Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Looking for a Bible Reference....

I've been trying to locate Bible references for this recent comment from the Pope. I've been up all night looking- you know how I am with researching! Can someone help?

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, JULY 24, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Pope Benedict XVI-

So, let us ask for the help of the Virgin Mary, Seat of Wisdom. Her "heart" is perfectly "docile" to the Lord's will. Although she is a humble and simple person, Mary is a queen in the eyes of God, and as such we venerate her. May the Holy Virgin help us also to form, with God's grace, a conscience always open to the truth and sensitive to justice, to serve the Kingdom of God.

63 comments:

Lvka said...

Can someone help?

Gladly!

Virgin Mary, Seat of Wisdom.

...because she bore in her whomb Christ, the Wisdom of God:

Proverbs. Wisdom. Sirach.
1 Corinthians 1:24.

Her heart is perfectly docile to the Lord's will.

Luke 1:38, 45, 50.

she is a humble and simple person

Luke 1:48, 51-53.

Mary is a queen

...being the mother of the King and Lord of Heaven and Earth.

Erik Mojica said...

From one of my favorite sites, Scripture Catholic:

Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom

John 19:26 - Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying "behold your mother." Jesus did not say "John, behold your mother" because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse proves the meaning of John 19:26. The "woman's" (Mary's) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God's covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.

John 2:3 - this is a very signifcant verse in Scripture. As our mother, Mary tells all of us to do whatever Jesus tells us. Further, Mary's intercession at the marriage feast in Cana triggers Jesus' ministry and a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb. This celebration unites all believers into one famiy through the marriage of divinity and humanity.

John 2:7 - Jesus allows His mother to intercede for the people on His behalf, and responds to His mother's request by ordering the servants to fill the jars with water.

Psalm 45:9 - the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God's kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.

1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

1 Kings 2:18 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King's followers. She is the Queen Mother (or "Gebirah"). Mary is our eternal Gebirah.

1 Kings 2:19 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

1 Kings 15:13 - the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel's royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.

2 Chron. 22:10 - here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.

Neh. 2:6 - the Queen Mother sits beside the King. She is the primary intercessor before the King.

Rhology said...

You asked for it, James.
What a sorry bunch of eisegesis.

pilgrim said...

Using an evil queen as scripture reference for Mary to be Queen of heaven?

That's really desperate.

As well as eisegesis as mentioned.

And Lvka skipped over some of the more key parts of this.

Ikonophile said...

@ Pilgrim

Yeah, kind of like using sinners as a shadow for Christ (Abraham and Issac, David, etc.) Just because it is abused doesn't mean it isn't a shadow to be revealed in the NT (think bronze serpent).

PeaceByJesus said...

because she bore in her whomb Christ, the Wisdom of God

By which logic we can go back to Eve, and Mary's parents should be much honored as the seat of virginity, since they bore Mary, but if Mary remained a virgin in a uniquely "cleaveless" marriage, then i think Joseph is more worthy of honor then even Mary in this regard.

It is true that Mary was humble and a overall holy example of faith, but the issue is that the papal appellation is part of the RC exaltation of pious Mary to demigoddess that goes beyond what is written, both in title and glory, and the Holy Spirit's tempered and balanced praise of mortals. There would be far more concerned in RCM over a John Kerry becoming a conservative Southern Baptist then Catholics who manifestly worship Mary.

As for wisdom," Mary herself did not indicate this by her untimely attempt to speak to Christ. (Mt. 12:46-50)

The RC attempt to derive warrant for a holy wise Queen mother interceding to the king is a poor and negative one, as it was a bad request and a rejected one, and which resulted in the death of the supplicant! (1Kg. 2:12-25)

God says a LOT about prayer, and it is not tenable that the Holy Spirit would not provide at least one positive evidence of praying to the departed, and so overcome all the evidence against it, while also being faithful to condemn those who burned incense to the pagan queen of heaven. (Jer. 44:19:

But as they said, so multitudes of adherents of Rome declare, "we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven.”

Rather than warrant from Scripture being the source for such papal praise, it is Rome herself, the supreme authority on truth, if she does say so herself.

“Pope Pius XII explains in an address on the Queenship of Mary, ‘when the glorious Virgin Mary entered triumphantly into heaven and was elevated above the choirs of angels to the throne of the Most Holy Trinity.’ And then Christ ‘placed a triple crown of glory on her head, presented her to the heavenly court, seated her at his right hand and pronounced her Queen of the Universe.’...Opus Sanctorum Angelorum, Formation Letter, “Mary - ‘Regina Angelorum’”, April, 2000.
http://www.opusangelorum.org/Formation/Maryregina.html

When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

In "Glories of Mary" by Liguori, whose writings at the time of his canonization were declared to be absolutely free from error (such as by Pope Gregory XVL in the bull of canonization in 1839) Mary, Queen of the Apostles: She is queen of apostles because she formed them and directed them in their preaching...Mary is Queen of Apostles because by herself she routed all the heresies.

The fact is that for an autocratic authority, the need for Scriptural warrant is largely superfluous, i think that if it were not for those pesky "chapter and verse" Protestants, more mere traditions of men would have made dogma than Rome has already.

PeaceByJesus said...

From one of my favorite sites, Scripture Catholic

A paradox, since we are often taught that we cannot have certitude of truth by the Scriptures.

Constantine said...

Thanks, Eric,

Your Scripture quotes were hilarious.


I love this one….

1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.


Perhaps you should read verses 23-25 of this chapter. As a result of the queen’s request, Solomon had the one who had made the request through her killed!!! So not only did the king refuse his mother, he killed the person who put her up to the request.


If it’s all the same to you, I can do without that sort of intercession.

Peace.

Lvka said...

By which logic we can go back to Eve, and Mary's parents


Mary was not pregnant with Christ when she was in her mother's whomb.

Four* Pointer said...

in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

Let's use another parallel from David, shall we?

In the Old Testament, David had many wives. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and he had...oops. Come to think of it, that whole "If David did it, then so did Jesus" thing is kind of a weak argument.

Jeff said...

Firstly, its ridiculous of both sides to be mocking one another's scripture references, and quite frankly hypocritical. Considering both follow Christ, the goal of the discussion is to know more fully who Christ is and how we can serve him, not who is the most intelligent, most biblically savy, etc in fear of becoming Pharisaic. Truth is simple. There is depth but it is simple. It will defend itself, without mocking the person testifying (But no need to sugarcoat it either!). It this spirit, i humbly state..

I respect your conviction to protect the Word of God from misinterpretations, but I think that your rigid view of the authority of scripture prevents you from using reason. I am simply spectating. Part of our dignity flows from our ability to reason, as it comes from being made in the image of God.

More specifically, I was wondering what your reply to John 19:26. These are Christ's parting words to us. If it was simply that he wanted John to take care of his mother, a) he could have told him this a long time ago, rather than it such a dramatic, urgent situation and b) doesn't seem important enough to include in the scene at this point.

My view, to give you some perspective on your response, is that Christ presented Mary to us as a gift, not as something to take Glory from God, but because her "soul doth magnify the Lord." Because, well.. we need all the help we can get in growing closer to Christ. This, I think, you can "reason" with the mind of Christ that we attain through meditating on scripture. Quite honestly its not explicit, but neither is the Trinity, nor exactly the nature of who Christ was (Half God half man, lesser than God the Father, etc). This was all concluded through reason aligned with scripture

Carrie said...

Come on James, try to keep up.

Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church (Eph 5)...To love a wife that much you have to treat her like a queen...Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit...Mary is a queen in God's eyes.

PeaceByJesus said...

Truth is simple. There is depth but it is simple. It will defend itself, without mocking the person testifying.

First, it is Rome who mocks us by claiming we are not worthy to be properly called a church, while her infallible claim to be the One True Church (OTC), to whom all are to be submit to, effectively rests upon her autocratic definition of herself to be so.

Likewise, it is not us who are to be charged with not using reason, but those who yield the required implicit assent of faith to her dogma, and discourages interpreting Scripture contrary to her, no matter what Scripture and reason warrants.

And what can be seen is that your charge that we are not being reasonable relies upon rejection of the supremacy of Scripture and rests upon the right of Rome to read into it what she may.

I respect your conviction to protect the Word of God from misinterpretations, but I think that your rigid view of the authority of scripture prevents you from using reason. I am simply spectating. Part of our dignity flows from our ability to reason, as it comes from being made in the image of God.

More specifically, I was wondering what your reply to John 19:26.


The problem is that of what a text reasonably allows, in the light of the manner in which Scripture itself evidences as regards describing mankind, and the part this verse plays in the Roman Catholic exaltation of Mary.

The premise according to the latter is that John represents the church, and so Jesus gave his mother to the church as its protector, advocate, mediatrix, having almost unlimited power, whose prayers are like commands to God, with supplicants having a better chance of being heard by choosing here over Jesus, etc. and etc.

However, if this act represents Jesus doing so, then He should have given Mary to Peter, not John, or actually, Peter to Mary, as in Roman Catholicism Peter represents the church.

But in giving her to the supremely loving and long-lived and John, it was the latter who would protect and care for Mary more than the opposite, while the pope entrust the care of the church to Mary.

As to why He entrusted the care of His mother to other than His brethren according to the flesh, a Scriptural reason is that, according to the Lord Himself, His brethren are those who "shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven," (Matthew 12:50) and the disciple of love more supremely fit that criteria then His kinsmen according to the flesh, whom overall, the Holy Spirit tells us, did not believe in Him, (Jn. 7:5) t least not at that time.

You may argue that the apostle James was the brother of Jesus, (Gal. 1:19) but that militates against another aspect of Mary's exaltation, that of her perpetual virginity.

All in all, John 19:26 provides not real warrant for the supererogation Rome examples in his claims for Mary, which do not amount to what may be reasonably derived by exegetes, but amounts to ecclesiastical eisegesis based upon an unreasonable extrapolation of texts, thinking of men above that which is written. (1Cor. 4:6)
This is in contrast to such things as the Trinity, in which is derived from clear texts and a conclusion is demanded if we are to reconcile such texts.

And herein is a paradox, or hypocrisy if you will, as RCs will fight against what is most reasonably warranted based upon Scripture itself, while engaging in extreme extrapolation in seeking to justify teachings which actually rely upon one tradition among others that differ.

PeaceByJesus said...

While the Bible makes exceptions among notable souls manifest, and many examples can be shown, Christ is thrice declared to be sinless, yet nothing is said about Mary being sinless, contrary to the collective state of mankind, nor is it anymore necessary than for those thru whom God brought forth His pure word to men. Holy they were, but not wholly sinless.

And while, consistent with the principle in which notable aspects of characters are made evident, Mary being a virgin in conceiving the Christ is clearly stated, but not a unique marriage in which two able-bodied souls contradict the description of marriage which the Lord affirmed.

Instead the Scripture states that that Joseph "knew her not till ["heōs"] she had brought forth her firstborn son."

While in very rare exceptions "heōs" does not denote a terminus inferring a change, that far from normative and is not inferred or warranted here, and is an odd way of simply affirming the virgin birth. But RCs demand that an exception here and in other places be made here in order to make it conformable to their doctrine.

In Mt. 12:46 and other verses it is argued that the normal meaning cannot be allowed, but that these refer to step brothers, or cousins but as D. A. Carson points out,

“if "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne. The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. All things considered, the attempts to extend the meaning of "brothers" in this pericope, despite McHugh's best efforts, are nothing less that farfetched exegesis in support of a dogma that originated much later than the NT [...]. — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).

As for praying to departed saints, this has zero example expect among pagans, and zero necessity for this most (supposedly) common practice, and attempts to assert any are embarrassing, and any support must rely upon imposing a one to one correspondence between earthly relationship and those between heaven and earth.

Add to this the other excesses which make Mary to be an almost almighty demi-goddess, and practical rejection of Scriptural reproof of what constitutes idolatry, due the ambiguity between latria, dulia and hyperdulia . As as one one commentator stated,

“.. if the fine distinctions made by Catholic theologians "are usually not reflected in the practice of the faithful," idolatry would seem to be a distinct possibility in the lives of the faithful. Thus,

Nor do these doctrines possess the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.” Rather, what “unanimous” means and what truth is rests upon the autocratic presumption of Rome to define history, tradition and Scripture. As Cardinal Manning stated,

“the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.” (Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

PeaceByJesus said...

Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit...Mary is a queen in God's eyes

So the Holy Spirit has a wife but god does not? No, Mary is nowhere call God's wife, except in Mormonism, but the church is, and Jesus said those who do God's will are His family, and thus it must be that the church be unduly exalted as Rome does to Mary.

But the same Holy Spirit does not exalt God's instruments as per the extreme extrapolation of Rome ecclesiastical eisegesis.

The Holy Spirit's action in overshadowing Mary and working a miracle through Mary is not substantially different than His communion and coming upon men like Moses, to bring forth His pure words, and to effect healing which is contrary to the laws of nature. And Mary wrote no Scripture and actively worked no miracle herself but was only a passive but holy instrument of faith in God working a miracle.

Finally, it was Mary who instructed, "Whatsoever He saith unto you [not Mary], do it." (Jn. 2:5) and the only transcendent material source of His words that is wholly inspired of God is the Scriptures.

And Christ does not instruct us to pray to "our mother who are in Heaven" but "our Father. Likewise in the rest of Scripture only God is the direct object of prayer t Heaven. I need to do it more.

Jeff said...

In response to peacebyJesus

Quite literally the Holy Spirit conceived a child in Mary's womb. It is spousal love that leads to this life, no? I once read an article that said no where in the bible does it say to celebrate Christmas, so we shouldn't? seriously. And the name calling at Rome does not contribute to the discussion.

"the only transcendent material source of His words that is wholly inspired of God is the Scriptures"
No where in scriptures does it say this. But Paul does make several admonitions to hold fast to the traditions he passed on to them.

"Likewise in the rest of Scripture only God is the direct object of prayer" If by "object" you mean the destination of the prayer, then "Rome" is in complete agreement with you. But, to pray simply means to ask, request, etc. The bible definitely tells us to prayer for one another. So should i give you my prayer requests? Yes i should, because i know you are passing them to the object of the prayer, God. Not because you are going to grant me my prayer by your own power. And i agree, we should pray more :)

The point of the davidic kingdom "type" of Mary is not that Jesus had to be like David in every way, but that if Mary is important, there would be "types" in the old testament, like everything else that is important. And there are, and an even better type of Mary is the Ark of the Covenant. The position of the Queen is clearly described, but the people involved are subject to sin. So, This queen does not necessary have humble intentions aligned with God's will and David quite obviously strayed from God's will. But, it is clearly "

It is indeed okay to believe someone was perpetually virgin without exalting them.

You rag on Rome for discouraging people from interpreting scripture contrary to them. Don't you do the same? If you're convicted something is truth then of course, and I'm not mad at you for that.

If i listen to your arguments for interpreting scripture, am i not putting men above the Word of God? Or if i listen to a JW's interpretation, am i not putting men above God? This is why it is necessary to be submitting to the Word of God as taught by authority established by God.

zipper778 said...

The problem Jeff isn't with Rome's interpretation of Scripture, but Rome's lack of interpretation as well as it's open arms welcome to legends. Many of the stories or "dogmas" of Mary by Rome come directly from the Protoevangelium of James, not from the Scriptures. Rome hasn't given one definitive interpretation of any passage of Scripture. You as a follower are allowed to interpret Scripture AND Tradition as you see fit for your own life. This is obviously a problem.

But the Scriptures are clear about being the rule of faith, "canon". Places such as John 20:31 or Acts 17.

Also, history is quite clear that the Scriptures are the rule of faith and can be understood. People who confirm this are Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, Cyril of Alexandria, and many many more believe in the complete suffiency of Scripture (Sola Scriptura).

Now, this is all not related to the original post, but I believe that it needed to be covered anyways. The point of the post is that nothing in the Scripture presents Mary as the queen of Heaven or as a perpetual virgin or immaculately conceived, or assumed into Heaven.

The claims of the Bible are that Jesus is the Son of God (Matt 13:43), that Jesus was immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20), and Jesus ascended into Heaven (Acts 1:9).

What we see in the myths/legends of Mary is a doppleganger of Jesus. This protrayel of Mary doesn't compliment Jesus, but steals glory from Him. The Scriptures are completely about Christ, not about Christ and Mary. Jesus is the ruler of our faith and He is the Savior of everyone, even Mary.

If you want to glorify Christ, then glorify Christ.

Jeff said...

zipper,

firstly, to say that each member of the Church is allowed to interpret scripture and tradition as they see fit is absolutely off the mark, and i think you know that. There ARE definitive interpretations of scripture by the Catholic Church, and much more definitive interpretations than any other Church. So, if I see the Church as the work of the Spirit, I can't just accept what seems easy to me. Contraception seems too hard, so lets not worry about that one. No, the Church requires submission to such teachings than any other church and honestly i thought that was the problem most people had? Which by the way, until the 20th century all Christians considered this a grave sin, and since its so inconvenient now, most Christian churches don't consider it a big deal. Jesus never said you couldn't use a condom, right?

So, in the case of Mary, I would not have come to conclusions that the church teaches on my own. If it was about just me and Jesus (not the entire body), i see where you are coming from. Actually, the teachings about Mary are quite challenging to myself. But, considering the wisdom of the Church in all else, and coming to belief that Jesus established such a Church that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against, I must accept ALL that she teaches (unless i find that contradictory along the way). Similar to your process of being won over by the wisdom you have found in scripture (which i have as well).

"If you want to glorify Christ, then glorify Christ."

But, I have come to a very good understanding that in fact Mary does not steal glory from God. Have you ever complimented someone? well how dare you because that steals God's glory right? No, it is fine to compliment someone because its all God's anyways. The reason we come to Mary is because everything about her points to Jesus. We CAN find our way to Jesus and come to know him more deeply on our own, but if it is offered for her to lead you to her Son as she did to her cousin Elizabeth, why would you reject that? Mary is the moon. Because the moon shines bright, does that mean that we believe all the light comes from the moon, or that any of it does? No, ALL the light comes from the sun, as we know, and the moon reflects it. That's it.

How do you glorify Christ? I glorify Christ by letting his light shine through me to others, no? Does that mean I am stealing his glory?

And to think that Jesus might reject the idea of a family? Which he created as a nature order of the universe to be a basic cell of society?

I know are probably skeptical of the "apparitions" of Mary that are approved by the Catholic Church, but look at the effects. The apparitions have lead millions to Christ, and her message was always to lead people to her Son, to turn away from sin with contrite hearts, etc.

Jeff said...

Here is what i have of references from early Christian theologians you mentioned..

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?" Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200)

"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles." Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

"[H]old fast the faith in simplicity of mind; establishing the tradition of the church as a foundation, in the inmost recesses of thy heart, hold the doctrines which are well-pleasing unto God." Cyril of Alexandria, Festal Letters, Homily 8 (A.D. 442).

and one more:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic (katholikos - καθολικός) Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 107 AD

PeaceByJesus said...

Quite literally the Holy Spirit conceived a child in Mary's womb. It is spousal love that leads to this life, no?

The issue is that of thinking of mortals above that which is written, and how the Holy Spirit exalts its beloved instruments. God clearly expressed spousal love toward Israel, and toward the church, but He is silent about Mary being such a special object of love that she was sinless, and bodily rose to heaven, and reigns as God's queen, defeating the powers of darkness with her gaze, with almost unlimited power, and able to hear and intercede for a virtual infinite amount of requests.

Consistent with the hermeneutic used for such, we could derived endless appellations for instruments used of God (faith teachers do as much), but the Lord stated that the Holy Spirit would glorify JESUS, (Jn. 16:14) and your extreme exaltation of Mary to a demigoddess has no real Scriptural warrant in text or in exegetical principal, but is based upon Rome's nebulous tradition and psychological need, and Rome's presumed supremacy over all.

It is no wonder RCs through the ages have looked so much to rituals and relics for life.

no where in the bible does it say to celebrate Christmas, so we shouldn't? seriously.

Seriously, i do not see God needing help from paganism, and reforming distinctly pagan worship, but making a new creation, with Christmass being a type of "high place," and as with Israel, seeking to "Christianize" it serves to perpetuate its existence, making the reversion to its original form easier.

I also see such annual celebrations of distinctly pagan days that are somewhat Christianized as being contrary in principle to the New covenant, in which the 1st day is the only specified day of meeting, versus ritualism with its "days, months, times and years," (Gal. 4:10) which fosters perfunctory practice. While we may mark certain occasions as the Spirit leads, believers are set free from having (and it basically is required, especially if you will be used by the church ) to bow down to an annual date of a celebration which Rome instituted as part of its religious syncretism. Using things as mere points of reference such as the days of the week, is not the same, though i doubt these names will be kept in the millennial reign of Christ.

"the only transcendent material source of His words that is wholly inspired of God is the Scriptures" No where in scriptures does it say this. But Paul does make several admonitions to hold fast to the traditions he passed on to them.

Your manner of exegesis is inconsistent. Paul only declares one transcendent material source as being assuredly wholly inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:16) - Christ having risen - and you deny that it says this, while invoking Paul's reference to traditions in order to establish sola ecclesia (the only other real alternative).

Yet Scripture is not contrary to oral "preaching the word" (Acts 8:4) as in the truths of Scripture, and you cannot prove that what Paul was referring to by "traditions" was not that, versus a mysterious, amorphous body of revelation which essentially adds to the canon.

What is abundantly evident i Scripture is that normally "the word of God/the Lord" was written, and as it progressively was then it and its means of establishing truth became the standard for establishing truth claims , and thus all is to be subject to Scripture.

And thus what we see is the Lord and Paul persuading souls by "the manifestation of the truth, (2Cor. 4:2), by Scriptures as well as by the supernatural testimony God gives to such, (Mt. 22; Lk. 24:44; Jn. 5:36,39; 14:11; Acts 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; Mk. 16:20)

2 b cntd.

PeaceByJesus said...

"Likewise in the rest of Scripture only God is the direct object of prayer" If by "object" you mean the destination of the prayer, then "Rome" is in complete agreement with you.

No, i mean that the believer in Christ has direct access to commune with God, to enter with boldness into the holy of holies, (Heb. 10:19), without need or evidence of a saint secretary to pass his requests on. And Rv.. 8:4 won't do it.

But, to pray simply means to ask, request, etc. The bible definitely tells us to prayer for one another.

It is not simply asking, but is an act of worship, attributing to God the honor and power that is uniquely His, as the Lord instructed us, and the spiritual manner in which it is done is part of that attribution, as there are things almighty God reserves to Himself, once if which is that only God always knows the heart.

So should i give you my prayer requests?

You can do so, but basically unless you engage in ESP, then that is restricted to physical means, while to pray to anyone else in Heaven has zero precedent, or warrant from instructions on prayer, and also is contrary to the distinction which God evidences between the heavenly and earthly realm. In which communication between created beings of the two was always by a personal encounter in either realm (Moses came down, John went up). Nor is there any necessity to pray to another unseen intercessor in Heaven, as Christ is supremely that, and which it is part of His unique exaltation. (Heb. 2:17.18; 4:15,16)

The point of the davidic kingdom "type" of Mary is not that Jesus had to be like David in every way, but that if Mary is important, there would be "types" in the old testament

So you need to wait until “the glory that shall be revealed” (1Pt. 5:1) before you go about deciding what and who corresponds to types, and the exaltation of an almost almighty and already enthroned (others have to wait) Mary, etc., that is way above that which is written. Even who the two witnesses are in Revelation is speculative.

an even better type of Mary is the Ark of the Covenant

Which interpretation some of the “fathers,” for what it is worth, disagree with.

The position of the Queen is clearly described, but the people involved are subject to sin

More special pleading, as the only text you can come up with in support of praying to “our mother who art in Heaven” whose requests are as commands to God, is one that is a negative one, which the Holy Spirit supplies, showing the faults of the flesh, as is typical. And thus some “fathers” believed Mary was not sinless.

You rag on Rome for discouraging people from interpreting scripture contrary to them. Don't you do the same?

The issue is the basis for affirmation or censure, that of presuming an assured infallibility, as per Rome, or that of a level of certitude dependent upon the strength of the Scriptural evidence in the manifesting the truth. The council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) did not presume that the magisterium would perpetually always be infallible whenever it spoke to the church universal on faith and morals, but were persuaded on the strength of Scripture, including the manner of Scriptural attestation given to what was occurring as a result of faith in the Scripturally substantiated gospel.

2 b cntd.

PeaceByJesus said...

If i listen to your arguments for interpreting scripture, am i not putting men above the Word of God? Or if i listen to a JW's interpretation, am i not putting men above God?

No, listening does not mean that, but implicitly giving assent of faith to such is, not matter how much you believe God is guiding them, which is exactly what so-called “Jehovah's witnesses” and other cults do, for as with Rome, they effectively hold to sola ecclesia. In contrast, the noble Bereans had a heart for truth, and thus searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what the very apostles taught was true.

This is why it is necessary to be submitting to the Word of God as taught by authority established by God.

This presumes what is not established, and in fact the assertion depends upon the presumption, as Rome infallibly declares that it is the OTC based upon its infallible declaration that it is infallible when speaking in accordance with its infallible formula. It can invoke Scriptures in support, but that is not the basis for the infallible nature of its definitions, and in fact this claimed charism might not extend to the reasoning or arguments behind its fiat.

Jeff said...

I'm not talking about a pagan holiday, I'm talking about rejoicing in the birth of our savior! But Jesus never commanded that, so we shall not celebrate? Please brother, i atleast hope we can both celebrate this!

PeaceByJesus said...

You as a follower are allowed to interpret Scripture AND Tradition as you see fit for your own life. This is obviously a problem.

Some RCAs say 3 to 7 verses have been interpreted, while others are in the negative sense of forbidding interpretations contrary to them.

However, this presumes they know which ones are infallible interpretations, which is much a matter of interpretation, and that they understand their infallible interpreter, which is not assured.

But as very little of the Bible is held to have been infallibly interpreted, and official comprehensive commentary is consciously lacking in Rome (there is the Hayford, but not much), the likes of which evangelical faith has, and Rome's own nuanced catechism leaves much undefined, thus RCA Jimmy Akins stated,

The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” (Catholic Answers)

This is, as long as it favors Rome, you have our blessings.

While Rome does give some guideline on interpreting Scripture, she warns about those dangerous fundamentalists who actually believe Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, which stories her own official Bible for America denies. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Supplementary

And we also have this

All modern Catholic exegetes are directly or indirectly indebted to the tremendous stream of nonCatholic works on biblical subjects, which flows universally over the western world, for their suggestive ideas, scholarly exegesis and broad and bold hypotheses.

These when tested and examined by the touchstone of the Rule of Faith have yielded, an continue to yield, valuable lights and fresh illustration of the truth of God's Word. (A Catholic Commentary On Holy Scripture by Bernard Orchard Nihil obstat: R. C. Fuller D.D., L.S.S., Censor DeputatusImprimatur: E. Morrogh Bernard, Vic.)

But what he mainly was referring to was liberal ones and Rome's scholarship and understanding the Rule of Faith is liberal.

PeaceByJesus said...

I'm not talking about a pagan holiday, I'm talking about rejoicing in the birth of our savior! But Jesus never commanded that, so we shall not celebrate? Please brother, i atleast hope we can both celebrate this!

If we had understood what i wrote then you should have seen that my rejection was not to celebrating the birth of Christ, but of commanding it be kept as an annual celebration, and of "Christianizing" to some degree a distinctly pagan holiday, which is how it originated (and i think brother Martin popularized the tree in it!).

And Rome does not stop there, while the N.T. minimizes days as it became more distinct from Judaism (the well-meaning advice of James in Acts 21 almost got Paul killed, due to Gal. 4:29), as the church are led by the Spirit needs to have its sails up to be moved by the wind, in acting out what is written in God-breathed Scripture).

Preachers may pray about what to preach on 11 months out of the year, but come December one theme nd one event is mandated.

I certainly come short in worship in spirit and in truth, and my not falling in line with this tradition does NOT mean my heart is necessarily better than those who want to keep the day, and do it to honor the Lord, but i must walk according to the light i have.

However, rather than it being treated as a matter of liberty, it basically has become law (and is in Rome), and such is by definition a form of legalism, which testifies to its origins.

Jeff said...

And so we are not obligated to keep holy the Sabbath because that it "legalistic" and takes from our liberty?

Jeff said...

What a beautiful thing for the entire Church to gather on one day to celebrate the mass of Christ (Christmas). For the sake of remembering we are part of a body, not just individuals taking time to remember Christ's birth when we feel like it and it is most convenient for each person.

PeaceByJesus said...

And so we are not obligated to keep holy the Sabbath because that it "legalistic" and takes from our liberty?

The commandment to keep holy the Sabbath ("to cease") is the only one of the 10 that are not reiterated under the New Covenant, and there is no record of an established N.T. church doing so, while Col. 2:16 clearly states that it, and other abrogated ceremonial laws re days and dietary laws (cf. Heb. 9:10) were a shadow of things to come, but the body that made the shadow it is Christ, and the 7th day represents the future rest of believers, (Heb. 4) while Rm. 14:6 gives liberty in observing all days.

Only the 1st day has a precedent as a specific day of meeting, (Acts 20:7; 1Cor. 16:2) and the Lord met with the apostles after the resurrection on it, and it is said that the day of Pentecost was on the 1st day. You can only wish you this warrant for an annual celebration of Christ's birth as well as other days of Rome's ritualism.

You can choose to keep the 7th day, but not as a law.

PeaceByJesus said...

For the sake of remembering we are part of a body, not just individuals taking time to remember Christ's birth when we feel like it and it is most convenient for each person.

Perhaps you missed my my referring to "the church led by the Spirit," and I am sorry if you think that means when convenient, or simply that of feelings, but it is not. But in so doing it will do many things in obeying Scripture, such as keeping the Lord's supper, but which it is also not instructed to do so on specific annual days, but, "as oft as you do it."

The church has precedent for meeting on Sonday, but you can search all of Acts and the church epistles and not find instructions or precedent for a liturgical calendar.

God can use such, and can also use "Christian" hard rock for all i know, but what Scripture shows is much holy liberty in worship and where to ministers, etc., in reliance upon the Lord to lead. And in persecuted counties this is necessary in an additional sense.

Jeff said...

yes and it a similar request about Christmas. I do not see it as an imposition by the Church but a command by God, like the Sabbath, and a reasonable one to. It is a difference of what we see as authority. But it does not contradict scripture, which would be the easiest sign that the Church has no such authority.

My question to you then so perhaps we can get to the roots, is how have you come to trust the bible as the sole authority of God? And who ever declared it such, because scripture does not declare itself infallible? And how do you use infallible Word of God without an infallible interpreter? I guess i see myself as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, with a desire to understand truth but needing correct explanation (from an apostle of Christ). It is not my truth that i wish to submit to, but A truth. to be one mind, and one faith as st. Paul commands.

Also, your point about the liberty of Catholic's interpreting scripture (which i see what you meant, and you are correct but see it in a different light than i) is strange because anyone outside the Church has ALL liberty, no definitive interpretations, unless submitted to the teachings of some denomination.

PeaceByJesus said...

I do not see it as an imposition by the Church but a command by God, like the Sabbath, and a reasonable one to. It is a difference of what we see as authority. But it does not contradict scripture, which would be the easiest sign that the Church has no such authority.

To celebrate Christmass is now a command from God, and that this is not in contradiction to Scripture??!!!

To make this command from God surely is, and is an easy sign that the church is presuming an autocratic authority it does not have!

Rome tries to extrapolate the authority to bind souls to observe her extra-Biblical liturgical ritualism, observing "days, and months, and times, and years" (Gal. 4:10) as in the Old Testament, but such binding obedience to such is not warranted by example or precept under the New.

And binding and loosing is not Biblically defined to allow such, much less binding souls from freely reading Scripture, etc.

And who ever declared it such, because scripture does not declare itself infallible?

First you assert that "no where in scriptures does it that it is the only transcendent material source as being assuredly wholly inspired of God, but which i showed you it does, and if "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2Tim. 3:16) then it must render whatever is scripture to be infallible.

Moreover, it is by the use of Scripture that the magisterium teaches, reproves etc., that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

But where does Scripture state that the Roman or any church will perpetually be infallible when speaking in accordance with a infallibly declared criteria (whenever it speaks universally on faith and morals)?

Rome and the church has and can declare truth, but veracity is not based upon a special charism kicking in when in conformity to its criteria, but as seen in Acts 15, it is on the strength of Scriptural attestation.

And how do you use infallible Word of God without an infallible interpreter?

The same way you use an infallible Word of God from the infallible interpreter without an infallible interpreter or understanding of it. No matter who/what the infallible source is, can man claim an assuredly infallible interpretation of it?

That said, i believe anyone can declare some infallible truth, even if it is only stating "there is a Creator."

The only assuredly infallible source on earth is Scripture, but Scripture provides for such things as knowing that you presently have eternal life, which is by personal examination of one's faith in the light to objective criteria ("these things 1Jn. 5:13).

Scripture largely explains itself, and i think it is more understandable than Rome often consistently is.

2 b ctnd.

PeaceByJesus said...

As for certitude from Rome, her infallible teachings are held as being very limited, and you do not even know how many there are, as this is a matter of interpretation, as is the fulness of the meanings of the few ones which are held as infallible.

In addition, the infallibility of a definition does not necessarily extend to the reasoning or arguments behind it.

Moreover, the implicit assent of faith which Rome requires is the same as which cults require and obtain their unity by.

And trying to find consistency in the rest of what Rome has taught, is a mammoth task even for theologians.

"Alexander III is said to have issued thirty-nine hundred and thirty-nine decrees and Innocent II over five thousand." (General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, p. 42; H.A. Ayrinhac, Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1969).

Another example of how burdensome and perplexing this maze of human doctrine has become, just the "Bulls" of the popes from 540 to 1857 fills forty-one volumes.

"Moreover, not a few ordinances, whether included in the Corpus Juris or of more recent date, appear to be contradictory; some have been repealed, others had become obsolete by long disuse; others, again, had ceased to be useful or applicable in the present condition of society. Great confusion was thus engendered and correct knowledge of the law was rendered very difficult even for those who had to enforce it.". ...Hence it is that the study of Canon Law is beset with almost inextricable difficulties, the door is open to disputes and litigations, consciences are troubled with a thousand anxieties, and people are driven to despise the law." (General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, pp. 70,71. See also Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, p. 645 and Vol. IX, p. 64 )

Due to this and the lack of official comprehensive consistent Scriptural exegesis there is much RCs can legitimately disagree on, while they have great liberty in interpreting the Bible within the parameters of what Rome has taught. And her own official notes can lead one astray.

PeaceByJesus said...

i see myself as the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, with a desire to understand truth but needing correct explanation (from an apostle of Christ).

SS (sola scriptura) upholds the magisterium, the key difference being that it is not assuredly infallible. And the idea that the Phillip of Acts 8 was the apostle (who were in Jerusalem, versus the deacon) is an example of where teachers can be helpful.

But not all are on the same level, and while the material sufficiency of Scripture provides for teacher, its formal sufficiency provides what is needed to make one wise unto salvation, which is how Timothy knew it, through his mom and grandmother. (2Tim. 1:5; 2Tim. 3:15)

Do you think Jonah was swallowed by a big fish, or that Balaam's donkey spoke, or that God ordered Joshua's conquests, and that Jesus really spoke where the Bible says He did?

is strange because anyone outside the Church has ALL liberty, no definitive interpretations, unless submitted to the teachings of some denomination.

This is no more true than in Rome, for while you have a few things that you must assent to, you have varying degrees of dissent (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm) in non-infallible teachings, while you are not constrained to stay if you cannot give the require assent, but can leave Rome if you want.

Likewise individual evangelical denominations have their official magisteriums, and have core essential that must be held to, including those which they are most universally committed to, such as expressed in the apostle's creed, the supremacy of Scripture and salvation by grace, versus earning it by moral merit. This common unity is shown in a common contention against cults who deny such. But varying degrees of differences are allowed in other areas, though the degree in which self-identified Roman Catholics dissent from core teachings and moral views and are yet treated as members is greater than seen among evangelicals. http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html

So individual evangelical denoms have their magisterium and required beliefs as well as liberty, and Rome has hers, and is simply a larger denom, and even critically disagree with the EO's (papal power and infallibility, etc.) though both are largely tradition-based.

Jeff said...

I was expecting something a bit more comprehensive, and I don't doubt that you do have.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, it would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring. also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books.

zipper778 said...

Jeff said: to say that each member of the Church is allowed to interpret scripture and tradition as they see fit is absolutely off the mark, and i think you know that.

Then why is it that in Haiti, many Roman Catholics also practice voodoo? I've also seen VERY devout and educated Roman Catholics wondering if Muhammed was a real prophet, and I've even heard some say that baptism doesn't remove Original Sin. Also, many millions of Roman Catholics worship Mary on a regular basis.

All these things and yet the Magisterium hasn't resolved these issues.

Jeff said: There ARE definitive interpretations of scripture by the Catholic Church, and much more definitive interpretations than any other Church.

I would have expected you to have listed those specific verses that the Magisterium/pope has officially/infallibly interpreted. I've talked to three Roman Catholic priests before and all three of them told me that they were not going to interpret Bible verses. That basically told me that they had no idea how to respond.

Jeff said: Contraception seems too hard, so lets not worry about that one.

Is that kind of like when the RCC said that it was okay to have sexual intercourse with the woman on top instead of the man? That use to be a sin in the RCC. Or that people outside of the RCC can go to Heaven even though a number of popes/councils declared that one must submit to the pope in order to be saved?

Jeff said: Actually, the teachings about Mary are quite challenging to myself.

Thank you for being honest. Many Roman Catholics believe that Marian doctrines/dogmas are easy to believe and are rock solid. I personally think that they're just putting up a strong wall to block Biblical/historical/reasonable arguements.

(continued...)

zipper778 said...

Part 2:

Jeff said: But, considering the wisdom of the Church in all else, and coming to belief that Jesus established such a Church that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against, I must accept ALL that she teaches (unless i find that contradictory along the way).

A couple of things here. First is that the wisdom of such a church that you're believing in. The RCC has built it's doctrines upon falsified documents, legends, ignorance, and misinterpretations of the Scriptures. Thus why I will never be able to believe and trust in the RCC.

Next is that you are assuming that Jesus established a church in Rome. But He didn't. Jesus didn't come to Earth to establish a rigid hierarchy to control people's lives, thoughts, and beliefs from a palace in Rome. He came to save them from their sins (John 3:17), and that Salvation comes by believing (Rom 1:16). To focus on a particular church is to completely miss the point of the Gospel.

Jeff said: I know are probably skeptical of the "apparitions" of Mary that are approved by the Catholic Church, but look at the effects. The apparitions have lead millions to Christ, and her message was always to lead people to her Son, to turn away from sin with contrite hearts, etc.

I have read through some of the apparitions of Mary and some of it does include Jesus. Such is the case with any lie, it isn't believable without a dose of truth in it. Also, many of the messages of the apparitions are focused on following Mary and praying prayers that are ungodly and unbiblical such as the Rosary. So much Marian worship has developed from these sightings.

Also, we find so many claims of apparitions that have developed ever since medieval times that it's very easy to doubt them. Especially onces like the case in Fatima where children tell people to stare at the Sun.

Plus, the good that you see that comes from them isn't exclusive to Roman Catholic apparitions/gatherings/tourist traps. Have you ever been to or seen a Billy Graham crusade? So much good and so many people have had their lives touched by Christ through those crusades, just for example.

In the end, we can know and show the whole world Jesus Christ by giving them the truth. A truth that is easy to understand (1 John 5:20), and an aroma to attract others to Christ (2 Cor 2:14).

Jeff said...

Zipper, I'm sorry that you think the goal of the Church is to control peoples lives, and quite honestly I could make that same complaint about Sacred Scripture. By the way, I do not want you to think that do not think highly of scriptures and do indeed see importance of studying and meditating and praying with them so that I might "put on the mind of Christ" and know my family's story (as has been taught to me in Catholic formation). The mission given to the Church has always been to show people the truth, and if that truth is threatening, one will naturally think it is an attempt to control their life. Tell me you haven't heard the same thing from people's thoughts on the bible? And parallel this with the thoughts you had?

To my knowledge there is much more in scripture about the establishment of authority, and the assurance that that authority, no matter how hard anyone tries, even buying out the pope position, will never fail! It's hard to believe the Catholic Church is still standing considering how many people hate it and have tried to take it down in history. But if it is as Jesus promised, quite simply, for the simplied-minded as Jesus taught, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You do not have to follow a winding road through history as to who was teaching the truth about Christ, but it is linear, and assuring. It is difficult, but soo simple.

The great thing about the Church is that you can know exactly what the Church teaches about an issue, regardless of what each Catholic knows. And believe me, i understand. Most protestants that I talk to get their misconceptions about the Catholic Church from talking to Catholics! Don't worry I'm frustrated about that one too :) But, it is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. THere you will find that voodoo is a gravely sinful, Baptism DOES remove original sin, and that the Lord your God alone shall you worship. Simple.

I do know actually realize the Church does allow different interpretations of much of scripture, but it is also well-defined what the CHurch does believe and where the roots in scripture are. For example, the creation story. There are several things that the Church requires one to believe because those deliver what the passage is trying to say. Whether it was done in 7 24 hour days is not what the story was meaning to communicate, so it is not required whether or not you believe this.

"In the end, we can know and show the whole world Jesus Christ by giving them the truth. A truth that is easy to understand (1 John 5:20), and an aroma to attract others to Christ (2 Cor 2:14)."
I completely agree :)

As far changing of teaching from council to council, I really am interested in you citing those for me. Not as a "challenge," but I really need to do the research you know!

Constantine said...

The great thing about the Church is that you can know exactly what the Church teaches about an issue, regardless of what each Catholic knows.

I think the proper theological term for this is “baloney”. You cannot know what the Catholic Church teaches on many critical issues.

For example, is the official view of the church regarding Scripture that it is “materially sufficient” or that part of divine revelation is contained therein and the other part in “sacred tradition”(the partim-partim view)? You can find members of the Magisterium on both sides.


And what is the “ancient and consistent” teaching with regard to abortion? Antoninus, a “saint” of the church was pro-choice as were many others. And yet, to listen to today’s Catholics one would think that the party line of “life begins at conception” was the historic norm. Jerome believed that a fetus was never human until sometime after it achieved life outside the womb. Is modern Rome to disavow Jerome?

Augustine taught that any sexual activity with intent not to have children was a sin but Pius XII miraculously declared the “rhythm method” to be in line with historic Catholicism.

No, I think it is rather the other way around. Any objective review of the history of Roman theology will show that it is built on a foundation of sand. Whatever the dogma du jour is, is what is foisted on the non-suspecting masses.

Peace.

PeaceByJesus said...

I was expecting something a bit more comprehensive, and I don't doubt that you do have.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures


You are only copy pasting (word for word) refuted Roman Catholic polemics. (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html#scripture-II, is this you?)

When Paul exhorted Timothy to “continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” (2Tim. 3:14) he was referring to one whose preaching was established by Scriptural corroboration (Acts 17:2,11; 18:23) with its manner of attestation, (Heb. 2:3,4) not one who presumed formulaic infallibility, or or some nebulous unwritten “tradition of the elders' as being equal to Scripture, but Paul's preaching of the Word of God depended in part upon corroboration with Scripture and its revealed means of establishing truth claims.

And as said, normally the “word of God/the Lord was written and became the standard for obedience and establishing further revelation. And in so doing, it shows that the Lord mighty attested to those who added new teachings which were Scriptural, such as Moses, the Lord Jesus and the apostles. and holding to the supremacy of Scripture also establishes the principle of progressive revelation in adding to Scripture.

But what Rome attempts to do is essentially add to the canon by making an extra-Biblical amorphous “tradition of the elders” to effectively be the same as Scripture, l teaching such as commands of God ike the Pharisees. And thus Roman Catholics must give implicit assent of faith to such things as the sinlessness or Mary, and her bodily resurrection. But Rome fails of the apostolic qualifications for adding to Scripture, and the authority of such teachings do not rest on Scriptural warrant and attestation, but upon the presumed autocratic infallibility of the magisterium to effectively declare truth by fiat.

Moreover, in contrast to Rome's nebulous oral tradition, which depends upon Rome as its presumed seer, Scripture can be examined by all, and the only the reason you can invoke 2Tim. 3:14 is because it is part of Scripture, yet according to Rome we cannot have certitude by Scripture and its means of “manifestation of the truth,” but must render implicit trust in her dogmatic declarations. Which is effectively the same as cults do, versus the apostles. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10)

It is true that much of Scripture was first oral, but that does not make all that is oral to be the word of God, and the way writings were established as being God-breathed and infallible Scripture was not by official decree from an infallible religion, for 2/3 of the Bible was already so by the time of Christ, (Lk. 24:44), but was essentially established due to its heavenly qualities, complementarity, and divine attestation. See commentary in red (by me) and refs at bottom here .

The problem is not with “traditions,” which we can be said to teach or practice as well, but whether a nebulous stream of such is the word of God and equal to Scripture, versus the latter being supreme and the authority which all is subject to.

PeaceByJesus said...

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.

This infers the polemicist is an expert in Greek, and understands that a word (ōphelimos) which only occurs in two other places in Scripture denotes something that is not mandatory, but optional? By such presumption you deny your own faith, to wit: “For bodily exercise is profitable [ōphelimos] to little: but Godliness is profitable [ōphelimos] to all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.” (1Ti 4:8: Douay Rheims)

Multitudes of antinomians will concur that (a kind of faith that produces) Godliness/holiness is not mandatory to see the Lord (Heb. 12:14)

Moreover, “profitable” is describing Scripture as an instrument, how it profits, not its nature as pertains to being essential. It is inconceivable that something that is breathed of God would be non-essential. As said, this word is only used in 2 other verses, and that it is use-full as an instrument as regards function does not negate the essential need of it, as is abundantly evidenced in its pages

As for exclusive, Scripture is the only body of revelation that is declared to be all Divinely breathed, “theopneustos,” inspired of God, and the word of God as an logos instrument is uniquely described as "is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. " (Hebrews 4:12) And Scripture is what is established as being the word of God, out of which “the word” is preached, the veracity of the latter depending upon the Scriptures .

This does not mean that the Scriptures are formally sufficient to make man perfect, but they materially provides for the church, and are essential as an instrument whereby the church works towards "the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: " (Ephesians 4:12-13)

PeaceByJesus said...

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, it would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring. also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books.

1. Your continued borrowed argument as i understand it, is based on presumption or error.

You have “every” (pas) being definitely opposed to “all,” as if “we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all [pas] nations, for his name, " (Romans 1:5) cannot mean every nation. And that the gospel of Christ “is the power of God unto salvation to every (pas) one that believeth” (Rm. 1:16) really means not inclusively every one that believeth!

And while theopneustos is only used of Scripture (in contrast to the commandments of men in Titus 1:14), you reject that it means Scripture inclusively because some of it was not yet penned, and thus (according to your rule) in the last verse it could only apply to those living, not every one that will believe.

The reality is that there is nothing here in the Greek that renders this to be less than inclusive of all that is Scripture, and the way Scripture is always invoked as authoritative by men of God certainly affirms its plenary Divine inspiration, which you own church also affirms.

2. You also seem to argue that this means every particular passage of Scripture is useful and exclusive, so that one could “rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word.” However, i do not see your conclusion following your premise, which seems to be that since every single passage of Scripture is useful, then it negates the need for complimentary corroboration. But even if this were only referring to single passages of Scripture as being useful, and not all, which is incongruous, it still would not sanction sola Matthew (or sola gospel, as some Catholic seem to prefer), but would mean that everything that God breathed is instrumental for the believer, but not in exclusion to the whole.

I would return your borrowed argument for a refund, as such strained exegesis is born of commitment to Rome, not truth. Good night.

Jeff said...

reOut of humility, I happily barrow other sources. Are you telling me that you've never gotten another's input on scripture? Of course not. If you would have gone about it alone, you would be completely lost. And I wouldn't expect it. So, yes I took the quotes straight from another site (but deleted unnecessary comments not don't contribute to the discussion, such comments that you include).

What you are arguing is that Scripture is a necessary instrument, not that it is the sole authority, which is what i asked. I never said tradition was the sole authority either, which you also seem to have the idea of. It is both, but my question is: Where does scripture say "sola scriptura"?

To Constantine: Such claims need a citation, else you could say that anybody said anything. It would be much more helpful for me too :)

PeaceByJesus said...

Out of humility, I happily barrow other sources. Are you telling me that you've never gotten another's input on scripture? Of course not.

Again you are confusing things. There is a difference between deriving arguments from what you have read from others, which to a degree is normal (and just recently James had a post on the issue of plagiarism, defining which can be problematic ), and lifting entire sections word for word from living authors without attribution, and presenting them as if they were your own, which definitely is plagiarism. But which at least on RCA feels is OK, at least privately (where it is less likely to be exposed), and perhaps in a more limited sense.

but deleted unnecessary comments not don't contribute to the discussion, such comments that you include

Which ones were these?

What you are arguing is that Scripture is a necessary instrument, not that it is the sole authority, which is what i asked.

No, Sola Scriptura is not SolO Scriptura, which is the false premise of your borrowed argument which it depends on, and is a common one, bu if you read my responses you should have seen that i did not argue that Scripture is the only authority, for it affirms the authority of the magisterium, as well as the need for reason, and the usefulness of commentary and history. But what “sola” means is that Scripture is alone as being the supreme authority for faith and doctrine, and is what tradition and preaching and judged by.

I never said tradition was the sole authority either, which you also seem to have the idea of. It is both,

Rather, i stated that you were “invoking Paul's reference to traditions in order to establish sola ecclesia (the only other real alternative).” — 5:01 PM, July 31, 2011

That is what you have argued, that since the magisterium decides both the content and meaning of Scripture and tradition then it is infallible, by which logic we must submit to the Jews who gave us most of Scripture, as well as the Messiah. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5) But essential faith was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium of them who sat in Moses seat, as God raised up men (prophets) from without it, who did not have the stamp of formal Levitical transference of office, but whose authenticity was based upon Scripture and the power of God.

but my question is: Where does scripture say "sola scriptura"?

I answered this already in accordance with what it means. Only one transcendent material source is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, that being Scripture, thus being infallible, and by which all else is judged by.

No where does Scripture affirm that whatever the church magisterium shall teach on faith and morals to the whole church will always be infallible.

Rome seeks to derive this out of the promise that the Lord will be with the church till the end, and the faith shall not fail, and the power to bind and loose, however, God kept the faith among a remnant in the past without such an assuredly infallible magisterium, and also promises to believers that “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 1:8; 1Ths. 5:23) and the veracity of doctrine was not based upon conformity to Rome's formula, but upon Scriptural substantiation and attestation.

Moreover, it is abundantly evidenced that the Word of God was normally written, and became the standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims.

In addition, the basis for Rome's sola ecclesia truth claims leaves us with two claimants to be the one true church, with both her and the EOs contending for that position, based upon their infallible interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture.

PeaceByJesus said...

Such claims need a citation, else you could say that anybody said anything. It would be much more helpful for me too

He might be referring to what is listed here. It seems to be documented, though it is an pro-homosexual, anti-Christ site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm

But as for official (if not all infallible dogma) RC statements differing so much at times that it makes a mockery of the word "reformulate" to explain such, if you really want examples i can provide some.

PeaceByJesus said...

I thought i posted the below but do not see it

Out of humility, I happily barrow other sources. Are you telling me that you've never gotten another's input on scripture? Of course not.

Again you are confusing things. There is a difference between deriving arguments from what you have read from others, which to a degree is normal (and just recently James had a post on the issue of plagiarism, defining which can be problematic), and lifting entire sections word for word from living authors without attribution, and presenting them as if they were your own, which definitely is plagiarism. But which at least on RCA feels is OK, at least privately (where it is less likely to be exposed), and perhaps in a more limited sense.

but deleted unnecessary comments not don't contribute to the discussion, such comments that you include

Which ones were these?

What you are arguing is that Scripture is a necessary instrument, not that it is the sole authority, which is what i asked.

No, Sola Scriptura is not SolO Scriptura, which is the false premise of your borrowed argument which it depends on, and is a common one, bu if you read my responses you should have seen that i did not argue that Scripture is the only authority, for it affirms the authority of the magisterium, as well as the need for reason, and the usefulness of commentary and history. But what “sola” means is that Scripture is alone as being the supreme authority for faith and doctrine, and is what tradition and preaching and judged by.

I never said tradition was the sole authority either, which you also seem to have the idea of. It is both,

Rather, i stated that you were “invoking Paul's reference to traditions in order to establish sola ecclesia (the only other real alternative).” — 5:01 PM, July 31, 2011

That is what you have argued, that since the magisterium decides both the content and meaning of Scripture and tradition then it is infallible, by which logic we must submit to the Jews who gave us most of Scripture, as well as the Messiah. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4,5) But essential faith was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium of them who sat in Moses seat, as God raised up men (prophets) from without it, who did not have the stamp of formal Levitical transference of office, but whose authenticity was based upon Scripture and the power of God.

but my question is: Where does scripture say "sola scriptura"?

I answered this already in accordance with what it means. Only one transcendent material source is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, that being Scripture, thus being infallible, and by which all else is judged by. No where does Scripture affirm that whatever the church magisterium shall teach on faith and morals to the whole church will always be infallible. Rome seeks to derive this out of the promise that the Lord will be with the church till the end, and the faith shall not fail, and the power to bind and loose, however, God kept the faith among a remnant in the past without such an assuredly infallible magisterium, and also promises to believers that “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 1:6; cf. 1Cor. 1:8; 1Ths. 5:23) and the veracity of doctrine was not based upon conformity to Rome's formula, but upon Scriptural substantiation and attestation.

Moreover, it is abundantly evidenced that the Word of God was normally written, and became the standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims.

In addition, the basis for Rome's sola ecclesia truth claims leaves us with two claimants to be the one true church, with both her and the EOs contending for that position, based upon their infallible interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture.

Jeff said...

Oh yes, i guess it didn't seem to me that I was claiming it to be my own, but being that it was posted under my name it would imply so. You're right, I will not do that anymore. The comments I removed were things like "and that's why protestants are wrong for saying this," which doesn't help the argument.

I apologize that I wasn't aware of the distinction between "sola" and "solo", but the effect of either seems to be the same in my understanding.

"the magisterium decides both the content and meaning of Scripture and tradition then it is infallible"

Technically, the early Christians discerned and decided which Scripture to include and which not to include (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), so the content was decided by the magisterium. Then when the dueterocanonicals came into question during the reformation, how do we discern whether or not these are infallible as well? Certainly, you can use scripture itself to check for contradictions. But it also must line up with Tradition, as they during the first few centuries. If "all scripture is God-breathed," then i definitely want these in my bible! Perhaps you have things in mind that are clearly contradictory between the deuterocanonicals and the rest of Scripture?

You seem to know more about the Catholic Church than in what you say though. But i though you slant things purposely to make the sound worse than they are. For example, "salvation by grace, versus earning it by moral merit." It is not a matter of "versus." We are saved by Grace, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church. And i think you know the distinction between "works of the law" and "works of charity." And that the Church teaches salvation by faith but not by faith alone. But, you slant such things. Humility is walking in truth, and if you believe the Church is erroneous in some of her teachings, I'm okay with that and you have good points to make. But it is low to give a slanted truth, and to me it discredits a lot of truth that you speak.

"Moreover, it is abundantly evidenced that the Word of God was normally written, and became the standard for obedience and for establishing truth claims." I do not doubt that it was used for this purpose. But, "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Tim 3:14-15)

Crazy enough the EO's are very close in many teachings! I hope the two will reconcile one day! They do both have Apostolic Tradition. Unfortunately, this is something i need to look further into the history of.

Oh, and yes I most definitely want examples of the Church making a mockery of the word "reformulate". I am interested in truth, and if you think this is the truth, I certainly am interested! But yes, citations quite necessarily. I checked out the other one, but ya the sight is not necessarily reliable in itself i may check what its claiming though.

Jeff said...

Also, they both administer the 7 Sacraments, which Christ has bound Himself to (but is not bound by) in the new covenant. "Sacrament" coming from "Sacramentum" meaning "covenant". This means it is an assured encounter with Christ, and saving grace, because it has been promised to us. This does not meaning the grace of God does not work in other ways outside the sacraments. so simple though!

PeaceByJesus said...

you slant things purposely to make the sound worse than they are

This depends upon which side of the Jordan you are on.

For example, "salvation by grace, versus earning it by moral merit." It is not a matter of "versus." We are saved by Grace, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

In Rome's system, one is justified by “pure grace” in baptism, as he has nothing to offer, but it then becomes much a matter of “grace versus works” as appropriating salvation, as she teaches that by God's grace, dispensed through Rome, one does works that merit eternal life life (“salvation by grace through merit”), and while she attempts to define “merit” as a recompense because of God's faithfulness in His grace, it fosters faith in one's own works and the power of the Roman church.

Canon 32 states,

"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified a...does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema."

The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members..., (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2006)

"nothing further is wanting to the justified to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life." (Trent, Chapter XVI; The Sixth Session Decree on justification, 1547)

“Hence, to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.” (Trent, Chapter XVI; The fruits of justification, that is, the merit of good works, and the nature of that merit)

While it true that God looks at works in rewarding souls with eternal life, this is not because the works themselves morally earn eternal life, but they declare what manner of faith one has. We see works being rewarded, but eternal life being a free gift, not morally earned. What is earned is damnation, while what is freely given is the gift of eternal life life. (Rm. 6:23) While saving faith must be of a kind that effects obedience towards its Object, it is faith that is counted for righteous, justifying the UnGodly, not the Godly. (Rm. 4:5)

The exclusion of “works of righteousness which we have done,” (Titus 3:5) as the means of salvation are not simply those works under the law, but any system in which souls are justified on the basis of their moral worthiness, as having earned such, else the gospel would simply be a better system of works salvation. And even that can be said to be by grace, as no one can do works at all except by grace.

Therefore under grace, Abraham was justified before he was even circumcised, and thus the believer is made accepted in the Beloved on His expense and credit. “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,” not because they are moral enough to be with God.

Yet Abraham's faith was made “perfect” by works (Christ was “made” perfect through sufferings), as James (who appears to contradict Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4) states. This manifestation of fruit is the confessional aspect, (cf. Rm. 10:9,10) justifying one as having saving faith. “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13) That is, they are justified because their God-given faith is a confessional type of faith, which instrumentally procures justification. And baptism is normally the first formal expression of saving faith — a “sinner's prayer” if you will, in body language — but it is the faith that procures justification, and thus a whole household was born again prior to baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9)

PeaceByJesus said...

2 ►
What Rome and institutionalized churches do not do is really preach the evangelical gospel which convicts souls of their damned and destitute state and in need of a “day of salvation”, that because of their works and inability to merit eternal life, they must cast all their faith in the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His blood. (Rm. 3:9 — 5:1) And so follow Him. Instead, Rome typically treats its souls as being Christians due to salvation by proxy faith, through their sprinkling as infants, but conversion in Scripture was preceded by conviction “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) with repentance and whole-hearted faith being required for baptism. (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37)

And i think you know the distinction between "works of the law" and "works of charity.

The idea that Paul's exclusion of works as the means of justification simply means the “works of the law” is an Roman Catholic apologetic that is their own private interpretation, not official doctrine as far as i know, and not all concur with it.

But, you slant such things

There is slanting on both sides, but we see slanting things as being certainly a most prevalent tactic among Roman Catholic apologists, and which James works to correct, especially about Luther (see sidebar). RCAs make sola scriptura to be to solo scriptura, and sola fide as negating the need for a faith that works, while giving us 33,000 denominations and marginalizing the formal divisions within Catholicism, as well as the greater disunity than among evangelicals. Etc.

I am trying to show problems, but you would have to show me where this slanting is taking place, where it needs to be substantiated, versus it being your interpretation or feelings due to your love for Rome. Besides what Rome has stated there is personal experience. I myself am a former Roman Catholic, who was born again while still going to Roman Catholic Mass, and realized a vast inward and outward difference between the two states as a consequence, despite my low opinion of myself (and i still have far to go). And thus i sought to serve God there for about 6 years, and to find some fellowship (the closest to it was in the RC charismatic movement. And have spent years talking to, or attempting to, Catholic about salvation, by God's grace, but have no personal issue with Rome.

But, "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (1 Tim 3:14-15)

Here we have another Catholic appeal to what is written, using private interpretation in seeking to convince us we are not to rely upon what is written as the supreme infallible authority, but the church. It is revealing how much weight must be placed upon a verse that RCAs seek to derived support for sola ecclesia from, when the words used cannot be said to mean more than support. The word for “bulwark” (hedraiōma) or “ground” in the Catholic DRB, only occurs here, and basically means support, as does stulos (pillar). (For what its worth, Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) refers to the Scripture, as being the ground and pillar of our faith. http://www.lightshinesindarkness.com/scripture_tradition.htm)

PeaceByJesus said...

3 ►
Crazy enough the EO's are very close in many teachings! I hope the two will reconcile one day! They do both have Apostolic Tradition. Unfortunately, this is something i need to look further into the history of.

Close, but you still have two churches claiming to be the OTC based upon their infallibility, and arguing that tradition and formal decent renders them such, while rejecting as churches (in the proper sense) those who look to the Scriptures as the only assuredly infallible source.

Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

Comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized, and unity by implicit faith in the decrees of a self-proclaimed magisterium is it not Scriptural, but cultic, but by not handling the word of God deceitfully but persuading souls by “manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God,” (2Cor. 4:2) results in those who want the truth, and those who search the Scriptures, finding salvation. And by such faith the church exists and has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and overcomes, (1Jn. 5:5) with a basic unity in core salvific truths, with its “unity of the Spirit,” (Phil. 4:3) Christ in them and they in Christ, while narrowing disagreement in attendant doctrines.

This does not solve disunity, which Jesus promised, but it enables a unity that is Scripturally of the Spirit, as it depends upon His supernatural grace in manifest regeneration, and the power of His word, not force or self-proclamation. "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. " (1 Corinthians 4:20)

PeaceByJesus said...

4 ► Technically, the early Christians discerned and decided which Scripture to include and which not to include (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), so the content was decided by the magisterium.

Wrong; well over half of the Bible was already established as Scripture before there was a church, and while most of the 66 books we now have were basically settled early on, dissent remained among scholars within the Roman church right into Trent. And which, after debate, provided the 1st and final infallible canon for Roman Catholics, 1400 years after the last book was penned. And the canon that it ratified was apparently not exactly the same as Hippo or Carthage, which were not ecumenical councils, and thus were not infallible. And the EO infallible canon is not the same as the Roman Catholic infallible canon, both of which are based upon sola ecclesia.

See the series “Underwhelming Majority at Trent” by Carrie on the sidebar at BeggarsAll, and or a shorter summation by me here.

Evangelicals can have certitude (the Catholic Encyclopedia actually has an interesting article on that subject) of the 66 books in the Protestant Bible being Scripture like as believers could in the time of Christ, based upon their qualities and attestation, which is how a man of God is established as being one, and which is how one can have assurance that he/she has eternal life. (1Jn. 5:13)

Certainly, you can use scripture itself to check for contradictions. But it also must line up with Tradition, as they during the first few centuries.

Just the opposite! To do otherwise negates the distinction between the two, as Scripture has been established as the wholly inspired Tradition, most of it before Christ, and by nature the virtual bottomless amorphous source of unwritten tradition needs to be examined by an objective authority, that being Scripture, which is what the Lord did in refuting the Pharisees who made the “tradition of the elders” binding upon Jews. (Mk. 7:1-13)

Catholics argue here that Jesus was only rebuking false tradition, but using Rome's formula for declaring infallible truth they easily could have asserted these things were valid interpretations of Scripture, or as not really contradicting it, and some verses could be employed to extrapolate such, which Roman Catholics attempt to do for such things as praying to the departed, after the tradition of some of her elders.

And to make oral tradition the judge of Scripture makes it a superior authority to it, while Rome effectively places herself as the supreme authority, which the Pharisees so presumed. But which claim, in Rome's case, is based upon her claim to be the one true church. In which she infallibly declares that she is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and content-based) criteria.

Thus we have the approved teachings,

“Once he does so [joins the Catholic church], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” Explanation of Catholic Morals, A Concise, Reasoned, and Popular Exposition of Catholic Morals, by John H. Stapleton, p 76, Benziger Brothers, NY, 1913. (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter xxiii. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

PeaceByJesus said...

5 ►
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” — Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )

Rome can claim Scriptural warrant for such declarations, but that is not the basis for its authenticity, and the infallible nature of her pronouncements does not necessarily extend to her arguments or reasoning behind it, which is a matter of interpretation. As is whether such a pronouncement is infallible (potentially multitudes: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf) and their meaning to some degree. And as is how many the verses the infallible magisterium has defined.

“To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” — Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40. (Ask me for more documentation of these statements if you want them, space being limited here due to max. word count)

Rome can claim that “It is unlawful to differ even by a single word from apostolic doctrine", (Pope St. Leo the Great), and can claim unanimous consent of the fathers for their doctrine (while also making good use of forgeries, but while we can appeal to Scripture and history and the writings of church fathers all we want in showing Rome's claims to be false or in error, all of which is dismissed based upon her autocratic claim to be the infallible interpreter of all such. Thus the teaching of one of your most noted theologians,

“It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...”

I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” — Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.

Thus rather than doing as the noble Bereans exampled, with that kind of heart, examining preaching of the word in the light of what has been established as the Word of God, we are called to implicitly submit to Rome, at least when it has spoken infallibly, presuming one knows. And how much one may dissent in non-infallible teachings, which are said to make up most of what Roman Catholics believe and practice, is another matter of interpretation.

PeaceByJesus said...

6 ►
Let me here address your request,

Oh, and yes I most definitely want examples of the Church making a mockery of the word "reformulate."

This would be extensive, and again, would take many 4,000+ character posts, but many can be seen from your separated Traditional Catholics, as here )http://www.reocities.com/militantis/vatican2.html), so i will briefly post just a representative excerpts of few of things that have changed, or have been reformed, though such have more than one quote to back them up.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38

...that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed "ex cathedra" (infallible).

The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot be adored except within her fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved. (Pope St. Gregory the Great, "Moralia," XIV:5)

Neither the true Faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church. It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856; cf. also OUR GLORIOUS POPES, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Cambridge, MA: 1955, p.168)

RCC: 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:...Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

[This absolves those who are convinced she is not, but have been baptized in Christian faith.]

..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...

They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.

...those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

PeaceByJesus said...

7 ►
"The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God." — Lumen Gentium

RCC: 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]

I confess that the Lord will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire the wicked who either did not know by way of the Lord or, knowing it, left it when seized by various transgressions, in order that they may burn without end. (Pope Pelagius I, "Humani Generis," April 1, 557 A.D.)

Acts which spring from natural goodness have only the appearance of virtue; they cannot last of themselves nor can they merit salvation.(Pope St. Pius X, "Editae Saepe," May 26, 1910)

He who is separated from the Body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may seem otherwise, will never enjoy eternal life. (Pope Gregory XIV, "Summo Jugiter," May 27, 1832)

Indeed, the Church deplores all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism levelled at any time or from any source against the Jews — Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, "Nostra Aetate," Oct. 28, 1965

The crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.(Pope Innocent III, "Epistle to the Hierarchy of France," July 15, 1205)

It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime. (St. Thomas Aquinas, "De Regimine Judaeorum")

Therefore, the Church reproves as foreign to the mind of Christ any discrimination against people or any harrassment on the basis of race, color, condition in life, or religion. — Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, "Nostra Aetate," Oct. 28, 1965

Religious communities have the right not to be prevented from publicly teaching and bearing witness to their beliefs by the spoken or written word. — Declaration on Religious Freedom, "Dignitatis Humanae," December 12, 1965

It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are the inalienable rights of every citizen. From this stinking fountain of Indifferentism flows the erroneous and absurd opinion, or rather derangement, that liberty of conscience must be asserted and vindicated for everyone. This most pestilential error opens the door to the complete and immoderate liberty of opinions which works such widespread harm both in Church and State. (Pope Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos," August 15,1832)

That every man is free to embrace and to profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion is hereby CONDEMNED as ERROR. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, "Syllabus of Modern Errors,"December 8, 1864)

If special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of the State, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected. — "Dignitatis Humanae"

Error condemned: In this age of ours, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever. In certain regions of Catholic name, it has been praiseworthily sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own. ope Pius IX, "Syllabus of Modern Errors,"December 8, 1864

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): "[It is error to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus Issued in 1864, Section VI, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

PeaceByJesus said...

8 ►

It is fully in accordance with the nature of Faith that in religious matters every form of coercion by men should be excluded. — Dignitatis Humanae

That it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics at the stake is condemned as false. (Pope Leo X, "Exsurge Domino," 1520

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus (of Errors):
[It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship." Section X, Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism, #78.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM
------------
"In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture 'cannot be contravened under any circumstances'". — Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech of 6 September 2007; Torture and corporal punishment as a problem in Catholic Theology, September 2005;

...the disciple of Christ rejects every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify, and by which the dignity of man is as much debased in the torturer as in his victim. . . — Pope John Paul II, Address to the International Red Cross (Geneva, June 15, 1982).

Innocent’s Bull prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html

[Condemned articles of J. Hus]: 20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

Those who have been detected, even by slight proof, to have deviated from the doctrine of the Catholic religion ought to fall under the classification of heretic and under the sentences operating against heretics. (Pope Innocent IV, "Registers of Innocent IV," Berger, Paris:1881)
-----------
Rome, Italy, Feb 19, 2010 / 02:03 pm (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Walter Kasper, announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI will visit the Evangelical Lutheran Church located in Rome on March 14 for an ecumenical celebration.

“the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

"No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics" - Council of Laodicea.
------------
Canon 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with the doctrine, announce it, defend it when necessary, and be enabled to assume their role in exercising the apostolate.

We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-51631.html

Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: That a layman must not publicly make a speech or teach, thus investing himself with the dignity of a teacher....

Carrie said...

Sacrament" coming from "Sacramentum" meaning "covenant". This means it is an assured encounter with Christ, and saving grace, because it has been promised to us.

sorry, my memory is terrible lately. But didn't we cover this recently with the Vulgate stuff.

I think Sacramentum was used to translate the Greek word for "mystery". So your use here is likely extending the true scriptural meaning too much.

Maybe PBJ will follow up.

Jeff said...

ah, i was slightly off. The latin word for "oath" (which is involved in a covenant) is "sacramentum". What this points to is how the early Christians understood the Sacraments.

Carrie said...

The latin word for "oath" (which is involved in a covenant) is "sacramentum".

The point is not what the Latin means, the point is what did the original Greek word mean that was used in scripture.

What this points to is how the early Christians understood the Sacraments.

Not really.

First, I guess that depends on how you define "early". The Latin translations came in the 2nd or 3rd century?

Second, it's also possible that the Latin word chose is a bad translation of the original Greek. Go back to some of the recent posts on the the Latin Vulgate and you'll see where the Latin Vulgate had issues with translation.

PeaceByJesus said...

Also, they both administer the 7 Sacraments, which Christ has bound Himself to (but is not bound by) in the new covenant. "Sacrament" coming from "Sacramentum" meaning "covenant". This means it is an assured encounter with Christ, and saving grace, because it has been promised to us.

Short answer:

1. It is not an assured encounter with Christ, even by Rome's criteria, and 2. besides the meaning and Scriptural basis and number of sacrament, the problem is the Scriptural means of effectually conveying realizing grace versus the perfunctory practices of institutionalized religion, while 3., the EOs would agree to the 7, though perhaps defining them somewhat different, but it is my understanding they do not limit the number to only 7. The Anglican also have 7.

Long answer:

As regards defining sacrament, I have never gotten into this issue much, and from what i read (http://www.kencollins.com/sacraments/sacrament-02.htm http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/S/SACRAMENTS), which is not much, Sacrament does mean mystery, but as Latin has no word that would be transliterated into it, they used mysterium sometimes, but certain western Christian scholars like Tertullian and Jerome chose the word "sacramentum," which was used as

1. “a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two parties to a suit which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses;

(2) as a military term to designate the oath of obedience taken by newly enlisted soldiers. in the Army when a new soldier took an oath of office, and was branded him behind the ear with the number of his legion.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia does not find sacrament in Scripture, and states that,

“Pliny (circa 112 AD) describes the Christians of Bithynia as "binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime" (Epistles x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses the word in its old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting coincidence. It is in the writings of Tertullian (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century) that we find the first evidence of the adoption of the word as a technical term to designate Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and other rites of the Christian church.”

The notion that there are seven sacraments has no New Testament authority, and must be described as purely arbitrary; while the definition of a sacrament is still so vague that anything but an arbitrary selection of particulars is impossible. It is perfectly arbitrary, for example, to place Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were instituted by Christ as ordinances of the church, in the same category with marriage, which rests not on His appointment but on a natural relationship between the sexes that is as old as the human race.”

I know that most Prots may not refer to sacraments at all, but as the Scriptural word "ordinances,” which usually counts only those which literally are enjoined upon all believers, that being baptism and the Lord's supper. I myself could include such things as the great commission, laying on of hands in ministering the Holy Spirit and also in ordination, and the anointing of the sick. One could add more practices, from greeting each other with a holy kiss to washing the saints feet.

In one sense all obedience is “sacramental,” as God blesses obedience, but certain formal acts are required of all, in which grace is conveyed through or with others, and which affirms the interdependence of the body, in “co-dependance up the Almighty.

2 b ctnd.

PeaceByJesus said...

2 b ctnd.

But rather than the "ex opere operato" that some hold to, meaning grace is realized regardless of the condition of the instrument or the recipient, all such human means of instrumentally conveying grace depends on one or the other. Baptism requires repentant, whole-hearted faith, as does, and hearing and responding to the gospel may be efficacious even if the minister is not of the same right heart, while i think the laying on of hands in ministering the Spirit (Acts 8:15,16, 18-21; Gal. 3:5) and anointing of the sick (which in Rome basically gives more assurance of death than being healed) requires a right disposition of both, especially the minister. But then there are acts of grace, such as a man being healed because of the prayers and faith of others, or a man resuscitated by touching the bones of Elijah, (1Kg. 13:21) which might only require holiness of the instrument.

Trent states that ”If any one saith, that, in ministers [even heretics], when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.” (Canon XI) Apart from whether the intent of the church is sound, this has warrant, and it is understood that is necessary for the act to be a moral one. However, but as the recipient cannot know the heart of the minister, so it is contended that the recipient cannot be assured, with the “certainty of faith,” that he has indeed received the sacrament.

Apart from that, and the Scriptural basis for sacraments versus ordinances, and the definitions and numbers of both, while ex opere operato" is supposed to require a right disposition by the recipient, and a right intent of the minister, another issue is that in emphasizing the power of the church, and the importance of ritual, then what is typically effectually conveyed is that grace is given with nominal preparation, if at all, fostering perfunctory professions,and reliance upon the ritual apart from true relational faith.

This has been also happening of late among evangelical believers who strive to coax a “sinner's prayer” out of someone, as they prayed such in experiencing regeneration, but they ignore the context out of which saving faith was realized, that of broken heart and contrite spirit” which God promises to regard. (Ps. 34:18) And the real labor of the instrument of God, besides prayer, is in bringing souls to see their desperate need for salvation, so that they earnestly want to know, “what shall we do,” “what must I do to be saved,” (Acts 2:37; 16:30) as in Scriptural conversions. It is revealing that Paul “reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” to an unsaved Felix, and who trembled, but who spurned his day of salvation. (Acts 24:25)

The context in which we see valid expressions in Scripture of what Rome calls sacraments is critically different than what is seen in Roman Catholicism. Baptism was preceded by evident conviction of "of sin, and righteousness, and of judgment," (Jn. 16:9) and whole-hearted repentance faith, not just some assent to a creed, while the commemoration of the Lord's death was denied to be just that, (1Cor. 11:20) not because the participants did not recognize that the elements were turned into, but because by their selfish actions they were not recognizing their hungry participants as members if the body, 1Cor. 11:19-32)the interdependence of which which Paul proceeds to expound upon in the next chapter.

Jeff said...

Firstly, thank you for the link you provided. It was very informative!

Trent states that ”If any one saith, that, in ministers [even heretics], when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.”

I would like to point out "at least of doing what the Church does." That is, as long as the minister performs such a act in accord with how it should be acted, then most definitely the Sacrament is valid. For example, in reconciliation if you here the words of absolution, you can be absolutely sure that you are forgiven by Christ regardless of what you think about the priest. If you have doubts, in is your own disposition (ex: you have plans to commit the same sin that night). Of course, this is exactly what you were speaking of ("repentant, whole-hearted faith"). I think the Catechism writes it more clearly..

CCC 1128: This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.”2 From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

"Baptism was preceded by evident conviction of "of sin, and righteousness, and of judgment," (Jn. 16:9) and whole-hearted repentance faith, not just some assent to a creed"

Much of Acts speaks of Evangelization of new nations. So, if one is far in enough in human development, or when one is "culpable", it is necessary for such a contrite heart and need for God. But when it speaks of Baptizing households, it does not clarify "those of age" or something as such. The kingdom of heaven in fact belongs to those as children. If Baptism is "initiation rite into the Christian faith and into the Christian church" (from your source), then it would be quite necessary to baptize infants! The scripturecatholic website lays out several verses, just ignore the little quibbles about protestants :) But, perhaps you don't agree that it is an initiation rite into the life of the church?

Christ instituted marriage when he laid his life down for his bride, the Church, revealing what marriage is. Also, marriage in Islam is NOT the same as christianity, as your source stated. In Islam, marriage is not an oath before God, but a contract between people (you can check me on this one, but this was what was stated in my class about the Abrahamic faiths) In some ways the same view was held in the old Testament, because of "the hardness of their hearts". "This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church." (Ephesians 5:32)

PeaceByJesus said...

I would like to point out "at least of doing what the Church does." That is, as long as the minister performs such a act in accord with how it should be acted, then most definitely the Sacrament is valid. For example, in reconciliation if you here the words of absolution, you can be absolutely sure that you are forgiven by Christ regardless of what you think about the priest

That is your own private interpretation of what it means, but words of absolution do not necessarily reveal the intent of heart, and as the devil can utter Scripture with the intent to deceive, so could one of his ministers declare you are forgiven with the intent to deceive. And thus as reported from Bellarmine's dispute,

"No one can be certain, with the certainty of faith, that he receives a true sacrament, because the sacrament cannot be valid without the intention of the minister, and no man can see another's intention" ("Disput. Controv. De Justine." III. Viii. 5). — Cardinal Bellarmine (http://www.archive.org/details/plainreasonsaga01littgoog, pp. 13-14) See also http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-2-succession.html

Then there is the development
Confession and Penance
which take another thread in unraveling Rome.

But when it speaks of Baptizing households, it does not clarify "those of age" or something as such.

Faith must be in one by faith in order to have Christ in them, (Rm. 8:9; Eph. 1:13; 3:17) and while Rome holds that infants must be baptized to go to Heaven, the silence of Scripture on such a grave matter, in which no infants are described being baptized, while also clearly declaring the requirements for baptism, and that those who believed were the ones who were baptized, does not allow us to establish a doctrine that souls who cannot repent and believe are to be baptized.

And as they know not how to refuse the evil and choose the good out of a moral conscience, (Is. 7:16) i do not see Ps. 5:5 or Rm. 5:12 meaning that such are culpable of sin (nor that marital sexual relations must involve sin, as some of the church fathers held) or otherwise are in need of conversion. While we suffer temporal consequences due to the sins of others (as well as benefit from their merits: Jn. 4:37,38) eternal judgment is based upon what one has done, not their fathers. (Dt. 24:16; 2Chrn. 25:4; Ezek. 18:20; 2Cor. 5:10; Rv. 20:11-14)

We are however, born with a definite predisposition to sin, though such can be resisted, (Gn. 4:7) but is it quite empirically evident that sprinkling infants does not result in a constitutional change.

The kingdom of heaven in fact belongs to those as children.

Indeed it does, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” (Mk. 10:13-16) in the sense that unaccountable souls need no salvation, and we need to be humble and trusting as children to be part of the kingdom of God.

If Baptism is "initiation rite into the Christian faith and into the Christian church" (from your source), then it would be quite necessary to baptize infants!

Baptism is "initiation rite” into the Christian faith, but in Scripture this applies to those who must and can believe, else aborted infants would need to be baptized. The Lord's supper, properly understood and practiced, is also a participation on the Lord's death,but infants do not take part in it. And as baptism is a symbolic rite, it does not obtain salvation, although that may be the occasion in which one makes the faith decision. And if Jn. 3:5 refers to baptism, then contrary to the import of the passage, it cannot be an absolute imperative necessity, as the Holy Spirit clearly affirms that souls can be born again before baptism.

PeaceByJesus said...

Christ instituted marriage when he laid his life down for his bride, the Church, revealing what marriage is.

No, Christ did not instituted marriage then, else no one would have been married prior to that, but He did affirm marriage, and exampled what Christian marriage should be. In both baptism and the Lord's supper, a common practice (washing and eating) is used, and like the sacrificial lamb and the accoutrements of the Temple, they are used to represent something spiritual. But the issue here (apart from the meaning of sacraments) is that of the church taking any common practice and formally sacramentalizing them, as well as binding souls to observe numerous days, as part of a highly ritualized religion, versus only recognizing as binding formal practices those which the Lord Himself instituted as seen in Scripture.

Also, marriage in Islam is NOT the same as christianity, as your source stated. In Islam, marriage is not an oath before God, but a contract between people

And which is marriage nonetheless, which God recognizes, else all the pagan Gentiles converts would have had to be remarried upon conversion, but instead these marriage became sanctified even because of one spouse being saved. (1Cor. 7:14) (But the broad criteria used for Rome's annulments of consummated marriages is contrary to Scripture, and its implications problematic.) And in the general sense all is to be sacred, as per 1Cor. 10:31: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.