Catholics:

[Albion]

Albion, I know that Our taught with parables and with figurative language. That's partly why I read what the Catholic Church's Early Fathers. Since they lived in or near Our Lord's day, they knew much more than I know about their culture, their history, their expression .

That's not necessarily so, especially since we never cite all the Fathers when attempting to prove some issue, do not confine ourselves to those who really did live close to Christ's time, and the Fathers didn't agree among themselves. In any case, they are only mortals, despite their importance, and their opinions are only opinions. Of course, they spoke in figurative and symbolic language themselves, and it's a known fact that being close to a famous teacher or even his student doesn't at all guarantee that they hold identical views. Ask Aristotle.

Sometimes I don't understand expressions that my English friends use. Why would I trust my ahistorical, interpretation of the Bible? I don't, and I wouldn't.

Well, that's a shame, considering that the Roman Church labors so heartily to convince the rest of us that it actually does believe in the revealed word of God. You know, none of us would even know Christ without the Bible, and it certainly is more important than the mass of customs, legends, and speculation from which church leaders have made selections and deemed them to be a second divine revelation that is considered to be more authoritative than Scripture--"Sacred Tradition." Since we're being candid about our own views, that's mine.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

Albion, since I should have written more clearly a post ago, please remember that I said "my ahistorical interpretation," not "the Catholic Church's interpretation." I trust the Church, and I believe everything that she has always taught.

While I wrote the post you've just answered, I thought about sola scriptura, private judgment, and what can go wrong when I read Holy Scripture without historical, theological, and ancient cultural context. The Early Church's writings supply some background information I want. But for me, the rule of faith has three parts: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Catholic Church's Teaching Authority. Thank God they're always much, much more reliable than fallible ol' me.

Now please excuse me because I need to imitate Venus Flytraps "who" just jumped into their private refrigerator for their yearly 90-day "nap." I need to go to bed. Thank Heaven, my botanical "kids" sleep much more restfully than I ever do.

Opera and carnivorous plants are, by the way, my two nonreligious, non-philosophical passions.

 

[Albion]

Albion, since I should have written more clearly a post ago, please remember that I said "my ahistorical interpretation," not "the Catholic Church's interpretation." I trust the Church, and I believe everything that she has always taught.

Yes, but it doesn't matter to me one way or the other that you believe whatever your denomination tells you to believe. That's your business, and all I'm concerned with is accuracy of what's being asserted. And if you are saying, by calling my attention to "my ahistorical interpretation," that you don't really know what's true or not, why would you make the claims that you have?

Are you seriously saying that you don't know if X is true or not, but you're going to argue that it is?? If so, I have to tell you that I do know what the historical record is with these things we've been discussing, and I wouldn't have posted what I did if I were not confident that I was telling you the truth of the matter.

While I wrote the post you've just answered, I thought about sola scriptura, private judgment, and what can go wrong when I read Holy Scripture without historical, theological, and ancient cultural context.

Well, that's quite a collection. Can we discuss them one at a time? The topic was the Eucharist only a few posts ago, and then it seemed to be Scripture vs. Tradition, so maybe we need to settle on one of them for awhile.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Albion, since I should have written more clearly a post ago, please remember that I said "my ahistorical interpretation," not "the Catholic Church's interpretation." I trust the Church, and I believe everything that she has always taught.

While I wrote the post you've just answered, I thought about sola scriptura, private judgment, and what can go wrong when I read Holy Scripture without historical, theological, and ancient cultural context. The Early Church's writings supply some background information I want. But for me, the rule of faith has three parts: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Catholic Church's Teaching Authority. Thank God they're always much, much more reliable than fallible ol' me.

Now please excuse me because I need to imitate Venus Flytraps "who" just jumped into their private refrigerator for their yearly 90-day "nap." I need to go to bed. Thank Heaven, my botanical "kids" sleep much more restfully than I ever do.

Opera and carnivorous plants are, by the way, my two nonreligious, non-philosophical passions.

One of the difficulties with Roman Catholic doctine is that it is continually evolving. For example, the doctrine of Purgatory was not developed until the late Middle Ages and even today is in the process of morhping from a place of severe punishment for temporal sins into a refreshing washing not unlike taking a shower.

Thus, it is impossible for anyone to claim they believe what the Roman Catholic church has always believed.

 

[Albion]

and I believe everything that she has always taught.

One of the difficulties with Roman Catholic doctine is that it is continually evolving. For example, the doctrine of Purgatory was not developed until the late Middle Ages and even today is in the process of morhping from a place of severe punishment for temporal sins into a refreshing washing not unlike taking a shower.

Thus, it is impossible for anyone to claim they believe what the Roman Catholic church has always believed.

Oh, I entirely agree. But when someone says that he believes everything that "the Church" has always believed, I know that what actually meant is that he chooses to believe the claim that the Church actually does that.

He is saying, IOW, that he isn't interested in learning -- and won't consider -- that many doctrines are not original with Christianity. He has already chosen his doctrines...and that is one of them.

 

[donfish06]

Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitans:

Nikos means "conqueror" or "destroyer," and laos means "people" or "laity"

What organization or "church" has conquered the laity? The Roman Catholic church. The Catholic church keeps all power in the hierarchy and allows for nothing to the laity. For hundreds of years they weren't even allowed to read the Bible! The "church" decides what the Bible means and what rules have to be followed. The "church" tells them that they cannot be saved outside of the "church." Funny, I thought that we are saved through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone?
There is no freedom of the Holy Spirit in the laity. No PERSONAL relationship with God. They don't teach you to get to know God, they teach you to get to know the Church.

Then, the Papal Conclave, through which the Holy Spirit supposedly picks its next pope, can take 3 days, or even YEARS (Papal election, 1268–71 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) to decide. How can the Holy Spirit be so unsure?

I have yet to have any response to where the foundation for Mary worship is in the Bible?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitans:

Nikos means "conqueror" or "destroyer," and laos means "people" or "laity"

What organization or "church" has conquered the laity? The Roman Catholic church. The Catholic church keeps all power in the hierarchy and allows for nothing to the laity. For hundreds of years they weren't even allowed to read the Bible! The "church" decides what the Bible means and what rules have to be followed. The "church" tells them that they cannot be saved outside of the "church." Funny, I thought that we are saved through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone?
There is no freedom of the Holy Spirit in the laity. No PERSONAL relationship with God. They don't teach you to get to know God, they teach you to get to know the Church.

Then, the Papal Conclave, through which the Holy Spirit supposedly picks its next pope, can take 3 days, or even YEARS (Papal election, 1268–71 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) to decide. How can the Holy Spirit be so unsure?

I have yet to have any response to where the foundation for Mary worship is in the Bible?

Or, you know, the Nicolaitans, named after Nicolas, the heresiarch of that sect.

But if you want to create an intensely contrived etymology in order to try and justify your own personal prejudices, don't let me stop you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[donfish06]

Or, you know, the Nicolaitans, named after Nicolas, the heresiarch of that sect.

But if you want to create an intensely contrived etymology in order to try and justify your own personal prejudices, don't let me stop you.

-CryptoLutheran

Revelations is a prophetic book, that means that what John saw in his vision hadn't happened yet. I don't know of anytime that God used a SPECIFIC name in prophecy throughout the Bible. Prophecy is always done in types. Even though there was a group referred to as Nicolaitans, symbols in prophecy are never (just) face value. It also has a spiritual context. God hates the spirit of Nicolaitism. That spirit, by defining the word itself, is STRONG in the catholic church.

Once more, no one seems to know why they worship Mary?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Revelations is a prophetic book, that means that what John saw in his vision hadn't happened yet. I don't know of anytime that God used a SPECIFIC name in prophecy throughout the Bible. Prophecy is always done in types. Even though there was a group referred to as Nicolaitans, symbols in prophecy are never (just) face value. It also has a spiritual context. God hates the spirit of Nicolaitism. That spirit, by defining the word itself, is STRONG in the catholic church.

Once more, no one seems to know why they worship Mary?

1) There is no book in the Bible called "Revelations", it's "Revelation".

2) The text is clear that it is about things from John's time and that which "must happen shortly".

3) It was written as an encyclical to seven actual churches, they are mentioned by name.

Making up your own interpretation of the Revelation based upon your own assumptions without bothering with content and context doesn't help your claims any.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[WisdomTree]

Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Nicolaitans:

Nikos means "conqueror" or "destroyer," and laos means "people" or "laity"

What organization or "church" has conquered the laity? The Roman Catholic church. The Catholic church keeps all power in the hierarchy and allows for nothing to the laity. For hundreds of years they weren't even allowed to read the Bible! The "church" decides what the Bible means and what rules have to be followed. The "church" tells them that they cannot be saved outside of the "church." Funny, I thought that we are saved through Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone?
There is no freedom of the Holy Spirit in the laity. No PERSONAL relationship with God. They don't teach you to get to know God, they teach you to get to know the Church.

Then, the Papal Conclave, through which the Holy Spirit supposedly picks its next pope, can take 3 days, or even YEARS (Papal election, 1268–71 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) to decide. How can the Holy Spirit be so unsure?

I have yet to have any response to where the foundation for Mary worship is in the Bible?

You really should look up Nicolaitans, they were a heretical Gnostic sects that actually existed thus condemned by the Church.

Also, the Catholic Church does not claim that the Holy Ghost directly picks the next Pope, though the Cardinals may be influenced. I think you're confusing ex cathedra which is a whole different matter.

Who said that Catholics (and Orthodox for that matter) worships Mary? Fundamental Evangelical Neo-Protestants?

 

[donfish06]

2) The text is clear that it is about things from John's time and that which "must happen shortly".

How is it clear? and where does it say it must happen shortly? If it was just for those churches, why is it in the Bible? What need have we for it?

3) It was written as an encyclical to seven actual churches, they are mentioned by name.

That is the literal meaning, but God set a precedent in the scriptures that there is almost ALWAYS a spiritual meaning behind everything, ESPECIALLY prophecy. There is a spiritual context as well.

Making up your own interpretation of the Revelation based upon your own assumptions without bothering with content and context doesn't help your claims any.

Assuming that I made up my interpretation doesn't help yourself, either

 

[ViaCrucis]

How is it clear? and where does it say it must happen shortly?

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants the things that must soon take place." - Revelation 1:1

"Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this." - Revelation 1:19

If it was just for those churches, why is it in the Bible? What need have we for it?

I didn't say it was just for them. I said it was written to them. We have lots in the Bible written to people that aren't us. Say, all of the epistles.

"To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." - Romans 1:7

"To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" - 1 Corinthians 1:2

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Jesus Christ:" - Ephesians 1:1

etc

That is the literal meaning, but God set a precedent in the scriptures that there is almost ALWAYS a spiritual meaning behind everything, ESPECIALLY prophecy. There is a spiritual context as well.

You'll need to prove that to be the case. That Scripture is often encoded in some esoteric double-meaning.

I believe the Bible is inspired, not magick. I don't do much with esoterica.

Now if you want to say that the Revelation is an apocalyptic text that should be read apocalyptically, and thus not read as a literal, future-telling text; I'd agree with you. But I have a feeling that's not quite what you have in mind.

Assuming that I made up my interpretation doesn't help yourself, either

Oh, I'm aware that you didn't come up with it on your own--I've heard this interpretation many times over the years. But it's never been particularly meaningful, it's still an interpretation that is entirely baseless, without substantiation, and exists being fabricated out from hot air.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GenetoJean]

What does Vicarius Filii Dei mean?

"Vicarius Filii Dei" means "Vicar of the Son of God."

So the pope is taking the place of Jesus?

Lets just look at what "Vicar of the Son of God" means:

Son of God would be Jesus

vic·ar
ˈvikər
noun
noun: vicar; plural noun: vicars

1. 1.
   (in the Roman Catholic Church) a representative or deputy of a bishop
   
   
   
   

So that would mean he is Jesus' representative or deputy. NOT taking his place.

 

[GenetoJean]

...Once more, no one seems to know why they worship Mary?

(Snipped for brevity)

was answered:

We don't.

But we do see the reasons why one would show honor to the Blessed Virgin, as she is the mother of God. But that's not a Roman Catholic thing, that's just a generically Christian thing. To deny that Mary is Theotokos is to deny Christian teaching concerning the Hypostatic Union.
-CryptoLutheran

(Snipped for brevity)

Because you choose to ignore it doesnt mean it wasnt answered.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Lets just look at what "Vicar of the Son of God" means:

Son of God would be Jesus

vic·ar
ˈvikər
noun
noun: vicar; plural noun: vicars

1. 1.
   (in the Roman Catholic Church) a representative or deputy of a bishop

So that would mean he is Jesus' representative or deputy. NOT taking his place.

It does, in a sense, mean to "be in the place of", but not as one's replacement or substitute, but as one acting in the authority of, to act in one's stead.

For example, when at my church we confess our sins to God, our pastor speaks the words of Absolution, pronouncing forgiveness of sins in Christ's stead. The pastor hasn't replaced Jesus, hasn't usurped Christ's place as Mediator, as source of forgiveness of our sin, etc; but rather by Christ's authority (John 20:23) pronounces the forgiveness of sins that is from Christ, in Christ's name, by Christ's authority.

Every pastor, therefore, stands "vicarius Christi" in some sense, to act as shepherd of Christ's flock--Christ Himself being True Shepherd. A pastor isn't a subsitute, a replacement, but representative of, one acting in the stead of Christ to speak the words of Jesus for the sake of Jesus' Church.

When the Pope is called "Vicarius Christi" it is in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church understands Christ to have elected St. Peter to stand in His stead as visible head of the Church on earth. To stand as pastor of pastors, bishop of bishops. Not that the Pope has replaced Christ as Head of the Church.

I don't agree with it, but we should at least be speaking about the actual ideas, not imaginary ones.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[WisdomTree]

It does, in a sense, mean to "be in the place of", but not as one's replacement or substitute, but as one acting in the authority of, to act in one's stead.

For example, when at my church we confess our sins to God, our pastor speaks the words of Absolution, pronouncing forgiveness of sins in Christ's stead. The pastor hasn't replaced Jesus, hasn't usurped Christ's place as Mediator, as source of forgiveness of our sin, etc; but rather by Christ's authority (John 20:23) pronounces the forgiveness of sins that is from Christ, in Christ's name, by Christ's authority.

Every pastor, therefore, stands "vicarius Christi" in some sense, to act as shepherd of Christ's flock--Christ Himself being True Shepherd. A pastor isn't a subsitute, a replacement, but representative of, one acting in the stead of Christ to speak the words of Jesus for the sake of Jesus' Church.

When the Pope is called "Vicarius Christi" it is in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church understands Christ to have elected St. Peter to stand in His stead as visible head of the Church on earth. To stand as pastor of pastors, bishop of bishops. Not that the Pope has replaced Christ as Head of the Church.

I don't agree with it, but we should at least be speaking about the actual ideas, not imaginary ones.

-CryptoLutheran

In the military too there is a term used just like the Church's "vicar". It is the rank; "lieutenant". To look at the origins of the rank lieutenant one must first look at the origin "captain". Captain literally means, "chief", and the rank was usually awarded as a commission to a vassal lord. Now every captain had a second-in-charge, the lieutenants which literally means "one in place", and as the executive officer to the captain, the lieutenants would always take command in the absence of their captain.

The same concept applies to the Catholic Church when we use the term "Vicar of Christ". The bishop of Rome whom we call Pope, is not someone who replaces Christ as the head of the Church. No, Christ is and shall always be the head of his Church. It is by the physical absence of Christ on earth where the Pope takes charge "in place" or "on behalf" of Christ until his return.

Of course not everyone agrees on the role of the Papacy, but the title and role are not theological abhorrent like many people say it is.

 

[donfish06]

1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Leaves no room for a pope

 

[WisdomTree]

1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Leaves no room for a pope

That's like saying that this verse leaves no room for any pastors what so ever. The first and the most important role of the Pope is none other than being a pastor of his flock.

 

[donfish06]

That's like saying that this verse leaves no room for any pastors what so ever. The first and the most important role of the Pope is none other than being a pastor of his flock.

But the Pope and the priests are considered mediators, no?

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's like saying that this verse leaves no room for any pastors what so ever. The first and the most important role of the Pope is none other than being a pastor of his flock.

Precisely, what is the scope of the Pope's flock?