Why don't protestants bless Mary?

[Paul1963]

Not a one of those speaks of "oral tradition," and none of them refers to any particular doctrine. How could we adhere to any doctrine, from tradition or elsewise, without knowing what it is?

 

[Meowzltov]

Now that's something that looks like we agree on, Open Heart. Aside from all of the disagreements displayed here and countless other threads, I do not believe those saved during the period of Grace face judgement. Instead I believe we will face a time when we will receive the rewards of our Fruits in Christ.
At least that's how I understand your post?

Yes. I believe several things. The MOST IMPORTANT thing is that when it comes to whether we have eternal life or go to hell, we will escape that judgment by the grace of God. I also think that our temporal works are judged. Catholics view this as a Purgatory type deal, both our sins and our good works, protestants usually see it only as our good works. But what we do does matter, just not in terms of our "final destination."

 

[Meowzltov]

He obviously didn't mean the Roman Catholic Church.

You can follow a direct line in history from Ignatius' "Catholic Church" to the Catholic Church today. There was no day in history that someone declared, "I'm going to establish a new church and call it the Catholic Church."

 

[Albion]

You can follow a direct line in history from Ignatius' "Catholic Church" to the Catholic Church today.

No more or less than you can follow it to a number of other churches.

 

[Meowzltov]

No more or less than you can follow it to a number of other churches.

None of them Protestant.

 

[patricius79]

No more or less than you can follow it to a number of other churches.

How so? Did not the early Church called itself "the Catholic Church" and believe that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy, that the Lord's Supper is the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, that we are forgiven through the Sacrament of Confession, that Mary is the sinless Mother of God and is the New Eve, that there is a hierarchy of Bishop-Priest-Deacon, that we should pray for the dead, etc?

 

[Grafted In]

Yes. I believe several things. The MOST IMPORTANT thing is that when it comes to whether we have eternal life or go to hell, we will escape that judgment by the grace of God. I also think that our temporal works are judged. Catholics view this as a Purgatory type deal, both our sins and our good works, protestants usually see it only as our good works. But what we do does matter, just not in terms of our "final destination."

I believe as I do because when the rapture occurs we will be made perfect. We will instantly change from corrupt to incorruptable. We will be clothed in white as the bride of Christ.

But I understand not everyone believes the way I do. Either way we are saved and our opinion on this subject will not effect our salvation.

 

[n2thelight]

a. Ignatius wrote in 108 AD describing the Apostolic Church as the Catholic Church. Ignatius was a student of John's and ordained by Peter. It is obvious from the context that he wrote to people who were already familiar with the term, thus we know that 'Catholic Church' was already widely and use and had been used for some time. Basically, the Church born on Pentecost came to be called the Catholic Church.

b. the letters were not gathered into the canon of the New Testament until the end of the 4th century, by the authority of the bishops of the Catholic church. In the time of the Apostolic Fathers, these epistles along with many many other letters were simply passed around the churches and were not considered Scriptures. They had authority as did the other letters simply because the bishops that wrote them had authority.

Dang the gathering,fact remains they were there,and people knew what was'nt written by the Apostles...God gave us His Word,period!!!!!

The letters were written,the cc did'nt give the world that...And what they put together was corrupted,ie adding to the Word

 

[patricius79]

Dang the gathering,fact remains they were there,and people knew what was'nt written by the Apostles...God gave us His Word,period!!!!!

I agree that God gave us His Word (Catholic Tradition), which includes the teachings about Marian veneration, and that we should hold fast to the oral traditions 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I don't know if "people knew what wasn't written by the Apostles", or whether they knew that the early documents were Scripture. I know that most of the Apostles did not leave us any inspired writings (at least not that survived). And how do we know, for example, that Matthew's Gospel was written by Matthew?

 

[Meowzltov]

Dang the gathering,fact remains they were there,and people knew what was'nt written by the Apostles...God gave us His Word,period!!!!!

The letters were written,the cc did'nt give the world that...And what they put together was corrupted,ie adding to the Word

You are simply incorrect. There were books such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Peter, the Didache, Shepherd of Hermes, the Epistles of Ignatius, etc. etc. etc. that were read and referenced EVERY BIT AS MUCH by that early church.

Later in history, when the Church began to feel the need for a Canon of Scripture, there was disagreement over which books to put in. For example, some wanted to add Revelation, others wanted to keep it out.

The NT that was finally canonized is the exact NT that we have today. I have no idea why you would call it corrupted. What books does it have that you think shouldn't be there. Remember we are discussing the NEW TESTAMENT.

 

[n2thelight]

I agree that God gave us His Word (Catholic Tradition), which includes the teachings about Marian veneration, and that we should hold fast to the oral traditions 2 Thessalonians 2:15. I don't know if "people knew what wasn't written by the Apostles", or whether they knew that the early documents were Scripture. I know that most of the Apostles did not leave us any inspired writings (at least not that survived). And how do we know, for example, that Matthew's Gospel was written by Matthew?

God's Word is NOT catholic tradition........

 

[n2thelight]

I believe as I do because when the rapture occurs we will be made perfect. We will instantly change from corrupt to incorruptable. We will be clothed in white as the bride of Christ.

But I understand not everyone believes the way I do. Either way we are saved and our opinion on this subject will not effect our salvation.

It won't effect our salvation,however we shall be judged by it....

 

[n2thelight]

You are simply incorrect. There were books such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Peter, the Didache, Shepherd of Hermes, the Epistles of Ignatius, etc. etc. etc. that were read and referenced EVERY BIT AS MUCH by that early church.

Later in history, when the Church began to feel the need for a Canon of Scripture, there was disagreement over which books to put in. For example, some wanted to add Revelation, others wanted to keep it out.

The NT that was finally canonized is the exact NT that we have today. I have no idea why you would call it corrupted. What books does it have that you think shouldn't be there. Remember we are discussing the NEW TESTAMENT.

Barnabas was not a disciple......

 

[bbbbbbb]

Barnabas was not a disciple......

More to the point, we have no idea that the person who authored the "Epistle of Barnabas" was actually the same Barnabas we see in the New Testament.

 

[patricius79]

God's Word is NOT catholic tradition........

Hi n2thelight,

I think that God's Word is Catholic Tradition, which is the historic source of the N.T. Canon. I'm wondering why you ignored most of the points in my post.

 

[Paul1963]

God's Word is NOT catholic tradition........

When you use the word tradition I myself think as a practicing catholic that oral tradition and the things that the apostles verbally told us to do and how to practice them. That is what tradition is and not just things the church tells us to do.

 

[patricius79]

More to the point, we have no idea that the person who authored the "Epistle of Barnabas" was actually the same Barnabas we see in the New Testament.

I don't know about that. How do you know? Also, how do we know that Matthew wrote Matthew's Gospel? And why exactly does his writing it mean that it is inerrant?

 

[Meowzltov]

More to the point, we have no idea that the person who authored the "Epistle of Barnabas" was actually the same Barnabas we see in the New Testament.

I believe it is the consensus of scholars that the Epistle of Barnabas is not written by Barnabas. Yet it was commonly read during the era of the Apostolic Fathers.

 

[Aldebaran]

In the Word of God (Sacred Christian Tradition), of which the Scriptures are a part.

Don't just make that claim. Show it to me! You said, "Mary needed to be saved from falling into sin by the Son of God, her Son. The Mother of God's tremendous suffering in knowing that her son would be crucified, and watching him carry his cross and be crucified, is redemptive (Luke 2:35), but only by the grace of Christ. Mary's role as Mediatrix with Christ is itself a grace of Christ."

Now show me where the Word of God says these things! You make claims, but back them up with nothing but more of your claims, which is nothing but circular reasoning.

 

[Aldebaran]

In the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ, of which Jesus said: "whoever listens to you, listens to me". If one means that they want documentation, then one can study the writings of the Church throughout the centuries.

That really is just another way of saying that I have to accept it because you said it. Yeah, that's not gonna work.