Posted on 02/16/2015 12:14:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's not the question I asked. The apostles said something they taught. Now, show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it to belong to the church.
Why should anyone read nonsense? It is not Biblical.
CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
Nuff said.
Nothing said. Alex said that reading FR will provide an individual with proof that Catholic FReepers are more against Protestants than Muslims. No such proof has been provided. So where is it?
Galatians 1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!
How does this prove Luther's tradition of the Bible alone as the sole or ultimate rule of faith?
The quote you provided from St. Thomas, below, seems to be popular on Protestant apologetics boards, but wildly misinterpreted, misunderstood, or simply cut and pasted without understanding.
"It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says 'we know his witness is true.' Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things." (St. Thomas Aquinas)St. Thomas is comparing apocryphal writings to canonical writings (Sacred Scripture). Obviously, they're categorically different. He certainly isn't saying that the Bible is the sole or ultimate rule of faith.
I don't see how Gal 1:9 or the quote from St. Thomas even hint at Luther's tradition.
And there is simply no evidence of Luther's tradition prior to Luther.
+++
Here are more quotes from St. Thomas that prove that he did not subscribe to Luther's tradition:
ST Third Part, Question 25, Article 3The Apostles, led by the inward stirring of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not leave in writing, but which have been ordained in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Therefore the Apostle says: 'STAND FAST, AND HOLD THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED, WHETHER BY WORD' -- that is by word of mouth -- 'OR BY OUR EPISTLE' -- that is by word put into writing (2 Thess 2:15)....
ST II-II, Question 5, Article 3
The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith.
The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith.
"Cuius ratio est, quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei."
He made the comment on the verse that says this.
"If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!"
Now, show any other source that shows what the apostles taught other than canonical scripture. Sola Canonical Scriptura
Just one comment:
Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) was a Swiss Reformer and author of a popular writing entitled The Decades. This particular writing was influential in England, highly esteemed and used as a textbook of sorts for training English clergy.
I don't know what year the book was written. Henry VIII would certainly have been a major proponent if he were alive to read it. What Henry did was tantamount to declaring himself pope in his country. Not going to spend the time.
AMEN!!!
I can't gauge that and others can't either. Only God can do that.
Our Founding Fathers put religion into the free market without strictures. That allows good people to ply their religions as they know best and that is beautiful.
My 100 year-old Aunt Elizabeth, before she died, said to me: "Even though we are from different faiths (she was Pentecostal and I am Catholic) I do believe that we both love Jesus and that is all that matters."
She is absolutely right.
First example I will give you is the Pro-Life movement. I could go on.
There were bigger fish to fry during the Inquisition too...
******
Lol! Crusades! Hey everybody, obama’s (lower case on purpose) FR handle is RnMomof7!
Syrupy words do not hide the hate that was expressed.
The Religion Forum is where we all hammer out sound doctrine. Some of it is ugly but some of it enlightening as well.
I bet Aunt Elizabeth was a real blessing in your life! Thank for sharing that.
I believe you. Thank you.
We know from Luke that Jesus has inherited the throne of David, and from Revelation that he holds the "key of David." Jesus is the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, or Christ's Church. In the ancient Davidic kingdom, the mother of the king, the "Gebirah" or "Queen Mother" held a position greater than that of the wives of the king. The Bible records her sitting on a throne at the right hand of the king
Really ?? Do you have any scripture on this ?? Interesting that Mary holds higher position than Jesus ... I missed that somewhere ???
Now time for the ONE TIME that the queen mother sat at her sons "right hand"...HERE IS HE REST OF THE STORY...as they say
1 Kings 2:22King Solomon answered and said to his mother, "And why are you asking Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him also the kingdom-- for he is my older brother-- even for him, for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah!" 23Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying, "May God do so to me and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life. 24"Now therefore, as the LORD lives, who has established me and set me on the throne of David my father and who has made me a house as He promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death today." 25So King Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him so that he died.
Oppps guess momma "sitting at the right hand" of the king...didn't help with her "intercessory plea huh?
BTW as Reformed believers, we use scripture to interpret scripture.. not write in our own meaning ...there is NO OTHER passage that says or implies the kings mother has a regular seat on the right hand of the king
Mary, as Jesus' mother, is the Queen Mother of the eternal, redeemed Davidic kingdom. She is the Queen of Heaven, as seen in Revelation.
Just another misrendering of scripture by Rome..
Rev12:1A great sign appeared in heaven:
Notice the prophet John did not say he saw Mary (that he knew and cared for.. he said he saw A SIGN ..Like all of Revelation this is PROPHETIC in nature..ant o replay
The end of this vision makes clear that this IS NOT MARY ..read on ..
Rev12;13And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place,... Did Mary ever grow wings and fly away?I missed that statue in the churches..
Most see the Woman as Israel .. but then most do not ned a goddess
The Case for the Assumption of Mary <<<<<<<<<<
Show me the scripture.. I have no interest in doctrinal fiction
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.