established the Church in Rome. Here's more:
Dionysius of Corinth
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).
Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, .... (ibid 3:3:2).
Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).
That proves you wrong.
Anonymous said,
DeleteThe Catholic Encyclopedia admits this about Peter, “... we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn….
Really? All you had to do was read 14 or 15 words back and you would have seen that exactly the opposite is stated.
Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.
In other words, we don't know how he got there. But the fact is that he was there preaching until he died.
Is this Bob? If so, you once asked me to trust you. How am I supposed to trust you with dishonest tricks like this? Are you seeking to find truth? Or are you seeking to promote your traditions of men at any cost?
“A "bishop" is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it likely at all, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 14).”
DeleteI have already posted the evidence of the Early Church Fathers who were there when Sts. Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome or right after.
Again, if you don't agree with something, just say so. Repeating the same lies will not make them come true.
“according to The Catholic Encyclopedia "Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts of Asia Minor" shows that PETER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BISHOP OF ROME FOR MUCH OF THE TIME THAT HE "HAD THE KEYS"! IT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT THAT PETER WAS NOT THE BISHOP OF ROME BEGINNING WITH THE START OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH that began on the Pentecost after Jesus was resurrected (Acts 1-2).
DeleteWow? Really? I didn't realize that you didn't know the difference between the Papacy and the Bishoprick of Rome.
Peter is the Pope of the Catholic Church where ever he is. Jesus Christ appointed Peter the Shepherd of His Flock. When Peter was in Antioch, the Pope was ruling from Antioch. But Peter moved to Rome and died there. So the See of Peter remained in Rome for many centuries. Then, out of necessity, the Pope moved to France. The See was exercised from France. But then, at first opportunity, the See was moved back to Rome.
When the Pope is in Rome, he is the Bishop of Rome.
anonymous said:
Delete“The Catholic Encyclopedia admits,
It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter ....
So what? That still shows that the evidence is there and that you simply reject it.
Anonymous said:
DeleteMost likely the churches at Rome in the first century were house churches
All the house churches were part of the Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.
Even there are churches all over the world. All those churches are part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ.
and founded by people who heard the gospel from others such as at Jerusalem which is several hundred miles from Jerusalem.
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. And the Gospel of Jesus Christ is taught in its fullness by the Catholic Church.
I'm not ignoring Scripture. Here is another reference on the church in Eph 2:20-21 in reference to the foundation of the church. -"built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord;"
Notice what is missing: no mention of a supreme leader bishop. Peter is not even singled out here but all the apostles are mentioned.
So what? He is mentioned here:
John 21:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
And it says it here:
Matthew 16:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
De Maria,
ReplyDeleteI wrote about Mary not sinning:
"To claim she would was without sin would contradict Romans 3:9 for example.
You wrote:
No, it wouldn't because St. Paul says in Rom 5:14 that some have not sinned:"
Romans 5:14 does not mean Mary did not sin. That verse does not mean this. Again, can you tell me what the official interpretation is of this verse?
Hi Anonymous,
DeleteYou wrote:
No, it wouldn't because St. Paul says in Rom 5:14 that some have not sinned:"
Romans 5:14 does not mean Mary did not sin. That verse does not mean this.
Bob, St. Paul said,
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
That means that some have not sinned. That would include, children in the womb, children before the age of reason, people who never have complete control of their senses and many others. And, that also means Mary.
But also Bob, perhaps we can get an understanding of something. Your denials are not proof of anything. They just mean that you don't agree.
Can we agree that if you don't have an answer, you should simply say, "I don't agree." After all, if God doesn't convince you, why should you expect me to convince you?
And if God doesn't convince me that you;'re objections have any merit, you repeating them endlessly won't do any better.
Now, I've given you my interpretation of the Scriptures. It is completely in line with Catholic Teaching. If you have no response but remain unconvinced, then can we agree to disagree and move on to another doctrine?
Again, can you tell me what the official interpretation is of this verse?
Whenever I am aware of an official interpretation by the Church, I will do so. The Catholic Church has an official interpretation for perhaps 10 or so verses of the Bible. She does not micro manage our exegesis. The only requirement is that we interpret the Scripture in the "Living Tradition of the Church." Which I have done.
Thanks for coming over. I'm looking forward to a mutually edifying discussion.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
DeleteWithout a definitive exegesis of the Scripture by your church you are left to determine a given passage-verse on your own.
What exactly is this "living Tradition" of the church and how do you know it applies to a given interpretation. In other words, is there an official list of the "Living Traditions"?
Here is how the New American Bible (RC translation) says in its footnotes on Romans 5:14 section: "[12-21] Paul reflects on the sin of Adam (⇒ Genesis 3:1-13) in the light of the redemptive mystery of Christ. Sin, as used in the singular by Paul, refers to the dreadful power that has gripped humanity, which is now in revolt against the Creator and engaged in the exaltation of its own desires and interests. But no one has a right to say, "Adam made me do it," for all are culpable (⇒ Romans 5:12): Gentiles under the demands of the law written in their hearts (⇒ Romans 2:14-15), and Jews under the Mosaic covenant. Through the Old Testament law, the sinfulness of humanity that was operative from the beginning (⇒ Romans 5:13) found further stimulation, with the result that sins were generated in even greater abundance. According to ⇒ Romans 5:15-21, God's act in Christ is in total contrast to the disastrous effects of the virus of sin that invaded humanity through Adam's crime."
As you can see there is no mention of anyone not sinning but rather all of humanity being under the power of sin.
AnonymousFebruary 2, 2013 at 12:54 AM
DeleteDe Maria,
Without a definitive exegesis of the Scripture by your church you are left to determine a given passage-verse on your own.
Jesus didn't leave us orphans. He gave us a Church to teach and guide us through this life.
You, on the other hand, are left on your own. Because your Sola Scriptura Church also has not provided you an infallible commentary on every verse of Scripture.
Bob,
Deleteyou asked:
What exactly is this "living Tradition" of the church and how do you know it applies to a given interpretation.
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The Church does not produce only Scripture scholars. She produces righteous men in all fields of life. But, those who want to understand how Tradition and Scripture are related, study and are taught the relationship between the two by the Magisterium (or Teaching side of the Church).
In other words, is there an official list of the "Living Traditions"?
The adjective "living" simply acknowledges that we practice them today as always.
There is an official list of Traditions in the Catechism.
Here is how the New American Bible (RC translation) says ....
DeleteAs you can see there is no mention of anyone not sinning but rather all of humanity being under the power of sin.
The phrase, "all of humanity being under the power of sin" refers to Original Sin and its effects.
However, Original Sin is not an actual sin. It causes in us the propensity to sin. If you were to ask the writers of the NAB footnote whether an infant has sinned, they would answer, "No. The infant has not gained the age of reason and is incapable of committing sin." Therefore, any person who dies before the age of reason has not committed sin. Yet they died anyway. That is part of the meaning of St. Paul's verse in Rom 5:14. We can also include Mary in the meaning of that verse, because Mary, although she attained the age of reason, never sinned.
This is from the Catechism:
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.....
Note that no Catholic needs to confess any sins until attaining the age of discretion:
1457 According to the Church's command, "after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year."....
De Maria,
DeleteI wrote:
"Without a definitive exegesis of the Scripture by your church you are left to determine a given passage-verse on your own."
You wrote:
"Jesus didn't leave us orphans. He gave us a Church to teach and guide us through this life.
You, on the other hand, are left on your own. Because your Sola Scriptura Church also has not provided you an infallible commentary on every verse of Scripture."
There is no such thing as an infallible commentary. The leaders of the church have the responsibility to teach correctly the Word of God. When they fail to do that, then they are in error. The only way we can know if they are teaching correctly is to compare what they say with the Scripture. This is exactly where your church runs into so many problems with its doctrines because they cannot be squared with Scripture. The Marian dogmas are one such example.
Do you believe that all human beings conceived via their parents are condemned because of the transgression of Adam (Rom 5:18)?
DeleteHello Bob,
DeleteThere is no such thing as an infallible commentary.
Then why did you ask me for one?
The leaders of the church have the responsibility to teach correctly the Word of God.
Catholics do so. Protestants do not.
When they fail to do that, then they are in error.
Agreed.
The only way we can know if they are teaching correctly is to compare what they say with the Scripture.
Correct.
This is exactly where your church runs into so many problems with its doctrines because they cannot be squared with Scripture.
On the contrary, it is Protestant doctrines that can't be squared with Scripture.
The Marian dogmas are one such example.
All the Marian doctrines are in Scripture either explicitly taught or taught by implication.
But some Protestant doctrines outrightly and completely contradict Scripture.
Do you believe that all human beings conceived via their parents are condemned because of the transgression of Adam (Rom 5:18)?
Delete"All" human being?
I'm glad you asked that question. Let me show you why?
Do you believe that all human beings were justified unto life by the sacrifice of Christ? (Rom 5:18)?
I know that you don't. You don't believe that "all" men were saved by Christ. I don't either. But read the second part of the verse you used to support the idea that "all" men were condemned by Adam.
Therefore, the word "all" in that verse does not mean "absolutely all". But all in a general sense. All who were condemned were condemned because of Adam's sin. NOT all men. And all who were justified were justified because of Christ's gift. NOT all men.
I asked about infallibility because some Roman Catholics think there church is infallible. Only one man who has lived was infallible. Where in Scripture do we see the assumption of Mary? The earliest mention of her death is 377. That is almost 4 centuries after her death. It just won't do to claim its implicit in Scripture.
DeleteAll men are fallen and in a state of condemnation until they believe in Christ. No one comes into the in a non-fallen state except the Lord Jesus.
DeleteAnonymousFebruary 2, 2013 at 11:04 PM
DeleteI asked about infallibility because some Roman Catholics think there church is infallible.
Scripture says that the Church teaches the wisdom of God. Therefore the Church is infallible (Eph 3:10). And also, therefore, if your Church is not infallible, it is not the Church which Jesus Christ established. The Church which Jesus Christ established is infallible.
The Catholic Church says it is infallible. And I believe that the Catholic Church is infallible.
Only one man who has lived was infallible.
But the was infallible when they wrote the New Testament. And the Church is infallible when she teaches the New Testament, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the wisdom of God, today.
Where in Scripture do we see the assumption of Mary?
Rev 12:1, The Woman was seen in heaven and the Woman was crowned in heaven. And that Woman is Mary.
The earliest mention of her death is 377. That is almost 4 centuries after her death. It just won't do to claim its implicit in Scripture.
That would be wrong. Let us go back to Scripture:
Revelation 11:19
King James Version (KJV)
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Remember that in the originals, Scripture has no chapters. They are inventions of men. But look at the end of Rev 11. St. John sees the Ark of the Covenant in heaven. Then in Rev 12:1, suddenly he is talking about the Woman in heaven:
Revelation 12:1
King James Version (KJV)
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
The Early Church Fathers recognized that the Ark which St. John saw in heaven is a reference to the Woman, Mary.
This is what St. Hippolytus says, writing in the late 2nd century:
“At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested....And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body” (S. Hippolytus, In Dan.vi., Patr. Gr., Tom. 10, p. 648) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).
So, where did that doctrine come from if not from the Scripture which St. John wrote. (Rev 11:19-12:1).
AnonymousFebruary 2, 2013 at 11:10 PM
DeleteAll men are fallen
All except Jesus and Mary.
and in a state of condemnation until they believe in Christ.
Then, you believe that infants who die before they learn about Christ, go to hell? Where is that in Scripture?
No one comes into the in a non-fallen state except the Lord Jesus.
Jesus and the one to whom many great things were granted by God (Luke 1:49).
No one in Scripture claims Mary was without sin. No one makes an exception for her. Luke 1:28, the angel's greeting to Mary does not mean sinlessness. No Greek lexicon of the NT supports this assertion. Mary admits her need for a Savior in Luke 1:48. Mary died which was the result of sin. See Romans 6:23. The reason Jesus is an exception has to do with the way He was conceived. It did not involve a fallen man. To prove Mary was without sin you would have to show how she also was not conceived by a man and a woman. Can you do that?
DeleteInfants are born with a fallen nature. Scripture does not specifically answer what happens when they die.
Luke 1:49 has nothing to do with Mary being sinless.
Here is what the New American Bible (RC translation0 says in its footnotes on Rev 12:1
Delete"[1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from ⇒ Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (⇒ Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (⇒ Rev 12:6, ⇒ 13-17); cf ⇒ Isaiah 50:1; ⇒ 66:7; ⇒ Jeremiah 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster."
Which makes the best sense of the passage? Mary does not fit some of the details. It is best to think of it as God's people in the Old and the New Testament.
You wrote in regards to Mary being the woman of Rev 12 --"The Early Church Fathers recognized that the Ark which St. John saw in heaven is a reference to the Woman, Mary.
DeleteThis is what St. Hippolytus says, writing in the late 2nd century:
“At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested....And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body” (S. Hippolytus, In Dan.vi., Patr. Gr., Tom. 10, p. 648) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77)."
What makes you think Hippolytus has it right? Why would you think Mary is the ark type when Jesus really is? It is in Jesus that we see the law, the manna and Aaron's rod fulfilled in Him. These symbols are not fulfilled in her.
AnonymousFebruary 3, 2013 at 10:58 PM
DeleteNo one in Scripture claims Mary was without sin.
Your entire argument is based upon what no one said. Can you name one person, from Scripture, who said that Mary sinned? No, you can't. Therefore you are reading your Protestant presupposition into Scripture.
No one makes an exception for her.
Who does not? Name the person who does not make an exception for Mary. From Scripture. I want to see chapter and verse.
Luke 1:28, the angel's greeting to Mary does not mean sinlessness.
Your denial is not evidence of anything. It is simply your denial.
No Greek lexicon of the NT supports this assertion.
We don't go by Protestant lexicons. We go by Greek scholars. And Greek scholars say that "kecharitomene" means that Mary was always full of grace. Therefore, she never sinned.
Mary admits her need for a Savior in Luke 1:48.
She didn't say she needed a Saviour, she said that God had saved her. He saved her by protecting her from sin.
This metaphor will illustrate.
Would you rather be struck by a speeding truck and then saved by a doctor? Or be saved by someone who prevents you being struck by a speeding truck?
As for me, I would rather be saved before I am struck.
Mary died which was the result of sin. See Romans 6:23.
But Rom 5:14 says that some have died who have never sinned:
Romans 5:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Mary suffered and died for the Church, in the same way that St. Paul and all the other martyrs have suffered for and died for the Church:
2 Timothy 4:6-7
King James Version (KJV)
6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.
7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:
The reason Jesus is an exception has to do with the way He was conceived. It did not involve a fallen man. To prove Mary was without sin you would have to show how she also was not conceived by a man and a woman. Can you do that?
I don't have to show anything. I believe the Church which Jesus established.
You prefer to believe your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
I have evidence from Tradition and Scripture. All you have is denials. Your denials are not worth anything to anyone but yourself.
Infants are born with a fallen nature. Scripture does not specifically answer what happens when they die.
So how does that help you?
Luke 1:49 has nothing to do with Mary being sinless.
Yes, it does. It is one of the great gifts which God gave to her.
AnonymousFebruary 3, 2013 at 11:13 PM
DeleteHere is what the New American Bible (RC translation0 says in its footnotes on Rev 12:1
"[1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from ⇒ Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God's people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (⇒ Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (⇒ Rev 12:6, ⇒ 13-17); cf ⇒ Isaiah 50:1; ⇒ 66:7; ⇒ Jeremiah 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster."
Which makes the best sense of the passage? Mary does not fit some of the details. It is best to think of it as God's people in the Old and the New Testament.
Mary fits all the details.
1. Mary is a woman. The Woman of Rev 12 is a woman.
2. Mary gave birth to the Messiah. The Woman of Rev 12 gave birth to the Messiah.
3. Mary suffered to give birth to the Church when Jesus underwent His passion and death on the Cross. The Woman is illustrated in the pains of childbirth.
4. Mary is a model of the Church because she gave birth to Jesus, the Son of God.. The Church gives birth to sons of God.
5. Mary fled to the desert in Egypt to protect Jesus. The Woman fled to the desert.
6. Jesus gave Mary to us as the mother of all Christians. The Woman is the mother of all who keep the Commandments of God and the testimony of Christ.
Mary fits all the details and fits them better than anyone or anything else.
Anonymous,
DeleteWhat makes you think Hippolytus has it right?
1. It makes sense.
2. His opinion is part of the continuing Tradition of the Church.
3. The Scripture fits the Teaching.
Why would you think Mary is the ark type when Jesus really is?
They are both the type but Mary fits the type better.
1. The Ark contained the Word of God, the Ten Commandments. Mary contained Jesus, the Word of God in her womb.
2. The Ark contained the Rod of Aaron, the symbol of Priesthood. Mary contained the Eternal Priest in her womb.
3. The Ark contained the bread from heaven, the Mannah. Mary contained the true Bread from Heaven, Jesus Christ.
4. The Ark was overshadowed by the Shekinah cloud. Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.
5. The mercy seat sat upon the Ark. Divine Mercy, Jesus Christ, sat upon Mary's lap.
6. The Ark was made of pristine wood. Mary is without sin.
Therefore, the Ark is a very good type of Mary.
It is in Jesus that we see the law, the manna and Aaron's rod fulfilled in Him. These symbols are not fulfilled in her.
Those symbols were contained in the Ark. But Jesus was contained in Mary's womb.
You are the one claiming Mary never sinned so you need to make the positive case that shows she did not. Jesus never mentions her being sinless when He speaks about her. Scripture does not mention the specific sins of most people it mentions. It does not mention that Andrew sinned or Philip. Should we assume they did not sin?
DeleteHere is what Augustine said about all men sinning: “Augustine (354-430): This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator, who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins.
NPNF1: Vol. V, On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47.”
Justin Martyr refers to Jesus as the only sinless person, and he denies
that a Jewish opponent he was debating, Trypho, could cite a single
other person who obeyed all of God's commandments:
"[Jesus is] the only blameless and righteous Man...the only blameless
and righteous Light sent by God...Now, we know that He did not go to the
river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the
Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified,
not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which
from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the
serpent, and each one of which had committed personal
transgression....For the whole human race will be found to be under a
curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to
do them.' And no one has accurately done all, nor will you [Trypho, an adherent of Judaism] venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined...” (Dialogue With Trypho, 17, 88, 95)
"Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed
redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon's prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified."
(J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)”
Can you give me the official interpretation by your church for Romans 5:14? I want to see if the Magisterium interprets it the same way you do.
Paul in Romans 3:9 and 23 speaks of all men sinning. Even if infants are under the fall via Adam.
You need to show in Scripture where it says specifically Mary was saved or prevented from sinning.
"kecharitomene" does not mean that Mary was always full of grace. No Greek scholar says that.
Mary sinned when she rebuked the boy Jesus for being insensitive when He was with the leaders in Luke 2:48
The idea the Mary never sinned just does not comport with the facts of Scripture.
Is Mary still an ark type after Jesus is born?
DeletemeyuFebruary 4, 2013 at 10:10 PM
DeleteIs Mary still an ark type after Jesus is born?
Of course. Jesus was in her womb. Do you deny it?
Yes. Mary does not fit the type. Jesus nor His apostles ever make any connection with her being any kind of type.
DeleteAnonymousFebruary 4, 2013 at 11:34 PM
DeleteYes.
Then you deny Scripture (Luke 1:42).
Mary does not fit the type.
Mary fits the type perfectly, as I've already shown.
Jesus nor His apostles ever make any connection with her being any kind of type
Are you saying that there is no type? Because Jesus nor the Apostles make any connection between the Ark and Jesus or anyone else.
If Jesus is the ark-type and Mary is also then there are 2 ark-types. Correct?
DeleteMary was blessed but that does not mean you are to pray to her, claim she was without sin or make her queen of heaven. Since Jesus never spoke of her in this way then why do you?
AnonymousFebruary 5, 2013 at 8:54 PM
DeleteIf Jesus is the ark-type and Mary is also then there are 2 ark-types. Correct?
Actually, you are the one who said that Jesus is his own ark type.
Jesus is the Bread of Life. The Bread of Life is not contained in Him.
Jesus is the Word of God. The Word of God is not contained in Him.
Jesus is the true Priest. The true Priest is not contained in Him.
You'll have to explain how you believe that Jesus is an ark containing that which He is by nature.
Mary was blessed but that does not mean you are to pray to her,
Scripture says:
Luke 1:48
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
claim she was without sin or make her queen of heaven.
I've already proven that Scripture says so in Luke 1:28 and Rev 12:1.
All you have is denials.
Since Jesus never spoke of her in this way then why do you?
Because the Word of God speaks of her in this way. Scripture is the Word of God and Scripture says this, "Praise Mary!"
It was Elizabeth who praised Mary because she was pregnant with Jesus. Where does the Lord Christ or His apostles command us to praise her?
DeleteSorry but Luke 1:28 does not prove she was sinless. What it shows is she was favored by God to bring Christ into the world and rise Him. There is nothing in her requires her to be sinless. Look at the New Testament lexicon definition above and you find nothing about being sinless.
Where do the apostles call Jesus the ark?
AnonymousFebruary 5, 2013 at 10:08 PM
DeleteIt was Elizabeth who praised Mary
By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Read the Scripture:
Luke 1:41-42
King James Version (KJV)
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
After she was filled with the Holy Spirit, she praised Mary. Just as the Angel was sent from God to praise Mary.
because she was pregnant with Jesus
Correct. Every grace that Mary received is because of Jesus. That is why He is her Saviour.
Where does the Lord Christ or His apostles command us to praise her?
The Holy Scripture commands us to praise Mary:
Luke 1:48
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Sorry but Luke 1:28 does not prove she was sinless.
It does to me. If you disagree that is your problem.
What it shows is she was favored by God to bring Christ into the world and rise Him. There is nothing in her requires her to be sinless. Look at the New Testament lexicon definition above and you find nothing about being sinless.
As I told you, we go by Greek scholars. And they say that "Kecharitomene" means "always full of grace". Which means that Mary was always without sin.
Where do the apostles call Jesus the ark?
YOU said that the Ark is a type of Jesus. So you need to provide the evidence that Jesus is called the Ark by someone in Scripture. Not me.
Hi De Maria--you wrote:
ReplyDelete"[D]iscipline is not limited to nondoctrinal matters. If you consider Church history, the Bishops, Arius and Athanasius used this very procedure to resolve their differences in doctrinal understanding. They brought their differences to the Church and Arius was declared a heretic. While Athanasius stance was declared orthodox.
"So, in my opinion, discipline is not limited to non-doctrinal matters. This verse is about discipline in all matters having to do with the Faith of Jesus Christ.
"What do you think?"
That's quite a good argument, actually. :) No more objections from me.
Hi De Maria--you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Excellent points! I'll do so as soon as I get a chance."
Thanks! Good luck. :)
AnonymousFebruary 4, 2013 at 10:06 PM
ReplyDeleteYou are the one claiming Mary never sinned so you need to make the positive case that shows she did not. Jesus never mentions her being sinless when He speaks about her. Scripture does not mention the specific sins of most people it mentions. It does not mention that Andrew sinned or Philip. Should we assume they did not sin?
You are the one who claims to believe only what is in Scripture. Therefore, if Scripture does not say that Mary sinned, then she didn't.
But you don't believe only what Scripture says. You believe what the Protestants tell you to believe.
Here is what Augustine said about all men sinning:
ReplyDeleteHere's what he said about Mary:
St. Augustine
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)
Justin Martyr says:
St. Justin, the Martyr, (+165) in his work, Dialogue with Trypho, states that, "Christ became a man by a virgin to overcome the disobedience caused by the serpent ...in the same way it had originated."
"Origen insisted that, “This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1{A.D. 244).
Keep on reading the Early Church Fathers. They all were priests, provided the Eucharist, submitted to the Pope, believed in justification by faith and works and accepted Tradition and Scripture, not Scripture alone. In other words, they were all Catholic.
No sins mentioned of Andrew, Philip or Stephen. That must mean they were immaculately conceived and kept from sinning by God.
DeleteIt is true some fathers thought she did not sin and some who did.
Do you know how many fathers mention the pope?
AnonymousFebruary 4, 2013 at 11:41 PM
DeleteNo sins mentioned of Andrew, Philip or Stephen.
True.
That must mean they were immaculately conceived and kept from sinning by God.
Does Scripture say that they are always filled with the grace of God? (i.e. Kecharitoment) If it does, then yes. If it doesn't, then no.
It is true some fathers thought she did not sin and some who did.
The ones who knew she was without sin were right. The ones who didn't were wrong.
Do you know how many fathers mention the pope?
At least 11.
Can you give me the official interpretation by your church for Romans 5:14? I want to see if the Magisterium interprets it the same way you do.
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, there is no official interpretation of that verse. However, I have interpreted it according to the instructions and teachings of our Church as i explained before.
Paul in Romans 3:9 and 23 speaks of all men sinning
We already went over that. "all" is not all inclusive. Because if it were, it would mean that little children have sinned. But that would be impossible.
. Even if infants are under the fall via Adam.
You need to show in Scripture where it says specifically Mary was saved or prevented from sinning.
No I don't. I have shown enough.
The Scriptures tell me to believe the Church. Not Bob.
The Scriptures tell me to believe Tradition. Not Bob.
The Scriptures tell me that Mary is sinless. You have no authority to tell me that which I read in Scripture for myself.
"kecharitomene" does not mean that Mary was always full of grace. No Greek scholar says that.
I already quoted a Greek Scholar who said that. Are you reading what I write?
Like I told you before, if you don't agree, say so and move on. But quit repeating the same lies as though they become true if you repeat them long enough.
According to Greek scholars, Kecharitomene means always full of grace. Therefore Scripture says that Mary was always without sin.
Mary sinned when she rebuked the boy Jesus for being insensitive when He was with the leaders in Luke 2:48
1. That's a stretch. She simply told him that they were worried.
2. Even if she did rebuke Him, which she probably did during their life together, God does not condemn anyone for doing His will. She is His mother and it was her job to rebuke Him if He needed it.
The idea the Mary never sinned just does not comport with the facts of Scripture.
1. It does comport with the facts of Scripture.
2. You haven't provided any Scripture which says that Mary sinned.
3. It doesn't comport with the tradition of the Protestants which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
4. Therefore, it doesn't comport with you.
I checked the definition of full of grace and it has nothing to do with being without sin nor with being in this state for their entire life. The grace has to do with her conceiving the Lord Jesus and raising Him.
DeleteShe did sin when she accused Jesus of being insensitive in Luke 2:48. To rebuke Him would mean He sinned.
Do children come into the world with the stain of original sin? Yes. They also are under the curse. See Romans 5:12.
If Scripture supported the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately and kept from sin it would say so. We both know there is not one verse to support these claims. These claims did come about until centuries later.
AnonymousFebruary 5, 2013 at 12:11 AM
DeleteI checked the definition of full of grace and it has nothing to do with being without sin nor with being in this state for their entire life. The grace has to do with her conceiving the Lord Jesus and raising Him.
Again, according to Greek Scholars, "kecharitomene" means "ever full of grace." Which means, by definition, that Mary could not have sinned.
She did sin when she accused Jesus of being insensitive in Luke 2:48.
No, she didn't. She did her job as a Mom. God appointed her to be Jesus' Mom and she did her job.
To rebuke Him would mean He sinned.
1. I don't see a rebuke. You are reading a rebuke into the Scripture because apparently, it is very important to you to assign a sin to Mary. Here is what she said:
Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
That sounds like an expression of concern to me.
2. Even if she did rebuke Him. Which she probably did throughout their life together. It was her job assigned her by God to watch after His Son.
Do children come into the world with the stain of original sin? Yes.
Correct.
They also are under the curse. See Romans 5:12.
Original sin is not an actual sin. As far as dying, that is true, whether they ever commit actual sin or not, they will die. As Rom 5:14 says:
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
If Scripture supported the idea that Mary was conceived immaculately and kept from sin it would say so.
It does. You simply refuse to believe it.
We both know there is not one verse to support these claims.
I know that it is there. You refuse to believe it. Just like you refuse to believe that we are not justified by faith alone in complete contradiction of Scripture:
James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
This is proof that it doesn't matter to you what Scripture says. You care only about your traditions of men, the doctrines of the Protestants.
These claims did come about until centuries later.
They are in Scripture and taught by the Early Church Fathers. The idea that Mary sinned came about centuries AFTER LUTHER.
"Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person." Sermons of Luther 291
The idea that Mary sinned was added by other Protestants but not by the Father of Protestantism.
There are a number of fathers who say only Jesus alone was without sin. I gave a couple above. This would mean all others have sinned.
DeleteWhere in the definition of "hail favored one" does it mention sin?
AnonymousFebruary 6, 2013 at 12:00 AM
DeleteThere are a number of fathers who say only Jesus alone was without sin. I gave a couple above. This would mean all others have sinned.
Bob, are you reading my responses. The very same Early Church Fathers you produced saying only Jesus was without sin, I produced saying that Mary was also without sin. The very same ones. Please go back and read the message. I produced St. Augustine, Justin Martyr and Origen, just like you. And they said that Mary did not sin.
Where in the definition of "hail favored one" does it mention sin?
Again? In Greek, the word used in place of "favored one" is "kecharitomene" and it means "always full of grace". This is how Mary is described and this means that she is without sin.
Where does the definition of favored one mention anything about sin? Where does it say anything about a person who is favored never breaks the law of God?
DeleteThe fact is you know it never mentions sin. The angel`s greeting is not to tell her she is without sin but rather that she is favored because God chose her to bring Christ into the world and raise Him. To claim this about her being without sin is to read back into the passage rc doctrine.
AnonymousFebruary 7, 2013 at 12:24 AM
ReplyDeleteWhere does the definition of favored one mention anything about sin?
You can't see it because these doctrines are Spiritually discerned. As the Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I've answered your question several times with different explanations. Now, let me try a different tactic. I'll ask you a question in response to your question in order to lead you to the answer.
Do you think that God favors "sinful" people?
Psalm 7:11
God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Or does God favor those without sin?
Where does it say anything about a person who is favored never breaks the law of God?
Anyone who breaks the Law of God commits sin. Mary, is "kecharitomene". Always full of grace and therefore never broke the Law of God.
The fact is you know it never mentions sin.
Exactly! Mary is without sin therefore sin is never mentioned where she is concerned. Because sin has nothing to do with Mary. Mary is without sin.
The angel`s greeting is not to tell her she is without sin
Yes, it is. That is part of it. The Angel told her that she is "ever full of grace".
but rather that she is favored
AND that she is favored by God.
because God chose her to bring Christ into the world and raise Him.
THEREFORE God had chosen her to bring Christ into the world and raise Him.
To claim this about her being without sin is to read back into the passage rc doctrine.
Nope. The Doctrine was already understood by the Church. Therefore it was mentioned in the Scripture, although indirectly, since the main subject of that Chapter was Jesus, Our Lord.
We don't see sin in the definition because it has nothing to do with sin. To claim I "can't see it because these doctrines are Spiritually discerned." is not because of this. You are abusing this verse to make it mean what it does mean.
ReplyDeleteDid you know Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit? In Acts 6:8 it says--" And Stephen, full of grace and power,..." Should we assume that he never sinned and was immaculately conceived?
If you are going to believe that Mary is without sin because it never specifically says she sinned then you must believe others did not sin either because it never mentions their sins either. Do you believe that other human beings in Scripture were not sinners?
AnonymousFebruary 7, 2013 at 7:34 PM
ReplyDeleteWe don't see sin in the definition because it has nothing to do with sin.
Very good. Always Full of Grace has nothing to do with sin. Correct. That is why Mary is described thus.
To claim I "can't see it because these doctrines are Spiritually discerned." is not because of this. You are abusing this verse to make it mean what it does mean.
That is exactly what it means. And that is exactly the problem. The Doctrines of Christianity are spiritually discerned.
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Did you know Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit?
Yes. Did you know he was not "kecharitomene"? He was not "always" full of grace. But he was full of grace when he died.
In Acts 6:8 it says--" And Stephen, full of grace and power,..." Should we assume that he never sinned and was immaculately conceived?
If you are going to believe that Mary is without sin because it never specifically says she sinned then you must believe others did not sin either because it never mentions their sins either. Do you believe that other human beings in Scripture were not sinners?
I think it is possible. Scripture says:
Romans 5:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
It does not say nor mean that when the angel greeted her as "highly favored" one that it means she was without sin. Again, look at the definition. Its says nothing about sin or her moral nature. To say it does mean for her to be without sin is to to be bearing false witness about the meaning of the term.
ReplyDeleteAnonymousFebruary 7, 2013 at 10:55 PM
ReplyDeleteIt does not say nor mean that when the angel greeted her as "highly favored" one that it means she was without sin.
Yes, it does. I want to point out that I've explained it in detail above. All you have is denials with no support.
Again, look at the definition. Its says nothing about sin
I've answered this objection several times already. It says nothing about sin in connection to Mary because Mary did not sin.
or her moral nature.
It says a great deal about here moral nature since God hates the wicked. But she is "highly favored" therefore that means that she is righteous.
To say it does mean for her to be without sin is to to be bearing false witness about the meaning of the term.
On the contrary, to claim that Mary sinned is to bear false witness against the Mother of God.
It is not bearing false witness against your church when your church is teaching a false doctrine that Mary was without sin. You have never produced one verse to support this and you try to make "hail favored one" mean more that what the angel meant. It also does not mean being righteous.
DeleteDo you have any RC commentaries on Luke 1:28 that support your view? If so, which ones?
AnonymousFebruary 9, 2013 at 5:05 PM
ReplyDeleteIt is not bearing false witness against your church when your church is teaching a false doctrine that Mary was without sin.
I said it is bearing false witness against Mary, the Mother of God. I asked you to provide even one witness from Scripture saying that she had sinned and you could provide none.
Although you did try to invent one when you claimed she sinned in Luke 2:48.
You have never produced one verse to support this and you try to make "hail favored one" mean more that what the angel meant. It also does not mean being righteous.
Yes it does. I've explained it enough above. Your denial is simply an opinion without evidence.
Do you have any RC commentaries on Luke 1:28 that support your view? If so, which ones?
As far as I know, they all do:
Kecharitomene
kecharitomene II
Luke 1:28
And the document titled, "Basic Catholic Catechism" from EWTN says:
As a result of this Divine Motherhood, because it was fitting for Her Son, she obtained the great grace of the Immaculate Conception, defined by Pius IX in 1854. This means that from the first instant of conception her soul had sanctifying grace, in anticipation of the future merits of her Son.
Vatican II, Pope John Paul II and others understand the Greek of Luke 1:28, kecharitomene, to mean "full of grace". The Greek perfect participle is very strong, the root verb means to put someone in the state of grace/favor. And especially, the word is used instead of her name. This is like saying someone is Mr. Tennis — the ultimate in tennis. So she is Miss Grace, the ultimate in grace. Pius IX, in defining the Immaculate Conception, said that even at the start, her holiness was so great that "none greater under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it"! One of the oldest teachings of the Church is that she is the New Eve: just as the first Eve really contributed to the disaster of original sin, so Mary the New Eve really contributed to removing it, that is, to redeeming us. Every Pope since Leo XIII, and Vatican II, in seventeen documents have said that her role in redeeming us extends even to a part in the great sacrifice of Calvary itself! It is a general principle, that if something is taught repeatedly by the Church, even on a level less than a definition, the teaching is infallible.
I hope that helps.
We have no suggestion or outright statement that says Stephen, Andrew, John or Philip sinned. That means they also were sinless like Jesus.
ReplyDeleteLk.2:50: “But they (both Mary and Joseph) did not understand the words he spoke to them.” Notice in both accounts Mary does not understand the things of God. Someone who is sinless would know God’s ways and not need a explanation. It is sin that corrupts ones understanding of spiritual things. What did they not understand? That Jesus would be about His Fathers business. In this account we see Mary equal with Joseph in not understanding.
Another passage to look at is found in Luke 2:24--Mary brought a sacrifice of two turtledoves in accord to Jewish law in Leviticus chapter 12:8. One was for a burnt offering, the other was for a sin offering. This couldn't have been for the child who was the Holy one, the sinless spotless lamb of God. This must have been for her own uncleanness. Mary's conformity to the law is an admission she was a sinner needing to be restored by cleansing, only sinners need cleansing. Mary's awareness of God as her Savior is evidence that she was aware she was a sinner.
AnonymousFebruary 9, 2013 at 11:10 PM
ReplyDeleteWe have no suggestion or outright statement that says Stephen, Andrew, John or Philip sinned. That means they also were sinless like Jesus.
If you say so. I have no idea. God is their judge, not I.
Lk.2:50: “But they (both Mary and Joseph) did not understand the words he spoke to them.” Notice in both accounts Mary does not understand the things of God. Someone who is sinless would know God’s ways and not need a explanation.
Says who? Show me from Scripture that what you claim is true. Show me that God insists we understand what He says. Show me where God says that we don't need explanations. Show me where it says that needing explanations is a sin.
All these are things you are reading into Scripture in your zeal to condemn Mary, the Mother of our Lord.
It is sin that corrupts ones understanding of spiritual things. What did they not understand? That Jesus would be about His Fathers business. In this account we see Mary equal with Joseph in not understanding.
They did not understand immediately. But they understood eventually. That is why the Scripture continues and says:
51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
Another passage to look at is found in Luke 2:24--Mary brought a sacrifice of two turtledoves in accord to Jewish law in Leviticus chapter 12:8. One was for a burnt offering, the other was for a sin offering. This couldn't have been for the child who was the Holy one, the sinless spotless lamb of God. This must have been for her own uncleanness. Mary's conformity to the law is an admission she was a sinner needing to be restored by cleansing, only sinners need cleansing.
This was a ritual cleansing. It is not an admission of sin. It is something she did to fulfill all righteousness. Just the same way that Jesus accepted to be baptized although He did not sin. To fulfill all righteousness.
Mary's awareness of God as her Savior is evidence that she was aware she was a sinner.
Mary herself explains that she was aware that God had done great things to her:
Luke 1:49
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
Great.Stephen, Andrew, John or Philip were sinless just like Jesus since Scripture never mentions their sins. It also means Paul is a liar because he wrote in Romans 3:9, 23 and 5:12 that ALL MEN have sinned. This means that Scripture contradicts itself. This is where your beliefs lead you to conclude.
ReplyDeleteOne who is sinless would understand immediately because their minds are not corrupted by sin. I'm not condemning Mary but demonstrating what your church teaches about her is false. Your church has made her a goddess.
One of the offerings she gave was for sin. This is another indicator that she saw herself as a sinner. It is true that she knew God had done great things for her but she never claims to be without sin nor does anyone else say she was including the Lord Jesus.
If "hail favored one" can mean without sin as your propose then it can all also mean to be all knowing and able to do miracles. This is what you get when you don't restrict yourself to the definition of "hail favored one" means.
DeleteNote also that the Immaculate Conception, defined by Pius IX in 1854 is not based on Scripture. The reason is that all that we know of Mary is found only in Scripture and Scripture never mentions her conception or birth. Its all based on speculations of men that denies the clear teaching of Scripture that all men are sinners. See Romans 3:9, 23 and 5:12.
AnonymousFebruary 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM
DeleteGreat.Stephen, Andrew, John or Philip were sinless just like Jesus since Scripture never mentions their sins.
Is that your belief? I remind you that Scripture does not describe them as being "kecharitomene".
It also means Paul is a liar because he wrote in Romans 3:9, 23 and 5:12 that ALL MEN have sinned.
No, because St. Paul also wrote Romans 5:14.
This means that Scripture contradicts itself.
Not true. If you believe that absolutely all men have sinned then you contradict Romans 5:14.
However, it is clear to us that little children who die before attaining the age of reason have died without committing sin.
This is where your beliefs lead you to conclude.
Remember that it is you who have constructed a straw man that you are trying to knock down. I have no opinion about Stephen, Andrew, John or Philip being sinners or sinless. It is your doctrine which you are trying to knock down.
Scripture is silent on whether they sinned or not. And Scripture does not describe them as highly favored or as kecharitomene (i.e. always full of grace). Therefore, I have no dog in your fight to declare them without sin.
One who is sinless would understand immediately because their minds are not corrupted by sin.
That is your theory. Have you ever met anyone without sin?
I'm not condemning Mary but demonstrating what your church teaches about her is false.
The Church Teaches the Wisdom of God. Therefore, the Catholic Doctrines about Mary are absolutely true.
Your church has made her a goddess.
Not true. That is another straw man which Protestants have constructed to attempt to disprove the Doctrines of Mary. They have no Scriptural grounds to stand upon so they start making groundless accusations.
One of the offerings she gave was for sin.
It was a ritual offering which she performed to fulfill all righteousness. The Jews did not know that she was sinless. Only she and God. Therefore, she was obligated to perform the ritual under obedience to the Mosaic Law.
This is another indicator that she saw herself as a sinner. It is true that she knew God had done great things for her but she never claims to be without sin nor does anyone else say she was including the Lord Jesus.
Her sinlessness is a Doctrine which came from Jesus to the Church and through the centuries down to us.
AnonymousFebruary 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM
DeleteIf "hail favored one" can mean without sin as your propose then it can all also mean to be all knowing and able to do miracles.
No, it can't. She is favored by God because she is without sin. But to call her all knowing would be to give her God's attribute.
As for performing miracles, did Moses perform miracles? Or not?
Did Elijah perform miracles? or not?
Did St. Peter and St. Paul perform miracles? Or not?
Let me know your opinion on those questions.
This is what you get when you don't restrict yourself to the definition of "hail favored one" means.
Again, that is what YOU get. Not me. It is you who claims that "hail favored one" means that Mary is all seeing. Not me.
Note also that the Immaculate Conception, defined by Pius IX in 1854 is not based on Scripture.
1. In the Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, entitled "Inefabilis Deus", the Church says that there is nothing in Scripture which contradicts this truth. Starting at the section titled the Council of Trent:
....Besides, we must note a fact of the greatest importance indeed..... the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin.[12]
2. And in the section titled "Interpreters of Scripture", the Pope states that the Doctrines of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in this case, especially the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is supported by the Scriptures:
....The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. ....
3. Putting both of those together, the Scriptures confirm all the doctrines of the Blessed Virgin, as I have already explained. And there is nothing in the Scriptures which can be twisted to say otherwise.
The reason is that all that we know of Mary is found only in Scripture
We learn it from Tradition first. And Christ established a Church and commanded that Church to teach His Traditions. You reject what Jesus established and accept only the Scripture which the Church produced. Then you reject the Church which produced the Scriptures.
That makes no sense.
and Scripture never mentions her conception or birth.
But Tradition does.
Its all based on speculations of men that denies the clear teaching of Scripture that all men are sinners. See Romans 3:9, 23 and 5:12.
You need to read Rom 5:14. That will put it all in the proper perspective for you. You can't accept some Scriptures and deny others.
Your interpretation of Scripture makes Scripture contradict itself. Catholic Teaching takes into account all of Scripture.
Since you insist on adding to the meaning of "hail favored one" then there is no limit to what we can say it means and implies. If someone is sinless, then they must be all-knowing also since sin is what corrupts the mind of man to know. Without that corruption then a person would know all things. We can apply this to the meaning of "hail favored one".
ReplyDeleteWhat your church proclaimed about Mary being "free from the original stain" is not grounded in Scripture but actually contradicts Scripture as we see in Rom 3:9, 23 and 5:12 where Paul makes the point that ALL MEN ARE SINNERS. Rom 5:14 is not saying some have not sinned but that not all sinned in the same way that Adam did. We know men are sinners not only in actions and attitudes but by death. All men have died or will die because all have sinned. The only exceptions to this principle are Enoch, Elijah who was taken directly to heaven and the Lord Jesus. There is no biblical support that Mary was an exception. In fact, the first recorded instance of her death is not until 377.
Your interpretation of Rom 5:14 is incorrect. Do have the official interpretation for this verse that supports your interpretation or are you just giving me your private interpretation?
That's exactly the same thing you said before. All anyone has to do is read the thread and they will see that I have addressed everyone of those objections already.
DeleteDo you have anything different? If not, then I suggest that we agree to disagree without being disagreeable.
If anyone sees anything in that objection which they don't think I addressed, let me know and I will clarify.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You refuse to correct yourself when you have been shown to be incorrect. Your interpretation of Romans 5:14 is a case in point as is Mary being without sin.
DeleteYou refuse to correct yourself when you have been shown to be incorrect.
DeleteIt is you who refuse to correct yourself when you have been proven wrong.
Your interpretation of Romans 5:14 is a case in point as is Mary being without sin.
You know that I didn't say that.
You claim that St. Paul said that "ALL" have sinned without any exceptions. But that can't be true because in Romans 5:14, he says that some have not sinned.
The Church teaches that Mary did not sin primarily from Luke 1:28. This is quite in line with Rom 5:14.