Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because, in the Reformation formulas, faith does NOT originate with us. It is not something we do or we have. Rather, faith itself is a gift of God, and is not of ourselves.If salvation comes from God, and not from our own actions, then how could the action of having faith have complete saving merit?
Because, in the Reformation formulas, faith does NOT originate with us. It is not something we do or we have. Rather, faith itself is a gift of God, and is not of ourselves.
Hi, I’m back.
I firmly believe, that despite your scholarship, you have a misunderstanding of many things. As a fellow Catholic, I’ll do my best to correct that.
FYI...Through Faith Alone. Is shorthand for Christ Alone. That we receive everything in Christ; all of his heavenly blessings that he merited through His active/passive obedience becomes ours through faith. Namely our faith is not what saves us, but the object of it; namely Christ Jesus.Firstly, the Church does not teach that one “earns” their salvation through works. I’m sure we agree that doctrine would be silly. How could one earn salvation? Rather, salvation is a free gift from God. We are saved by the grace of God through His Sacrifice on the Cross. God’s salvation is a free gift. If we can agree on this statement, then you must see that your definition of faith alone is circular reasoning.
Yes, I am very familiar with Rome's position on it. Yes, they start with, "We are saved by Grace." But speak on the 'Final Justification' if you would. Because its the fine print that we are concerned about.If salvation comes from God, and not from our own actions, then how could the action of having faith have complete saving merit? By this we would say “We are saved by the free gift of God so as long as we...” we could fill that ellipsis with “have faith,” “have works,” or “have both faith and works.” None would satisfy the saving act of Christ. Rather, you are correct in saying (to paraphrase) that we were bought with the blood of Christ. At your baptism, the priest said, “I claim you for Christ!”
Salvation is God redeeming us from the curse of the Law that everyone is under, and renders condemnation & death. Would you agree with this plight of sinners? I also believe and agree with the Reformers that this misunderstanding of the fallen race in Adam, leads to a misunderstanding of Grace in Christ. Yes God so loved us that immediately after Adam had breached the Covenant of Works through One Act of disobedience, that God preached the Gospel to Adam & Eve; of a Promised Seed that will save them from this predicament. But not knowing why we need saving in the first place; have bought nothing but heresies throughout the centuries, even in the times of Jesus and the Apostles!So at this we can only reason that all salvation comes from God. But, I think, if we are to get to the bottom of what saves, we must determine what “salvation” is. I think the salvation you are meaning is eternal life in Heaven. So what is eternal life in Heaven? It’s eternal life with God and all of His children. God Is love and grace. God predestines every single human soul for spending eternity with Him in Heaven. He wants us there. But if we don’t want Heaven, then God’s not going to force us.
So what is desiring Heaven, then? If you know of Heaven, that is knowledge. But the angels, the satanists, and the damned know of Heaven. If you believe in Heaven and trust in God’s promise of Eternal Life, that slowly becomes faith. If we desire Heaven and we desire love, if we love our neighbors with all our hearts all our minds and all our souls, then why wouldn’t our faith be alive and active and producing of good works? Therefore a way of thinking of it would be this: if you don’t love your neighbors through your actions, you probably don’t really want Heaven, because that’s what Heaven is, love.
As far as suggesting that Erasmus corrected a corrupted definition of Sola Fide, I believe the two of us misunderstand each other. You seem to be speaking of a mistranslation in St. Jerome’s Vulgate. I am not denying your fact, but I am instead speaking of the very definition of faith alone. The Church Fathers were very clear in their definition that faith must be active, must produce good deeds, or it is, as St. James writes, “dead.”
I pray this helps and that we both grow in our understanding of such things.
Read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and "Preface to Romans" (and others by Luther). Luther makes it quite clear. Calvinists believe similarly. The whole premise is that salvation is wholly of God ie monergism, man contributes nothing (And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph. 2:8-9 ESV). The moment faith is something YOU provide, it becomes a work, which is spoken clearly against by Paul (Eph. 2:8-9).I’d like to address this because I simply disagree this statement. Firstly, I’d like to question your source, as I’m not familiar with it. What are the “Reformation forumlas?” Are you refering to the shared doctrines by most reformers?
You realize the classic Protestant reformers believed in predestination, right? What I wrote is hardly radical. Orthodox Lutherans believe in single predestination, where God picks some for salvation and passes over the others. Classic 5 point Calvinism believes in double predestination (RC Sproul), where God picks some for salvation and actively picks the rest for damnation. Another way to look at it is orthodox Lutherans believe in monergistic salvation and synergistic damnation, while classic Calvinism believes in monergistic salvation and monergistic damnation. Interestingly enough, Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin did.Secondly, by your logic, if faith is not a choice, but rather something planted in us by God outside of our control, then you are suggesting a radical form of predestination. God chooses who to save by only giving faith to some and withholding it from others.
Um, no. πρεσβυτέρους, means elder, ἱερεὺς means priest. BDAG (THE standard greek Lexicon) does acknowledge that the english word for priest comes from the Latin presbyter, but that's not for another 1000 years. And nowhere does one find a πρεσβυτέρους doing any priestly duties like offering a sacrifice in the entire NT.The word “priest” literally comes from the Greek “presbuteros.” All we did was change the name. Reading Acts and the Epistles, you can see presbyters performing modern priestly duties, such as confession and the sacraments.
Well thanks for the theological discussion, because I love discussing it. As for your assessment of my theology, I beg to differ. During the Reformation period, the Reformers did not want to destroy the Catholic Church, but to reform it back to God's word! So let's begin.
FYI...Through Faith Alone. Is shorthand for Christ Alone. That we receive everything in Christ; all of his heavenly blessings that he merited through His active/passive obedience becomes ours through faith. Namely our faith is not what saves us, but the object of it; namely Christ Jesus.
Yes, I am very familiar with Rome's position on it. Yes, they start with, "We are saved by Grace." But speak on the 'Final Justification' if you would. Because its the fine print that we are concerned about.
Salvation is God redeeming us from the curse of the Law that everyone is under, and renders condemnation & death. Would you agree with this plight of sinners? I also believe and agree with the Reformers that this misunderstanding of the fallen race in Adam, leads to a misunderstanding of Grace in Christ. Yes God so loved us that immediately after Adam had breached the Covenant of Works through One Act of disobedience, that God preached the Gospel to Adam & Eve; of a Promised Seed that will save them from this predicament. But not knowing why we need saving in the first place; have bought nothing but heresies throughout the centuries, even in the times of Jesus and the Apostles!
Now you are going off the topic, here. We are speaking of Justification of the sinner, not sanctification of the believer. This has been a common caricature of Calvinism for centuries. Calvin never denied good works of the believer, but encouraged that we walk in them daily. Calvin said that in Justification of the sinner, there is no place for their so-call 'good-works'. Because no sinner has any good works to offer God, which is why Christ came to fulfill the broken Covenant of Works with perfect obedience for us! This is the good news for the ungodly! Not more laws placed upon sinners, who cannot even keep any of them. But God gave His Promise that he will do what the Law could never, by sending his own son.
Romans 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4(in order) that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,
Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
So ask yourself, why did Christ have to fulfill the Law? Why can't we fulfill the Law? Why does Christ say, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven? Because Christ is preaching Law, to convict sinner's consciences of the plight they are under. The Scribes and Pharisees have put on a great outward show of holiness, but were like whitewashed tombs, filled with dead mans bones. Law preaching is crucial to understanding why we need Christ. To drive us to Christ who came to save the ungodly; not the godly, good, holy, or righteous people, but the wicked, wretched, evil sinners!
Yes, the Reformers also believed that our Faith is Alive and not dead. But where you miss our point, is that we believe we are Justified before a Holy Righteous Judge in Christ Alone through Faith Alone apart from any works! And from this Justification being declared to us in Christ Alone; flows our works or fruits. But these fruits are not the cause or ground of our Justification before God. The only works that save us, is Christ's perfect works!
Hope this helps???
In Christ our Covenantal King!
Unfortunately, as it was such a broad statement, it’ll take some time.
Points I made that you quoted
1. The Church was founded by the Apostles
2. The Church was founded at Pentecost
3. The Church has never changed a doctrine
- Saint Ignatius of Antioch was born in Syria in AD 35, a few years after the preaching, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. At a young age he became the apprentice/disciple of Saint John the Beloved Apostle. It can logically follow that Saint Ignatius’s beliefs followed his mentor’s. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, following St. Peter (the papacy was at a point in Antioch) and St. Peter’s successor in Antioch once St. Peter moved. St. Ignatius died (martyrdom) around a decade after St. John in around 108-110, after writing much more than his mentor. We still have most of these writings, which all support current Catholic theology. In fact, Saint Ignatius was the first recorded person to refer to Christianity as the “Catholic Church,” in a letter we still have, and the use of the term suggests previous usage. Unless Ignatius apostatized while his mentor was still alive, it should be safe to trust these writings.
In that same year, a situation arose in Corinth. The Christians there had gotten rid of some lawful leaders. Now, Clement was all the way in Rome, and Saint John the Apostle was nearby in Ephesus. Despite this, it was Clement who dealt with the problem (with no absolutely objection from John).
St. Irenæus, bishop of Lyon, was born in AD 130, so a little while after the death of the last Apostle (John in around 100). But he made up for his late life by recording so much. He knew St. Polycarp and recorded the man’s life as well as other aspects of the Church. He strongly combated early Heresies such as Gnosticism.
The Didache, or “The Teaching of the Apostles,” was written in the mid 1st Century, possibly as early as AD 40. While it probably wasn’t written by the Apostles themselves (we have early writings of saints and others discussing its controversy), it still accurately depicts the religious attitude of the early Christians and is almost certainly based off of the teachings of the Apostles. No Biblical epistles ever condemn the book, so it’s safe to say that it wasn’t heretical. And, once again, it matches up.
>conclusion: While the Apostles themselves didn’t write enough (or clear enough, as we’re having all of these discussions and different interpretations of scripture), their earliest followers managed to record their teachings enough to where we have a clear understanding of the initial Christian theologies.
The Catholic Church has never changed a doctrine and here’s why.
- She doesn’t have the authority to. This should be obvious, as logic follows that truth is truth and is never dependent on the views of man.
- She doesn’t claim to have the authority to. She is in fact, very opposed to the heresy of continuing revelation such as held by the LDS for example.
Yes, Ignatius writes about the Lord Supper, Eucharist menaing Thanksgiving. He does not write like a modern RC because he acknowledges that it is a gift from God and not a sacrifice which not what the modern RCC teaches. Ignatius writing against the gnostics in his own words (sounding like a Lutheran):I. We have writings clarifying and detailing the Eucharist and the Mass. For example, see the writings of Irenæus on see Ignatius’s writings himself, see Clement’s, or see the Didache.
Already addressed. No papacy for another couple hundred years.II. We have writings supporting the Papacy. Again, look to Clement’s letter to Corinth for an example.
What you are finding is the Refrigerium or refreshment of the soul. That is not Purgatory. Purgatory is not found anywhere in the earliest writings. The earliest I can find is Augustine but even he seems to waffle on the issue depending on when he is writing.III. We have writings supporting Purgatory. A good example of this would be the tombs of the ancient Christians, which had prayers inscribed on them asking passers to pray for the fellow’s soul,
Not until the fourth century officially Unofficially the Protoevangelium of James is highly influentially although condemned by at least one pope.IV. We have writings supporting Marian doctrines.
Yes, scripture clearly supports that saints in heaven along with angels pray for us but that's a far cry from one invoking the name of a saint. That comes in the later third century.V. We have writings supporting the intercession of saints.
That's the acorn theory. That's because so much has been added to the faith that it is virtually unrecognizable to the earliest christians so this theory is the way out. And the Sadducees weren't trying to get clarification they were trying to trap Him in an untenable position as well was disprove the Resurrection of the Dead as a doctrine. Its because they didn't believe in the Resurrection of the dead to begin with.The Church cannot change doctrine, but as she is composed of mere human beings, sometimes she can grow in her understanding of the beliefs which were fully revealed to her from God through the Apostles.
I. For example, while the Jews believed in the resurrection of the dead, they didn’t quite understand it. When they asked Christ about post-death marriage, He told them they should already have known because God revealed it to them. But because they were only human, they didn’t understand so Jesus helped them to comprehend it.
Jesus had to explain it to them because they expected a secular ruler like David of even Judas Maccabeus to throw off the shackles of oppression. He wasn't given them clarification he was trying to correct them. As to the council of Nicaea, which Pope was in attendance? Wouldn't have been simpler for the Pope to settle the Arian matter once and for all? But that isn't what happened, rather it took a council to settle the matter. That's because there was councilor collegiality between the different parts of the church at that time. What's more is I can easily prove Nicene christianity from the pages of Scripture but you cannot do the same with the immaculate conception. Which is a doctrine that must be believed under pain of mortal sin. Which, I might add would make all those early church fathers we have been quoting damned because they did not believe in this doctrine.II. Another example is this: Jesus, many times, had to explain to His Apostles that He had to die. This had been revealed to the Jews through the prophets, but the Apostles (only human) didn’t quite get it.
- Similarly, the Church may clarify or “officially declare doctrines”. An example of this would be when she declared Christ as God at the Council of Nicaea. She had always taught this but there was no need to make it official until Arias attacked the doctrine. Another example would be when Pope Pius IX officially defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854. The Church had always taught it, but never saw a need to clarify until the Adventist movement became popular.
Read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and "Preface to Romans" (and others by Luther). Luther makes it quite clear. Calvinists believe similarly. The whole premise is that salvation is wholly of God ie monergism, man contributes nothing (And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph. 2:8-9 ESV). The moment faith is something YOU provide, it becomes a work, which is spoken clearly against by Paul (Eph. 2:8-9).
You realize the classic Protestant reformers believed in predestination, right? What I wrote is hardly radical. Orthodox Lutherans believe in single predestination, where God picks some for salvation and passes over the others. Classic 5 point Calvinism believes in double predestination (RC Sproul), where God picks some for salvation and actively picks the rest for damnation. Another way to look at it is orthodox Lutherans believe in monergistic salvation and synergistic damnation, while classic Calvinism believes in monergistic salvation and monergistic damnation. Interestingly enough, Luther wrote more about predestination than Calvin did.
Monergism is the bedrock that the Protestant Reformation was built upon.
As an aside, I'd point out that the Catholic theology of Thomism also believes in predestination.
Ok, you've decided to be rude in your posts and as such are now invited to cease interacting with me. Goodbye.Hi, I’m here to help.
It seems you misunderstand St. Paul in Ephesians here.
He is referring to works of the law, not good works, to contrast to Jewish Christians claiming superiority over their gentile brothers.
You also misunderstand my argument. I am not suggesting that salvation comes from us, or that we earn it through works. All salvation comes from God.
Finally, I’d like to be clear here. Are you advocating for the predestination you discussed, or are you simply saying explaining that the doctrine was less “radical” than I suggested? If the former, then that belongs in another thread. If the latter, then I stand by my word choice.
I hope any of this can help you better understand my argument.
Um, no. πρεσβυτέρους, means elder, ἱερεὺς means priest. BDAG (THE standard greek Lexicon) does acknowledge that the english word for priest comes from the Latin presbyter, but that's not for another 1000 years. And nowhere does one find a πρεσβυτέρους doing any priestly duties like offering a sacrifice in the entire NT.
Ok, you've decided to be rude in your posts and as such are now invited to cease interacting with me. Goodbye.
Actually they are not synonyms. There is a word for priest is not πρεσβυτέρους. They are no more synonyms that snowball and spaceship. Lets take James 5:I’m not going to challenge the language here, other than suggesting “elder” and “priest” are, in this context, synonyms.
Secondly, you can definitely find presbyters taking confessions and anointing the sick, like in James 5, or baptizing, like in Acts, or having the Eucharist, like in 1st Corinthians 11 or the Didache (although that’s not canon).
Hi Thomas, I am going to challenge your post on historical ground because it is not tenable.
Actually we agree. Except this catholic church isn't Roman. The name Roman Catholic itself is a contradiction. Its either Roman or its catholic, but it can't be both. I maintain it is Roman and not catholic and had been slowly becoming distinctive in her theology from about the fourth century forward. She is ancient, yes; just not ancient enough.
Yes, we do have his writings. Actually we have two versions of his writings; a Greek version and a Latin version. The later is much expanded an is highly annotated. To which version are you referring to and to what doctrines are you referencing that can be found in Ignatian writings?
That's because the Corinthians asked Clement to deal with the issue and not John. Probably because the Corinthians knew Clement (Phil 4:3). And there is more evidence that Linus and Cletus with Clement (that's who the we are) were co-presbyters in Rome at that time. Recall that Ignatius of Antioch never address a single Episcopas or bishop of Rome but he does in other cities. Rather strange if there is so much authority bound up in the Bishop of Rome.
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury
Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 5). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Yes, do read Irenæus. He has a very high opinion of the bishops of Rome, but as I pointed out before, he gets off base on his traditions because he makes the assertion, with the same authority mind you that Jesus Christ was almost 50 years when he was crucified.
But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being5 of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.
Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 392). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
q
Yes, Christians should read the Didache. I have taught through it on several occasions in my Adult Sunday school class along with the writings of the Fathers. They should be read and have great insight on many topics. Then again, being fallible they can be out to lunch on other topics and we haven't even gotten to Augustine yet. Where you are going to struggle mightily is trying to prove modern Roman theology in their works. That's because you won't find the Fathers writing about things they know nothing about. That's also why there are not actual quotations from the fathers saying things that reinforce Roman doctrine in your post.
I agree that the catholic church does not change her doctrine but Rome most certainly has. That's why John Henry Cardinal Newman had to come up with the acorn theory because even he saw the difficulty in maintaining Rome's historicity especially in his day when the writings of the fathers were becoming more easily accessible. Examples of this are the Marian Dogmas, the Papacy, ideas around Merit, Purgatory, Sacerdotal clergy. That's not to say that Rome doesn't get things I right over and against the LDS but the way she does theology being there is no objective standard (sola Scriptura) she cannot help but list into error (sola ecclesia).
Yes, Ignatius writes about the Lord Supper, Eucharist menaing Thanksgiving. He does not write like a modern RC because he acknowledges that it is a gift from God and not a sacrifice which not what the modern RCC teaches. Ignatius writing against the gnostics in his own words (sounding like a Lutheran):
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death.
Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 89). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Already addressed. No papacy for another couple hundred years.
What you are finding is the Refrigerium or refreshment of the soul. That is not Purgatory. Purgatory is not found anywhere in the earliest writings. The earliest I can find is Augustine but even he seems to waffle on the issue depending on when he is writing.
Not until the fourth century officially Unofficially the Protoevangelium of James is highly influentially although condemned by at least one pope.
Yes, scripture clearly supports that saints in heaven along with angels pray for us but that's a far cry from one invoking the name of a saint. That comes in the later third century.
That's the acorn theory. That's because so much has been added to the faith that it is virtually unrecognizable to the earliest christians so this theory is the way out. And the Sadducees weren't trying to get clarification they were trying to trap Him in an untenable position as well was disprove the Resurrection of the Dead as a doctrine. Its because they didn't believe in the Resurrection of the dead to begin with.
Jesus had to explain it to them because they expected a secular ruler like David of even Judas Maccabeus to throw off the shackles of oppression. He wasn't given them clarification he was trying to correct them. As to the council of Nicaea, which Pope was in attendance? Wouldn't have been simpler for the Pope to settle the Arian matter once and for all? But that isn't what happened, rather it took a council to settle the matter. That's because there was councilor collegiality between the different parts of the church at that time. What's more is I can easily prove Nicene christianity from the pages of Scripture but you cannot do the same with the immaculate conception. Which is a doctrine that must be believed under pain of mortal sin. Which, I might add would make all those early church fathers we have been quoting damned because they did not believe in this doctrine.
A distinction without a difference. I would even accept the Vincentian canon of catholicity meaning that which is taught everywhere from all time. That's my paraphrase. What makes it Roman are the Roman distinctives (papacy, marian dogmas, etc). The Orthodox will say the exact same thing I said in my previous post. They may not be as nice about it as I amFirst of all, “Roman” and “Catholic” are not contradictions. “Roman” refers to her geological base. “Catholic,” Or universal refers to her outreach “to the ends of the Earth...” and “from the whole” in reference to her desire unity.
That's why its so important to read the fathers as the fathers and not just quotations. Also the quote I gave I also gave the source. And yes I do believe that it is the flesh of Jesus (as Ignatius says) with in and under the bread and wine as a gift unto the forgiveness of sins. That's what we call the Sacramental Union. I believe New Advent has both the Greek edition as well as the later Latin.As for the various doctrines written about in the works of St. Ignatius include the Eucharist and the Divinity of Christ. I do not know anything about the language differences; I only know of letters and famous quotations.
Um no, Purgatory classically defined is the place where temporal punishment due forgiven sins after the guilt has been removed. I never jump into a furnace when I need a refreshment and I doubt you do either. The Refrigerium was a distinctly Roman practice and had roots in paganism to boot. And the argument that it came from the Jews doesn't hold much water because after the destruction of Jerusalem and diaspora the only surviving school of Judaism were the Pharisees. How many times where they castigated by the Lord for having added to the faith Mark 7?The writings are assuredly alluding to purgatory, which is a “refreshment” of the soul after death, hence why the prayers were on tombs. Also, Catholics didn’t invent Purgatory, we took it from the Jews, who believed in it before Jesus was even born.
Read the whole text and get back to me. You will see why even popes condemned the writing. I'm really not kidding here it's pretty absurd.The protoevangelium of James is probably from the 2nd or 3rd century (Some day AD 145) and we know that just because something takes a while to be written down, doesn’t mean it’s fabricated.
This practice probably evolved from the Refrigerium in my opinion. I'm working through a book on the matter so more information to come.As for the saints, I’ll accept defeat in that argument, because I don’t personally know the information to refute your claim of 3rd century onward, other then repeating that it may have been practiced before it was written about.
Except Isaiah in particular. The suffering Servant Isa 53?You are right in stating that the Apostles were expecting a secular messiah. I am right in saying that they shouldn’t have been, because the prophets said this would not be the case.
That actually argues in my favor. I'm not sure you understood my argument. Consider revising.Your evidence of councilarianism is incorrect. Why would the Church need a council then at Hippo in 393, or at Vatican in ‘62? Because the Church is a large body and she needs her Bishops to reach everywhere. Sure the Pope is the head of the Church, but he’s only human and can’t do everything himself; he needs help.
Nope. Better check up on this. He couldn't have presided over a council he did not attend.Also, St. Pope Sylvester presided over Nicaea.
I agree with the statement about Mortal sin correctly defined but not the Immaculate Conception. It simply is absent as is every other Marian Dogma. If it was so important to the Apostles why didn't they under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit record such a thing in Holy Scripture?The Immaculate Conception and Mortal Sin are both found in Scripture.
Actually they are not synonyms. There is a word for priest is not πρεσβυτέρους. They are no more synonyms that snowball and spaceship. Lets take James 5:
ἀσθενεῖ τις ἐν ὑμῖν, προσκαλεσάσθω τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ προσευξάσθωσαν ἐπʼ αὐτὸν ἀλείψαντες αὐτὸν ἐλαίῳ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου3
Is anyone among you ill? Call for the elders of the church to pray over him, anointing him with (olive) oil in the name of the Lord.
Also that isn't priestly confession. That's the biblical practice of confession to one another becauase there are not sacerdotal priests in the NT church. James 5:16 ESV:
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.
And yes, 1 Cor 11 contains the words of institution (which I might add were mangled for centuries in the Roman canon of the mass) for the Lord's supper.
ESV
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— 34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
Notice the letter is likely address to the elders of the church to be read to the entire church. But you are not going to find is any sacrificing going on. That's for the office of priest, not elder. What's happening here is the corinthians are being selfish towards their poorer brothers and getting drunk during the Lord's supper! That's why words matter.
A distinction without a difference. I would even accept the Vincentian canon of catholicity meaning that which is taught everywhere from all time. That's my paraphrase. What makes it Roman are the Roman distinctives (papacy, marian dogmas, etc). The Orthodox will say the exact same thing I said in my previous post. They may not be as nice about it as I am(That's for @Marius, just kidding bro).
That's why its so important to read the fathers as the fathers and not just quotations. Also the quote I gave I also gave the source. And yes I do believe that it is the flesh of Jesus (as Ignatius says) with in and under the bread and wine as a gift unto the forgiveness of sins. That's what we call the Sacramental Union. I believe New Advent has both the Greek edition as well as the later Latin.
Um no, Purgatory classically defined is the place where temporal punishment due forgiven sins after the guilt has been removed. I never jump into a furnace when I need a refreshment and I doubt you do either. The Refrigerium was a distinctly Roman practice and had roots in paganism to boot. And the argument that it came from the Jews doesn't hold much water because after the destruction of Jerusalem and diaspora the only surviving school of Judaism were the Pharisees. How many times where they castigated by the Lord for having added to the faith Mark 7?
Read the whole text and get back to me. You will see why even popes condemned the writing. I'm really not kidding here it's pretty absurd.
This practice probably evolved from the Refrigerium in my opinion. I'm working through a book on the matter so more information to come.
Except Isaiah in particular. The suffering Servant Isa 53?
That actually argues in my favor. I'm not sure you understood my argument. Consider revising.
Nope. Better check up on this. He couldn't have presided over a council he did not attend.
I agree with the statement about Mortal sin correctly defined but not the Immaculate Conception. It simply is absent as is every other Marian Dogma. If it was so important to the Apostles why didn't they under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit record such a thing in Holy Scripture?
If that's true this is earlier I would expect you to quote from something earlier than the Mishnah (3rd century AD) or the Bariatas that are outside the six components of the Mishnah. Again, it is the work of one particular school of Judaism of which the one we have was the only surviving one. Not only that I would expect you to be able to quote christian sources even earlier but alas they don't exist because it wasn't believed.he view of purgatory is still more clearly expressed in rabbinical passages, as in the teaching of the Shammaites: "In the last judgment day there shall be three classes of souls: the righteous shall at once be written down for the life everlasting; the wicked, for Gehenna; but those whose virtues and sins counterbalance one another shall go down to Gehenna and float up and down until they rise purified; for of them it is said: 'I will bring the third part into the fire and refine them as silver is refined, and try them as gold is tried' [Zech. xiii. 9.]; also, 'He [the Lord] bringeth down to Sheol and bringeth up again'" (I Sam. ii. 6). The Hillelites seem to have had no purgatory; for they said: "He who is 'plenteous in mercy' [Ex. xxxiv. 6.] inclines the balance toward mercy, and consequently the intermediates do not descend into Gehenna" (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 3; R. H. 16b; Bacher, "Ag. Tan." i. 18). Still they also speak of an intermediate state.
Regarding the time which purgatory lasts, the accepted opinion of R. Akiba is twelve months; according to R. Johanan b. Nuri, it is only forty-nine days. Both opinions are based upon Isa. lxvi. 23-24: "From one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another shall all flesh come to worship before Me, and they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched"; the former interpreting the words "from one new moon to another" to signify all the months of a year; the latter interpreting the words "from one Sabbath to another," in accordance with Lev. xxiii. 15-16, to signify seven weeks. During the twelve months, declares the baraita (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 4-5; R. H. 16b), the souls of the wicked are judged, and after these twelve months are over they are consumed and transformed into ashes under the feet of the righteous (according to Mal. iii. 21 [A. V. iv. 3]), whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).“ (Jewish Encyclopedia)
Also, the actions of some jealous Pharisees towards Christ does not negate their core beliefs which were very similar to Christians’: the afterlife, angels, etc.
Now wait just a second. James presided over the council of Jerusalem and proclaimed it before it was relayed to the churches not Peter. (not dicoces, that's an anachronism). Acts 15 (ESV)I’m not sure how my argument favors yours, please elaborate. At the Council of Jerusalem, after St. Pope Peter has heard from Paul and the bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, he made his decision. Then St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, relayed it to his “diocese” in their terms.
But I know what your prayer needs are. There is no evidence the saints know the same. Again, it take from the role of Christ as Mediator to invoke a saint. Again, the saints do pray for us but there's no evidence they can hear our prayers to them.Back on the saints, my argument is theological now. We invoke people to pray for us all the time. And as Christians, death is meaningless to us. Why should death cut off the Body of Christ? So it is no different for me to invoke Saint Peter’s prayers than it is for me to invoke yours.
This is true but thats miles from saying Silvester presided over a council he did not attend.Sylvester did not physically attend the council; instead he sent proxies. Popes do this all the time.
The Immaculate Conception can be deduced from scripture. Gabriel address Mary as “full of grace,” in Greek, this is the very literal title of κεχαριτωμένη. If Mary is full of grace, then she is empty of sin.
God must have preserved her from sin at conception through his later sacrifice. That way God could be conceived in, carried by, and born of a creature not contaminated with sin.
I missed this one. I am suggesting that the word Roman is a later addition primarily from the counter or catholic reformation. The Church catholic was a bigger tent prior to the counter reformation than after.So you are invoking the ideal of a Catholic Church but suggesting the Roman Catholic Church is not it? As in the late idea of a universal spiritual Church?
If Rome left it as a mystery as the East does without a forced explanation I could live with said definition. But as I said before, Rome dogmatized the explanation and made it De Fide dogma.When you describe your belief of the Eucharist, I believe you are describing consubstantiation as taught by Luther. We Catholics believe in Transubstanciation, which is slightly different.
Perhaps, but the words are different in Greek and my criticism stands.I would question why what should be “elder” as then been translated as “priest” in Bibles since the vulgate. Perhaps those people knew the context better than we do.
That's not circular reasoning. I am not trying to prove something beginning with a conclusion. I am observing the fact there are not sacerdotal priests in the NT. Nor are there any in the early church rather it is my position that Priests were a later addition which both scripture and history cleary agree. In fact there is an extended discourse against the idea of a priesthood called Hebrews in the NT. That is hardly circular reasoning rather it is sound exegesis.Your claim that there are no sacerdotal priests in the NT is circular reasoning. You have falsely assumed evidence based upon what you want the evidence to support. I.e. you say there are no priests in the NT. To support this you say a passage about priests isn’t actually about priests because there are no priests. Circular reasoning.
That was my fault. I got sloppy with my categories. But that leads us back to the definition using the doctrine of transubstantiation. If there is a change then yes but I know that's not the case because I can taste the alcohol. Thats why I adhere to the Sacramental Union rather than transubstantiation.Also, you seem to have blended two different topics in St. Paul’s words. The problem wasn’t just drunkenness. It was that people were conspfusing agape meals (which we rarely have today, sadly) with the Eucharist. One cannot get drunk off of what St. Paul claims to be “the blood of our Lord.” Blood contains virtually no alcohol.
Again, a distinction without a difference. I get what you are trying to say but the word thanksgiving does not mean sacrifice it means thanksgiving.And the Eucharist is not a sacrifice; it is the sacrifice of Christ. The Didache is very clear about this ancient and early practice. So when the Lord’s Supper was practiced, not as an agape meal but as the Eucharist, it was by its very nature sacrificial.
If that's true this is earlier I would expect you to quote from something earlier than the Mishnah (3rd century AD) or the Bariatas that are outside the six components of the Mishnah. Again, it is the work of one particular school of Judaism of which the one we have was the only surviving one. Not only that I would expect you to be able to quote christian sources even earlier but alas they don't exist because it wasn't believed.
Now wait just a second. James presided over the council of Jerusalem and proclaimed it before it was relayed to the churches not Peter. (not dicoces, that's an anachronism). Acts 15 (ESV)
And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 “ ‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’
19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 15:12–21). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
That's James speaking. The point I was making is that the normative model for settling disputes historically was a council not a papal pronouncement.
But I know what your prayer needs are. There is no evidence the saints know the same. Again, it take from the role of Christ as Mediator to invoke a saint. Again, the saints do pray for us but there's no evidence they can hear our prayers to them.
This is true but thats miles from saying Silvester presided over a council he did not attend.
Um, no. That's the Latin coming through and its not what the word means. It means Favored One
The word κεχαριτωμένη, or the Lemma χαριτόω from BDAG:
χαριτόω (χάρις) 1 aor. ἐχαρίτωσα; pf. pass. ptc. κεχαριτωμένος (Sir 18:17; Ps 17:26 Sym.; EpArist 225; TestJos 1:6; BGU 1026, XXIII, 24 [IV A.D.]; Cat. Cod. Astr. XII 162, 14; Rhet. Gr. I 429, 31; Achmes 2, 18) to cause to be the recipient of a benefit, bestow favor on, favor highly, bless, in our lit. only w. ref. to the divine χάρις (but Did., Gen. 162, 8 of Noah διὰ τῶν τῆς ἀρετῆς ἔργων χαριτώσας ἑαυτόν): ὁ κύριος ἐχαρίτωσεν αὐτοὺς ἐν πάσῃ πράξει αὐτῶν Hs 9, 24, 3. τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ (=τοῦ θεοῦ), ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ God’s great favor, with which he favored us through his beloved (Son) Eph 1:6. Pass. (Libanius, Progymn. 12, 30, 12 vol. VIII p. 544, 10 F. χαριτούμενος=favored; cp. Geminus [I B.C.], Elem. Astronomiae [Manitius 1898] 8, 9 κεχαρισμένον εἶναι τοῖς θεοῖς) in the angel’s greeting to Mary κεχαριτωμένη one who has been favored (by God) Lk 1:28
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 1081). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
There is no sense of empty of sin or fullness of any sort. It is an Angelic greeting and that is all. The definition you gave is a later innovation I'm afraid. That why the ESV gets it correct:
Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Lk 1:28). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
Jesus was preserved from sin by virtue of the Virgin Birth as was predicted in Isaiah 7:14, not by wishful thinking from later theologians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?