Posted on 04/09/2008 12:36:13 PM PDT by annalex
Quix have you ever read any of the Church fathers who were contemporaries or students of the Apostles. Have you read the history of the Church councils? Do you know how responded to the heresies that threatened it?
Do you honestly think those who learned from the Apostles themselves and who passed on their teachings would have embraced heresy and allowed it to take root in the Church?
If you believe that how can you trust any doctrines arising from that time in Church history? The Trinity, The Divinity of Christ, The Hypostatic Union. Can you defend against the heresy of Gnosticism, Arianism and the like?
Do you know that besides the Immaculate Conception
(though I believe they do hold Mary never committed personal sin) the Orthodox also teach Mary was ever virgin, that she was assumed into Heaven, that she bore God in her womb?
Rather than Catholics and Orthodox building skyscrapers of falsehood. Some Protestant sects have done their best to tear down the citadil of Truth built on the Word of God, both written and given to us through the Traditions of the Apostles and the Fathers.
Not at all. I thought no such thing.
I realize how entrenched the Maryolatry stuff is far and wide and particularly hereon.
I merely stated my eager happiness at laying aside the Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary caricature as soon as y’all did.
However, being more of a realist . . . than many RC’s, I had no illusions nor delusions that any RC reps hereon were going to lay 1% of such aside for any reason short of a literal burning bush in their laps.
Rejoicing alert to RC’s: Quix is going to class to teach shortly.
If Mary's mom and dad did not conceive Mary would God be powerless to chose another female? Why did it take 1900 years to establish the dogma? Empirical evidence established the Resurrection since day one. If Mary ascended where is the empirical evidence at? Conflicting stories do not count consistency needs establishment. Are religions actually an enemy of the real God? (Trying to create/please God in man's own vision, works and deeds)
One day I brought up these simple questions to a nun in religion class and it got me in a whole lot of trouble. Never did get a LOGICAL answer from the nun, principle (Who was also a nun) and the Priest I had to visit for "counseling".
Do you honestly think those who learned from the Apostles themselves and who passed on their teachings would have embraced heresy and allowed it to take root in the Church?
= = =
Have read some such.
Yes, I absolutely believe the above—I’ve seen it happen in within a matter of weeks to months after a great congregational pastor moving on or graduating to Heaven.
‘Tis human. happens chronically in human groups—ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS human groups.
Good points.
I understand. The resistence to truth on these threads on the RC side is so thick one would need blasting materials to shake it slightly loose.
Thanks much.
There was never a widespread abuse of Indulgence's that some forms of protestantism would like for you to believe. The abuse before Luther was handled by the Church resulting in excommunication of a handful of people who were involved.
Like anything else,we have sinners in the Church who do not follow the teachings
Many people have no idea what indulgences are and are not
From New Advent
WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS NOT
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin.””
Here is an example of an indulgence
The satisfaction, usually called the “penance”, imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner — prayer, fasting, alms-giving — in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent’s disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the “Treasury” of the Church.
roamer-””No! It is the French Liberalism, growing fitfully from the rotten root of Roman Empire that has foisted this nonsense upon the world. It has grown and festered far longer in the Catholic nations than it ever has among the Protestants. It is the basis of the stench of Nazism, and of communism, and is the very self same liberalism that we fight now. To suggest that such is the fault of Protestantism, or of the Protestant Nations is to deny history.””
Many people have been brainwashed to believe what you said here.It's not even close to being true
Here are the historical facts ...
I'll make this brief(in a hurray)
The reformation in breaking unity from the Catholic Church is the true start of Liberalism that gradually weakened the Catholic countries.
It was the french (mostly calvinists) who pillaged and stole the catholic Churches land and forced democratic elections to choose Bishops etc..- where protestant communities were actually able to select a Catholic Bishop in France,the Bishop was then forced to take civil oaths.
The United States was founded by liberal french and european calvinistic puritan slave owners and lawyers who were freemasons.
Are you going to call them Conservatives and moral?Hardly!
Thus it not surprise anyone that abortion,pornography etc.. is legal and protected in the name of freedom and democracy. It was only a matter of time before we caught up with most of western europe. It's not getting better either,Dear Brother.
ALL of this is and has always been AGAINST the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The world renown Professor of History Dr John Rao sums this up well
excerpt;
The Founding Fathers and their successors built their “make believe” objective order first and foremost upon America's British heritage. This was quite a schizophrenic legacy by the late eighteenth century. It certainly included Christianity, chiefly in the form of Anglicanism and Puritan Protestantism. But it also involved the Enlightenment, primarily in the manner that former Anglicans and Puritans who had lost their Faith presented it. These converts to the naturalist camp often used the Christian-inspired language with which they were familiar to promote their new, anti-Christian goals. Whether they intended this or not, such speech soothed those who remained believers and blinded them as to where, exactly, their familiar-sounding doctrines might actually lead in the future.
Even the Founders were aware that there was a troublesome reality that their novus ordo saeclorum was obliged immediately to confront. This was the presence in the United States of a kaleidoscope of different ethnic groups and religious convictions. That presence grew still more complex and troublesome with the mass migrations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The fullness of the make believe order of the American Pluralist system emerged out of attempts to harmonize the reality of a multicultural society with the basic conservatism of the Anglican via media, the radicalism of Puritanism, and the naturalism of an Enlightenment of both Anglican and Puritan flavor. Its theory and “mystique” were firmly in place by the late 1890’s. What they claimed was that America had discovered the formula for providing a peaceful, ordered community out of a society guaranteeing freedom to all of God (or Nature's) divided children. America thus offered mankind throughout the globe its “last and best hope” for a liberty, tranquility, and happiness greater than any ever known in human history.
Unfortunately, “diving into” the Americanist Pluralist mystique helps merely to bring to fruition another version of vulgar, materialist, and uniform disorder, whipped into some semblance of make believe unity through the will of the strongest. It aids in the perfection of that type of bland, organized willfulness predicted by nineteenth century Catholic thinkers, but in a more successful and seductive way than they could ever have imagined. Those who are interested in a deeper, more detailed discussion of Americanist Pluralism and its (temporarily) successful employment of Original Sin as the central building block of individual and social life should consult my Americanism and the Collapse of the Church in the United States, Why Catholics Cannot Defend Themselves, Founding Fathers and Church Fathers, To Promote Dialogue, Fight American Pluralism, and many other articles, all to be found on the For the Whole Christ website (jcrao.freeshell.org). All I propose to do in the present brief talk is to outline the main lines of the perversion and the confusion that this system perpetrates.
Let it suffice to say for now that the “freedom” and the “order” that one obtains through it are a purely naturalist freedom and order based upon the peculiar and often contradictory Christian and Enlightenment factors forming American culture. Its naturalism is bewildering to the believer because, as noted above, so many Americans used-—and still use-—Christian language to describe, praise and promote a set of anti-Christian purposes. It is baffling also because it has to cater to both radical and conservative naturalist tastes at one and the same time.
Hence, the American is told that he has the radical freedom that a secularized Puritans might wish him to have, a freedom that “sounds Christian” because it can easily be related to its fundamental Protestant roots. But in order to practice this freedom in a way that does not disturb the order preferred by Enlightenment conservatives, he learns that liberty actually has to be utilized in a way that avoids “divisiveness”; in a fashion that “integrates” its practitioner into an order composed of endless varieties of “non-divisive, integrating individualists”.
Americans learn that the “freedom” of communities, such as the Catholic Church, is subject to the influence of Puritan and secularized Puritan ideas regarding liberty. Freedom, under these circumstances, means only the freedom given for individual members of a religious society to rip their communal authority to shreds. All attempts to hold onto communal authority could be nothing other than assaults on freedom detested by the anti-institutional God of Protestantism and the anti-institutional Nature of the liberty-loving Enlightenment. Freedom for religious communities-—for all communities, as far as more radical thinkers are concerned-—amounts to nothing other than the freedom to be impotent and to self-destruct. James Madison, the chief author of the American Constitution, quite openly rejoices in this truth, arguing for the need to “multiply factions” within existing, strong communities so as to paralyze their ability to mobilize their followers and actually shape the American political and social order.
First you must understand we believe the Church is protected against teaching heresy not because of any personal holiness or inerrancy of her clergy or members. But because of Christ’s promise and because of the Holy Spirit’s protection.
Secondly yes there were Church fathers even who taught things later rejected by the Church. Individuals (with the exception of the Pope when speaking Ex Cathedera) are not protected against teaching heresy. Even Peter fell into error and was called Satan by Christ.
But just as Peter was protected from writing error when he penned his epistle so were the Councils protected from error when called to defend the faith against heresy. Christ knew too well that humans are sinful, weak creatures who are too easily swayed by culture and whose natural affection is for sin. So He sent the Paraclete.
That is why we call Pentecost the birthday of the Church. You may believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church, we do not.
This is why we differ so greatly in so many of our beliefs. Many Protestants believe there is no visible Church. That each believer is given the Charism to be protected against the error of heresy. That all Biblical passages need no interpertation by anyone outside of the reader. You would never, ever agree on the Catholic definition and understanding of Church. Because of this you are unable to separate the acts of sinful men within the Church from her claim to having the fullness of Truth.
All the Church claims and teaches rests on the foundation of Christ. We understand that. We will not reject Her just because so many do not grasp this.
First go read what the doctrine says pay close attention to the phrase “ merits of Jesus Christ”
Then please go research where the relics of Mary are kept and venerated. ( I am not asking you to believe in them, but keep in mind the relics of Saints are kept and venerated by the faithful. It is a great honor for a Church to house the relics of a saint. So they do tend to let word get out they have them)
Then read a variety of concordances on the meaning of the phrase “ full of Grace”. To be thorough start with the question of how the Greek phrase “Kecharitomene:” is properly understood and translated. There are disagreements but I think it important you get a chance to examine all sides.
Then if you want. (I wouldn’t) you can read about the debate between different Schools of Theology about whether Mary was without original sin as well as personal sin or only without personal sin. It may be enough to read how the writings of Don Scotus helped answer the dilemma of if all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, how then could Mary be without original sin? Didn’t think the Church had thought of that little glitch did you?
Then please look up the definition of Assumption and contrast it to the Ascension. They are not the same and anyone who trys to give you an understanding that they are needs a swift kick in the ass.
Ok after all that come back and ask your question again edited to reflect what Catholics truly believe and what the Marian doctrines you allude to actually say.
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled.- 2 Corinthians 10:3-6
If Mary was free from original sin then her parents and their parents etc... must be also.
It does not follow. Mary herself was not god, she carried God and this, the speculation goes, necessitated her purity as the tabernacle of the Word. St. Anna did not carry but another human.
I would agree this is a bit speculative. The scripture merely says "Hail full of grace". The Greek there is past tense, and it is a unique Greek word not used by Luke anywhere else. This leads us to think that hte filling of grace occurred at some point before the Angle spoke. The natural point of time for that is conception. But one who goes by the scripture alone is not obligated to reacht he same conclusion Catholics reach.
Mary would God be powerless to chose another female?
We believe that God foreknows all events, so He foreknew Mary's consent also. It is pointless to speculate if another woman would have been chosen, since we don't have multiple universes and in this one, Mary was chosen.
Why did it take 1900 years to establish the dogma?
The Catholic dogmas are not established by council. They are proclaimed as being the belief of the Church since day one. The Pope chose to proclaim the marian beliefs in question as dogmatic because the world was falling into a number of inhumane heresies, atheistic darwinism chief among them. At that point it became important to stress that human existence has a supernatural dimension and has heaven as its both source and destiny. But the Pope would not have been able to proclaim the dogma if the beleif had not been present in an inarticulated form in the Church.
If Mary ascended where is the empirical evidence at
That is sort of the point: there is no known relic of Virgin Mary when there is a relic of virtually every saint of the early Church period.
Missionaries in the future will, more and more, see that their apostolate among the Moslems will be successful in the measure that they preach Our Lady of Fatima. Mary is the advent of Christ, bringing Christ to the people before Christ Himself is born. In an apologetic endeavor, it is always best to start with that which people already accept. Because the Moslems have a devotion to Mary, our missionaries should be satisfied merely to expand and to develop that devotion, with the full realization that Our Blessed Lady will carry the Moslems the rest of the way to her divine Son. She is forever a "traitor," in the sense that she will not accept any devotion for herself, but will always bring anyone who is devoted to her to her divine Son. As those who lose devotion to her lose belief in the divinity of Christ, so those who intensify devotion to her gradually acquire that belief.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen in 1952.
Is there not a cause? (1Sam.17:29) :)
Johann Tetzel
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14539a.htm
There is always more than one side to a story
“As has been explained here may times, co is used in the sense of the Latin “cum,” meaning “with.””
Now you are an optimist, attempting to teach these literary geniuses a foreign language when they are inept at the native tongue.
Utter nonsense. Many theologians (Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Epiphanius etc...) were skeptical and not exactly sure. "Consensus" was not reached until "1900" years later, "1500" if you count from 'De Obitu S. Dominae', how convenient.
I will take the Bible plus early Church Father "questioning of the whole deal" (Some had a belief but not enough to to rise to the level an "dogma", remember that) over Gregory of Tours, De Obitu S. Dominae, hearsay and Pope Pius XII any day.
I would agree, although this returns us to our very first conversation, wherein I suggested that recognition of Protestant authority would be of a necessity.
It is impossible to see eye to eye when one participant is looking down his nose at the other.
1. Refrain from describing the other confession in caricature terms. For example, the Protestants should listen to how the Catholics themselves explain the veneration of Mary, the saints, and the relics, rather than assuming that all these are idolatry or even detract from the worship of God. This doesn’t mean the Protestants have to venerate Mary, but it means that the Protestants express their disagreement in terms acceptable to the Catholics.
What you are describing is simply a matter of good manners, something both sides could stand some work on, and consideration goes both ways. I doubt we will ever have agreement, and I doubt our principles would allow us to avoid the nasty bits, as many might do in polite conversation, but we could all work on a more friendly interchange, that is true.
2. Concentrate on its own confession rather than on defects in other confessions, just like Protestants do between themselves, and the Catholics do with the Orthodox.
Um, I hate to spring it on you like this, but Protestants fight like a sack of cats. Our interdenominational wars, or more often, orthodox vs liberal wars are just as bad as anything you see here.
The difference here is that, for the main, the religious body is made up of Fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicals, Catholics, and a fair sprinkling of Mormons. As the Evangelicals tend to think along the same lines, there is a greater solidarity, and especially so when against Catholics and Mormons, as the differences are so profound, all three groups are well educated and stand their ground.
3. Acknowledge that each side is profoundly concerned in correctly understanding the entirety of the Holy Scripture, and that we have honest differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of some passages. [...]
WRT correct understanding, one thing that would be nice is if the Catholics would work together with Protestants to agree on some translations as being scripturally true. If the Catholics and Evangelicals together can agree and develop an inter-faith seal of approval which is *not* given to the publisher unless the translation meets the standard, that would go a long way toward getting lesser translations off the street. I do not mean to suggest that you give up the Apocryphal books, nor that we must adopt them, but that the books as presented meet the scrutiny of both sides.
It is unhealthy to call another side’s interpretation as unscriptural, deride it as “tradition of men”, etc. when your own side also has but an interpretation by other group of men.
I don't think you really 'get it' wrt Protestant interpretation. Because our doctrines are diverse, and because we as denominations are not in agreement, The Scriptures are always paramount. We hack on each other about our own interpretations too.
One thing that would help is for Catholics to realize what a broad brush they use to paint us with. "Protestant" is a very wide ranging term. It is hardly productive to accuse Fundamental Evangelicals for the asinine doctrines of the liberal churches.
To put differently, to offer a variety of interpretatins of scripture is one thing, and it is healthy. To say that one interpretation is inspired by the Holy Ghost and the other is not is not healthy.
I don't know how that is to be resolved by either direction.
4. Acknowledge that the works of the early fathers of the Church is an important historical witness to the practices of the historical early Church. It is fine to disagree with them here and there, unhealthy to create myths of the historicity of one side’s interpretation of scripture in absence of patristic evidence of such.
I don't know Protestants of any knowledge that do not honor the works of the early fathers. That does not include elevating them to the authority of Scripture though, and there is a mistrust even of these works because of paganizing and judeaizing influences that were working mightily to influence the church, even in the days of the Apostles. If the accusation remains unspoken, it is this line of thought that is the root of our distrust of prayer to Mary and to saints. It is this line of thought that insists upon sola scriptura.
rollo said-””I will take the Bible plus early Church Father “questioning of the whole deal” “”
Seems to me you are taking someone else's opinion on this rather than looking at what Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Epiphanius actually wrote
The early church father's you mention believed Mary is the New Eve and did NOT say Mary sinned at all.
This means that Mary was superior to Eve in every way
lets take a look...
“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).
Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.”
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).
” ‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord—simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself...Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord.” Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 22:19,38 (A.D. 384).
“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.” Augustine, Nature and Grace, 36:42 (A.D. 415).
That pretty much takes care of Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Epiphanius .
I don't know who the etc’s are you mention are but I can show you a whole hosts of others along the line of the ones you mentioned.
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.