Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
Like what?
>>Why leave us hanging?<<
Because it was enough.
"ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: That the man of GOd may be PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. - I John 2:27
>>You, sir, are full of conjecture, but cannot admit it.<<
What have I said that is conjecture?
Assumption as in assume.
There is not one iota of Scripture to support it, but rather speculation and extrapolation.
Zephaniah 3: 14-15 is talking about Israel during and after the Tribulation. No reference to Mary can be inferred. The “church” did not replace Israel.
Galatians 4:26 is once again not about Mary.
The tortured injection of meaning into scripture by the RCC is painful to observe. Allegory carried to an extreme is dangerous and the RCC certainly does that. >> Another reference to Mary being the Woman is described in the Ignatius Catholic Commentary on this passage, Revelation 12:1-6 describes a woman wearing a Crown indicating a Queen Mother who bears a royal male child; thus a Queen Mother of a Davidic Kingdom reestablished by Christ, who is from the line of David and the Eternal King of Glory [cf 1 Kings 2:19-20; Jer 13:18].<<
Revelation 12 in no way can be referencing Mary unless she is to come down to earth again to be tortured. Giving double meaning doesn’t work.
>> Finally, you bait and switch alot in your post. The issue was Assumption of Mary, not the issue of Veneration which is to show Honor towards something or some person.<<
It all ties together. All adoration and honor belong to Christ.
I said that Catholics derive their teaching from Scripture, not only from Scripture. The fact that there are some teachings that flow from an Apostolic Tradition outside of Scripture does not negate the fact that the great majority of Catholic teaching is derived from Scripture. Some here often imply that Catholic teaching has no connection with Scripture when what we are really disputing it the interpretation of Scripture.
Maybe you could show us any positive comments from scripture about a “vicar” or “substitute” of Christ.
"Substitute" of Christ is a clever but misleading translation of Vicarius Christi. No Catholic believes that the pope is a substitute for Christ. Vicarius (vicar) is the office of a subordinate who exercises the authority in behalf and in the name of his superior. As to the Scriptural basis for the office of the Vicar of Christ:
Jesus said to [Simon Peter] in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”The mention of the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" is a reference to Isaiah:
(Matt 16:17-19)
Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, “What have you here? Whom have you here, that you have hewn for yourself a tomb here, Hewing a tomb on high, carving a resting place in the rock?” The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly, And roll you up and toss you like a ball into a broad land. There you will die, there with the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.The keys are the symbol of the office of Master of the Palace, i.e. the one who exercises the royal authority on behalf and in the name of the king. The name we give to this office is not important. It could be translated by various terms: prime minister, chancellor, vizier, delegate, viceroy, etc. It ancient Rome the equivalent term was vicarius (vicar). Thus the Petrine office of Vicar of Christ is indeed found in Scripture.On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open. I will fix him as a peg in a firm place, a seat of honor for his ancestral house; On him shall hang all the glory of his ancestral house: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
(Isaiah 22:15-24)
Now I do not want to be sidetracked by discussion of whether this is the correct interpretation of Scripture. I would like to keep the discussion limited to the topic of this thread: Church infallibility. I am sure that you would take exception to this interpretation of Scripture but note that we would be debating the interpretation of Scripture not whether one is following Scripture versus anti-Scriptural human traditions. You can argue that Catholics are wrong in their understanding but it must be admitted that Catholics honestly believe that the concept of the pope as the Vicar of Christ is derived from Scripture.
Depends entirely on where in Switzerland the name’s pronounced. (But the Britannica, Eleventh Edition, says Chauvin.)
Cynical Bear:
I think I cleary stated Galatians was an allegorical reference to the Church. Catholic Tradition as well as the Orthodox see in Sacred Scripture much more theological depth than American Fundies who think they invented Christianity! The meaning of the word Allegory and spiritual sense of scripture seems to have not been taught to you or you just don’t understand it.
I think my post pointed that in Revelation 12, the constant Patristic Tradition, the ones who canonized the Bible, defended Christological and Trinitarian orthodoxy from every heretical notion, are the same ones who saw the Ark of the Covenant as a prefigurement of Mary and thus the interpretation of Mary as the ark of the covenant and the woman in Heaven is entirely supported by Sacred Scripture an the constant and consistent interpretation of the Early Church, the opinion of Cynicalbear and other FR American Fundies, not withstanding.
The opinion of Cynicalbear
How about we look at what Peter had said just previous to that verse.
Matthew 16: 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
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.
Jesus was referring back to Peter’s attestation the Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. Now let’s look at who that Rock is.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
As God has stated. He is the Rock and He knows of not other.
>> I would like to keep the discussion limited to the topic of this thread: Church infallibility.<<
All right. Then how about we look at who has Christ “in them”.
» John 17:23: Christ Himself prays to His Father: "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one."
» Romans 8:10: Paul tells us, "If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin."
» Galatians 2:20: Paul speaks of himself and all true Christians: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."
» Ephesians 3:17-18: Referring to the "inner man," Paul mentions that he prays "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith."
» I John 3:24: John writes: "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us."
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
Yet the RCC would have you believe that only the “magesterium” has the ability to be led by the Spirit of God.
The Pharisees in Jesus day said many of the same “we have the history and traditions”. We also know how Christ viewed them.
CynicalBear:
Ok, whatever that means, I am not a pharisee, I am a Catholic and the folks that I am quoting are orthodox Church Fathers who defended the true faith against every heretical notion [Gnostics, Modalist, Montanist, Adoptionist, Subordinationist, Arians, Nestorians, Monophsites, etc, etc, etc]. These Same Church Fathers are the ones who helped shape the NT Canon and are the same ones whose scriptural commentaries I am referring to and citing. If these Men were correct in their Christological and Trinitarian writings, and they are, then I would conjecture their writings regarding the Holy Mother of God are also correct compared to your posts.
This is only your interpretation of Scripture, one that I find laughable. Speaking in Aramaic Jesus would have said "You are Kepha (rock), and on this kepha (rock) …" The supposed dichotomy between Petros and petra is supported neither by the context nor by philology.
But again, let us not get sidetracked by a discussion of which is the correct interpretation. You have one interpretation and I have another. Both claim to be based on Scripture. Without an divinely established authority to which we can appeal we are left with nothing but private opinion. Nor will it do to appeal to the Bible; that is where we started and is the source of our disagreement.
If we look at the history of the Church we will find that it always claimed the authority do rule on disputes of theology. Indeed it was this authority which ruled on what is the true canon of Scripture in the first place.
I envy your quick recall of FACTS! I did mention Maryland, and certainly don’t claim that the U. S. was an exclusively protestant creation.
You remind me of others: add Baron Von Steuben (honored in Ohio) to the Revolution’s Catholics and convert (St.) Elizabeth Bailey Seton as the founder of the country’s first free (and Catholic) schools.
It occurs to me, too, that “America” (i.e., the entire western hemisphere) itself is named for a Catholic and the USA capital’s name is shared by a Catholic. And, of course, the fact that the founders had somewhere to “found” rests exclusively on the discoveries of Catholic or preReformation Christian explorers. This extends the argument a bit but it certainly ought to carry some weight.
Absolutely correct and it is Satan keeping you away from it in the Catholic Church.
Argeue all you want the truth is that the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth and is the Church that Jesus built upon Peter the rock.
With out proof this is at best conjecture.
Go back and read the original post.
Infallible Infallibility
Docility (on Catholic dogma and infallibility)
Beginning Catholic: Infallibility: Keeping the Faith [Ecumenical]
Papal Infallibility [Ecumenical]
Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)
Pope: may all Christians recognize true meaning of Peter’s primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Pope St. Leo the Great and the Petrine Primacy
The Epiphany of the Roman Primacy
THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH [Ratzinger]
Dr. Michael Horton has hit it out of the park again! Horton is a treasure, for sure. Thanks for posting this article, Gamecock..
You thought wrong. Here’s the Scripture:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 3:14-15
Now lets look at context and reality:
1. This was written to Timothy
2. Timothy was born in 17 AD
Therefore, the Scripture Paul is referring to is The Old Testament
The apostles never assumed or taught that the one Church established by Christ would later be replaced by a book.
I was pretty sure you would not be able to stay out of this fight.
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.