Was the original Catholic Church created by power hungry zealots?

[Root of Jesse]

I am literally sitting here reeling from the statement that Mary 'literally delivers the Word'. I notice you capitalize it. There is a choice between a metaphor and allegory, a metaphor is between two distinct things and an allegory is a private interpretation which is not an exposition at all. I can see we have abandoned the Apostolic and Scriptural witness here in favor of what I do not know. Jesus was spitted out? I'm disappointed, I have longed to identify more with my Catholic brethren and sought to be more engaged on things we can identify with as Christians. I'm deeply envious of the ecclesiastical traditions of Orthodox and Catholic institutions and as a Calvinist, strive to reclaim those sacred moorings.

Are you seriously saying Mary didn't deliver Jesus? John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God."

Then I read something like this and the ecclesiastical authority that has reserved it's right to be the sole interpreter of Scripture fails to provide a single comprehensive exposition of requisite proof texts. No disrespect intended to @Root of Jesse, he has been very interesting in his treatment of the subject matter. What does this say of the opinion of Rome with regards to the Levitical, Prophetic and most importantly, the Apostolic witness? Does Rome represent the Apostolic witness or replace it I wonder. Because I see nothing in Holy Script venerating Mary, only honoring her as one of many sinners saved by the atonement of the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mary was human, but God saved her before her birth because he foreknew her role in Salvation History. For her to be titled "Full of Grace" is another indication. One cannot be full of grace if one has sin inside one.
An analogy might help.
You're walking down the road toward a huge mud puddle that you don't see. I notice that, and stop you from falling in the puddle. I've saved you. If I noticed it too late, and you fell in, and I helped you up, and helped you clean up, I've saved you, as well.
I know, it's weak, but maybe you can get it.

 

[mark kennedy]

It means Mary because the Early Fathers of the Church said it means Mary, and because the Church has the authority to say it means Mary. On a different level, it means Israel. The thing you don't seem to understand is that apocalyptic literature had many ways of interpreting it. The reason I agree that the woman can mean Israel is based on one way of interpreting it. But the literal is that the woman IS Mary. It's not an interpretation. The woman gave birth to Jesus, and that can only mean she's one person. That's just the way it is. I know you disagree. That's what Protestants do. I'm done arguing with you, it'll get neither of us anywhere.

What isn't infallible about Revelation is the way some people interpret it. Pre-Trib, post-trib, mid, whatever. Also, when it was written, by whom, and so on. And when it was written, and by whom makes all the difference in how it is interpreted. Many believe Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem, and that casts it in a whole different light.

When it comes to the ECF, I'm happy to hear them out but don't necessarily agree. As far as you thing this woman is Mary it's just got holes you could drive a truck through. Supposedly Mary is assumed bodily into heaven. So what is shr doing on earth being pursued by the dragon, who was cast out if heaven, for 3v1/2 years? Now as far as the baby about to be born, Jesus has already been born a long time ago, no need to do it again.

Oh and you this is some kind of an argument, i just don't see it that way, your obviously allegirizing and making the text say something alien to the text.

 

[redleghunter]

No, it's not. That's why some Christians don't believe it. It's not apparent in Scripture. I know-the Father is there, so is the Son, so is the Holy Spirit. But what that means (=doctrine) is not there.

You just proved my statement to be correct by what you wrote above. There are only two logical conclusions either Trinitarian or Tritheism. When we add the OT to the mix only Trinitarian doctrine is feasible from the full revelation of God in Holy Scriptures.

Right. Those were heresies. Doctrine comes from Scripture, but what it means does not. Otherwise, you would see, and we could agree, that Baptism saves you, sacramentally. You'd also see that John 6 means that we MUST eat His flesh to have life in us.

There are two major approaches to interpretation. Either exegesis or eisegesis. Protestants tend to employ exegesis when handling doctrinal matters and expository examination. Meaning taking in the whole council of God in Holy Scriptures.

Catholics tend to approach from tradition on doctrinal matters and then go to Scriptures to confirm the tradition. That would be taking a statement and reading into the text which is eisegesis.

There is the difference and why we have differing views of Holy Communion and Baptism.

One method draws out the truth from Scriptures and considers all of them especially the context.

The other begins with a premise and looks for support from Scriptures no matter the context.

For example, Matthew 16 is used by the Catholic Church to prove Petrine supremacy. That Peter was the only one who Christ left the keys to the kingdom.

As an Evangelical you will be shocked I believe that. But more on that down a bit.

The Roman Catholic Church as I mentioned sees this as something successive yet we have only claims from Popes starting in the 4th century claiming this. The first being Pope Damasus. Even Catholic scholars admit there was no Pope or primacy in the early centuries of the Church and one says none could be found in the 1st century. I can provide you these resources but you have seen them in the past.

So why does an Evangelical and a Catholic both believe it is true Peter had the keys? The Scriptures show us in Acts that Peter exercised the keys.

He led the Jews who believed at Pentecost into the Kingdom. He led the Samaritans into the Kingdom in Acts. And in Acts 10 he led the Gentiles into the Kingdom. The three groups of souls the Jews the Samaritans and Gentiles our Lord categorized in the Gospels received the Promise by Peter’s leadership. IMO as a reward for his confession that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

The keys have been exercised as we consider the full revelation of God and not just portions of it.

I can prove every doctrine of the Church from Scripture.

There are many Catholic doctrines which can be for certain. We share these truths. However, where there are differences I can point out which ones don’t have the full council of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures supporting them. Just on this thread alone both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have used catch all verses to actually argue from silence as in John 21:25

 

[mark kennedy]

I didn't pull it out of my hat, and the Church says it was Christ. Authority matters.

Prophecy can be like that, it obviously alludes to the birth of Christ. Not all prophecy is predictive, prophetic oracles can also infer events in redemptive history. This one is just too detail specific, it's clearly predictive of a time half way thru the tribulation when Israel flees the Antichrist. Speak where the Scriptures speak and remain silent where they are silent.

What your doing is inferring something the Scriptures obviously are not saying, you've in as much as admitted it. Mary was very special, a woman to be admired. Venerated, prayed to and worshiped is orders of magnitude higher and even angels refuse worship. The issue is a biblical one and you are not offering a sound exposition here. A text without a context is a pretext.

And btw, my compliments on your gentlemanly demeanor, I always appreciate a civil tone.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, you're jumping off a cliff now. We don't worship Mary, and Trent never said that we have to worship Mary. I can point to devotions to Mary long before Medieval times, whatever that means, back to the second century. I can show you places where there are statues of her from the early 5th century.
You cannot show in scripture, where Mary had other children, you cannot show, from history, where she was buried, where her bones are, and so on. And her Immaculate Conception (you really need to type better...) is based on Scripture. Did she not carry the Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest inside her for 9 months? Because that OT structure, the Ark of the Covenant, was so pure that one who was without the proper authority touched it, and died. The Ark of the Covenant carried the Word of God, the Bread of Life, and the High Priest's staff.
Look, Mark, I know you don't see all this stuff. I get it. If you're interested enough to learn about it, whether you believe it or not, is a different issue, I can help. But your criticism isn't going to do either of us a whit of good.

Ok first of all I'm a careless typer with a poor spell checker, my bad. Secondly I was a heart beat away from taking RICA classes because I was raised Catholic and would love to embrace Catholic tradition, but devotions to Mary are a deal breaker. I can be many things, hypocrisy isn't something I can do.

That said, I do get it, and while not all do many do worship Mary, obviously you don't. Well and good. I'm not here to judge you or anyone else, I just see nothing in Scripture that suggests Mary can hear prayers. The virgin birth is a vital doctrine, arguably the first Messianic prophecy in Scripture. I'm convinced the 'seed of the woman' is the virgin birth.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your point of view but your attempt at an exposition of Rev. 12 is more allegory then anything else. As far as Jesus having brothers and sisters it's crystal clear; Mark 3:31-35; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21. James presided over the Council of Jerusalem, specifically because he was the brother of Jesus. Not only did they see Jesus as the rightful successor to the throne of David they would have seen his brothers as falling under the Davidic line.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you seriously saying Mary didn't deliver Jesus? John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God."

Why would I ever suggest such a thing? Jesus was the Son of God for all eternity past and Mary did carry his physical body to term, I wouldn't dream to suggest otherwise.

Mary was human, but God saved her before her birth because he foreknew her role in Salvation History. For her to be titled "Full of Grace" is another indication. One cannot be full of grace if one has sin inside one.

On the contrary, grace is the absence of merit, grace is bestowed as a free gift. She was full of grace, we Calvinists love her to btw. None of us can approach God without grace and it's specifically because we are sinners that we need grace. The angel didn't say sinless, he said full of grace. She believed the message the angel delivered, thus grace through faith.

An analogy might help.
You're walking down the road toward a huge mud puddle that you don't see. I notice that, and stop you from falling in the puddle. I've saved you. If I noticed it too late, and you fell in, and I helped you up, and helped you clean up, I've saved you, as well.
I know, it's weak, but maybe you can get it.

Mary, like let's say Daniel is one of those rare believers that we can't really find a sin to her credit, we could say Job as well. We know she was virtuous, no one is going to argue otherwise, at least I hope not. But how could a person apart from the sacrifice of Christ be without sin?

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:22-24)
​

I ask you, does all mean all or are there exceptions like Mary?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it's not. That's why some Christians don't believe it. It's not apparent in Scripture. I know-the Father is there, so is the Son, so is the Holy Spirit. But what that means (=doctrine) is not there.Right. Those were heresies.

Ok you lost me, not that I should be barging in on the other exchange.

Doctrine comes from Scripture, but what it means does not.

See why I'm a Protestant, this makes no sense to me. If Rome has the right to interpretation then I would expect them to be able to do a sound exposition and they fail far too often. The Scriptures are perfectly capable of interpreting themselves, I seldom find figurative language that isn't explained somewhere in the immediate context.

Otherwise, you would see, and we could agree, that Baptism saves you, sacramentally. You'd also see that John 6 means that we MUST eat His flesh to have life in us.

The baptism into Christ saves you, there can be no question about that one. But that is through the agency of the Holy Spirit not the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus explained what he meant by 'eat my flesh and drink my blood' and he didn't mean actual bread, quite the opposite. The people he was addressing only cared about bread, Jesus was saying I am the bread that comes down from heaven, you must believe in me. It's right there in the context and frankly, Jesus didn't think himself a loaf of bread, he is obviously speaking figuratively. The thief on the cross simply said remember me when you come into your kingdom and Jesus told him today you will be with me in paradise. He had no time or means for sacraments, he simply submitted to the Savior, that's exactly how the Scriptures describe how salvation works. I don't dismiss the sacraments as meaningless rituals but apart from faith in Christ they are meaningless.

I think you're missing my point. What you said at the end is correct though. All doctrines proceed from Holy Scripture. Absolutely. I can prove every doctrine of the Church from Scripture.

You do try, I'll give you that.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There is no question that doctrine develops, and there is nothing wrong with that. The doctrine of the Trinity developed. The doctrine of the nature of original sin developed. All doctrine develops. NONE is Biblical, though all have their origin in Scripture.

As your premise is false, so also is your conclusion. First, for something to be "Biblical" and requiring belief it must be clearly stated in Scripture or be warranted by the collective weight of Scriptural substantiation, which is how and why Apollos could and did "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28) Supernatural attestation such as Scripture affirms God accompanying gospel preaching also can be part of that substantiation, but which manner of attestation and the validity of what supports is subject to testing by that which is written, as even the preaching of the apostles was (Acts 17:11) and the deceiving miracles of the devil must be. (2 Thessalonians 2:9)

Thus the necessary belief in the resurrection of Christ was not something that developed over centuries, much less as based upon late evidence, and with the veracity of it resting upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Secondly, there is required belief and then their is the detailed doctrine of it, and as regards the the Trinity, we can see this by Christ being explicitly called God, and by souls implicitly affirming His Deity by placing faith in the Lord Jesus as the Son of God who has the power to give eternal life, as well as affirmation of Him possessing other unique attributes of Deity, and of glory and titles, glory to God.

Likewise belief in the Holy Spirit by essentially calling Him God, (Acts 5:3,4) and described as a personality.

In the light of the collective weight of Scriptural substantiation we would have a contradiction in Scripture unless we understood God as one being consisting of 3 persons who are all God by nature, referred to as "US/Our" 6 times in the OT, while having positional and functional distinctions.

In contrast to which is the Assumption, that was so lacking in early and substantial testimony that as RLH documented, even Ratzinger, among other Catholic sources, testified that chief Roman scholars could not justify it as being apostolic tradition.

That God can do something, and a developed tradition simply does not warrant requiring belief in an event regarding a specific person that is not taught nor prophesied in Scripture, especially 1800 years after it allegedly occurred.

The fact is, if Mary had died bodily on earth and were buried, we would know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, where her tomb is, just as we know where the tomb of Jesus is, and the tomb of Peter, Paul, James, John, and so on. The fact is, we do not know where her tomb is, and we can surmise that we don't know because she wasn't buried, but assumed into heaven, the same way as Moses and Elijah were.

Once again, your premise is false, both that we know that primary Biblical people died and were buried because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt where their tomb are, and more absurd, that not knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt where their tomb means we can surmise that we don't know because she wasn't buried, but was assumed into heaven, the same way as Moses and Elijah were, as Scripture records.

For the reality is that besides the premise that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt where the precise location of even the tomb of Christ or of Peter , being disputable (unless you believe Rome cannot err), even the Where Are the 12 Apostles Now? states that for most of the apostles, we must rely on ancient oral traditions rather than documented facts concerning their burial places.

In addition, placing Mary on the same level of stature in eyes of the NT church is simply anachronistically reading a later development into the NT church, based upon the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. Deformation of the New Testament Church and history relevant to the Reformation

It is true that Mary's bodily assumption into heaven wasn't defined, or possibly even thought of, prior to the 5th century. But dogma being defined is different than doctrine existing.

But we are dealing with required belief in a dogma, and with assurance that it is true resting upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Thus as Keating imagines "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275),

The doctrine of the table of contents of the Bible wasn't defined until the Council of Trent. But it existed well prior to that. In fact, the table of contents of the bible wasn't ever discussed until the third or fourth century. Does that mean it's any less valid?

First, note that neither Trent's definition (after the death of Luther in Feb. 1546) nor the Assumption was required belief before these were "infallibly" defined as claimed by Rome, unless you want to make the damnation of not believing either was retroactive as applying to all who did not belief it during the past 1800 years.

Secondly, one ascertaining and affirming that an event occurred, and the other is akin to ascertaining and affirming that someone was/is a man of God, such as a prophet or a RC "saint," neither of which were actually stated in Scripture, although it does establish the principle that souls, even the laity, can correctly ascertain both men and writings as being of God (thus a body of writings had been established as the authoritative word of God by the time of Christ), which is how the NT church began, in dissent from the historical magisterium and magisterial stewards of express Divine revelation (Romans 3:2; 94: Mt. 23:2)

But while the magisterial office is to settle cases of controversy such as when the people bring them to it, (Dt. 17:8-13; Mt. 18:16-18) and exercise discipline, (1 Co. 5:5ff) just as civil courts are to justly do, (Romans 13:1-7) yet nowhere it is promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office, which Catholicism presumes.

Therefore while the church can discipline both those who do not subscribe to its beliefs, or even recognize that its pastor is a man of God, nor all the writings it holds as wholly inspired of God, their mere say-so cannot be the basis for the veracity of their judgment, as instead it must rest upon the collective weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Which again, is how the NT began in dissent from the historically valid magisterium which was supposed to affirm that even the laity correctly ascertained.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Suggest you peruse this: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Bishop
Relevant:

• To some extent, in this early period, the words bishop and priest episkopos and presbyteros) are synonymous (See the article: APOSTOLIC COLLEGE.)
• These terms may designate either simple priests (A. Michiels, Les origines de l'épiscopat. Louvain, 1900, 218 sqq.) or bishops possessing the full powers of their order. (Batiffol. Etudes d'histoire et de théologie positive, Paris, 1902, 266 sqq.: Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'église. Paris. 1906, 94.)
• In each Community the authority may originally have belonged to college or presbyter-bishops. This does not mean that the episcopate, in the actual sense of the term, may have been plural, because in each church the college or presbyter-bishops did not exercise an independent supreme power; it was subject to the Apostles or to their delegates. The latter were bishops in the actual sense of the term, but they did not possess fixed sees nor had they a special title (Batiffol, 270) Since they were essentially itinerant, they confided to the care of some of the better educated and highly respected neophytes the fixed necessary functions relating to the daily life of the community.
• Sooner or later the missionaries had to leave the young communities to themselves, whereupon their direction direction fell entirely upon local authorities who thus received the Apostolic succession.
• This local superior authority, which was of Apostolic origin, was conferred by the Apostles upon a monarchic bishop, such as is understood by the term today. This is proved first by the example of Jerusalem, where James, who was not one of the Twelve Apostles, held the first place, and afterwards by those communities in Asia Minor of which Ignatius speaks, and where, at the beginning of the second century the monarchical episcopate existed, for Ignatius does not write as though the institution were a new one.
• In other communities, it is true, no mention is made of a monarchic episcopate until the middle of the second century. We do not wish to reject the opinion of those who believe that there are in several documents of the second century traces of the monarchic episcopate, that is to say, of an authority superior to that of the college of the presbyter-bishops. The reasons which some writers allege, in order to explain why, for example, in the Epistle of Polycarp no mention is made of a bishop, are very plausible. The best evidence, however, for the existence at this early date of a monarchical episcopate is the fact that nowhere in the latter half of the second century is the least trace to be found of a change of organization. Such a change would have robbed the supposed college of presbyter-bishops of their sovereign authority, and it is almost impossible to comprehend how this body would have allowed itself to be everywhere despoiled of its supreme authority, without leaving in the contemporary documents the least trace of a protest against so important a change. If the monarchical episcopate began only in the middle of the second century it impossible to comprehend how at the end of second century the episcopal lists of several important bishoprics giving the succession of bishops as far back as the first century were generally known and admitted. Such, for instance, was the case at Rome.
• This theory, it must be carefully noted, does not contradict the historical texts. According to these documents, there was a college of presbyters or of bishops which administered several churches, but which had a president who was no other than the monarchic bishop. Although power of the latter had existed from the beginning it became gradually more conspicuous. The part played by the presbyterium, or body of priests, was a very important one in the earlier days of the Christian Church; nevertheless it did not exclude the existence of a monarchic episcopate (Duchesne, 89-95).

During the first three centuries, the entire religious life of the diocese centered around the person of the bishop. The priests and deacons were his auxiliaries but they worked under the immediate direction of the bishop. In large cities, however, like Rome, it was soon found necessary to hand over permanently to the priests and deacons certain definite functions. Moreover, as a result of the spread of Christianity outside the great centres of population, the bishop gradually left to other ecclesiastics the administration of a fixed portion of the diocesan territory. In the East, at first bishoprics were created in all districts where there was a considerable number of Christians. But this system presented great inconveniences. To distant or rural localities, therefore, the Church sent bishops, who were only the delegates of the bishop of the city, and who did not possess the right of exercising the most important powers of a bishop. Such bishops were known as Chorepiscopi or rural bishops. Later on, they were replaced by priests (Gillman, Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient, Munich, 1003). The establishment of parishes from the fourth and the fifth century on gradually freed the bishops from many of their original charges; they reserved to themselves only the most important affairs, i.e. those which concerned the whole diocese and those which belonged to the cathedral church. However, above all other affairs, the bishops retained the right of supervision and supreme direction. While this change was taking place, the Roman Empire, now Christian, granted bishops other powers. They were exclusively empowered to take cognizance of the misdemeanors of clerics, and every lawsuit entered into against the latter had to be brought before the bishop's court. The Emperor Constantine often permitted all Christians to carry their lawsuits before the bishop, but this right was withdrawn at the end of the fourth century. Nevertheless, they continued to act as arbitrators, which office the earliest Christians had committed to them. More important, perhaps, is the part which the Roman law assigns to the bishops as protectors of the weak and oppressed. The master was permitted to legally emancipate his slave in the bishop's presence; the latter had also the power to remove young girls from immoral houses where their parents or masters had placed them, and to restore them to liberty. Newly born infants abandoned by their parents were legally adjudged to those who sheltered them, but to avoid abuses it was required that the bishop should certify that the child was a foundling. The Roman law allowed the bishops the right to visit prisons at their discretion for the purpose of improving the condition of prisoners and of ascertaining whether the rules in favour of the latter were observed. The bishops possessed great influence over the Christian emperors, and though in the Eastern Church these intimate relations between Church and State led to Casaropapism, the bishops of the West preserved in a great measure their independence of the Empire (Löning, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, Strasburg, 1878, I, 314-331; Troplong, De l'influence du christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, Paris, 1842, new ed., 1902).

History will not change the fact that as even the fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420), confirms,


“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptised, instead of leaving them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. And this is not my private opinion, it is that of Scripture. If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).

,

 

[Root of Jesse]

When it comes to the ECF, I'm happy to hear them out but don't necessarily agree. As far as you thing this woman is Mary it's just got holes you could drive a truck through. Supposedly Mary is assumed bodily into heaven. So what is shr doing on earth being pursued by the dragon, who was cast out if heaven, for 3v1/2 years? Now as far as the baby about to be born, Jesus has already been born a long time ago, no need to do it again.

"Don't necessarily agree" = Protestant. There is plenty of evidence that the woman in Revelation is Mary, but I won't waste your time unless you're interested. Regarding Revelation 12, it does say "A great sign appeared IN THE SKY...so it's not on earth. In fact, the dragon was cast DOWN to earth after he swept away a bunch of stars from the sky.

Oh and you this is some kind of an argument, i just don't see it that way, your obviously allegirizing and making the text say something alien to the text.

I don't make up stuff about the Bible. I read what the authority I believe in says, and teach it. If it was my opinion, I would agree, you have no business believing me.

 

[Root of Jesse]

First of all, thank you for your service. I appreciate it.

You just proved my statement to be correct by what you wrote above. There are only two logical conclusions either Trinitarian or Tritheism. When we add the OT to the mix only Trinitarian doctrine is feasible from the full revelation of God in Holy Scriptures.

RLH, I've proven that doctrine develops. There is no "Trinity" in the Bible, though there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Incarnation is another doctrine that developed.

There are two major approaches to interpretation. Either exegesis or eisegesis. Protestants tend to employ exegesis when handling doctrinal matters and expository examination. Meaning taking in the whole council of God in Holy Scriptures.

I know all about eisegesis and exegesis. The problem is what you consider the Word of God, and what we consider the Word of God. Eisegesis is finding something that's not there. What Protestants tend to do is to remove what disagrees with their theology.

Catholics tend to approach from tradition on doctrinal matters and then go to Scriptures to confirm the tradition. That would be taking a statement and reading into the text which is eisegesis.

There is the difference and why we have differing views of Holy Communion and Baptism.

The difference is what the Bible says about Baptism, and what Christ said about Holy Communion/the Eucharist. I would agree with you that we have taken what is there Scripturally, and applied what the people closest to Christ understood about those things. Another proof that doctrine develops-You (Protestants) might disagree with infant baptism because there are no infants explicitly being baptized in Scripture. But there are a few places where people believed and had their whole households baptized. There is also disagreement about what Baptism does. We believe Baptism saves you (because that's what Scripture says.

One method draws out the truth from Scriptures and considers all of them especially the context.

The other begins with a premise and looks for support from Scriptures no matter the context.

For example, Matthew 16 is used by the Catholic Church to prove Petrine supremacy. That Peter was the only one who Christ left the keys to the kingdom.

As an Evangelical you will be shocked I believe that. But more on that down a bit.

The Roman Catholic Church as I mentioned sees this as something successive yet we have only claims from Popes starting in the 4th century claiming this. The first being Pope Damasus. Even Catholic scholars admit there was no Pope or primacy in the early centuries of the Church and one says none could be found in the 1st century. I can provide you these resources but you have seen them in the past.

Ding ding ding...wrong.Clement was a pope prior to Damasus. For one. The problem is that the Bible only talks about the first generation after Christ died, though it does introduce us to the likes of Timothy and Titus.

So why does an Evangelical and a Catholic both believe it is true Peter had the keys? The Scriptures show us in Acts that Peter exercised the keys.

Right, and Scripture also shows apostolic procession when the same Peter, and the group, named Matthias to replace Judas.

He led the Jews who believed at Pentecost into the Kingdom. He led the Samaritans into the Kingdom in Acts. And in Acts 10 he led the Gentiles into the Kingdom. The three groups of souls the Jews the Samaritans and Gentiles our Lord categorized in the Gospels received the Promise by Peter’s leadership. IMO as a reward for his confession that Jesus was the Christ the Son of the Living God.

The keys have been exercised as we consider the full revelation of God and not just portions of it.


There are many Catholic doctrines which can be for certain. We share these truths. However, where there are differences I can point out which ones don’t have the full council of God as revealed in Holy Scriptures supporting them. Just on this thread alone both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have used catch all verses to actually argue from silence as in John 21:25

I don't believe John 21:25 is any catch-all. And neither does the Church. IT says that Jesus did many more things. Nobody I've seen claims that Jesus did anything that wasn't written in the Scriptures. John wrote from 70 years (at least) of experience.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Don't necessarily agree" = Protestant. There is plenty of evidence that the woman in Revelation is Mary, but I won't waste your time unless you're interested. Regarding Revelation 12, it does say "A great sign appeared IN THE SKY...so it's not on earth. In fact, the dragon was cast DOWN to earth after he swept away a bunch of stars from the sky.I don't make up stuff about the Bible. I read what the authority I believe in says, and teach it. If it was my opinion, I would agree, you have no business believing me.

Lets not get dramatic, although it can be difficult not to when dealing with Revelations. The dragon is cast to earth in Revelation 12:12, it seems obvious the dragon becomes earth bound for the 3 1\2 years described. He pusues the woman that entire time and the child about to be born is obviously figurative. Christ was born in Bethlehem in the first century, he is coming in power and glory at the end of the age. We both know the woman is Israel, you telling me it's Mary doesn't square with the text. That's not a sound exposition, that's a private interpretation not supported by the text.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Ok first of all I'm a careless typer with a poor spell checker, my bad. Secondly I was a heart beat away from taking RICA classes because I was raised Catholic and would love to embrace Catholic tradition, but devotions to Mary are a deal breaker. I can be many things, hypocrisy isn't something I can do.

If you consider the Church to be Christ, then Mary is the mother of the Church. If you believe the Commandments, then you honor your father and mother. If Mary is the mother of the Church, why can't we honor her without it being hypocrisy to people?

That said, I do get it, and while not all do many do worship Mary, obviously you don't. Well and good. I'm not here to judge you or anyone else, I just see nothing in Scripture that suggests Mary can hear prayers. The virgin birth is a vital doctrine, arguably the first Messianic prophecy in Scripture. I'm convinced the 'seed of the woman' is the virgin birth.

I do venerate her for her sacrifice. I do revere her. I have statues of her in various forms in my home. That's not the same as the worship I give God. But Jesus showed John a vision. Look at it like this: At the foot of the cross was John and Mary. Jesus looked at Mary and said "Behold your son.", and to John he said "Behold your mother." And John took her into his care. Later, long after Mary died, Jesus gave John a vision of the heavens, and a look at his Mother, alive in heaven.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your point of view but your attempt at an exposition of Rev. 12 is more allegory then anything else. As far as Jesus having brothers and sisters it's crystal clear; Mark 3:31-35; Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21. James presided over the Council of Jerusalem, specifically because he was the brother of Jesus. Not only did they see Jesus as the rightful successor to the throne of David they would have seen his brothers as falling under the Davidic line.

I never said Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters. I said Mary was a virgin throughout her life. There is quite a difference. While James presided over the council, something I'm not sure of, Peter was the head of the apostles.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Lets not get dramatic, although it can be difficult not to when dealing with revelations. The dragon is castbd o wn in Revelation 12:12, it seems obvious the dragon becomes earth bound for the 3 1\2 years described. He pusues the woman that entire time and the child about to be born is obviously figurative. Christ was born in Bethlehem in the first century, he is coming in power and glory at the end of the age. We both know the woman is Israel, you telling me it's Mary doesn't square with the text. That's not a sound exposition, that's a private interpretation not supported by the text.

The vision being Israel is really no different than her being Mary. The woman symbolizes the people of God, right? In the OT, that's Israel. In the NT, Mary, the mother of the Church (the people of God.).

 

[mark kennedy]

If you consider the Church to be Christ, then Mary is the mother of the Church. If you believe the Commandments, then you honor your father and mother. If Mary is the mother of the Church, why can't we honor her without it being hypocrisy to people?I do venerate her for her sacrifice. I do revere her.

Mary was the mother of Jesus, not the mother of the church.

I have statues of her in various forms in my home. That's not the same as the worship I give God. But Jesus showed John a vision. Look at it like this: At the foot of the cross was John and Mary. Jesus looked at Mary and said "Behold your son.", and to John he said "Behold your mother." And John took her into his care. Later, long after Mary died, Jesus gave John a vision of the heavens, and a look at his Mother, alive in heaven.I never said Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters.

Jesus did have brothers and sisters, arguments to the contrary are highly speculative.

I said Mary was a virgin throughout her life. There is quite a difference. While James presided over the council, something I'm not sure of, Peter was the head of the apostles.

Peter made the arguement, James presided and we know that because he rendered the verdict. James was a son of David and being the brother of Jesus made him royalty, a cousin or adopted son wouldn't have been there.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Mary was the mother of Jesus, not the mother of the church.

Jesus is the head of the Church, we are the body of the Church, therefore, Mary is the mother of the Church.

Jesus did have brothers and sisters, arguments to the contrary are highly speculative.

I never said Jesus didn't have...I said Mary didn't have...
1. The Meaning of Brother
The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.

Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).

Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!

2. Children of Mary?
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

3. Other Women Named Mary
James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

4. Consensus of the Early Church
The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it may contain accurate historical traditions.

Peter made the arguement, James presided and we know that because he rendered the verdict. James was a son of David and being the brother of Jesus made him royalty, a cousin or adopted son wouldn't have been there.

If you examine the text of Acts 15 carefully, you will see this is not the case. In verses six and seven, we see all of the apostles and elders gathered together and doing what? Disputing!

Notice, it is Peter who speaks first, in verses 7-11. After so much disputing in Antioch that St. Paul and Barnabas could not settle the difficulty:

And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them... "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." And all the assembly kept silence...

"After much debate” here at the Council, Peter declares the truth and then—“the whole assembly fell silent” in verse 12. The issue was settled.

This speaks volumes.

And notice as well: Peter uses the first person personal prounoun in the plural. "We believe..." Peter does not speak just for himself. He speaks for all.

However, there was still a pastoral issue. How are we going to bring about unity, in a pastoral sense, between the Jews and Gentiles? The Jewish Christians were worshiping in a Jewish manner which involved many Old Testament practices. St. Paul himself acknowledged the validity of this manner of worship, and participated in it himself in Acts 21:15-26. Many of these Jews wanted to make their rules the universal norm for everyone and even believed it necessary for salvation. The question: How do we unify the Gentile and Jewish Rites without compromising the truth? The Church could not say Gentiles had to keep what were peculiarly Old Testament practices in order to be saved, but the Church also wanted to respect some of the ancient practices of the Jews.

St. James stands up in Acts 15:13-23, and gives his pastoral opinion on the matter:

My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has [declared] how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name... It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter avoid [1] the pollution from idols, [2] unlawful marriage, [3] the meat of strangled animals, and [4] blood. Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, you brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings..."

Two Key Points:

1. When James stands up to speak, the first thing he says after getting the attention of the Council is, “Symeon has related…” In other words, Peter has spoken… He repeats what Peter has already said definitively. Then, rather than speaking for all, St. James says, "It is my judgment..."

A little over 400 years after this proclamation by St. James, the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon would similarly declare, “Peter has spoken through Leo, the question is settled” after hearing a written declaration of St. Peter’s successor, Pope St. Leo the Great, read at that great Ecumenical Council. In AD 451, the issue was concerning the monophysite heresy and the nature of the God-man Jesus Christ. But both times, the same Principle was in effect. God spoke definitively through the authority He established on this earth to Shepherd his people.

2. When St. James gives his pastoral judgment, in verse 19, his judgment was that the Church ought to bind the Gentiles to four laws:

... abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

But notice what happens immediately thereafter, in verses 22-28:

Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling to your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us in assembly to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul… We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…”

Three sub-points:

1. When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew 16:15-19).

2. When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is depicted in a collegial manner. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18. Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council.

3. Notice the nature of the letter sent out by the Church. When the Council of Jerusalem sends out the decree, the Church declares:

It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell. (Acts 15:28, NAB)

Who Was at the Helm in the Book of Acts? Peter? James? | Catholic Answers

 

[Lost4words]

Lets not get dramatic, although it can be difficult not to when dealing with Revelations. The dragon is cast to earth in Revelation 12:12, it seems obvious the dragon becomes earth bound for the 3 1\2 years described. He pusues the woman that entire time and the child about to be born is obviously figurative. Christ was born in Bethlehem in the first century, he is coming in power and glory at the end of the age. We both know the woman is Israel, you telling me it's Mary doesn't square with the text. That's not a sound exposition, that's a private interpretation not supported by the text.

'YOUR' interpretation of Revelation!

 

[redleghunter]

First of all, thank you for your service. I appreciate it.

Thank you as I do appreciate the work you do for our men and women in uniform as well.

Ding ding ding...wrong.Clement was a pope prior to Damasus. For one. The problem is that the Bible only talks about the first generation after Christ died, though it does introduce us to the likes of Timothy and Titus.

I think we started with the pope issue so we can start here and deal with each issue separately. The below from the USCCB:

Focus on the New Testament Question
(9) Any biblical and historical scholar today would consider anachronistic the question whether Jesus constituted Peter the first pope, since this question derives from a later model of the papacy which it projects back into the New Testament.10 Such a reading helps neither papal opponents nor papal supporters. Therefore terms such as "primacy" and "jurisdiction" are best avoided when one describes the role of Peter in the New Testament. Even without these terms, however, a wide variety of images is applied to Peter in the New Testament which signalizes his importance in the early church.
Differing Attitudes Toward Papal Primacy​

 

[redleghunter]

RLH, I've proven that doctrine develops. There is no "Trinity" in the Bible, though there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Incarnation is another doctrine that developed.

As another poster pointed out the very doctrine of the Trinity is present in Holy Scriptures. In the OT we know there is only one God. In the NT we know that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all called Persons and all have attributes and titles of Deity.

To assert the truth of the Triune God is not present in Holy Scriptures would be asserting such things as The Resurrection and atonement of Christ were not understood by early NT souls who no doubt preached such as the Gospel.

The Incarnation? Directly taught and declared in the Gospel according to John.

Even St Athanasius taught from the NT when explaining the Trinity:

http://www.sjotctx.org/pdf/YBL14.pdf?1

 

[redleghunter]

I know all about eisegesis and exegesis. The problem is what you consider the Word of God, and what we consider the Word of God. Eisegesis is finding something that's not there. What Protestants tend to do is to remove what disagrees with their theology.

I think even your own Catechism calls the written Word of God just that. Inspired and infallible from God.

Eisegesis is taking a concept and reading it onto the text out of context thus creating a pretext.

Exegesis is concerned with drawing out the truth and meaning taking into account the context of the passage. Then testing it in an expository manner to confirm the consistency of the said truth and meaning.

Which leads us to.....

The difference is what the Bible says about Baptism, and what Christ said about Holy Communion/the Eucharist. I would agree with you that we have taken what is there Scripturally, and applied what the people closest to Christ understood about those things.

The sacrifice of the mass is not supported by the NT text and stated early church practice. It was a communal meal thus Communion where the Body of Christ came together to remember His death and resurrection. They came to sup with Christ the Head of the Church His Body.

Right, and Scripture also shows apostolic procession when the same Peter, and the group, named Matthias to replace Judas.

I thought we already visited this. The Apostles were not bishops and the bishops they ordained were not Apostles.

The only form of succession we see is the position of Judas replaced by Matthias by casting of lots. And Paul directly commissioned by the Risen Christ. Which even the 11 in allowing the lots to choose Matthias had set conditions in which any could qualify for Apostle of Jesus Christ. Below I post it again and in generations after no one met the criteria for the office of Apostle and thus there could not be a physical succession but one of word which is written.

Acts 1:

21Therefore it is necessary to select one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24And they prayed, “Lord, You know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two You have chosen 25to assume this ministry and apostleship, which Judas abandoned to go to his rightful place.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.