"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

[Rick Otto]

Np one else? First, should that matter to us? Why, for example, would protestants trust Jews to give them their canon??? But saying no one else agrees is like saying four out of five believe something, but nobody else does.
Actually, it's been shown over and over that papacy and Marian dogmas were part of the earliest church.

Shown and debunked as mostly myth, exaggeration, and self serving redefinition.
If such was not the case, the culture at the Vatican would not have so much criminality and immorality, in the the history of papacy.
Protestants properly confined the Jewish contribution to the canon to what is cleverly called The Old Testament, and had God chosen the Eskimos to be His people back then, we would be trusting the Eskimos.
Is there a problem we should have with trusting Jews?
Obviously I don't understand what your saying here.

 

[Open Heart]

If such was not the case, the culture at the Vatican would not have so much criminality and immorality, in the the history of papacy.

Come on Rick. The two things are entirely unrelated. The problem with sin in the vatican isn't from marian doctrines or papal infallibility, its from good old sinful nature. It's the same problem that you see everywhere else you find human beings.

 

[Open Heart]

Is there a problem we should have with trusting Jews?

It depends. If the Jews say one thing, and the Church that God has established says something else, shouldn't we opt for the Church?

 

[Rick Otto]

It depends. If the Jews say one thing, and the Church that God has established says something else, shouldn't we opt for the Church?

God had established a consensus before Trent planted a Roman (post-schizm) Catholic flag and baggage on it.

What the Jews say is as arguable among them as what the Christians say, among themselves.
And it is not insignificant that what anybody says, and what anybody thinks, is arguably different from what is written.

So at the end of the day, what God has established is what is written, far more assuredly than what any of His creatures has to say or think about it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Come on Rick. The two things are entirely unrelated. The problem with sin in the vatican isn't from marian doctrines or papal infallibility, its from good old sinful nature. It's the same problem that you see everywhere else you find human beings.

I apologize for my lack of clarity if that is what I seemed to have said.
My placement of blame for abusive behavior by the Catholic Church, is not on the Marian doctrines, but on the mindset that is so dependant upon frequent redefinition of terms and strident denial of self contradiction.

 

[laternonjuror]

Wrong. First, pre-RC would be pre-Christ. Secondly, the dogmas were dogmatized later, but believed early on.
There must have been, because Tertullian wrote based on...someone before him.
You think that just because Trent dogmatized the canon, that the canon wasn't in place beforehand? Get real.

The point you're missing is that there are no new doctrines. There is deeper understanding of doctrine, but no new doctrine. I understand that you think the canon of Scripture was set in stone at Trent, but that's just not so. It was declared at Trent, but held as early as 300. The same is true of the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and so on. There's nothing new in Catholicism.

All Catholics would agree with that, I'm sure, but you would have trouble trying to
fix or pin Infallibility or Jurisdiction, before the debacle at Trent? To say nothing of
the Immaculate part of the Lady Mary's Conception. Mind you as an Anglican, I believe The Lady is Immaculate.
When S.Paul said, "Without addition, or Dimminution, I don't think he had "Infallibility," in mind!

 

[Root of Jesse]

"I didn't do it!" was my first complete sentence. I was in a high chair at the supper table, and mom had mentioned something that been done wrong, or something done that was itself wrong, and I so wanted to be a part of the conversation, that after my 3 siblings had said, "I didn't do it", I chimed in. I remember because everyone broke up laughing.
It was probably something I couldn't have done, and my enthusiasm was comically inappropriate.

Yeah, I know all about those stemmings and confirmations, and the nature of the authority upon which they "rest".

You may not realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those "stemmings", one you happen to agree with. I don't know how you can agree with authority on one thing, especially when the authority is the Holy Spirit, and disagree with that same authority on something else.

 

[Root of Jesse]

All Catholics would agree with that, I'm sure, but you would have trouble trying to
fix or pin Infallibility or Jurisdiction, before the debacle at Trent?

Actually, no. After Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Peter "what you open, no one may shut, what you shut, no one may open. That's where Infallibility comes from. I don't know what "Jurisdiction" is, can you explain?

To say nothing of
the Immaculate part of the Lady Mary's Conception. Mind you as an Anglican, I believe The Lady is Immaculate.
When S.Paul said, "Without addition, or Dimminution, I don't think he had "Infallibility," in mind!

If you believe the Lady is Immaculate, where did that come from, and when?

 

[Open Heart]

God had established a consensus before Trent

Yes. Christians used the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanonicals, way back in the early church, before the Jews formed their shorter canon. We should go with that.

 

[Open Heart]

My placement of blame for abusive behavior by the Catholic Church, is not on the Marian doctrines, but on the mindset that is so dependant upon frequent redefinition of terms and strident denial of self contradiction.

And again, my blame for abusive behavior by the Catholic church is sinful nature.

 

[Rick Otto]

You may not realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those "stemmings", one you happen to agree with. I don't know how you can agree with authority on one thing, especially when the authority is the Holy Spirit, and disagree with that same authority on something else.

The same way I can agree with Calvin on his soteriology and part ways with him on sacramentology and ecclesiology, especially in the area of church discipline.
The magesterium is not the Holy Spirit.
You can wholly believe their claim to the Spirit's guidance, but I accept it only in part.
Same as with me... I have that same guidance, but I am similar in my inability to follow it.

 

[Rick Otto]

And again, my blame for abusive behavior by the Catholic church is sinful nature.

Right. But the fact of abuse being committed by individuals, even pope's, does not excuse the institution, rendering it separately unerring.
That is the cognitive dissonance I am occasionally confronted with.

 

[laternonjuror]

Actually, no. After Matthew 16:18, Jesus tells Peter "what you open, no one may shut, what you shut, no one may open. That's where Infallibility comes from. I don't know what "Jurisdiction" is, can you explain?
If you believe the Lady is Immaculate, where did that come from, and when?

When ever I have come across this quote it has been from Revelation , To the people of Sardis if I remember aright, but I have failed to come across any mention of S. Peter, I might have read it wrongly or my memory is faulty? There's certainly no mention of the Pope in his pseudonym or as the bishop of Rome?
Christ is infallible and Ecumenical Councils, when they are accepted freely by the Church .Certainly not the Pope.

Jurisdiction?
According to Wikipedia Article ;",By Divine Law, the Pope has Ordinary Jurisdiction,over the entire church."It is one of the Complaints made about Trent, was that the Bishops of Northern Europe abdicated their Christ given responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Bishop of Rome, this by refusing to vote on the Council till it had been passed
As I understand there are two ways the Bishop of Rome claims superior jurisdiction, one over territory in the 'Temporal realm of Earth'. I.E. It was the Bishop of Rome that ,'gave,' a free Ireland unto the English King, Henry II, Later he involved himself in to English Politics, as I mentioned earlier.
Secondly the Pope involved himself in the Sees of other Bishops without being asked or without permission.and broke the Canons of the Ecumenical Council. ( Niceae.) Another one called a Council at Trent and named it an Ecumenical Council, which is not his perogative. Further the bishops of the Church on the Continent abdicated their Christ given spiritual and ecclesiastical responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Roman Bishop. Regarding the Lady Mary?

1st, Ephesus, defined Mary as the 'Theotokos,' i.e. The Mother of God.
2nd, Council of Constantinople, 9381.) Twice referred to Mary as the,'Ever Virgin.'
2nd, Council of Ephesus, Defined Mary as being Spotless and Immaculate.

Again we have nothing to say about an Immaculate Conception.
Infact one of our scholars, Bishop Field referred to the latter council as being of ,manners, considering it crude and unpleasant to discuss the Lady Mary in such terms. (Field. Google Books. )

 

[Open Heart]

There's certainly no mention of the Pope in his pseudonym or as the bishop of Rome?

Neither is there mention of Christians being thrown to the lions, but we know this to be true as well.

 

[laternonjuror]

Neither is there mention of Christians being thrown to the lions, but we know this to be true as well.

Well put madam, but if the Vice Regent of God, on Earth, had been put to the Lions, I do think some one had mentioned it!

 

[BobRyan]

You may not realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those "stemmings", one you happen to agree with. I don't know how you can agree with authority on one thing, especially when the authority is the Holy Spirit, and disagree with that same authority on something else.

No Protestant I know - teaches the Trinity "because the Catholic Church says it is true ... well then we believe it" instead of from the Bible "alone".

Same for the "Rock" the one foundation of the church - comes from the Bible not the RCC for Protestants.

Christ was the Rock of the NT - "NO OTHER foundation can anyone lay than has been laid - CHRIST" 1Cor 3
"They all drank from the same Spiritual ROCK and that ROCK was Christ" 1 Cor 10:1-4

The Catholic Church appears to have teaching that looks like the result of a mistaken direction that some Christians started taking as early as the mid-second century and more and more took it over time.

 

[laternonjuror]

Neither is there mention of Christians being thrown to the lions, but we know this to be true as well.

This might not be the right place to publish this, wrong stream as it were,?

history-world.org to
Referring to your ladyship's insistence regarding the name of the Roman Church?

Robert A.Giusepe Editor,
Under Roman Catholic;" The name of this Church is derived from its base in Rome".
There are however a number of Eastern Rite Chuches, within the Roman Church."
Need I say more. This chap is a Romanist!

 

[Rick Otto]

"You may not realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those "stemmings"..."

Not.
Mark12:29:And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

 

[Root of Jesse]

Shown and debunked as mostly myth, exaggeration, and self serving redefinition.
If such was not the case, the culture at the Vatican would not have so much criminality and immorality, in the the history of papacy.
Protestants properly confined the Jewish contribution to the canon to what is cleverly called The Old Testament, and had God chosen the Eskimos to be His people back then, we would be trusting the Eskimos.
Is there a problem we should have with trusting Jews?
Obviously I don't understand what your saying here.

Maybe to your satisfaction, but still valid to the vast majority of Christians (Catholics), and still the Church's teaching.
Since you were Catholic, you should have learned that the Church is holy regardless of the holiness of those running the Church, or those who are among the faithful.
The point about the Jews, you may not realize that, after the Crucifixion, the Jews continued to harass, Christians. They got so unruly that the Christians just left. That's why there were no Christians around at the destruction of the temple. So I think it's better to keep your own counsel. While our Christian faith proceeded from the Jews, we are not beholden to them. By the way, you do realize that there were many different canons among the Jews? Why'd you choose the one you did?

 

[Root of Jesse]

God had established a consensus before Trent planted a Roman (post-schizm) Catholic flag and baggage on it.

What the Jews say is as arguable among them as what the Christians say, among themselves.
And it is not insignificant that what anybody says, and what anybody thinks, is arguably different from what is written.

So at the end of the day, what God has established is what is written, far more assuredly than what any of His creatures has to say or think about it.

Well, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah. The Essenes, I believe, some other group of writings, the Pharisees another. Not all the prophets were canon until after the Catholic Church,with the help of the Holy Spirit, chose their canon, which happened in the early 300's. Not at Trent. Trent set it in stone, but it was already Canon for 1200 years.