Question about "sola scriptura"

[Wolf_Says]

And in addition to my last comment on this post of yours I should say that Peter, which your church claims as its founder (rather than Christ, as I say)

No, we know that Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. Peter was the very first Pope of the Catholic Church.
Where did you even get this??

I Corinthians 9:5 which includes the other apostles...contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church which does not allow a priest to marry. It can be clearly seen by that all-illuminating Word that this is a false teaching and a destructive heresy...

Incorrect on this part that I bolded for you. Allow me to show you real quick.
1 Corinthians 7:6-7 " 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another."
1 Corinthians 7:32-35 "
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."

Also, it's your choice to become a priest, or get married. If you become a priest you understand that you are vowing to a life of celibacy. Simple as that, it is not forced upon you like you are not forced to become a priest.

Here are some benefits to celibacy for priests. (10 to be exact)

1. It leaves the priest free to more fully commit his life to the service of the Lord and the laity.
   
   
2. The Church has found it is better to keep priests moving from parish to parish every few years, perhaps for a few reasons, including the desire to prevent a cult of personality from building around a particular priest. This situation can put too much focus on the man rather than on the Gospel message. So, the Church prudently moves priests around. Can you imagine how much stress it would cause a priest to have to move his wife and family each time he is assigned to a new parish? Having a celibate priesthood also enables the bishop the full flexibility he needs to move priests around.
   
   
3. To be able to lay his life down for his flock. Because a celibate priest does not have the obligation of a wife and children, he can give of himself more easily, including his own life, if necessary. For example, Blessed Damien de Veuster of Belgium was able to work with lepers on the island of Molokai, Hawaii, because of the freedom he had in being a celibate minister. This work eventually led to his contracting and dying from leprosy.
   
   
4. It is a sign of contradiction and a great Christian witness to our society, which is flooded with sexually permissive messages. Celibacy surely gains the Catholic clergy a hidden respect from many people.
   
   
5. It gives the priest greater credibility when he asks the laity to make sacrifices, because the laity knows that celibacy involves sacrifice.
   
   
6. It helps the priest master his passions and also gives him more time for prayer, which is the lifeblood of any ministry.
   
   
7. It enables a priest to be more objective when counseling married couples. Because he is not married, he is not going to project any personal marriage problems or biases onto the the couple he is counseling.
   
   
8. In many cases it enables the priest to be a "spiritual father" to more people than he would as a married man (1 Cor. 4:15).
   
   
9. It allows the Church to put the hundreds of millions of dollars it saves in priestly salaries to the evangelization and charitable assistance of a needy world. Although priests do receive salaries, they are much lower than they would have to be if they had families to support.
   
   
10. Its a foreshadowing that there will be no marriage in heaven (Mt. 22:30)

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Catholic Church does not force priests to become priests, it is entirely voluntary.

Yes, those who are sola scriptura know the Truth and those who are not are just stabbing at it from the dark.

If they knew the truth and understood the Bible, they would also understand how Sola Scriptura is un-biblical and found nowhere in the Bible.

 

[thecolorsblend]

For your convenience, I included a red arrow above the button you can click to quote my post. This will alert me that you have replied. Thanks!

the video starts at the timestamp.

It started from the beginning when I played it. And again, I won't sit through a ten minute video just to listen to a prayer which probably lasts thirty seconds. So, again, please provide the exact time in the video where the prayer starts or else post a transcript of the prayer so that I might review its content. Thanks!

so you do approve of these prayers. well there you go.

I approve of the ones which have my Church's approval, yes.

I know (or at least I've been told) that there are Marian devotions and prayers which are not approved by the Holy See so obviously those I won't pray.

this basically shows that Christ's sole mediation is insufficient for rome.

If you believe in intercessory prayer (and as a Christian, you sort of have to since it's both permitted and explicitly advised in Sacred Scripture) then the idea of asking someone to pray for you shouldn't be a major hurdle.

Thus where you and I disagree isn't over asking for intercessory prayer. Rather, it's a matter of degree. I believe asking those in Heaven to pray for me is at least as effectual as asking a fellow Christian on this side of the veil to pray for me... but probably more effectual since a Christian in Heaven has a much closer communion with God than anybody on Earth does.

they have to pray to someone else, whether it be mary, saints, whatever.

Yes. And as I stated in my other post on this subject, these are not prayers of worship. Veneration, yes, but not worship. Instead, these are prayers of communion. "Prayer" in the Catholic understanding means "to petition". If you choose to narrowly define prayer as an act of worship, good for you. But it's improper to impute that same definition upon others and then castigate them for things they are not doing.

The scripture is clear. there is only one mediator who is Christ Jesus. rome rejects this.

Normally I would've reported this post and moved along. But, with all due respect, it looks like you don't know 1/16th as much as you think you do which I'd like to correct... and, in any case, others may benefit from me replying to you.

That said, don't presume to dictate to me what I do and don't believe again.

also mary is not the mother of God. God is a trinity. she is not the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. she is the earthly birth mother of Jesus.

And Our Lord is God, yes? "Mother of God" or "Bearer of God" (and variations) are very old titles for Our Lady. St. Irenaeus, for example, said outright that she bore God.

But to build out from there, you're speaking from a uniquely 21st century point of view. We live in a time (and I live in a country) where a plurality recognize Our Lord's divinity. But things weren't always this way. In ancient times, it was common for people to recognize Our Lord as something other than divine. There are reasons for that which we don't need to go into here.

The relevant issue is denying the Incarnation is at the root of most heresies. When you boil most heresies down to their core essence, they usually deny the Incarnation on some level or another.

Therefore referring to Our Lady as the Mother of God, God-Bearer or other titles recognizes Our Lord's divine nature. It's an in-your-face proclamation of the Incarnation. These titles are meant to deny trendy heresies common in the ancient world which attempted to categorize Our Lord as something other than God the Son.

With respect, I recommend doing your homework in these matters as rejecting Our Lady's various titles might seem like a good faith action to take but it ignores why these titles ever existed in the first place.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

No, we know that Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church. Peter was the very first Pope of the Catholic Church.
Where did you even get this??



Incorrect on this part that I bolded for you. Allow me to show you real quick.
1 Corinthians 7:6-7 " 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another."
1 Corinthians 7:32-35 "
32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."

Also, it's your choice to become a priest, or get married. If you become a priest you understand that you are vowing to a life of celibacy. Simple as that, it is not forced upon you like you are not forced to become a priest.

Here are some benefits to celibacy for priests. (10 to be exact)

1. It leaves the priest free to more fully commit his life to the service of the Lord and the laity.
   
   
2. The Church has found it is better to keep priests moving from parish to parish every few years, perhaps for a few reasons, including the desire to prevent a cult of personality from building around a particular priest. This situation can put too much focus on the man rather than on the Gospel message. So, the Church prudently moves priests around. Can you imagine how much stress it would cause a priest to have to move his wife and family each time he is assigned to a new parish? Having a celibate priesthood also enables the bishop the full flexibility he needs to move priests around.
   
   
3. To be able to lay his life down for his flock. Because a celibate priest does not have the obligation of a wife and children, he can give of himself more easily, including his own life, if necessary. For example, Blessed Damien de Veuster of Belgium was able to work with lepers on the island of Molokai, Hawaii, because of the freedom he had in being a celibate minister. This work eventually led to his contracting and dying from leprosy.
   
   
4. It is a sign of contradiction and a great Christian witness to our society, which is flooded with sexually permissive messages. Celibacy surely gains the Catholic clergy a hidden respect from many people.
   
   
5. It gives the priest greater credibility when he asks the laity to make sacrifices, because the laity knows that celibacy involves sacrifice.
   
   
6. It helps the priest master his passions and also gives him more time for prayer, which is the lifeblood of any ministry.
   
   
7. It enables a priest to be more objective when counseling married couples. Because he is not married, he is not going to project any personal marriage problems or biases onto the the couple he is counseling.
   
   
8. In many cases it enables the priest to be a "spiritual father" to more people than he would as a married man (1 Cor. 4:15).
   
   
9. It allows the Church to put the hundreds of millions of dollars it saves in priestly salaries to the evangelization and charitable assistance of a needy world. Although priests do receive salaries, they are much lower than they would have to be if they had families to support.
   
   
10. Its a foreshadowing that there will be no marriage in heaven (Mt. 22:30)

Catholic Church does not force priests to become priests, it is entirely voluntary.



If they knew the truth and understood the Bible, they would also understand how Sola Scriptura is un-biblical and found nowhere in the Bible.

You quoted the Corinthians verses of Paul/God's commands to the saints, but fail to really take in this verse...
6 I say this by way of concession, not of command.
Similarly, Jesus says:
Matthew 19:11-12:
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Elders, deacons and overseers are also allowed to marry; we see this in I Timothy.

As for Peter as the founder of the church or whatever Catholics ascribe him, Ii've discussed Scripture with many and that is what they find. Their rational for the Catholic Church being THE Church is that Jesus declared it when He told Peter...upon this rock I shall build my church. (Yet Peter when astray and had to be corrected by Paul we read in Galations.
Nope, you have to read the Scriptures and evaluate a church and its practices and teachings and if your home church, you soooo dearly love, proves to be false, well then you must leave of stand up or attempt to correct first and leave if you fail. Jesus tells us to be loyal unto death.
Mark 10:29-31:
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

 

[Wolf_Says]

You quoted the Corinthians verses of Paul/God's commands to the saints, but fail to really take in this verse...
6 I say this by way of concession, not of command.
Similarly, Jesus says:
Matthew 19:11-12:
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Elders, deacons and overseers are also allowed to marry; we see this in I Timothy.

As for Peter as the founder of the church or whatever Catholics ascribe him, Ii've discussed Scripture with many and that is what they find. Their rational for the Catholic Church being THE Church is that Jesus declared it when He told Peter...upon this rock I shall build my church. (Yet Peter when astray and had to be corrected by Paul we read in Galations.
Nope, you have to read the Scriptures and evaluate a church and its practices and teachings and if your home church, you soooo dearly love, proves to be false, well then you must leave of stand up or attempt to correct first and leave if you fail. Jesus tells us to be loyal unto death.
Mark 10:29-31:
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

So you give me no quotes about anything related to the topic and still claim that my Church is a heretical onr.


As I am on my phone I cant give verses right now, but I will say this.

Jesus startef the Church with Peter as the firdt Pope. Peter, just like all popes are still human and can error.

Not sure why that requires explanation.

Also priests not marrying is not a doctrine of faith and the Church can change it if they so desire. I see no reason for them too, but they can.

So please, what exactly are you trying to get at? As you are not making your point.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

So the birth of somebody has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of their life? If Mary had said no, Jesus would not have been born and become True God and True Man, meaning His death and resurrection would not have taken place.

this is like saying a guy who scored 40 in a game and hit the game winner to win by 2 points would not have won the game if he didn't hit his first 2 points of the game 2 minutes in the first quarter. while technically this would be true, those first 2 points didn't win the game, the buzzer beater did.

Jesus being born didn't save us, his sinless life, His death and resurrection, and blood being shed for us on the cross did.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Mary is the Mother of God Jesus Christ, so yes she is actually the mother of God, the Son. The daughter of the Father, and wife of the Holy Spirit.

wow.....just...NO!

"mary the mother of God" is an erroneous and even heretical statement, point plank. God is a trinity. Father, Son and Spirit. She is not the mother of the Father or the Spirit. She is not even the mother of the eternal Son of God as this would mean that the Eternal Son of God is not eternal and had to be conceived. finite cannot begat infinite. the eternal Son TOOK ON human flesh through natural birth through mary.

she is the earthly mother of the Man Christ Jesus. that is all.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

It started from the beginning when I played it.

I suppose the timestamp feature doesn't work for some browsers. it starts at the 7:30 mark.
i'll ask you and the other person more directly. would you pray this prayer?

And Our Lord is God, yes?

correct, He is the second person of the triune God.

but it doesn't say "mother of the Lord" but "mother of God". Jesus is God, the father is God, the Holy Spirit is God.

using such a term to combat those who would deny Christ's divinity is a bad idea. to wrongs don't make a right.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

another thing I would like to point out that i'm already seeing is those who I am interacting with want to take this away from what Scripture says and into what this or that church father said.

the problem with that is those people are not infallible and actually have no authority to tell anyone anything. you can point to as many 'church fathers' as you would like and date what they say as far back as you'd like. bottomline, they're not Jesus or the apostles, and falsehood doesn't become truth with age.

Paul wrote about people spewing heresies right in the Scripture, so you already had people saying this and that even in Paul's time.

now, if you want to present an argument from any of these men that substantiates romanist doctrine as being biblical, I would take interest in that. it will be zero currency, however, to tell me that this or that doctrine is right because this or that guy said it a long time ago.

I don't adhere to 'calvinism' because calvin said it. I adhere to it because it's biblical.

 

[thecolorsblend]

i'll ask you and the other person more directly. would you pray this prayer?

Sounds like the Novena to Our Mother of Perpetual Help. And yes, I would pray that prayer. Am I correct in assuming you regard that as a bad idea?

but it doesn't say "mother of the Lord" but "mother of God". Jesus is God, the father is God, the Holy Spirit is God.

using such a term to combat those who would deny Christ's divinity is a bad idea. to wrongs don't make a right.

And yet it was successful in enforcing orthodoxy in a time and a place when doing so was of imperative concern to the Church.

Incidentally, yours seems like a distinction without a difference. I'm not sure why calling the Mother of God the "Mother of the Lord" is any better than calling her the "Mother of God".

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Sounds like the Novena to Our Mother of Perpetual Help. And yes, I would pray that prayer. Am I correct in assuming you regard that as a bad idea?

OUCH!!

are you sure?

mother of the Lord(messiah) points to Jesus, mother of God points to the triune God.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

you would seriously pray a prayer that says about mary "in your hands I place my eternal salvation and to you I intrust my soul"?

about mary "I would neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably".

say it aint so!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

So you give me no quotes about anything related to the topic and still claim that my Church is a heretical onr.


As I am on my phone I cant give verses right now, but I will say this.

Jesus startef the Church with Peter as the firdt Pope. Peter, just like all popes are still human and can error.

Not sure why that requires explanation.

Also priests not marrying is not a doctrine of faith and the Church can change it if they so desire. I see no reason for them too, but they can.

So please, what exactly are you trying to get at? As you are not making your point.

How can an erring pope over-ride the Scriptures or add to them? No, Peter was not the first pope; the word never even appears in Scripture. And, we see Peter as more of a follower than a leader among the apostles. We see the apostle Paul...who penned much of the N.T....giving authority to Timothy as his student and assistant. We see Paul, in the book of Titus, ordering the appointment of leaders. A position of pope was never set up and there is no mention of such a position. We see this passage to prove it:
I Corinthians 12:27-31:
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

From this passage we see that Apostles are first, no pope, and this position is shared. We also see that members of the body may have many types of gifts which the Catholic Church reserve for approved saints...though Paul refers to all believers as saints. There are so many extras in the Catholic Church that it would require a very lengthy research paper to report it all.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Catholic Church does not force priests to become priests, it is entirely voluntary.

What is more, the Eastern Catholics have married priests, in the "old country" anyway.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

wow.....just...NO!

"mary the mother of God" is an erroneous and even heretical statement, point plank. God is a trinity. Father, Son and Spirit. She is not the mother of the Father or the Spirit. She is not even the mother of the eternal Son of God as this would mean that the Eternal Son of God is not eternal and had to be conceived. finite cannot begat infinite. the eternal Son TOOK ON human flesh through natural birth through mary.

she is the earthly mother of the Man Christ Jesus. that is all.

This of course the doctrine of Nestorius, which was rejected by the early Church at the Council of Ephesus, for very important reasons, relating to John 1:1-14.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

No, Peter was not the first pope; the word never even appears in Scripture.

The Roman archbishops did not begin to refer to themselves as Papem, or Pope, a practice that started with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, who are still called Pope (HH Tawadros II the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, and His Beatitude the Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alecandria and All Africa), until the 6th century.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

OUCH!!

are you sure?

mother of the Lord(messiah) points to Jesus, mother of God points to the triune God.

This again comes across as being Nestorian, by creating a false dichotomy between the man Jesus and the Word, which does an unacceptable violence to the doctrine of the Incarnation and the idea of our Lord as theanthropos, which is of course scriptural on the basis of John 1.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

This again comes across as being Nestorian, by creating a false dichotomy between the man Jesus and the Word, which does an unacceptable violence to the doctrine of the Incarnation and the idea of our Lord as theanthropos, which is of course scriptural on the basis of John 1.

I suppose that would be so if I claimed Jesus was not the second person of trinity, which I certainly do not.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I suppose that would be so if I claimed Jesus was not the second person of trinity, which I certainly do not.

Let us be clear: Nestorius was a Trinitarian, Nestorius was Nicene. But there is still a fundamental error in his doctrine, and that is to create a false dichotomy between the humanity and divinity of our Lord.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Let us be clear: Nestorius was a Trinitarian, Nestorius was Nicene. But there is still a fundamental error in his doctrine, and that is to create a false dichotomy between the humanity and divinity of our Lord.

and what would that false dichotomy be?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

The Roman archbishops did not begin to refer to themselves as Papem, or Pope, a practice that started with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, who are still called Pope (HH Tawadros II the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, and His Beatitude the Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alecandria and All Africa), until the 6th century.

and is that not a veeting from Scripture too?