Today is my last day

[Straybow]

You jumped in before I was done, had some googling to do!

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, if you read about the history behind them, political action cannot be ascribed solely to the establishment of the creeds, often political action opposed the creeds in the form in which we now know them.

No, my point was that the councils themselves were political in nature, not academic. One side outvoted the other. Whether secular powers favored on side or the other is immaterial. Second, there are times when merely setting the debate is a victory. In this case, getting the councils to argue about which Greek philosophy to recognize has already compromised the truth.

Becoming mature doesn't mean repeating the work that has already been done, but in understanding what has been done. Reciting creeds is different than understanding, and I agree, but it is not necessary to throw away everything that has been done by mature Christians that have gone before you.

Becoming mature can only be done by repeating in yourself what has been done in others before. It isn't a matter of throwing away creeds, it is recognizing them as crutches and longing for the day when we stand before Christ without their aid. They express something in a way that is easy to understand but necessarily incomplete.

First off, where does RC doctrine say that Mary can understand us better than Christ? Secondly, just because Mary understands Christ better than we understand him, is not the same as saying that she understands us better than Christ.

Hide behind Mary's skirt if you like, but it will hinder you from seeing and hearing from God and open yourself to deception.

Perhaps, but I don't consider defending Catholic teachings as hiding behind her skirt. Why are you so afraid of Mary?

And when did you stop beating your wife? Let's not play those rhetorical games. I do not fear, I oppose Mariology in the most strenuous possible terms as error second only to that one sin which is unforgivable.

I speak of hiding behind Mary's skirt because that is exactly what you, the dutiful Catholic, is commanded to do in Ineffablis Deus by Pope Pius IX, declaring the Immaculate Conception ex cathedra as infallible doctrine. Maybe this kind of flowery language does something for you (it goes on for about 12 pages or so), I'll just quote the most relevant bit:

Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

Ben, if Christ and the Apostles have taught us to pray to God in Jesus' name, why would you pray to anyone else, or in anyone else's name??? Why seek the comfort, aid, protection, or counsel of some dead saint whom you've never met? Why not pray to your own dead ancestor or beloved kitty cat buried in the back yard? Doesn't God love them, too, and listen to them? Doesn't God love you and listen to you?

It's one thing to oppose Mariology based on the teachings of the scriptures. The hard line is that if you have a relationship with the risen Christ the idea of turning to anyone else should be nothing short of repulsive.

God says He shares His glory with no human. He commands us to have no other gods before Him (gods, godlings, demigods, angels, exalted beings of any kind), and to make no graven images (that is, teach that He inhabits any material item or substance to which one should give worship or reverence).

To speak in the vernacular, Roman Catholicism blows it big-time.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Straybow
Ben, if Christ and the Apostles have taught us to pray to God in Jesus' name, why would you pray to anyone else, or in anyone else's name???

People don't pray to Mary or other saints but through them. This is a mainstream Christian tradition not confined the catholicism.

With regard to Mary the tradition is that Jesus will not refuse his mother's request and this is based on the story of the wedding feast at Cana.

[Straybow]

Psst: if you'd use "q" instead of "quote" this would be much easier.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Politics is reality. The leaders make choices for their own reasons, and some of those choices will benefit God and the believers while other choices will not. Translation of the scriptures and liturgy into the vernacular is of the first group, beyond all doubt. Even Rome in its myopic groping has come to this conclusion.

Beyond all doubt? Isn't that saying that the translation of scripture and the liturgy into the vernacular is an infalliable teaching?

That is the very point you are fighting against, that any tradition of the church can be considered infalliable. The translation of the mass into the vernacular is a part of the tradition of the church, and not explicitly directed in scripture.

Jesus said to make disciples of all nations. He didn't say teach them all just enough Latin to mutter the official liturgy. Reaching them in their own languages is also given a wink of Divine approval in the miracle of Pentecoste.

Fair enough, but my question is did it make much sense, before the invention of a printing press, to give mass in the vernacular? Back then, books were precious, and to translate the bible, a very onerous and difficult task. Most of the priests themselves would not have read the scripture, even given their responsibilities to the church.

The only time any such translation would be undertaken, is if the situation warranted, as Jerome did, from the Greek Septuagint to the Latin Vulgate. Enough people spoke Latin, and understood Latin to make such a translation worthwhile.

I am convinced that the two come hand in hand, the translation of scripture, into the vernacular, and the development of the printing press. It made it far more easy to perform such translations.

This is a phenomenally poor rationalization. Do we refrain from doing what is right just because it is difficult? No. The church is supposed to be reaching out to the lost. That's the job of all believers. If the church is too distracted with Councils and debates over philosophical wording they've lost sight of their purpose.

If the priests had not read the scriptures then how is it they were qualified for their positions? Had the church continued the effort to make the Gospel accessible in the vernacular of each region and tribe the question would be moot.

Second, the scriptures were translated into Latin decades before Jerome, only the people who did it were not in Rome and it didn't attract as much attention. Jerome was commissioned to do the work for the church in Rome, and he borrowed heavily from those before him.

Third, the scriptures were translated into the vernacular in many countries by dissident monks such as Wycliffe. Over the Medieval centuries you can find almost every language in Europe had vernaculars faithfully and skillfully rendered. And then burned by the disapproving church.

The Romans had printing presses, what Gutenberg did was introduce moveable type. Creating master blocks for fixed printing presses was far more effort. If the church had been doing their job instead of playing politics they had more than adequate manpower to accomplish the task.

God does not inhabit things, God indwells believers. The mass is just a lump of bread. It is not the priest who makes it holy, it is the one who receives for whom it is holy or profane. Or at least Paul said so, and I think he was on the mark.

What is the difference between God indwelling believers, and inhabiting things?

Second of all, what do the Catholics teach about the real presence? It is called the real presence, because they believe that the bread becomes the body of Christ, not that Christ inhabits the bread.

If you can't tell the difference between indwelling believers and inhabiting inanimate objects I can't help you.

Second, if Christ does not inhabit His "body" what makes it a "body," much less "real?" No, the Real Presence means Jesus makes it His body here and now. It is to be worshiped as Christ Himself is worshiped, held aloft in the monstrance. Otherwise it would just be a relic, an item of curiosity or myth.

This is where the whole neo-Aristotelian debate comes in. A physical object has attributes that are knowable (the Accidental) and attributes that are hidden but actually define the object (the Substantial). Where do they get this from? Did Aristotle and his followers receive some special revelation from the divine to understand this mystical truth?

No, it is just a bunch of hogwash like the four Aristotelian elements of Earth, Sea, Fire and Air. This is what people believed in the Medieval period, and so they thought they could transmute metals based on their supposed elemental components. The church believed they could transmute the wafer because its Substance was not reflected in its Accidental form.

By distracting the church on these lines the enemy has succeeded in directing the attention of billions away from the Gospel and onto saints, and rites, and trivialities that will not save souls.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Every church has doctrine that must be accepted in order to call oneself a member, even if this doctrine is limited to the declaration that Christ is the son of God.

Straw man. Unless you care to show a doctrine which not only does not derive from scripture but at least superficially appears to contradict it you have no point here except in gainsaying me.

A profession of faith is not the same as scripture, as a condensation of the essential teachings of any church. If you look at different Christian churches, they will have different professions of faith, reflecting the differences between the churches.

Now my question is this. If these individual professions of faith vary, yet scripture does not, and all these churches use the same canon, then why do their professions differ? I think the differences arise from the traditions of the church, in emphasising certain teachings of scripture over others.

Secondly, if you say that if the profession of faith does not contradict scripture, it must be valid, then why do you not accept the profession of faith given in the Catholic church? They say that according to their interpretation, their profession does not contradict scripture, as will any other church say about their own profession.

Because it does conflict on too many points to list, even in dozens of lengthy, eye-straining posts. When you look at the incredible volume of jibberish that passes for doctrine (just try reading the whole of Ineffablis Deus, one of ten thousand documents just like it) there is no substance there. Page after page of unsupported assertions and mind-numbing, broken logic.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Ben, if Christ and the Apostles have taught us to pray to God in Jesus' name, why would you pray to anyone else, or in anyone else's name???

People don't pray to Mary or other saints but through them. This is a mainstream Christian tradition not confined the catholicism.

With regard to Mary the tradition is that Jesus will not refuse his mother's request and this is based on the story of the wedding feast at Cana.

Actually, in the wedding at Cana Jesus fulfilled Mary's request, and it is one of the foundations of Mariology that her requests are not refused. I believe you'll find it in the Papal Bull cited above (again, it's only a dozen pages... have fun).

[Edit: not there but JPII says quite a bit about it in Rosarium Virginis Mariae (2002) and Redemptoris Mater (1987) ]

Yes, Mariology is found in Orthodox traditions as well. The root of all of it is pre/proto-gnostic Greek philosophy of a Platonic God and lesser divine Emanations. And the mythical tradition of the Hero's Mother. Just because it was an early tradition does not mean it was not error. After all, there was error among the Apostles themselves that had to be corrected!

[Alexander's Horse]

mainstream protestant denominations have Marian devotion too and I don't really know why some protestant sects get so hung up about it. Its a wonderful pious tradition.

having said that, Maran devotion and devotion to other saints can get a bit cultish at times so I see your point.

One thing about Mary is many people feel uncomfortable praying directly to Jesus, out of their deep reverence for him, so they turn to Mary, who they feel they can talk to and who will put their concerns better than they could themselves.

I should also point out that you need to be careful what you say about Mary in conversation because if you put her down someone might re-arrange your face

The affection for her is very strong because of all the help she gives to Christians. In our darkest hours, like when family members are dying, she is the one many Christians turn to. So be a bit diplomatic if the topic comes up Many would die for her or to defend her good name, just as they would for Jesus.

Why don't you try talking to her yourself? The tradition is she answers every prayer and its never been known that she failed a christian

[Straybow]

In other words, some Protestant denominations didn't finish the job.

Luther himself was quite devoted to Mary, but then again Luther wasn't infallible.

Seriously though, I wonder if the "gentlemen" who would rearrange your face for saying something they disapprove would think Mary approves their action? In this day and age I don't think they could pray, "Mother Mary, I'm gonna pound anyone who dares say such things about you." At least, not if they are anything but a godless thug.

This is half my point, that the Roman Catholic church seems more interested in preserving parochial interests than making disciples of Christ.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Straybow

Seriously though, I wonder if the "gentlemen" who would rearrange your face for saying something they disapprove would think Mary approves their action? In this day and age I don't think they could pray, "Mother Mary, I'm gonna pound anyone who dares say such things about you." At least, not if they are anything but a godless thug.

Well noone would approve of that but I thought I'd point it out because you'd probably be surprised at some of the men's men, salt of the earth types, who have a set of rosary beads in their pocket. Attacking Mary they'd take as like a personal attack on their dear old Mum. They'd see red.

You think its rubbish, others see Mary as part of the essence and deepest most precious heartfelt part of their faith, dearly loved and treasured. Something men don't easily talk about. Often linked to love of mother, perhaps dead, who was the one who taught them the beautiful Marian prayers. I certainly can't think of the rosary without thinking of my grand mother and great Aunts, her sisters, saying it. All now long dead. Also linked in this wort of way to purity and cherished memories of the innocence of childhood. You want to put sh*t on those things? Folks will get upset real fast

I'm just being a good neighbour warning about it

[Straybow]

I know you care, AH. That's why you're such a sweet spirit here in OT.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Interesting take... so that one little phrase is the basis for creating a priestly overclass and a lay underclass? Please explain to me this alleged "authority" that the laymen have. You keep refering to it but there is nothing there.

First of all, that one little phrase states that anyone who is given authority is to act as a servant. As such any 'overclass' cannot act as one, because they are to serve the 'underclass'. In effect, the heirarchy is turned upside down.

Secondly, if all the parish leaves, then the priest doesn't have any laypeople to lord it over. This is the real authority of the laypeople.

That's not what I'm talking about. The priestly overclass has powers reserved to it alone. The Pope is officially the Vicar of Christ. He stands in place of Christ on earth. The Cardinals and Bishops and Priest serve under his authority. But this is far more than just a human organization accroding to RC doctrine.

In RC doctrine, Ordination is a sacrament. That means they appeal to the Aristotelian Accident and Substance concept and say that after Ordination the Substance of the Priest is changed to become Priestly. It cannot then be changed back, it is permanently imbued with new characteristics.

The Pope actually becomes a part of Christ in a way that no other Priest (much less the lowly layman) is a part of Christ.

Peter, however, says that all believers constitute a priesthood, no new class of priest has been introduced. If there were a Substance that is changed it is common to all believers who are "born of the spirit." (Not that John 3 is reflective of neo-Aristotelian philosophy, rather of Genesis. Man alone is given life by the breath of God, and man alone can be joined to the spirit of God by that breath.)

No, the efforts to restore primitive worship assert that the fourteen centuries of Greco-Roman tradition added to the Gospel are foreign and don't belong there. That assumes that there is (or was) a native culture in which the Gospel stands without need for extra-cultural education.

Okay, but to assume that there is a primitive 'culture' is subject to the same critique. If the teaching is simply part of the cultural mileau, then the church in modern times, ought to discard such cultural artifacts, which no longer make sense in our new culture.

Yes, and we do. We no longer observe the Sabbath as the Jews practice it, or even on the seventh day. We no longer keep kosher dietary restrictions. We no longer circumcise in accordance with the Bris. But, if we wish to understand what Jesus said we need to see it through the lens of that culture. And the fact is, the more we keep the commandments of Jesus the more we live like that culture and not like the Godless gentiles of that day.

Much of what is assumed today, is because of these 'latecoming' traditions. The nature of Christ, the formulation of the Trinity, all of this is 'latecoming' tradition added onto the Gospels.

If Peter lost, then why are you rejecting Paul's argument of the Gentile influence over Christianity?

Paul doesn't teach that the Gentiles should influence Christianity, he teaches that Christianity should transform the Gentiles in true worshipers of the God of the Jews, believers in His Son Jesus Christ, without the baggage of Jewish interpretation of Mosaic Law. I don't think the writings of Paul would be considered "latecoming" to Christianity.

Well, the protestants don't teach the connection between the seder and the last supper today, so I don't see how they can complain that the Catholic church makes that connection clearer.

Except I did learn about the Seder through the Protestant teachings, and I don't think the Catholic church makes the connection clearer. RC teaching obscures the meaning of the Seder, the Lord's Supper, and believer's communion behind the veil of Greek philosophical babble.

[Straybow]

The RCC substituted its own inventions in place of the Seder. The Sacraments became mystical ceremonies that worked their magic in the realm of the unseeable, unknowable Substance while we muggles remained stuck in the mere Accident.

The idea of a mystery is that it is not fully comprehended by ourselves and our limitations. That does not mean it cannot be somewhat understood, but only that we have to understand these limitations.

Secondly, even the wizards are muggles, there is no 'secret knowledge' available to a few. Everything that is known is out there and available to anyone who wishes to know more.

That isn't true. The whole concept of Accident and Substance is baloney. If the wafer actually became the Real Presence of Christ, where are the miracles? Where is the woman healed of the issue of blood? They should be happening left and right, like the people who were healed just by touching handkerchiefs that Paul had prayed over.

If the wafer actually changes why can it not be detected? I issued this challenge once before to a Catholic. Get two boxes that are approved for holding the consecrated wafer. In one place a concecrated wafer, in the other have a skeptic place an identical unconsecrated wafer. Have a third party secretly mark the boxes and perform a double-blind test to see if the Priest can discern the one he blessed.

He can't. There is no test to see if a wafer is actually consecrated, to see if it actually becomes the Real Presence. The Priest can't accidentally mess up the Sacrament and fail. If he completely forgets and uses an unconsecrated wafer, according to the current teaching of the RC church, the sacrament is still perserved.

In fact, as the teaching now stands, all we benighted Protestants who take communion actually partake of the Real Presence, even though we say we don't want to! It has to be that way, they say, because they reluctantly admit that we are saved, accepted and beloved by God, and that only happens by their Sacraments.

On the other hand we have marriage. According to RC doctrine marriage is a Sacrament. That means marriage also causes a permanent change in the Substance of the two so that they become "one flesh." No, it isn't just metaphorical, or the twining of kindred souls, but literally one flesh in the invisible characteristic of Substance.

However, the Priest can't tell that this has happened properly. Every once in a while the RC church will admit that it didn't happen properly and issues an Annulment. They officially declare "it never happened." For many centuries this only seemed to happen to really important people, like Kings. You'd think God and the Priests would be really careful to get it right for Kings and let the peasants slide.

Divorce, on the other hand is impossible. Nope, what God has put together let no man put asunder. We can't even ask God to put it asunder, instead we must ask the church to look back in time, with its unquestionable wisdom, and declare that it never happened. God forsees that this couple would want a divorce x number of years later, so He intervenes and makes it not happen even thought the Priest goes through the rite.

So, I guess it's better to fool a couple into thinking they have the blessing of sacramental marriage, have them live together and bear children and then find themselves without the blessing of marriage. No, we can't admit that sometimes people get hard-hearted and the best way to make peace is to end it. You know, like what Jesus said about divorce. (Just another example of how RC doctrine contradicts scripture.)

How did they paint themselves into this absurd corner? It is all assumed, based on teachings that go back centuries but do not go back to Christ and the Apostles.

So what do the Apostles say about "mysteries?" Whenever Paul speaks of a mystery it is something that before Christ was hinted at, but now is fully revealed in Christ. It never refers to something new, never before seen in scripture, and completely imperceptible even to the Priest performing the ceremony!

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

By no means. The RC tradition of opposing contraception is based on an inductive reading of one passage from Genesis and another from Leviticus/Deuteronomy which ignores the context in both cases.

Is that so? I suggest you should read what the Roman Catholics say about themselves, and how they defend their teachings against contraception.

They do not refer to either passage, rather they refer to Matthew's gospel, which teaches that the two in marriage are to become one flesh.

I will concede that modern RC statements do not rely on the two I cited. However the historical origins of RC sexual hang-ups about contraception do tie to those two scriptures. In the RC church you cannot separate the past from the present because there is, in their own eyes, unbroken continuity of dogma.

Who says that those in heaven are resurrected? Who says that Elijah was either "alive" or resurrected? Scripture only says that Elijah was taken away and didn't leave a body behind. There are a multitude of assumptions between that and RC doctrine.

I can only say, once again, that you seem to have settled upon the answer given by the RC church without fully investigating the matter either within the RC position or positions from Protestant theology.

You skillfully avoided my question. Moses died here on Earth, while Elijah was bodily assumed into heaven. Yet Moses appears with Elijah on the Mount of the Transfiguration. How can this be? The only satisfactory answer I have received to this question is the Catholic understanding of the saints.

Ok, I'll break it down for you. Moses died. Elijah disappeared without leaving a body behind, and traditionally he was "assumed" into heaven. So then what happened? Is Elijah sitting around in heaven in a mortal body? Did his mortal body simply slough off, incapable of existing in the realm of the spirit? Has he been given a resurrection body that is qualitatively different? Has Moses been given a resurrection body?

These are all assumptions which can't be answered. There is no answer. Moses and Elijah appear before Jesus. We don't know if they are incorporeal spirits made temporarily visible, but they certainly could be.

The doctrine of the Resurrection taught by Paul contradicts RC teaching as you've stated it. The resurrection of believers does not occur until Christ's return. This is about as direct a teaching as ever found in scripture. But if you don't understand scripture, how can you judge whether RC doctrine is true just because Moses and Elijah appeared before Jesus?

[Barinthus]

10 pages of this thread to read - too long ha.

Just wanted to say welcome to the club, BK

[Ben Kenobi]

Thank you Barinthus.

It's an interesting discussion for those willing to take the time to read it all.

[Ben Kenobi]

That isn't true. The whole concept of Accident and Substance is baloney. If the wafer actually became the Real Presence of Christ, where are the miracles? Where is the woman healed of the issue of blood? They should be happening left and right, like the people who were healed just by touching handkerchiefs that Paul had prayed over.

Isn't this one of the temptations of Satan to Christ? If you are the Son of God, and surely, God will rescue you, why do you not jump off the temple, and let God save you?

What does Christ reply? "It is written, do not put the Lord God to the test."

This is what you are doing here, you are putting God to the test, by asking the Real Presence to be proven through empirical means. Even if it could be done, why would the test be successful? God cannot be constrained to such an experiment, and experiments to be valid require such constraints.

Are some people healed? Yes. Are all sick people who come into contact with the eucharist healed? No. Is this any different from any of the miracles of Christ? No. Does not Christ in his miracles say, 'Go, your faith has healed you?' And does he also not say, 'Neither his father nor his mother sinned, but he has suffered so that the glory of God may be shown'.

In fact, as the teaching now stands, all we benighted Protestants who take communion actually partake of the Real Presence, even though we say we don't want to! It has to be that way, they say, because they reluctantly admit that we are saved, accepted and beloved by God, and that only happens by their Sacraments.

Why so? This is the second part, transubstantiation, which is why the priests themselves can consecrate the eucharist, and why no one else has that privilege. Your conclusion is false, the Catholic church teaches that while sacraments are a method, they are only a method, and that God is not constrained to the sacraments, in order to provide salvation. This is a very old argument, and Catholics who have said that salvation can only be had through the sacraments have been repudiated.

You say they reluctantly accept, but that attitude is changing. The recognition that even though protestants are separated brethren, that they remain brothers and sisters in Christ, is a sea change from the earlier position of the Catholic church, and needs to be understood as such.

So while you are right, that people can be saved outside of the Catholic church, you are wrong that you partake of the body and blood of Christ, since you do not believe that this is true! No one can be healed, unless he believes that he may be healed, so how can anyone partake of the sacrament of the eucharist, unless they believe in the real presence?

On the other hand we have marriage. According to RC doctrine marriage is a Sacrament. That means marriage also causes a permanent change in the Substance of the two so that they become "one flesh." No, it isn't just metaphorical, or the twining of kindred souls, but literally one flesh in the invisible characteristic of Substance.

Yes, it is literally one flesh, just as Christ is married to his church. Don't forget that part of Paul's teachings.

However, the Priest can't tell that this has happened properly. Every once in a while the RC church will admit that it didn't happen properly and issues an Annulment. They officially declare "it never happened." For many centuries this only seemed to happen to really important people, like Kings. You'd think God and the Priests would be really careful to get it right for Kings and let the peasants slide.

Interesting. Wasn't the establishment of one of the more longstanding protestant denominations based upon a rejection of a request for annulment?

You imply that such annulments were taken upon casually, which is refuted by what happened to our good ol' Henry VIII. They were not taken upon casually, they were grave affairs, much different from the way in which society views divorce today.

No, we can't admit that sometimes people get hard-hearted and the best way to make peace is to end it. You know, like what Jesus said about divorce. (Just another example of how RC doctrine contradicts scripture.)

You attack a strawman, again. What does the RC church teach about marriage? Do they permit divorce in certain circumstances, such as marital infidelity? Isn't that precisely what Christ says in Matthew?

So what do the Apostles say about "mysteries?" Whenever Paul speaks of a mystery it is something that before Christ was hinted at, but now is fully revealed in Christ. It never refers to something new, never before seen in scripture, and completely imperceptible even to the Priest performing the ceremony!

Yet Paul speaks of a mystery, the similarity between the unity of Christ and his church, as between a man and a woman. So when you speak of the union, in two becoming one flesh, you are speaking of a mystery, which cannot fully be understood, even by the priest in performing the ceremony.