Thomas said:
But her love for the Son is greatest of human kind, for it is that of motherly love. That inspires me.
But her love for the Son is greatest of human kind, for it is that of motherly love. That inspires me.
Dominic replied:
A Catholic looks to Mary for many reason, from with the teachings of the Church.. One of the teachings is that each person is to becme holy.... to grow into Christ… We use Mary... It is our way of being inspired to become the christian God may want us to be…
Calvin objected:Really? You don't understand that he is talking about focusing on Jesus Christ the way that His mother focused upon Him?
I knew the focus of the OP prayer would move from the Lord Jesus Christ to Mary.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Prayers to Mary do not lead to Christ but to Mary. Here is an example why:
ReplyDelete"O Mother of Perpetual Help
O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help."
There are dozens of prayers like this and they are prayers no one should ever pray.
On the contrary, we should all pray those prayers who understand the Word of God.
DeleteBefore I look at Scripture, let us look at this prayer. Note the ending:
Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help."
Three little words, but very powerful. We seek Mary in order that she may lead us to Christ. And that is her role in salvation.
However, Scripture tells that God the Father wants us to Praise Mary.
And Scripture tells us that all who are believers of Christ and faithful of God are also the children of Mary (Rev 12:17).
Children always turn to their mothers to lead them to safety. And that is what we, who have the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Commandments of God, are called to do.
Sincerely,
De Maria
While you look in Scripture, look for any verses where Mary is to obtain anything for you in prayer. I'd like to know where anyone prays to Mary in Scripture.
ReplyDeleteYou can begin with the words, "hail full of grace" which are rendered "hail favored one" in your Bible (Luke 1:28).
DeleteThen you can go to the place where St. Elizabeth calls her the Mother of God (Luke 1:43).
Then you can understand that as her Son, Jesus asked Mary for nutrition and love. Therefore, when we ask Mary for anything, we imitate our Lord.
And finally, understand that the Scriptures describe Mary as our Mother (Rev. 12:17). Therefore, God expects us to call upon our heavenly mother for spiritual things, the way that children call upon their earthly mother for earthly things.
Sincerely,
De Maria
None of these passages have anything to do with praying to Mary. This is looking more and more like the teachings of men and not of God.
DeleteHm? Again, we don't learn our faith from Scripture. We learn our faith from the Church. And Scripture agrees with the Church. If you keep interpreting Scripture according to your own presuppositions, you will keep rejecting the Word of Jesus Christ who established the Church and commanded Her to teach His Traditions (Matt 28:19-20).
DeleteDo you not realize that the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament which you now seek to interpret in direct contradiction to the Teachings which are the basis of the New Testament?
Sincerely,
De Maria
Scripture does not agree with your doctrines on Mary and indulgences. Even you have to admit the passages you quote for these doctrines have never been officially interpreted to mean Mary was sinless, prayed to, or that you can get some kind of indulgences.
DeleteIt is your church that is in direct contradiction to Scripture.
AnonymousOctober 13, 2013 at 11:25 PM
DeleteScripture does not agree with your doctrines on Mary and indulgences.
In fact, Scripture does agree and is completely in line with ALL Catholic Doctrines.
Whereas, any Protestant doctrine which disagrees with Catholic Doctrine also disagrees with Scripture.
Even you have to admit the passages you quote for these doctrines have never been officially interpreted to mean Mary was sinless, prayed to, or that you can get some kind of indulgences.
First. I never admitted such a thing. I said that I didn't know if they had ever been officially interpreted.
And. I also told you that I didn't need an official interpretation in order to see the Doctrines of the Catholic Church mentioned in Scripture.
It is your church that is in direct contradiction to Scripture.
Let us go through the Scriptures and compare them to Protestant doctrines.
Protestants say, "hold the Scriptures alone!"
Catholic Church says, "hold Scripture and Tradition."
Scripture says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Obviiously, Protestant doctrine contradicts Scripture. As I said, any Protestant doctrine that contradicts the Catholic Church, also contradicts the Word of God. Period.
Give it a try. Let us go through all of your doctrines and compare them to Scripture. I guarantee, you will be found wanting.
Sincerely,
De Maria
How can it be that Scripture is in line with RC doctrines when Rome has never officially interpreted the passages you have used to support the doctrines we are discussing? Luke 1:28 does not mean without sin. Revelation 12 was never interpreted by the early church as a reference to Mary. Same for indulgences.
DeleteAgain, what "Traditions" are you specifically talking about? Show me this official list of Traditions of your church that is equal with the Scripture then I will have an idea what you are saying.
AnonymousOctober 14, 2013 at 9:54 AM
DeleteHow can it be that Scripture is in line with RC doctrines when Rome has never officially interpreted the passages you have used to support the doctrines we are discussing?
1. Why do you feel that official interpretations are necessary?
2. It is very easy to compare Scripture to both Protestant and Catholic Doctrine.
3. Your hesitancy to do so speaks volumes.
Luke 1:28 does not mean without sin.
In fact, it does. One can not be continually full of grace and also sin.
Revelation 12 was never interpreted by the early church as a reference to Mary.
In fact, it was.
Same for indulgences.
Indulgences were taught by Jesus Christ as I proved.
Again, what "Traditions" are you specifically talking about?
1. The Traditions of Jesus Christ which have been passed down by the Catholic Church from the beginning.
2. To which Traditions are you objecting? Or do you simply object to things which you know nothing about?
Show me this official list of Traditions of your church that is equal with the Scripture then I will have an idea what you are saying.
Then read the New Testament. You will find therein the Traditions of the Catholic Church explicitly stated or implied.
I remind you that I have challenged you to go over all your Protestant doctrines and compare them to Scripture. You seem reluctant to do so. Is it because you know that they are not in Scripture? Is it because you know that Protestant doctrine contradicts the Word of God?
Sincerely,
De Maria
The reason I want to see the official interpretation of your church is because that is the only way to know what your church means in these passages. Otherwise all you can give me is your private interpretation which may not be true.
DeleteWhat council taught that Mary was the woman of Rev 12? (keep in mind that only a council can speak for the church)
You have not proved that Jesus taught indulgences. All you have given is your private opinion and not what your church has interpreted from Scripture.
Since you seem to think that Jesus taught your traditions where did He teach that Mary was without sin and was to be prayed to?
Where did He teach about indulgences i.e. an indulgence is a remission of temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven?
None of these doctrines are explicit nor implicit in Scripture.
Once we get this out of the way we can look at Protestant doctrines.
AnonymousOctober 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM
DeleteThe reason I want to see the official interpretation of your church is because that is the only way to know what your church means in these passages.
That's not true. The Catholic Church has many ways of explaining the Scriptures.
Otherwise all you can give me is your private interpretation which may not be true.
And what is wrong with that? Can you give me an official explanation of your interpretation of Scripture?
What council taught that Mary was the woman of Rev 12?
I don't know.
(keep in mind that only a council can speak for the church)
Says who? I want to see the official teaching since you seem to know of one.
You have not proved that Jesus taught indulgences.
Yes, I have. The fact that you don't accept my proof does not mean I didn't prove it. It just means you don't believe it.
There are people today who don't believe the earth is round. That doesn't mean there isn't enough proof. It means they don't accept the proof.
All you have given is your private opinion and not what your church has interpreted from Scripture.
You don't seem to understand. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. The Doctrines of the Church and the Scriptures came from the same source. The Word of God.
Since you seem to think that Jesus taught your traditions where did He teach that Mary was without sin and was to be prayed to?
Luke 1:28
Where did He teach about indulgences i.e. an indulgence is a remission of temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven?
Luke 11:41
None of these doctrines are explicit nor implicit in Scripture.
They are implied in the verses I provided.
Once we get this out of the way we can look at Protestant doctrines.
Who made you the boss? I say we look at the Protestant doctrines now. But, that is impossible. Because Protestant doctrines are not in Scripture. They contradict Scripture. Prove me wrong. You know that you can't. That is why you are stalling.
Sincerely,
De Maria
If the RCC has many ways to explain the Scripture then the Scripture could be said to say anything. This is exactly what cults do. They, like your church don't exegete the Scripture because they know if they did they would have denounce so many of its doctrines.
DeleteGreat, so we have no councils teaching that the meaning of Rev 12 is Mary. That means you making things up since no council has ever officially interpreted Rev 12 as Mary.
I know what you think is the correct interpretation of Luke 11:41 is about indulgences but that does not mean that Rome interprets them to mean this. In fact no one knows what Rome thinks since she has never officially interpreted the Scriptures.
I'm not stalling but holding you accountable for what your church teaches. You want to defend then you need to exegete the Scripture correctly since your church has never done so.
Luke 1:28 is not about Jesus teaching that Mary was without sin. Not even the angel is saying that either.
AnonymousOctober 14, 2013 at 10:47 PM
DeleteIf the RCC has many ways to explain the Scripture then the Scripture could be said to say anything. This is exactly what cults do.
Protestant cults do that. Look at Protestants today. They have over 20,000 cults who all make Scripture say whatever they want.
But the Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture. The Catholic Church explains the Word of God.
They, like your church don't exegete the Scripture because they know if they did they would have denounce so many of its doctrines.
It is you who is afraid to compare Scripture to your doctrines.
Great, so we have no councils teaching that the meaning of Rev 12 is Mary. That means you making things up since no council has ever officially interpreted Rev 12 as Mary.
It is you who is making things up. Show me the rule that says only a council can speak for the Church. There is no such thing. But if you claim that such a rule exists, show it to me.
I know what you think is the correct interpretation of Luke 11:41 is about indulgences but that does not mean that Rome interprets them to mean this. In fact no one knows what Rome thinks since she has never officially interpreted the Scriptures.
You're mistaken. The New Testament was written base upon the Traditions the Catholic Church received from Jesus Christ.
Here's the thing. You have no official interpretations of any Scripture. NONE. You go by your own interpretation of Scripture alone. And you don't even know what is Scripture alone.
And Scripture alone is a doctrine which contradicts Scripture.
I'm not stalling but holding you accountable for what your church teaches.
I've explained what my Church teaches and shown you the basis for the teaching from Scripture. You have provided nothing to substantiate what you believe from Scripture or otherwise. All you have done is object to Catholic Doctrine as though your objection somehow carried weight.
You want to defend then you need to exegete the Scripture correctly since your church has never done so.
Whether my Church has done so or not is not in question here. I don't need the Church's interpretation of Scripture in order to see that the Doctrine is correct and in agreement with Scripture.
What is in question is your doctrine which blatantly contradicts the Word of God and which you want us to ignore.
Luke 1:28 is not about Jesus teaching that Mary was without sin. Not even the angel is saying that either.
You see, you don't even know what you are reading. Was St. Luke there when Jesus was born? Or did St. Luke learn the story from someone else? And who do you think they learned it from? I'll give you a hint:
Luke 24:32
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Unless you begin to listen to the Catholic Church, you will never understand the true meaning of Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
If your church does not exegete Scripture then its not properly teaching it either. This is why your church teaches so many unbiblical doctrines because it does not exegete but makes things up. The Marian dogmas and indulgences are examples of this. Even you were not able to show from Scripture the idea of indulgences.
DeleteIf a council is not determining the meaning of Scripture then no one is. Each RC on his own can make stuff up like you have done with indulgences. You can't even appeal to any authority in your church for an official interpretation of Scripture.
You have shown me what you think Rome teaches but you have not shown any exegesis of the Scripture from Rome that supports the doctrines we have been discussing. Without exegesis of the Scripture you cannot know if Rome is teaching sound doctrine. You can only assert it as your opinion.
Luke most likely got the story of the angel from Mary herself.
How can you know the meaning of Scripture when your church never exegetes the Scripture?
AnonymousOctober 16, 2013 at 10:20 AM
DeleteIf your church does not exegete Scripture then its not properly teaching it either.
Jesus Christ appointed the Catholic Church as the Teacher of His Doctrines. The Catholic Church explains the Faith of Jesus Christ.
This is why your church teaches so many unbiblical doctrines because it does not exegete but makes things up.
Again, let's compare. I have provided the basis of Catholic doctrine. You have yet to produce the made up doctrine known as Sola Scriptura.
The Marian dogmas and indulgences are examples of this. Even you were not able to show from Scripture the idea of indulgences.
I have shown you. You simply denied it. Here is another one:
Luke 12:33
Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
If a council is not determining the meaning of Scripture then no one is. Each RC on his own can make stuff up like you have done with indulgences. You can't even appeal to any authority in your church for an official interpretation of Scripture.
You have shown me what you think Rome teaches but you have not shown any exegesis of the Scripture from Rome that supports the doctrines we have been discussing.
The Catholic Church teaches me how to exegete Scripture. I have followed the instructions and have shown you the result.
You have not shown your exegesis of Sola Scriptura. I understand. Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. That is why you can't.
Without exegesis of the Scripture you cannot know if Rome is teaching sound doctrine. You can only assert it as your opinion.
That is strange, because I know that the Catholic Church teaches sound doctrine. I also know that your doctrines are man made errors.
Luke most likely got the story of the angel from Mary herself.
And what is wrong with that? Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Doctrine or not?
How can you know the meaning of Scripture when your church never exegetes the Scripture?
Because Jesus Christ appointed the Catholic Church the Teacher of His Doctrines. Jesus Christ did not write a word of Scripture. He established the Catholic Church and appointed her to teach His Doctrines to all generations.
Ephesians 3:10
King James Version (KJV)
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Sincerely,
De Maria
The Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of Christ. The RCC did not come into existence until about the 6th century. Before that there was no one man leader for the entire nor did other churches acknowledge such a leader either. Just read a good book on church history.
DeleteDo you have the official interpretation of Luke 12:33?
How could know sound doctrine when your church has never exegeted the Scripture? To know sound doctrine it is necessary to know the correct meaning of Scripture via exegesis.
How can your church teach you to exegete when it does not exegete the Scripture either?
AnonymousOctober 16, 2013 at 8:23 PM
DeleteThe Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of Christ.
Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church.
The RCC did not come into existence until about the 6th century.
Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church when Jesus said, "On this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18-19).
Before that there was no one man leader for the entire nor did other churches acknowledge such a leader either. Just read a good book on church history.
The saying is true, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." All you have done is learn the Protestant propaganda. When you begin to study the truth, you will learn that Protestants have been lying to you.
Do you have the official interpretation of Luke 12:33?
Along with the other verses I provided, it is the basis of the Doctrine of indulgences.
How could know sound doctrine when your church has never exegeted the Scripture?
My Church wrote the Scripture.
To know sound doctrine it is necessary to know the correct meaning of Scripture via exegesis.
To know sound Doctrine it is necessary to understand the Word of God in Tradition and Scripture.
How can your church teach you to exegete when it does not exegete the Scripture either?
My Church wrote the Scripture. That is how. Your religion discovers the meaning of Scripture and frequently misunderstands it.
My Church wrote the Scripture and explains the meaning thereof.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Roman Catholic and Catholic are not the same things. Roman Catholicism has unique doctrines and structure that other churches do not have nor endorse.
DeleteRead church history and you not find a universal leader until around the 6th century.
The Roman Catholic church did not write the Scripture. The OT was written centuries before your church came into existence and the NT is the same given that the RCC did not come into existence until the 6th century.
AnonymousOctober 17, 2013 at 12:24 AM
DeleteRoman Catholic and Catholic are not the same things.
If by Roman Catholic, you imply the Church which submits to the Pope in Rome, yes they are exactly the same thing.
Roman Catholicism has unique doctrines and structure that other churches do not have nor endorse.
It is Protestants who have unique, novel and unbiblical doctrines.
Read church history and you not find a universal leader until around the 6th century.
St. Peter was appointed by Jesus Christ as Leader of His Church:
John 21:17
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 the Church has had a universal leader, appointed by Christ, since that time.
The Roman Catholic church did not write the Scripture.
The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and canonized the Old.
The OT was written centuries before your church came into existence
And the Catholic Church inherited the OT Scriptures from Jesus Christ.
Acts 7:38
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
and the NT is the same given that the RCC did not come into existence until the 6th century.
Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church (Matt 16:18-19) and appointed her the Teacher of His Doctrines (Matt 28:19-20).
The Protestant religion was established by Martin Luther in the 15th century and contains many anti-biblical doctrines.
Sincerely,
De Maria
You are correct about the distinction of the RCC. It has a pope i.e. supreme leader. Your church leadership is modeled after the Roman govt and not the NT.
DeleteHowever, that is not what we see in the NT church nor in the early centuries of the church. No man held the supreme leadership position in the church until about 6th century. Just look in the 2nd century and you will not find the bishop of Rome claiming to be the supreme leader of the church nor any church acknowledging the bishop of Rome as the supreme leader of the church. It just did not exist back then.
We also know Peter never claimed for himself to be the supreme leader of the church nor did his fellow apostles acknowledge him as such.
The Roman Catholic church did not write the Scripture nor approve it on its own. The OT by the time of Christ was already recognized as Scripture. No church had anything to do with that.
I don't see how you can criticize Protestant doctrines when you don't know Scripture because you don't exegete it nor know the origin and source of all your doctrines.
AnonymousOctober 17, 2013 at 7:16 PM
DeleteYou are correct about the distinction of the RCC. It has a pope i.e. supreme leader.
Appointed by Christ.
Your church leadership is modeled after the Roman govt and not the NT.
On the contrary, it is Jesus who established the leadership of the Catholic Church (Matt 16:18-19; John 21:17).
However, that is not what we see in the NT church nor in the early centuries of the church.
You don't see it because you are not able (1 Corinthians 2:14).
No man held the supreme leadership position in the church until about 6th century.
You're being very repetitious. I already pointed out that Jesus appointed Simon Peter the leader of His Church (John 21:17).
Just look in the 2nd century and you will not find the bishop of Rome claiming to be the supreme leader of the church nor any church acknowledging the bishop of Rome as the supreme leader of the church. It just did not exist back then.
You are mistaken. The Pope has always been the leader amongst equals in the Catholic Church.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
We also know Peter never claimed for himself to be the supreme leader of the church nor did his fellow apostles acknowledge him as such.
It is enough for me that Jesus appointed him such. Why isn't that enough for you?
And all the Apostles acknowledged him the leader also. That is why they called him, Peter and Cephas, which is the name that Jesus gave him and signifies that he is the Rock, the Foundation of the Church
The Roman Catholic church did not write the Scripture nor approve it on its own
The Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote the New Testament and canonized the Old.
The OT by the time of Christ was already recognized as Scripture. No church had anything to do with that.
But Jesus Christ, God, second person of the Holy Trinity, inherited the Scriptures and passed them on to the Church:
1 Peter 4:11
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
I don't see how you can criticize Protestant doctrines when you don't know Scripture because you don't exegete it nor know the origin and source of all your doctrines.
I exegete Scripture just fine. If you want to know how to criticize Protestant doctrine, then present it and we will go through the Scriptures and I will show you how Protestant doctrine contradicts the Word of God.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Read the I Clement quote carefully. He makes no claim that he is a pope or the supreme leader of the entire church. Ignatius either does not make any claim to someone being the supreme leader of the church.
DeleteJesus did not appoint Peter to be the supreme leader of the church. We also know that he never claims as much for himself nor do the other apostles acknowledge him as being the supreme leader of the church. In fact, no one does in Scripture.
The OT was already inspired-inerrant before the church was born. The church did not write the NT but the apostles did. The apostles nor anyone is a church.
One other thing to note about a papacy in the NT: There is no office for it in any description of the leadership in the church.
DeleteAnonymousOctober 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM
DeleteOne other thing to note about a papacy in the NT: There is no office for it in any description of the leadership in the church.
Jesus established the Papacy in Matt 16:18-19 and confirmed that St. Peter was the Shepherd of His Church in John 21:17.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Where does the NT mention the office of the papacy and how it was to function?
DeleteMatt 16:18-19
DeleteNote how St. Peter will is appointed the Rock or foundation of the Church, thus indicating that he has the authority of Jesus Christ.
And then, it explicitly says that he has the power to bind and loose. What he binds on earth is bound in heaven. What he looses on earth is loosed in heaven.
In John 21:17, the office is likened to that of a shepherd. Again, we know that God is our Shepherd. But St. Peter is appointed the shepherd over God's flock.
Sincerely,
De Maria
AnonymousOctober 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM
ReplyDeleteRead the I Clement quote carefully. He makes no claim that he is a pope or the supreme leader of the entire church.
Let's read it together.
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . .
St. Clement is here speaking in the Royal Plural. The Royal Plural is used by Royalty to indicate that God has appointed them to their position.
And he is advising the correspondent, not to disobey.
If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger.
And he emphasizes that he is the Vicar of Christ.
We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
But assures them that he will continue to pray for them.
Ignatius either does not make any claim to someone being the supreme leader of the church.
He doesn't need to, it is common knowledge. But we can read that together as well:
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome]
St. Ignatius addresses the Bishop of Rome.
have envied no one, but others have you taught.
And acknowledges that he is the highest authority of the Church.
I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
And he expresses his support of the Pope's decisions.
Jesus did not appoint Peter to be the supreme leader of the church.
Yes, He did:
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.
We also know that he never claims as much for himself nor do the other apostles acknowledge him as being the supreme leader of the church. In fact, no one does in Scripture.
Yes they do. They acknowledge that Jesus gave him His own name. Jesus is the Rock and He gave Simon His own name to indicate that he is the ruler of the Church. And in acknowledging this change of name, the Apostles acknowledged his new role as ruler of the Church in Christ's stead.
The OT was already inspired-inerrant before the church was born.
True. But the OT was inherited by the Church.
The church did not write the NT but the apostles did. The apostles nor anyone is a church.
The Apostles were the founding members of the Church. And not all of the authors of Scripture were Apostles. Sts. Mark and Luke, were disciples.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Clement does not claim to be the supreme leader of the entire church. Notice that he does not make any appeal to himself as some kind of authority and he uses the word "us" and "we".
DeleteAgain, where in any of the NT letters do any of the apostles appeal to Peter as the supreme head of the entire church?
AnonymousOctober 19, 2013 at 1:27 PM
DeleteClement does not claim to be the supreme leader of the entire church.
He doesn't have to be explicit. He presumes that the reader already understands and accepts the authority with which he speaks.
Notice that he does not make any appeal to himself as some kind of authority and he uses the word "us" and "we".
Again, that is an example of the Royal Plural:
Royal we
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis in Latin, literally, "the plural of majesty"), is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope.
Again, where in any of the NT letters do any of the apostles appeal to Peter as the supreme head of the entire church?
Every time he is referred to as Peter or Cephas, they are acknowledging the office to which Jesus appointed him.
Sincerely,
De Maria
What makes you think that those whom Clement wrote to believed he was the supreme leader of the entire church? There is nothing in the letter that comes close to hinting at this.
DeleteHow do you know the so called "Royal Plural" applies to I Clement?
What RC scholar says that "Every time he is referred to as Peter or Cephas, they are acknowledging the office to which Jesus appointed him"?
Do you believe in Sola Scriptura or not? Answer the question.
DeleteDefine it first so I know if you truly understand what it is and its implications. "Bible alone" is not a sufficient definition.
DeleteIf you believe in it, then you should know what it is. Therefore, you need to define it and tell me what you believe are its implications. And you need to show where it is in Scripture.
DeleteSincerely,
De Maria
Your the one who has made the claim that its false. All I'm asking at this point is to see if that is the case or not. So far you are making assumptions that are not part of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
DeleteSo, if I've made false assumptions, then all you need to do is provide your definition so that we can compare it to Scripture. What are you afraid of?
DeleteAlright lets first start with the nature of Scripture. Scripture is inspired and errant. It alone has this characteristic. Correct?
DeleteScripture was written by the Catholic Church, therefore the Catholic Church shares those attributes in order to have written Scripture. Right?
DeleteIs Scripture alone inspired-inerrant or not?
DeleteBTW- no where does the Scripture nor officials of the RCC claim that their church is inspired-inerrant.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymousOctober 24, 2013 at 12:29 AM
DeleteIs Scripture alone inspired-inerrant or not?
What does Scripture say and where?
BTW- no where does the Scripture nor officials of the RCC claim that their church is inspired-inerrant.
The infallible Catholic Church teaches that holy men of the Church were inspired to write the New Testament without error. And that is the same thing that Scripture says. Read the Gospels.
Jesus Christ taught the Apostles His Traditions. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the New Testament based upon these Traditions. And they did so infallibly and without error.
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74
2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is inspired by God. Jesus never taught that the church would be inspired-inerrant. We know that your church is not.
DeleteJesus' tradition nor the apostles tradition were the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences or the papacy. They never taught such things.
AnonymousOctober 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM
Delete2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is inspired by God.
True, but it doesn't say that Scripture alone is inspired. In fact, it says Scripture is not necessary.
Jesus never taught that the church would be inspired-inerrant.
but Scripture says that the church is the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15)
We know that your church is not.
Scripture says that the church teaches the wisdom of God even in the heavens (Ephesians 3:10).
Jesus' tradition nor the apostles tradition were the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences or the papacy. They never taught such things.
Yes they did. All you have to do is review my responses I've already provided all the verses.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletewhat are you trying to accomplish here? We seem to be going in circles. You've admitted that Sola scriptura is not in Scripture. I guarantee that all your doctrines which contradict Catholic church are not a Scripture either. Just take a walk through Scripture. Let's compare your doctrines to Scripture and Catholic doctrine to Scripture.
sincerely,
De Maria