Mary and the recent Papal teaching

[Charlie24]

Protestants try to build their churches on their interpretation of written text, this is not the Church Jesus founded. These are human churches, with human doctrines, they had nothing to with the Bible, and have no authority to interpret it.

Jesus founded an Apostolic Church, with Apostolic Government. These were the Preachers and qualified interpreters of Scripture that interpreted Truth and sound doctrine from Scripture, along with determining the Canon itself.



The Church is more than what's written in scripture, it is not confined to scripture, or confined further to the fallible opinions of men.

Ask why your interpretation is of greater authority, who are you to interpret scripture? That is the important question.

We have a different foundation.

Ours is built on the very words of God through the Master Church builder, the great Apostle Paul.

We don't assume any succession as that is the assumption of the RCC.

The letters John wrote to the Churches were addressed to the "angel" the individual pastors of those Churches.

They were organized by the words of Christ directly to the pastors.

We follow the Scripture to "study to show ourselves approved of God" and searching the Scriptures to ensure the truth.

Yes, we have many problems with the emphasis being placed on certain areas of the Scripture and not the whole Word of God.

Whether we stand of fall, we for the most part are standing alone on the Word of God.

 

[Walter]

We have a different foundation.

Ours is built on the very words of God through the Master Church builder, the great Apostle Paul.

We don't assume any succession as that is the assumption of the RCC.

The letters John wrote to the Churches were addressed to the "angel" the individual pastors of those Churches.

They were organized by the words of Christ directly to the pastors.

We follow the Scripture to "study to show ourselves approved of God" and searching the Scriptures to ensure the truth.

Yes, we have many problems with the emphasis being placed on certain areas of the Scripture and not the whole Word of God.

Whether we stand of fall, we for the most part are standing alone on the Word of God.

Your foundation is 'scripture alone'. That is why there is countless evangelical denominations and more added every year
And, as much as I love scripture, I know that scripture tells me that's not correct. 1 Timothy 3:15 says the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church! As a Baptist, I had to admit, at least on this point, that I was wrong.

 

[Charlie24]

Your foundation is 'scripture alone'. That is why there is countless evangelical denominations and more added every year
And, as much as I love scripture, I know that scripture tells me that's not correct. 1 Timothy 3:15 says the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church! As a Baptist, I had to admit, at least on this point, that I was wrong.

This post from you is the clearest point I can find as to why you're a Catholic and I'm a Baptist.

 

[Walter]

This post from you is the clearest point I can find as to why you're a Catholic and I'm a Baptist.

So you are saying I Timothy 3:15 is incorrect. Interesting. You see, Charlie, the problem of why there are so many doctrinal splits and interpretations among evangelicals always bothered me. If two pastors, who seemed to live upright, holy lives, taught divergent doctrines and each claimed his teaching was from the Holy Spirit, how could this be? I knew the Holy Spirit could not teach two different doctrines at the same time. Could this ever be resolved? Baptists have resolved this problem by splitting. New Baptist denominations are born as a result of differences over biblical interpretation.

And, please don't start with Baptists are not a denomination. Even on the BB in the Baptists Only forums there's one that lists various Baptists 'denominations'. I know of no intellectually honest Baptist that wouldn't admit that the SBC and the ABC aren't two different denominations.

 

[Charlie24]

So you are saying I Timothy 3:15 is incorrect. Interesting. You see, Charlie, the problem of why there are so many doctrinal splits and interpretations among evangelicals always bothered me. If two pastors, who seemed to live upright, holy lives, taught divergent doctrines and each claimed his teaching was from the Holy Spirit, how could this be? I knew the Holy Spirit could not teach two different doctrines at the same time. Could this ever be resolved? Baptists have resolved this problem by splitting. New Baptist denominations are born as a result of differences over biblical interpretation.

And, please don't start with Baptists are not a denomination. Even on the BB in the Baptists Only forums there's one that lists various Baptists 'denominations'. I know of no intellectually honest Baptist that wouldn't admit that the SBC and the ABC aren't two different denominations.

No, it was Walter that said that, not me.

Paul never described the Church you teach. That Church you have so much faith in is a work of the traditions of men.

The Church you claim is nowhere in Scripture to be found.

 

[JesusFan]

Even if I granted that these are not in the Bible, which I don't. The Christian religion is not confined to the Bible. The Bible itself is not even scriptural, but Catholic Tradition.
There are no books in the Bible that list what books belong in the Bible, this was done by the Authority of The Catholic Church.

Human founded religion on fallible human interpretations of scripture = protestantism. Confined to text and confined to fallible human opinions. That's not the Church Jesus founded.
Jesus founded an Authoritative Apostolic Church Government that went on to Canonise a Bible 400 years later. This is The Catholic Church, the only Pre Bible Christianity. Bible alonism could not have existed in this time, because there was no Bible.
There was a Church however, The Catholic Church founded by Christ on the Apostles and their successors.

There is ONLY 1 inspired revelation from God to man, and that would be the Inspired 66 canonized books of Holy Scripture
And the true Church of Jesus would be all of the redeemed dead and physically alive, regardless of the name/label upon their church building

 

[JesusFan]

Do you think the Catholic Church would teach doctrine that would ever lead us away from Jesus? As Cathode already mentioned, the whole purpose of Mary's life was to lead us to Jesus. There may be some Catholics who have a misguided devotion to Mary and almost make her equal to Jesus, but that’s not the teaching of the Church.

There should be NO teaching of mary period, other than that she was willing to near Jesus, and =was a humble sinner who needed the grace of God to save her from her sins

 

[Cathode]

No, it was Walter that said that, not me.

Paul never described the Church you teach. That Church you have so much faith in is a work of the traditions of men.

The Church you claim is nowhere in Scripture to be found.

You can see the primitive Catholic Church structure in the Bible, also its continuation among the Fathers that the Apostles appointed. What you don't see is protestant or baptist structure.
The Bible didn't exist, so you didn't see independent churches built on each mans interpretation of Scripture.

What you see is central Apostolically controlled doctrinal unity. Paul writing letters to different churches, maintaining them all in the same beliefs and doctrines.

 

[Charlie24]

You can see the primitive Catholic Church structure in the Bible, also its continuation among the Fathers that the Apostles appointed. What you don't see is protestant or baptist structure.
The Bible didn't exist, so you didn't see independent churches built on each mans interpretation of Scripture.

What you see is central Apostolically controlled doctrinal unity. Paul writing letters to different churches, maintaining them all in the same beliefs and doctrines.

Yes, we have a completely different view of the Church as seen in the Scripture.

Paul took Timothy under his wing training him for a pastor, not an apostle.

The successor to the apostleship is absent in Scripture after Mathias replaced Judas to fulfill the 12.

Only in the mind of the RCC is there a successor to the apostles

 

[Walter]

'Only in the mind of the RCC'? Again Charlie posts untrue statements.

How about Orthodoxy, Anglican, Polish National and many Lutherans churches who also believe in apostolic succession? Millions and millions of Christains not part of the Catholic Church believe in apostolic succession.

 

[Cathode]

Yes, we have a completely different view of the Church as seen in the Scripture.

My view is not just scriptural, its historical. The Apostles trained up their replacements to carry on the ministry.

Paul took Timothy under his wing training him for a pastor, not an apostle.

Paul was training Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus, which he was. Timothy was trained and given the Apostolic gift through the laying on of Paul hands. This is the Apostolic succession through ordination, which only exists in Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Protestantism and Baptists lost the Apostolic succession of the laying on of hands, more accurately they rejected it, and their ministries lack Apostolic authority, either to preach or interpret scripture as a result. Without this Apostolic Gift Paul passed to Timothy, they were teaching human traditions and interpretations of Scripture.

The successor to the apostleship is absent in Scripture after Mathias replaced Judas to fulfill the 12.

"Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you." Titus 2:15

Titus was made Bishop of Crete, and Titus appointed presbyters in every city.

There is a lineage of Authority handed down through the laying on of hands.

Not the self appointed leaders in protestantism and Baptists.

Only in the mind of the RCC is there a successor to the apostles

No, its historical and I can bring hundreds of receipts and examples from the early Church.

This is preBible Christianity which is entirely Catholic, Protestants and baptists didn't exist for 1500 plus years.

 

[Charlie24]

My view is not just scriptural, its historical. The Apostles trained up their replacements to carry on the ministry.



Paul was training Timothy to be Bishop of Ephesus, which he was. Timothy was trained and given the Apostolic gift through the laying on of Paul hands. This is the Apostolic succession through ordination, which only exists in Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Protestantism and Baptists lost the Apostolic succession of the laying on of hands, more accurately they rejected it, and their ministries lack Apostolic authority, either to preach or interpret scripture as a result. Without this Apostolic Gift Paul passed to Timothy, they were teaching human traditions and interpretations of Scripture.



"Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you." Titus 2:15

Titus was made Bishop of Crete, and Titus appointed presbyters in every city.

There is a lineage of Authority handed down through the laying on of hands.

Not the self appointed leaders in protestantism and Baptists.




No, its historical and I can bring hundreds of receipts and examples from the early Church.

This is preBible Christianity which is entirely Catholic, Protestants and baptists didn't exist for 1500 plus years.

No disrespect toward you, Cathode, I like you, always have.

But your history being placed at the level of Scripture by your leaders is the reason I'm a Protestant.

There's absolutely to much of that history in the Church and not found in the Scripture.

 

[Cathode]

No disrespect toward you, Cathode, I like you, always have.

But your history being placed at the level of Scripture by your leaders is the reason I'm a Protestant.

Your tradition has no history in the times we are talking about.

Our Catholic history goes right into Apostolic times. Saying that we treat history at the same level as scripture is stupid and a deflection.

There's absolutely to much of that history in the Church and not found in the Scripture.

Well, your problem is a complete lack of history to back your claims. Catholics on the other hand have masses of history which is completely compatible with scripture.

Ok, I'll quote a Church Father actually mentioned in scripture, who knew Peter and Paul and worked with them. He describes Apostolic Succession perfectly.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

Here we see a lineage of Apostolic successors being approved and appointed down with authority.

Clement you will ignore, because you do not share his understanding of Church or structure or Authority. Even if his name is written in the Book of Life according to scripture.

"Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life." Phil 4:3

Catholics are truly and organically connected to the Early Christians and have their understanding of Scripture.

So whose opinion has more weight, Clement, who worked with Paul and was ordained by Peter, who was himself an Apostolic Successor, that scripture explicitly says his name is in the Book of life.

Or you who has no history with early christianity, or the bible, but only human founded traditions from 400-500 years ago, with no authority to interpret scripture.

 

[Charlie24]

Your tradition has no history in the times we are talking about.

Our Catholic history goes right into Apostolic times. Saying that we treat history at the same level as scripture is stupid and a deflection.



Well, your problem is a complete lack of history to back your claims. Catholics on the other hand have masses of history which is completely compatible with scripture.

Ok, I'll quote a Church Father actually mentioned in scripture, who knew Peter and Paul and worked with them. He describes Apostolic Succession perfectly.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

Here we see a lineage of Apostolic successors being approved and appointed down with authority.

Clement you will ignore, because you do not share his understanding of Church or structure or Authority. Even if his name is written in the Book of Life according to scripture.

"Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life." Phil 4:3

Catholics are truly and organically connected to the Early Christians and have their understanding of Scripture.

So whose opinion has more weight, Clement, who worked with Paul and was ordained by Peter, who was himself an Apostolic Successor, that scripture explicitly says his name is in the Book of life.

Or you who has no history with early christianity, or the bible, but only human founded traditions from 400-500 years ago, with no authority to interpret scripture.

Come on, Cathode!

How in the world do you expect us to believe such history in the Church as Mary being taken to heaven body and soul at her death?

This falls in line with Apostolic Succession, not of word of it in Scripture. I could bring up several other things.

The history of the Church can be whatever those men said it is and we would know no difference.

We can't accept that, Cathode. The Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and those men with their history?

 

[MrW]

Hmmmm, that is the heresy of Nestorianism. Look it up.

And, I do recall He is fully man and fully God. BORN THAT WAY. You can not have it both ways

I looked it up. It is not Nestorianism.

God existed before Mary. He did not originate from her, but His human body did, because the Lord Jesus is physically a descendant of David.

She would be a “Mother of God”, only in the sense that Joseph was a “Father of God”. She conceived His physical body as a miracle of God, not from Joseph, but she did not conceive His Spirit, which exists from eternity, Micah 5:2.

 

[Walter]

I looked it up. It is not Nestorianism.

God existed before Mary. He did not originate from her, but His human body did, because the Lord Jesus is physically a descendant of David.

She would be a “Mother of God”, only in the sense that Joseph was a “Father of God”. She conceived His physical body as a miracle of God, not from Joseph, but she did not conceive His Spirit, which exists from eternity, Micah 5:2.

He was born fully man and fully God. No one is saying Mary created Christ's Diety. He is the Alpha and Omega. She did give birth to the Christ child who was fully God at birth. Period.

Are you saying Mary was only the Mother of the human Jesus? That's Nestorianism.

 

[Charlie24]

He was born fully man and fully God. No one is saying Mary created Christ's Diety. He is the Alpha and Omega. She did give birth to the Christ child who was fully God at birth. Period.

Are you saying Mary was only the Mother of the human Jesus? That's Nestorianism.

Walter, are you saying Mary was anything other than blessed and favored by the Lord being chosen to give birth to the Savior of world?

If she is more than this show us in Scripture. Not your magnifying of her, but the magnifying by the Word of God.

 

[Ascetic X]

Nestorianism is
a 5th-century Christian doctrine, named after Nestorius, that taught Jesus Christ was two distinct persons—one human and one divine—rather than one unified person with two natures, leading to the rejection of the title Theotokos (Mother of God) for Mary in favor of Christotokos (Mother of Christ).

Condemned as heresy at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, it caused a major church schism, separating the Church of the East (sometimes called Nestorian) from the Byzantine Church, and spread eastward along the Silk Roads into Asia.