Posted on 05/09/2010 8:29:20 PM PDT by Salvation
This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.
This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:
The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.
All Christians believe that Mary was a virgin before and at the time of the birth of her son Jesus.
Roman Catholic Christians and many other Christians also believe that Mary remained a virgin for the rest of her life.
Great teachers of the Church from at least the fourth century spoke of Mary as having remained a virgin throughout her life:
Council of Constantinople II (553 - 554) twice referred to Mary as "ever-virgin."
The great protestant reformers affirmed their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity:
There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. The first considers the "brothers" of Jesus from the Gospels.
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary.
Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other Semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called "a brother (adelphos) of Jesus." In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)
A second objection to Mary's virginity arises from the use of the word, heos, in Matthew's gospel.
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.
A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word, prototokos, translated "first-born" in Luke's gospel.
The Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary. The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.
By George, I thing he's got it!
As certainly as there is a God who loves us, and has great things in mind for His elect, there is a devil who hates us, and who will resort to amazing lengths to delude us. In his lust for the adoration only God deserves, demons sometimes put on a mask. Like the three physical guys who appeared to Joe Smith. Or, Satan and his ilk sometimes show up disguised as the most honored woman in history.
How do you know the difference between a real vision from God or one from the enemy?
That is not so easy to say, so pardon me if this becomes lengthy:
Of course the normal means test applies for testing spirits:
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1Jn 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1Jn 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
e-sword: KJV
This is to guard against demonic forces ~ But it is not so easy. I don't think that the "uttering of the words" is the point. Unclean spirits have had millenia to perfect their approach. Many things may sound right, but are couched in traditions rather than truth.
Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Mar 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
"Christ, come in the flesh," I think, is the whole of the revelation which came before, without additions... The Testimony of Jesus. I believe this to be the meaning of 1 John 4 5-6... Those of God KNOW Him, and know what He has already laid down (He has told us all things). What is outside of, or outright against that, is wrong, and to be avoided.
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
True vision ALWAYS glorifies God, not any other thing. True vision normally comes with a sign, though that sign may not be understood for a long while.
But furthermore, as vision is within the subject-field of prophecy:
Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
So even with signs and wonders, it is explicit that the vision must follow the character of God, be firmly planted on His Foundation, and have no discrepancy with the Word *at ALL*.
The Prophecy, IMO, seems to be one single thing, stretching through time. What we know are the pieces and sections which have already been revealed. What is spoken (seen) now must stand upon the revelations which came before, because it is a single, uniform script...
So we see what IS of God, and what is *not* of God. But that still leaves a big pile of in-between.
By far and away, the most common type of false vision is not exactly from the enemy - It is human vanity. It is extremely hard to detect, not only in a seer from the outside, but even from within the seer himself (as vanity blinds the eye to all but self). While vain visions usually have no lasting effect (no truth), they can deceive many and cause dysfunction.
That's about it, in general terms... I can be more specific once I know where you're going.
Too true, IMHO... Thx for the reply.
Amazing how FRoman Catholics will trot out Scripture when it suits their needs, but then hide behind tradition when it is more convienant.
Lord Jesus Christ, Risen Son of the Living God, please bless us this day and every day with Your Holy presence here. In Your Holy Name I pray, amen.
Yes - the vision of Pope Leo XIII - we can surely see it unfolding now.
Lord Jesus, save us
Blessed Mother, pray for us.
Amen
Catholic tradition is NOT the same as scripture.
Mary was never sinless, she was just an obedient human.
Mary did not stay a virgin.
Mary cannot hear your prayers. They are wasted on her.
You are fools to elevate a sinful human to deity status. And yes, that is what you are doing.
Visions of Mary are not from God, but deceptions from satan.
Tradition means NOTHING. If its not in scripture, it didn’t happen.
Nowhere is scripture are we told to pray to dead saints.
They are not intercessors in prayer.
Scripture says to pray to God alone.
Seriously. I left the RCC over this Mary nonsense.
Yes, I did... but Luther held on to much Catholic teachings..He never made a true clear break from the Catholic church on some doctrinal issues. Reform Calvinism... is a heresy also. Your in good company ..No doubt but I would choose to have Holy Scripture define her. I am dogmatic on that. It was an interesting post. I was raise Irish Catholic were we did not exalt Mary as much as my Italian and Spanish Catholic friends did. I’ve learned alot more about her when i left the Catholic church. She was blessed of Almighty God indeed! But had other children and needed a Savior like you and me. Thanks for the post.
Since you brought it up, how did that come about?
Thanks be to God in Heaven for Our Catholic, Apostolic Church which is led by the Holy Spirit through fallible men.
The gates of Hell have yet to prevail against the Church & we know by the words of Jesus Christ, they NEVER will!
Peace :)
If Mary was the woman in Rev..the Queen of heaven,,how is it that John does not say he saw Mary, he knew her well and certainly would have recognized her huh?
Thats very Good. I like what you wrote. Why I say this is I have been reading about the exorcism stories books or articles for years. There is a common theme. Which I would compare back to the Bible. These verses: “1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1Jn 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1Jn 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.”
John the Apostle is pointing out the spirit of a teaching or a true pure spirit. The Protestant or Catholic exorcisms have this common theme test that the Divinity became human{ Flesh} as proof to know to see if the victim is delivered. Now that being said. I personally ran into this with friend who is into the occult. Without going too long. She says she is a Christian. I challenge her to say the Apostles Creed or Nicene Creed. She couldn’t do it. Then would blort out there’s many gods at the key moment to declare in the flesh. I even got more specific. I did time and time again. There’s more to the story. In my eyes without a doubt this a tool from God. This is the main point. Now in the approved visions by the Church I have seen that Mary declares the Apostles Creed And Full Gloria which a pure spirit can not exclaim. I truly believe this is the end all tool that Jesus gave us thru John the Apostle. Also I think its not a coincidence that Mary and John were very close because of Christ but more so of his writings. John points out he came in the flesh alot. Jesus’s flesh is the flesh of her flesh. His humanity is from Mary. Now Its kind of funny that Mary comes in these visions. Why! She is the test proof of 1John 4. Also its passed down that John and Mary came to one of the men who helped write the Creed that declares what we are commenting. Also Why I believe in the Assumption of Mary{Body And Soul went to heaven}.And its very strange that there is no know Relic of this Great person. For all eternity we will see this very verse declared before our eyes.
I find it more interesting that tearing away at the Protestant founders always includes their Catholicism. In all else they are heretics, but in this instance they are to be emulated.
We have long ago stepped off of the shoulders of our founders, and onto the sure Foundation, which is Christ.
Concur.
He also does not say he is the beloved disciple in John’s Gospel but we know he is the same.
It is the title of someone who will bring salvation; Yes I believe that YHvH took on a suit of flesh i.e. Yes I believe that Yah'shua ( YHvH is our salvation) In addition : There are four things that are important: 1. Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers 2. Joseph is descended from King David. 3. The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad 4. Joseph and Miriam are married ( each descended from King David) Also see Luke 2:25-38 The word Christ from the Greek is Messiah or Mashiach in Hebrew.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
it is a job description not a last name.
Tabernacled among us ( John 1:14)
was born of the virgin called Miriam
It was prophesied in the book of Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14.
and is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.
(These were daughters who had no brothers)
is in effect (Numbers 26,27,36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7 ).
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Yah'shua.
See: Gen. 49:18; Exod. 14:13; 15:2; 1 Sam. 2:1; 2 Sam. 22:47; 1 Chr. 16:23; 2 Chr. 6:41; 20:17; Ps. 3:8; 14:7; 18:2, 46; 21:1; 24:5; 27:1; 35:9; 37:39; 38:22; 40:16; 68:19; 85:7; 88:1; 95:1; 96:2; 98:2; 106:4; 116:13; 118:14f; 119:41, 166, 174; 140:7; 149:4; Isa. 12:2; 25:9; 33:2, 6; 45:8, 17; 49:8; 52:10; 56:1; 61:10; 62:11; Jer. 3:23; Lam. 3:26; Jon. 2:9; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:8, 18
10-4 Good buddy!
10-4 Nice answer. I asked last night I was trying to get you when it was late. What I was driving at was post 43. Thanks good info!
I meant 53.
“Tradition” Is Not a Dirty Word
Evangelical Protestantism holds, by and large, the view that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., Faith vs. Works, Matter vs. Spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes Tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”
It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic Tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the Apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of “Sola Scriptura,” or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. “Sola Scriptura” by its very nature tends to pit Tradition against the Bible, and it is this unbiblical notion which we will presently examine.
First of all, one might also loosely define Tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian History of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history, in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation, Miracles, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.
Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is not true. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “commandments of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “the commandment of God.” St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
*** CLICK ON “Tolle, lege!” immediately below to finish this article ***
The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt Pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus - see, e.g., Matt 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian Tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the Apostles.
The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is “paradosis.” It occurs four times in the Bible: in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:
1) 1 Corinthians 11:2: “. . . keep the ordinances, as I delivered {them} to you.” (RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all translate KJV “ordinances” as “tradition{s}”).
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “. . . hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
3) 2 Thessalonians 3:6: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. There exists no dichotomy in the Apostle’s mind which regards oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”
When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed orally. Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30, 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition which turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible, as Protestants casually assume. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.
Furthermore, the related Greek words “paradidomi” and “paralambano” are usually rendered “delivered” and “received” respectively. St. Paul in particular repeatedly refers to this handing over of the Christian tradition:
1) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (2) By which
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”
2) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
3) Jude 3: “. . . ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
(Cf.Lk 1:1-2, Rom 6:17, 1 Cor 11:23, Gal 1:9,12, 2 Pet 2:21)
Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:
1) Traditions “delivered” (1 Cor 11:2), “taught by word or epistle” (2 Thes 2:15), and “received” (2 Thes 3:6).
2) The Gospel “preached” and “received” (1 Cor 15:1-2, Gal 1:9,12, 1 Thes 2:9).
3) Word of God “heard” and “received” (Acts 8:14, 1 Thes 2:13).
4) Doctrine “delivered” (Rom 6:17; cf. Acts 2:42).
5) Holy Commandment “delivered” (2 Pet 2:21; cf. Mt 15:3-9, Mk 7:8-13).
6) The Faith “delivered” (Jude 3).
7) “Things believed among us” “delivered” (Lk 1:1-2).
Clearly, all these concepts are synonymous in Scripture, and all are predominantly oral. In St. Paul’s writing alone we find four of these expressions used interchangeably. And in just the two Thessalonian epistles, “gospel,” “word of God,” and “tradition” are regarded as referring to the same thing. Thus, we must unavoidably conclude that “tradition” is not a dirty word in the Bible. Or, if one insists on maintaining that it is, then “gospel” and “word of God” are also bad words! Scripture allows no other conclusion - the exegetical evidence is simply too plain.
To conclude our biblical survey, we again cite St. Paul and his stress on the central importance of oral tradition:
1) 2 Timothy 1:13-14: “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. (14) That good thing which was
committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.”
2) 2 Timothy 2:2: “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.”
St. Paul is here urging Timothy not only to “hold fast” his oral teaching “heard of me,” but to also pass it on to others. Thus we find a clear picture of some sort of authentic historical continuity of Christian doctrine. This is precisely what the Catholic Church calls Tradition (capital “T”), or, when emphasizing the teaching authority of bishops in the Church, “apostolic succession.” The phrase “Deposit of Faith” is also used when describing the original gospel teaching as handed over or delivered to the apostles (see, e.g., Acts 2:42, Jude 3).
The Catholic Church considers itself merely the Custodian or Guardian of this Revelation from God. These doctrines can and do develop and become more clearly understood over time with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 16:13-15). The development of doctrine is a complex topic, but suffice it to say that although doctrines develop, they cannot change their essential nature in the least. And doctrines with which Protestants agree developed too. For example, the Trinity was only established in its definitive and lasting form in the 4th century, after much deliberation. It was always believed in some sense, but came to be understood in much greater depth and exactitude by the Church, as a result of the challenges of heretics such as the Arians (similar to Jehovah’s Witnesses) who disbelieved in it partially or totally.
Protestants who are perplexed or infuriated by the seeming “corruption,” “excessive growth,” or “extra-biblical nature” of some distinctive aspects of Catholic Tradition, must read an extraordinary book by John Henry Newman, a brilliant Anglican clergyman who converted to Catholicism after writing it in 1845. It is called An Essay on the Development of Christian
Doctrine (a misnomer since it runs about 450 pages!) - well worth the time for anyone seeking to fairly examine the Church’s philosophy of organic development and its denial of the Protestant tradition of “Sola Scriptura.”
The New Testament itself is a written encapsulation of primitive, apostolic Christianity - the authoritative and insired written revelation of God’s New Covenant. It is a development, so to speak, of both the Old Testament and early oral Christian preaching and teaching (i.e., Tradition). The process of canonization of the New Testament took over 300 years and involved taking into account human opinions and traditions as to which books were believed to be Scripture. The biblical books were not all immediately obvious to all Christians. Many notable Church Fathers accepted books as part of Scripture which are not now so recognized (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement). Many others didn’t
accept certain canonical books until very late (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation).
Thus, the Bible cannot be separated and isolated from tradition and a developmental process. Christianity does not take the view of Islam, whose written Revelation, the Q’uran, simply came down from heaven from Allah to Mohammad, without involving human participation in the least. Some extreme, fundamentalist forms of “Sola Scriptura” have a very similar outlook, but these fail the test of Scripture itself, like all the other manifestations of the “Bible Alone” mentality. As we have seen, Scripture does not nullify or anathematize Christian Tradition, which is larger and more all-encompassing than itself - quite the contrary.
In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically interwoven. They have been described as “twin fonts of the one divine well-spring” (i.e., Revelation), and cannot be separated, any more than can two wings of a bird. A theology which attempts to sunder this organic bond is ultimately logically self-defeating, unbiblical, and divorced from the actual course of early Christian history.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/tradition-is-not-dirty-word.html
by Dave Armstrong
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.