Pages

Thursday, May 30, 2013

St Cyril of Jerusalem gives an example of Tradition (Were the Early Church Fathers Protestant?)

Often times Protestants ask Catholics to "define Tradition," expecting to find some long drawn out list of teachings that weren't written down in Scripture. The problem is, that's not how Tradition is understood. Rather, a better understanding of Tradition is the Church's Liturgical life, seeing the oral tradition expressed in ancient prayers of the Mass. A good example of this can be seen in St Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures. 

Cyril was Bishop of Jerusalem and lived from 315-386AD. He is famous for his Catechetical Lectures series, consisting of 23 'presentations'. In the final presentation (Lecture 23) he described the Christian liturgy of the early Church, which I will extensively cite and highlight. Maybe you might recognize a thing or two:
1. By the loving-kindness of God you have heard sufficiently at our former meetings concerning Baptism, and Chrism [Confirmation], and partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ; and now it is necessary to pass on to what is next in order, meaning today to set the crown on the spiritual building of your edification. 
2. You have seen then the Deacon who gives to the Priest water to wash, and to the Presbyters who stand round God's altar. ... Did you not hear the blessed David opening this very mystery, and saying, I will wash my hands in innocency, and so will compass Your Altar, O Lord? The washing therefore of hands is a symbol of immunity from sin.
3. Then the Deacon cries aloud, Receive ye one another; and let us kiss one another. Think not that this kiss is of the same character with those given in public by common friends. ... For this cause Christ said, If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there rememberest that your brother has anything against time, leave there your gift upon the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. The kiss therefore is reconciliation...
4. After this the Priest cries aloud, Lift up your hearts. For truly ought we in that most awful hour to have our heart on high with God, and not below, thinking of earth and earthly things. In effect therefore the Priest bids all in that hour to dismiss all cares of this life, or household anxieties, and to have their heart in heaven with the merciful God. Then ye answer, We lift them up unto the Lord: assenting to it, by your avowal. ...
5. Then the Priest says, Let us give thanks unto the Lord. For verily we are bound to give thanks, that He called us, unworthy as we were, to so great grace; that He reconciled us when we were His foes; that He vouchsafed to us the Spirit of adoption. Then ye say, It is meet and right: for in giving thanks we do a meet thing and a right...
6. After this, we make mention of heaven, and earth, and sea; of sun and moon; of stars and all the creation, rational and irrational, visible and invisible; of Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Thrones; of the Cherubim with many faces: in effect repeating that call of David's Magnify the Lord with me. We make mention also of the Seraphim, whom Esaias in the Holy Spirit saw standing around the throne of God, and with two of their wings veiling their face, and with two their feet, while with two they did fly, crying Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Sabaoth. [Isaiah 6:2-3] ...
7. Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.
8. Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour we all pray and offer this sacrifice.
9. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth.
10. ... when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.
11. Then, after these things, we say that Prayer which the Saviour delivered to His own disciples, with a pure conscience entitling God our Father, and saying, Our Father, which art in heaven. ... 13. Your kingdom come. ... 14. Your will be done as in heaven so on earth. ... 15. Give us this day our substantial bread. ... 16. And forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors. ... 17. And lead us not into temptation, O Lord. ... 18. But deliver us from the evil. ... Then after completing the prayer you say Amen ...
19. After this the Priest says, Holy things to holy men. Holy are the gifts presented, having received the visitation of the Holy Ghost; holy are you also, having been deemed worthy of the Holy Ghost; the holy things therefore correspond to the holy persons. Then ye say, One is Holy, One is the Lord, Jesus Christ. ...
20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to your bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ.
21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries.
23. Hold fast these traditions undefiled and, keep yourselves free from offense. Sever not yourselves from the Communion; deprive not yourselves, through the pollution of sins, of these Holy and Spiritual Mysteries. ...
If you haven't noticed, this is essentially the same structure of the Liturgy we have today. Of course there are slight differences, but this can be attributed to organic development and the fact there were different liturgies (but the same structure) in East and West. 

As for the doctrines espoused in this Liturgical instruction, clearly Cyril was espousing the real presence of Jesus, not treating this as mere bread, saying even the tiniest crumb is more precious than gold. He also made mention of the fact this is a sacrifice, and that this sacrifice helps even those in purgatory, and also that the saints in heaven intercede for us. Of course these and many other claims would be anathema to Protestant ears, condemning this as a blasphemous charade.This is why Protestantism has abandoned these things, and yet the Early Church Fathers saw Liturgy as the heart and crown of the Christian life.

I think this Lecture 23 does a fine job of getting the notion of Tradition across. The Church calls this Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, meaning the method of prayer and liturgy acts as a guide in what doctrines we believe (the method of prayer impacts the method of belief).

93 comments:

Daniel said...

The good ole Divine Liturgy of St James. I was just looking at that the other day. http://newadvent.org/fathers/0717.htm

I noticed without exception that all critical commentaries of it note the line "Commemorating our all-holy, pure, most glorious, blessed Lady, the God-Mother and Ever-Virgin Mary, and all the saints that have been well-pleasing to You since the world began, let us devote ourselves, and one another, and our whole life, to Christ our God:" as an interpolation.

I found out today that the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari (spelling varies)--the one that leaves out the words of institution!!!--parallels this,

"For the memorial of the blessed St. Mary, the holy Virgin, the mother of Christ our Savior and Life-giver, let us pray . . . "

Steve Martin said...

I think the early Church Fathers were probably (in total) a little bit of everything.

cwdlaw223 said...

Steve -

Why did Christianity go off the rails after 200 AD with all of the Catholic thinking/worshiping dominating Christianity? I see no proto-Protestants in history but Protrstants see plenty of themselves in scripture (just not history).

Steve Dalton said...

Steve, until about 20 years ago, I used to be a Lutheran. Then, I became Catholic. The main reasons I became Catholic were I couldn't find Luther doctrine's in the Bible or in history prior to 1517. I could only find the Catholic Church.

When it comes to the Church Fathers, I find you and your fellow Protestants really have only two choices when dealing with them. One, you denigrate them by claiming the gospel was being concealed by false traditions, or two, you cherry-pick them to 'prove' they taught some form of Proto-Lutheranism. Neither approach is historically honest. There's no way you can shoehorn Lutheranism or any other form of Protestantism into the historical record. Protestantism, especially sola fide, is a modern innovation, completely unknown before 1517.

Steve Martin said...

The church started going off the rails right from the start. Read Paul's letters.

Lutherans don't denigrate the Church Fathers. We only criticize those who move away from Christ and His cross for sinners. Yesterday and today. When we stay centered on the cross, all is well. When we move to 'ourselves' and what 'we do'...then the trouble starts.

I was a Catholic for 35 years. I found no real assurance there. No rest. I have it now. In Christ alone.

Steve Dalton said...

"The Church started going off the rails from the start." Certain groups and individuals started to go off the rails. Paul corrected them and put them back on the rails. It's the same story throughout church history, Sadly, some, like Luther, want to be derailed from the faith.

"Lutherans don't denigrate the Church Fathers". Oh, bull hockey! One only has to read his "Table Talk" to realize he slandered and libeled the Church Fathers day in, day out. But he sure had a high esteem for his own wisdom didn't he?

Thirty five years a Catholic and you had rest? I can't read your mind, but you're not going to find rest in a sect that was founded by a man who had bi-polar, explosive rage, excessive drinking, and other mental problems.



Steve Dalton said...

Correction: I meant no rest.

Daniel said...

Steve Martin,

Is the following Gospel or heresy:

"Moreover, neither contrition nor love or any other virtue, but faith alone is the sole means and instrument by which and through which we can receive and accept the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins, which are offered us in the promise of the Gospel."

Steve Martin said...

Daniel,

That is gospel.

But we Christians use the same vocabulary...but with different definitions.

For us, grace is totally unmerited favor. It's not a lift up into the saddle or a help to 'do' what we ought 'to do'.

The church is in constant need of reformation because we are self-centered sinners who veer off course and back into ourselves and 'what we do' (which is merely religion - and not faith).

Michael Taylor said...

Nick,

You're grosly misrepresenting Cyril of Jerusalem. A while back I blogged an article on his view of scripture. I think I made a fairly good case for why he held a position closer to what the Reformers meant by sola scriptura. You can read about that here:

http://fallibility.blogspot.com/2011/06/did-cyril-of-jerusalem-believe-in-sola.html

Daniel said...

"And while the kings of particular nations have bounds set to their authority, the Holy Church Catholic alone extends her power without limit over the whole world; for God, as it is written, has made her border peace. But I should need many more hours for my discourse, if I wished to speak of all things which concern her. In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; for which also we endure all toils, that we may be made partakers thereof from the Lord. "

Cyril thought that was compatible with his version of what you call Sola Scriptura. Is that compatible with your version of Sola Scriptura?

Nick said...

Michael,

I have a draft on St Cyril's alleged Sola Scriptrua remarks. The reason why I posted what I posted though is because what he says about the Liturgy comes from the oral aspect of Tradition. The problem the Sola Scriptura reading of Cyril falls into is that it makes Cyril out to be a moron by claiming SS on one hand but then claiming these radically unbiblical and blasphemous teachings (which I quoted above) on the other hand.

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

Who else in history from 100 AD - 350 AD do you believe supported sola scripture and left interpretive authority in man over a church and did NOT participate in the Mass? Anonymous couldn't name any. I wonder why?

I presume you believe there is no physical church on this planet that has authority over you to interpret scripture for all men. I also presume you believe either: (a) scripture is self interpreting (I hope not), or (b) if man just keeps working and learning enough he'll figure out the true interpretation of scripture.

A is ridiculous.

B is scholasticism, leads to relativism and no man can ever acquire enough knowledge to ever be able to interpret all of scripture (or even the key parts as evidenced by Pism itself and their many different OFFICIAL interpretations of scripture regarding baptism, the Eucharist, Ecelesiology and soteriology.

Just admit man went flying off the rails after 200 AD with the vile practice of the Mass.

cwdlaw223 said...

Steve Martin -

Please explain why the Catholic position emerged after 200 AD? (I think it was earlier, but 200 AD is a good starting place).

Man just lost his way for 1,200 years thereafter? You are more intelligent? Have better exegesis in English then they did in Greek/Latin? The early church lacked intelligence or proper guidance? Christ never formed a physical Church on this planet to guide us? How do you account for the millions of illiterate souls from 200 AD forward?

Christ isn't alone just as scripture isn't alone and faith isn't alone.

cwdlaw223 said...

There is no Church if its in need of constant reformation. The people within might need to be constantly reformed, but not the Church. That's an insane statement from an epistemological point of view or else the Church would never, ever be able to state truth.

Of course, each individual person can figure out truth better than any church! :)

Steve Martin said...

There's no perfect doctrine and there's no perfect Church.

But there is a perfect gospel.

Scripture is just a recalibration of that Word that is preached and taught.

St. Paul argued against adding to Christ, rightfully, and Peter recognized that fact.

But that is not to say that we all don't have within us the desire to sometimes take matters into our own hands and try and add to Christ's Cross.

The Old sinner in us constantly want a role in all of this.

But Christ is after faith from us. That's it as far as our justification and sanctification goes.

But if you are a Baptist/Calvinist...or a Catholic...you will balk at that.

cwdlaw223 said...

Wow! I guess you missed the line where he said you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.

Let me guess, you just dismiss the fact that nobody in history believed like you do and everyone was wrong for 2013 years!

You've effectively removed any possibility that man could properly interpret the Gospel and therefore made it meaningless.

I guess there's no perfect preaching as well since man is unable to communicate perfection. It's just sitting there in a book that isn't self interpreting or self authenticating.

I suspect you live in a world where you apply logic and reason at work but leave it when it comes to religion/theology. Very, very dangerous and denigrates the written word preserved by God's Church.

You recognize that you also denigrate Christ's bride don't you? I doubt it.

Steve Martin said...

I do recognize that there is no perfect preaching. But the Lord uses earthen vessels for His perfect purposes, does He not?

We absolutely believe He comes to us as gift in His Supper. We receive His true body and blood.

We just don't claim to know exactly how that happens as the Catholic Church claims to know.

For us, He is in, under, and with the elements. He is truly there for us.

There...now you know more about how Lutherans view the meal than do most Lutherans :D

cwdlaw223 said...

Christ must have just been joking around with those hard sayings and he didn't mind when people walked about apparently confused that he was using a metaphor.

So how do you reconcile the fact that history has no connection with your interpretation of scripture and worldview of Christianity?

You're smarter? You have better exegesis?

You don't believe that Christ created a physical church on this earth to guide us until his second coming, do you?

Clint said...

Steve Dalton:

I can't read your mind, but you're not going to find rest in a sect that was founded by a man who had bi-polar, explosive rage, excessive drinking, and other mental problems.

I do not think the gentleman you wrote this to would not find rest in Lutheranism just because Martin Luther was imperfect on all levels. In fact, Lutheranism is not bound to Luther's every word and action. Take a look at the Book of Concord, the Lutheran confessions; only three of its 11 documents were written by Luther. Even the Augsburg Confession, which all Lutheran churches subscribe to, whether they are confessional or not, was written by many men and none of them were Luther.

Pax tecum.

Clint said...

cwdlaw223:

Christ must have just been joking around with those hard sayings and he didn't mind when people walked about apparently confused that he was using a metaphor.

I am curious if you understood what Steve wrote. He and all real Lutherans do not believe John 6:55 ("For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.") and similar statements by Jesus were metaphorical. He and they do believe what they consume during Divine Service is the substantial flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. They simply don't profess the explanation of transubstantiation just as the Eastern Orthodox do not.

Clint said...

Nick:

Something I would like to say in response to this sentence at the end of the post:

Of course these and many other claims would be anathema to Protestant ears, condemning this as a blasphemous charade.

Lutherans and some Anglicans do indeed believe that what is consumed in the Eucharist is truly and substantially the flesh and blood of Christ. They and many other Protestants, from what I know, cannot find anything wrong with the Church triumphant praying for the Church militant. Luther wrote in his Smalcald Articles that they know and appreciate the Virgin Mary and the Saints praying for them. He just didn't see that as a reason for having festivals and pilgrimages for them.

Pax tecum.

Anonymous said...

Steve Dalton,
You wrote .."The main reasons I became Catholic were I couldn't find Luther doctrine's in the Bible or in history prior to 1517. I could only find the Catholic Church..."

You didn't look far enough back. We don't find the Marian dogmas, indulgences, papal infallibility, etc for the first at least the first 500 years of church history.

Michael Taylor said...

"And while the kings of particular nations have bounds set to their authority, the Holy Church Catholic alone extends her power without limit over the whole world; for God, as it is written, has made her border peace. But I should need many more hours for my discourse, if I wished to speak of all things which concern her. In this Holy Catholic Church receiving instruction and behaving ourselves virtuously, we shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and inherit eternal life; for which also we endure all toils, that we may be made partakers thereof from the Lord. "

Daniel>>Cyril thought that was compatible with his version of what you call Sola Scriptura. Is that compatible with your version of Sola Scriptura?<<


Yes. First, the English translation you're referring to capitalizes "Holy" and "Catholic" and "Church" giving the impression that we are talking about "The Roman Catholic Church ®". Again, that's the bias of later ecclesiology being read back into history. (Ask the Orthodox if they think Cyril of Jerusalem was card-carrying Roman Catholic, and see how they respond.)

I haven't been able to verify this in PG (as the online Cyril of Jerusalem resources are down), but usually Migne's Greek text does not capitalize those words in other editions. So "Holy Catholic Church" would probably read "eklesia katolika hagia" or something like that (not sure of the case there).

That would suggest that Cryil isn't "naming" the church so much as he is "describing" it. The church catholic (small c) is holy. No historic Protestant has a problem with that. I certainly don't.

That said, I wonder if you would agree with Fr. Edward Yarnold, SJ—an expert on Cyril of Jerusalem:

"Cyril subscribed to a form of scriptura sola doctrine stating categorically that every doctrinal statement must be based on the Scriptures..." (Edward Yarnold, SJ, Cyril of Jerusalem, The Early Church Fathers, [London: Routledge, 2006], p. 56, my emphasis).

My point of course is that even respected Roman Catholic historians (who presumably know the source material better than any of us here) agree that Cyril's understanding of the rule of faith is at least a "form" of the sola scriputra doctrine.

In my blog article I argue that it is at least compatible with material sufficiency. But I think a case can be made for formal sufficiency too.

One thing to keep in mind is that the "Holy Catholic Church" of Cyril's day didn't yet have obviously false doctrines like papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, indulgences etc. So we can't just *assume* that his understanding of the church would have accorded with what later Romanism went on to "develop."

Steve Dalton said...

@Clint. Clint, the idea that the Lutherans don't subscribe to everything Luther said or wrote or that he didn't write all of the documents in Concord doesn't impress me one bit. Poor ol' Marty saw everything through the prism of his mental illnesses. Most well informed Lutherans know this, but they have to ignore the reality lest the Lutheran sect falls to pieces. Many scholars of various religious persuasions and medical authorities have come to the same conclusion about Luther's state of mind and it's influence on his religious ideas. So even if Mad Marty didn't write everything in Concord and the Lutherans aren't bound by his every word and action, his distorted, twisted mind influences everything in the sect he founded and the Protestant world at large.

Steve Dalton said...

Anon @ 05/31/13, 7:44 PM. Sorry son, but I read a lot of early Church history, and I found everything you claim that wasn't being done, was being done by the early church. Go back and read the ECF's until you get it right.

Steve Martin said...

Of course we don't rest in Lutheranism...or Luther!

We rest completely in Christ!

That's what Luther said!

Luther was a REAL sinner. And he said some very stupid things. But he knew what the gospel was and shouted it from the rooftops in the face of death threats from the Roman Church.

I thank God for him.

Anonymous said...

Steve,
Where do we first see it being taught in the church Mary's assumption, being prayed to? Where are Christians first taught to seek indulgences?

Where do we see the bishop of Rome first being proclaimed infallible on anything?

Do church fathers speak for the entire church in their writings and if so who said so?

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael Taylor -

Do you believe the Mass is a false doctrine? It certainly isn't a Protestant doctrine.

Please tell us what you believe is an indulgence? If you think it's something less than punishment you're wrong. If you think it absolves someone of future sins you're wrong again. If you think that true repentence doesn't matter you're wrong a third time.

The fact that papal infallibility and the immaculate conception weren't dogmatically defined does not mean the early church wasn't Catholic (Roman rite - I presume you know there is more than one rite in the Catholic Church).

When was the last time you called your denomination the Holy Catholic Church? I bet you never do it or you just explain history away in your head to make yourself feel good if you even recite the fallible Nicene Creed.

You are much more of a closet progressive than I thought. You are kidding yourself if you think history is anywhere close to Protestantism. History is filled with illiterate believers with the Mass front and center. Quit kidding yourself.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Show us one church father who used the words "justification by faith alone" all at once.

Show us one church father who used the words "sola scriptura."

Show us a sect of believers who lasted over time and rejected the Mass.

There is nobody like you in history until after 1,400 and yet that doesn't bother you in the least. Of course, you're more intelligent and have better exegesis than 1,400 years of history.

Nick -

The historical ignorance on this site is getting worse, not better.

cwdlaw223 said...

This is a very good summary of indulgences:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgences

Steve Martin said...

cwdlaw223,

You got me.

We trust in Christ alone.

That other stuff is for religious/spiritual ladder-climbers.

We don't go in for those sort of things. It lessens the need for faith. Not good.

cwdlaw223 said...

Christ was never alone and he didn't leave us alone. There's a reason he talks so much about the physical Church he created on this earth as his bride.

Christ alone is code for I'll create Christ on my own terms and feel good about it. Of course, that's the end result of Protestantism. Man thinks he's "Christian" while living a lie. Satan did a masterful job getting man to create Christ on his own terms (not Christ's terms) and think he's following Christ.

The Eucharist and Baptism are meaningless in your worldview despite the fact that Christ indicates salvation is necessary with them. Why even use scripture? It's all Christ alone and man can certainly figure it out.

Steve Martin said...

Man can't figure anything out of his own volition, when it comes to the things of God.

We are "dead in our sins and trespasses". Through the hearing of the Word and the receiving of Baptism and Holy Communion, God creates and sustains faith...in those whom He chooses.

There is a Church here on earth, but it is invisible. There are true believers in your church and in mine. And non-believers in your church and mine.

That's why Jesus spoke of the "tares and the wheat". They look alike but are very different. But Jesus said not to mess around trying to figure it out (which is which). He will take care of that on the last Day.

De Maria said...

No, Steve,

The Church is visible. It is the Catholic Church and Christ established her to teach His Truths throughout the centuries (Eph 3:10).

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Michael Taylor,

Did St. Cyril learn to believe in all the Doctrines of the Catholic Church by studying the Scripture alone?

Is he not a Bishop who asserted His magisterial authority?

Is he not a Priest who confected the Eucharist and provided all the Sacraments?

Did he learn that Mary is the Mother of God from Scripture alone?

Did he learn that Baptism is divine and life giving from Scripture alone?

I wonder then, why none of the Protestants who hold to Sola Scriptura have come to these conclusions also?

The answer is clear. He did not hold to Scripture alone but to the Word of God as taught by the Church in Tradition and Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Michael Taylor said...

De Maria>>Did St. Cyril learn to believe in all the Doctrines of the Catholic Church by studying the Scripture alone?<<

He didn't believe in all the doctrines of the Roman church because many of them had not been invented yet. But he did say that "scripture contains the whole of doctrine." Since the Immaculate conception isn't in scripture, and since he wrote nothing about it, and since the doctrine wasn't defined until 1854, then it would seem that he wasn't a Roman Catholic anyway and so the question is pointless anyway.

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael Taylor -

Let's assume the immaculate conception is a man made doctrine.

Please explain how this doctrine detracts from Scripture.

The fact that people believe the human vessel that carried Christ didn't contain the stain of sin somehow detracts from Christ? It makes perfect sense when compared to the arc of the covenant in the Old Testament.

Or Mary isn't special in the history of Christianity, just another mother full of grace who didn't risk death when accepting to carry Christ while bethroed (not married - but I'm sure you know the significant difference between in Biblical time being pregnant before one is married.

The words "sola scriptura", "justification by faith alone" and "trinity" aren't in scripture so they aren't biblical as well. :)

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael Taylor -

Are you finally going to recant your pergorative statements regarding indulgences and Rome?

If not, are you going to show us Catholics how indulgences, as used and defined by Rome (not Tetzel), are wrong? Please do.

Bad information = Bad Conclusions.

cwdlaw223 said...

Great article by Joe H. on Mary as the New Arc: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/12/mary-ark-of-new-covenant.html

Of course, in Protestant circles she's just another woman. Maybe the most important woman ever on the face of this planet, but just another person who deserves no veneration. (Massive difference between vernation vs. worship unless you just want to twist knowledge and create a new form of Christianity out of thin air).

Michael Taylor said...

>>Let's assume the immaculate conception is a man made doctrine.

Please explain how this doctrine detracts from Scripture.<<

You're joking, right? If it's man-made, then it's made-up. How, in any possible Christian universe, is this not the very definition of something that detracts from scripture. Help me understand how you're not seeing that.

>>The fact that people believe the human vessel that carried Christ didn't contain the stain of sin somehow detracts from Christ? It makes perfect sense when compared to the arc of the covenant in the Old Testament. <<

It makes no sense whatsoever. By the same logic, Mary's parents would have had to have been immaculate so that they could be fitting vessels for her. The fact that you have to resort to typology that no scriptural author saw only shows how non-existent the scriptural case is for the IC.

>>Or Mary isn't special in the history of Christianity, just another mother full of grace who didn't risk death when accepting to carry Christ while bethroed (not married - but I'm sure you know the significant difference between in Biblical time being pregnant before one is married.<<

Irrelevant. None of that necessitates an immaculate conception.

>>The words "sola scriptura", "justification by faith alone" and "trinity" aren't in scripture so they aren't biblical as well. :)<<

But the concepts are. The same cannot be said of the IC. If you disagree, go ahead and show us the doctrine in the materially sufficient scriptures that the modern Roman church now affirms.

Michael Taylor said...

>>Are you finally going to recant your pergorative statements regarding indulgences and Rome?<<

No.

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael Taylor -

(1) If you use any words other than scripture itself you violate your own rule. It's "made up." You can't be that ignorant.

Help me understand how you are unable to see the consequences of your statements.

I guess you should remove the headings from your Bible as well since they're "made up" and not part of scripture. You should also remove chapter and verse since they're made up and therefore must detract from scripture.

(2) The concept of Mary's sinless is in scripture just like "justifiation by faith alone" and "sola scriptura." You can't have it both ways. Let me guess, you can. I posted a link to a great article on the subject of the immaculate conception.

(3) Once again you're going down the road of infinite regression. Mary is 100% human. Christ is both human and God simultaneously. Therefore, the infinite regression for Mary's parents, et al., isn't necessary.

(4) Please define the word "indulgence" for us Catholics as it was used by Rome itself. We want to know since you obviously know better than we do how this practice was wrong.

cwdlaw223 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

You said the "concepts" are biblical in referring to "justification by faith alone," "trinity," and "sola scriptura."

Absolutely stunning that you don't see the use of tradition in your statement to allow "concepts" to be deemed biblical and therefore Apostolic. You reject any Apostolic tradition exists outside of scripture and yet you claim "justification by faith alone," "trinity," and "sola scriptura" are Apostolic. However, you obviously use man made tradition to prove certain "concepts" are biblical and therefore Apostolic.

The irony is lost upon you I guess.


cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

I'm not joking. Tell us how the immaculate conception detracts from Christ. Enlgihten us dolts how believing that Mary was born without the stain of original sin detracts from Christ.

But first, I can't wait for your definition of the word "indulgence."

Steve Martin said...

DeMaria,

You contradict the clear words of Jesus who told us that "the wheat and tares grow together."

You claim to know who is in Christ and who is not?

Jesus also told us "not to judge...lest you yourself be judged."

You just heaped more judgement upon yourself. You oughta watch that :D

Michael Taylor said...

CDW>>1) If you use any words other than scripture itself you violate your own rule. It's "made up." You can't be that ignorant.<<

What are you talking about? I ask because it sounds like you're saying that sola scriptura is the claim that doctrines can only be formulated with biblical words. If that's you're claim, then you're ignorant. I'd simply ask you to cite any Reformer or Protestant confession or denominational standard that *ever* formulates sola scriptura in this way. (No wonder you apostatized. You were easy pickings for Rome's apologists. Seriously, dude, you betray no awareness of the Protestant tradition you left.)

>>(2) The concept of Mary's sinless is in scripture<<

Proof?

>> Once again you're going down the road of infinite regression. Mary is 100% human. Christ is both human and God simultaneously. Therefore, the infinite regression for Mary's parents, et al., isn't necessary.<<

Irrelevant. You can't prove that Mary has to be sinless in order for the God-Man to be in her womb to begin with. Try to give at least one coherent, biblical argument for this supposition of yours. The fact is you can't. You can only assert this is pious opinion. But that's all you've got.


Michael Taylor said...

>>Absolutely stunning that you don't see the use of tradition in your statement to allow "concepts" to be deemed biblical and therefore Apostolic.<<

If I'm following you, you're saying that it's inconsistent to accept the Trinity on the one hand, but reject the Immaculate Conception on the other. (Is that a fair assessment of your position?)

You seem to think that the entire case for the Trinity depends on "tradition" (the weasel word which you have yet to define for anyone but which you think is self-evidently held by one and all with the exact same understanding).

It might interest you to know that most historic Protestants (and I count myself as one of them) readily acknowledge that the Trinity does belong to "tradition." That's because sola scriptura is not the denial of tradition; rather it is the claim that tradition is only valid insofar as it conforms to scripture. So we can look at the "tradition" of the Trinity and test it against scripture to see if it is in fact a Biblical doctrine. Most Protestants think it is, which is why most Protestants affirm it.

But can you or *anyone* in Rome say this about the Immaculate Conception? If you think you can, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is and prove it. First, demonstrate for us that it is in fact a "tradition" that is *apostolic* in origin. Then show us how it is substantiated in scripture.

Here is how you're going to do that for us:

1. Start with the 1854 definition itself. (Recall that Pius IX said the doctrine has "always" been believed.)

2. Since your infallible pope has so decreed, then surely you should have no problem demonstrating the doctrine in "Sacred Tradition."

3. Since you also hold to the material sufficiency of scripture (per Vatican II), then go ahead and show us where it is in Scripture.

4. I will make no more responses to you on any subject whatsoever until you comply with 1-3 above.

Adios, amigo y buena suerte.


cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

What level of "proof" do you require for something to be true? Scientific certainly? Probability? Reasonable Doubt? Preponderence of the evidence? Probably Cause? Mathematical certainty?

Can you prove the Apostoles physcially wrote the original Scriptures (which we don't have)? If so, where's your proof?

You claimed if something is "made up" that it must be non-Christian. Do you read and think about what you write?

(1) Tell us how the doctrine of the immaculate conception detracts from Christ. This doctrine makes complete sense when analyzed through the lense of a 1st Century Jew (instead of a 21st centruy Progressive like yourself).

(2) Tell us the definition/concept of an "indulgence" that you think Rome endorsed (Rome endorsed, not Tetzel or Luther) and how this was wrong. Let me guess, you don't believe in the temporal effect of sin. As long as man just asks for forgiveness in his brain everything is okay.

One coherent biblical argument?

Here you go: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/12/mary-ark-of-new-covenant.html

Mary was the new arc and if you read the OT you would quickly realize that arc itself was special and different.

cwdlaw223 said...

"If I'm following you, you're saying that it's inconsistent to accept the Trinity on the one hand, but reject the Immaculate Conception on the other. (Is that a fair assessment of your position?)"

Answer: Not really. It's inconsistent for you to hold a concept as "Apostolic" but use man made tradition to determine a concept was Apostolic. You can't "prove" the concept is "Apostolic" so you resort to man made tradition to determine the concept is Apostolic.

Or do you deny that "justification by faith alone", "sola scriptura" and the "Trinity" are non-Apostolic doctrines? If you do, then your position makes sense. If you don't, then your position doesn't make sense. If you reject all of your concepts as non-Apostolic then you don't have a logical problem given the standards/burdens you place on knowledge.


"That's because sola scriptura is not the denial of tradition; rather it is the claim that tradition is only valid insofar as it conforms to scripture"

Answer: Your concept of sola scriptura violates the basic law of non-contradiction. Scripture does not indicate that tradition is only valid insofar as it conforms with itself and yet that's the law you want/need to prove from scripture for sola scriptura to be Apostolic.

The immaculate conception is a deduction from scripture. Do you deny deductive reasonsing as proof? If so, you have to reject the Trinity since it's deduced from scripture.

The real question is what level of proof do you require? I'm sure you'll change it on an as needed basis since that's what progressives do.


cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

What level of proof do you require to establish any apostle wrote any book in the NT?

How do you know the Apostles wrote any book in the NT?

How do you know what is NT Scripture?

Once I have those answers we can compare apples to apples instead of appples to oranges. I don't want you to put forth a double standard for knowledge when it comes to scripture vs. tradition.

Still waiting on your indulgence definition that was used by Rome (not Luther or Tetzel (although whether Tetzel actually said what Luther thinks he said is up for debate)).

De Maria said...

Michael Taylor said...
De Maria>>Did St. Cyril learn to believe in all the Doctrines of the Catholic Church by studying the Scripture alone?<<

He didn't believe in all the doctrines of the Roman church because many of them had not been invented yet. But he did say that "scripture contains the whole of doctrine."


That is Catholic Teaching and proves that he believe all of Catholic Doctrine.

Since the Immaculate conception isn't in scripture,

Yes, it is. Hail, Full of Grace, "kecharitomen", teaches the Immaculate Conception.

and since he wrote nothing about it, and since the doctrine wasn't defined until 1854, then it would seem that he wasn't a Roman Catholic anyway and so the question is pointless anyway.

All that means is that he didn't write about it. You are reading your presuppositions into his silence. In fact, that is the same way you read Scripture. Reading into Scripture that which you believe.


Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Steve Martin said...
DeMaria,

You contradict the clear words of Jesus who told us that "the wheat and tares grow together."

You claim to know who is in Christ and who is not?

Jesus also told us "not to judge...lest you yourself be judged."

You just heaped more judgement upon yourself. You oughta watch that :D


Huh, you must be confusing me for a Protestant. I never said I knew who was in Christ and who wasn't. In fact the Catholic Church teaches us to leave judgment to God. Something which Protestants take unto themselves and usurp God's right to judge the human soul.

Sincerely,

De Maria

cwdlaw223 said...

De Maria -

If it's not in recipe form it's not in scripture for a Protestant, UNLESS they infer it from scripture. Then it's as clear as day and everyone else is wrong.

Michael Taylor said...

me: Since the Immaculate conception isn't in scripture,

De maria>>Yes, it is. Hail, Full of Grace, "kecharitomen", teaches the Immaculate Conception.<<

Like I said, since the IC isn't in scripture....

Go ahead an walk us through your reasoning on why you think kecharitomene teaches the IC. In fact, take all the time you need. I'll even host your response on my blog when you're finished.

To date I've only ever heard you make unsupported assertions. Like I've said to you before: talk is cheap.


Steve Dalton said...

Fellow commentators, Mike T. is a member of the Beggars All Fan Club. He's a hard-core Anti-Catholic. He can't be confused by the facts, his mind is already made up. IOW, it's a waste of time trying to reason with this guy. I think it would be best if we followed Titus 3:10-11. He shouldn't object to that, because it is scripture!

Michael Taylor said...

Come, now Steve....let us reason together.

Reason with me about kecharitomene. Walk me through how that gets us to the Immaculate Conception. If you can't/won't then why call me an "anti-Catholic"? I'm willing to hear you out on this. But it will take more than bare assertion. It will take supporting evidence with which I can interact.

I am not a member of "the Beggars All Fan Club." It is simply a blog I follow, like this one. (To be consistent, you'd have to say I'm in Nick's fan club too, right. Or is consistency too much to ask for here?)

Show me the facts you're referring to and then we can see if I'm confused by them.

It's not a waste of time reason with me. I'm open to reason. Show me your reason, and I'll interact with them.

As for "Anti-Catholic," unpack that a bit. Isn't every Protestant an anti-Catholic in some sense?

Steve Dalton said...

Michael, I refuse to get into an endless series of arguments with you. As I have said previously, your mind is already made up. No amount of actual historical data is going to move you from your heretical positions.

As far as I'm concerned, you are a member of the BA Fan Club. I've seen enough of their writings to recognize similar thoughts and words in your posts.

"As for "Anti-Catholic", unpack that a bit. Isn't every Protestant an Anti-Catholic in some sense?" This is the first true thing you have said on this post. You, and every other Protestant since Luther started spitting filth from his mug, have either willfully or unwittingly defamed the Catholic Church as a false church or the Pope as very Anti-Christ. So I won't "unpack" my comment at all.

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

I have hope for you.

Are you going to set forth your standard of "proof"?
Same standard as yours for knowing scripture is Apostolic.

I already sent you a link to an article that explains the IC. Did you read it?

Anonymous said...

Steve,
What you say about Michael--"..your mind is already made up. No amount of actual historical data is going to move you from your heretical positions." is exactly what you are guilty of. You are anti-truth since you know you cannot ground many of the RC doctrines in Scripture. That's why you won't even attempt to and those that try are very quickly shown that that it cannot be done.

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
"Hail, Full of Grace, "kecharitomen", teaches the Immaculate Conception" is false. That phrase has nothing to do with conception or sin. No Greek lexicon of the NT defines that word in the way you are claiming. This is an example of twisting the Scripture which false teachers do.

Michael Taylor said...

CDW,

Enough games, dude. I already responded to you on my blog. There's more than enough material there for you to digest. When you respond there, I'll take on indulgences and the IC. But for now I've got too much on my plate for those. (I did look at the Mary-as New-Ark article you linked to and am working on a response to that--look for that in a day or two on my blog).

As for "proof," we're not doing science here, right? So obviously I'm not looking for that kind of proof.
I'm simply asking you to make your best case based on the available evidence (that you countenance). That's the ordinary, everyday sense of "proof" in an apologetics com box.

It may be that I don't countenance some of what you consider to be evidence. (And perhaps vice versa). Fair enough. But even taking all that into account, surely you ought to be able to make a case for the IC given that the 1854 definition makes the strong historical claim that the doctrine was "always" believed.

Do you stand by that claim or don't you? (By the say, Steve D, if you're listening, that's not an "anti-Catholic" question. That's a reasonable question that any rational person should be allowed to ask without being accused of prejudice.)

If so, then make the case. Walk us through how you would make the case for the IC.

As for the article you sent on it, I didn't see the link. If you want that that article to be your "champion" in this discussion, fair enough. I'll interact with that as time permits. Just re-post the link and we're good.

I meant what I said by no further posts to you pending some action on your part because there's already more than enough material for the both of us to chew on. Conversations have to have a logical ending point at some time. Forever asking the "but what do you mean by proof" or define "x" first really comes across as obfuscation and an unwillingness and/or inability on your part to defend your position.

If you are unable, no judgment, no worries. Refer me to those articles (as you've been doing) that you believe can say it better than you can. I'm okay with that.

But more and more it seems that you're just unwilling. You seem to prefer to take pot shots at the opposition, but when called to the carpet to defend your own view, you start the games: "define proof," etc.

Cheers,
MT

Steve Dalton said...

@anon 8:33 AM: I'm a former Protestant. I read the early Church Fathers years ago, so I know what they truly believed. None of them were even remotely close to any form of Protestantism. That's why when someone like you or Mikey tries to claim these ECF's as Proto-Protestants, you have to cherrypick or outright twist what these men actually taught. And when that fails, Anti-Catholicism is always handy as a defense of last resort. As they say in the legal profession, "the other side has the better argument, shout louder!"

Michael Taylor said...

>>I'm a former Protestant.<<

So was I.

>>I read the early Church Fathers years ago, so I know what they truly believed.<<

So did I. May I ask exactly what you read? Did you read them in any sort of systematic way (like in a patristic class?). Did you read their entire corpus? Or, perhaps, did you read them in an anthology such as "Faith of the Early Church Fathers, vols. 1, 2, 3 by W. Jurgens? Be honest.

>> None of them were even remotely close to any form of Protestantism.<<

Fascinating, since even Roman Catholic historians agree that doctrines that the Reformers recovered often have a strong precedent in the ECFs. This is not to say the ECFs were Protestants--not at all; rather it is to say that there was a diversity of opinions among them, many of which are congenial to Reformation theology. That was my conclusion after studying the ECFs in church history classes in a Pontifical School of Theology (whose teachers were approved by Rome).

>>That's why when someone like you or Mikey tries to claim these ECF's as Proto-Protestants,<<

No sir. I'm making no such claim. My position is much more nuanced than that. It is simply dishonest on your part to misrepresent our views in this way.

>>you have to cherrypick or outright twist what these men actually taught. <<

I do hope you're not basing your claims to know what the ECFs believed on an anthology. (That's because anthologies such as Jurgens are the very definition of cherry-picking.") The reason why I mention this is because I forged my Roman Catholic identity on a steady diet of Jurgen and "The Fathers Know Best" column in "This Rock" magazine for more than a decade. But when I actually had to read those church father's within their historical and theological contexts, I found that the picture changed quite a bit.

>>And when that fails, Anti-Catholicism is always handy as a defense of last resort. As they say in the legal profession, "the other side has the better argument, shout louder!"<<

This is a canard, a desperate ploy on your part to substitute bluster and accusation for substance. We are are willing to argue our positions point by point. You're not. Yet you have the gall to label us "anti-Catholics," which , depending upon what you mean by the term, could be the very sam calumny with which you charge us.

If I called you an anti-Semite because you disagreed with several doctrines within the theology of Judaism, you might (rightly) protest that the term is far too loaded to be bandied about lightly. I fear you may be doing the same with "anti-Catholic." (Think it through.)

For the record, I agree with all the true doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. I just disagree all of the false ones. (And I do the same with Protestantism).

MT




cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

Here's an article you requested: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/12/happy-feast-of-immaculate-conception.html

Joe has an entire list of articles on the immaculate conception and Mary and I defer to him.

Your comment about you agreeing with every "true doctrine" of Rome and that you disagree with the false ones sums up your position nicely that man is the ultimate authority for any doctrine. It's all about your interpretation of scripture. Scripture doesn't interpret itself and it didn't fall down from the sky for you to even know what is scripture. Of course, like most post-modern progressives, you know better than the dolts in the past and have a better interpretation of scripture. Your position might make sense if you could support it with a group of believers in history who weren't celebrating the Mass at the center of their worship.

Don't make new requirements up and then get upset if I challenge you on these requirements. For example, you said that anything that is man made is made up and therefore non-Christian. Then when challenged to this ridiculous statement that you made you then correctly indicate doctrines can be inferred from scripture. That's part of apostolic Tradition which you claim never existed even though you can see the effect of tradition.

You are the one who keeps asking for proof, we give you proof and then you don't like the proof. If you aren't going to define the level of proof you want we can't help you.

I don't care if you're anti-Catholic or not. I prefer you stop using double standards for evidence or proof.



cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

Here is the proof you requested about the immaculate conception from tradition:

http://www.canticanova.com/articles/xmas/art1b1.htm

http://www.canticanova.com/articles/xmas/art1b2.htm

http://www.canticanova.com/articles/xmas/art1b3.htm

The church fathers supporting the IC in the second link go back as far as the 2nd or 3rd Century. Well before the 19th Century.

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

I presume you believe the Mass is an abomination just as Calvin believed. How can a Church Father support your proto-protestant view and yet be so congruent on the real presence of Christ in the Mass? You will have to do some massive mental gymnastics to answer this simple question.

Why? Because they weren't proto-protestants. They were Catholics and believed in the authority of the Catholic Church. You believe in the authority of your interpretation which is why your beliefs aren't congruent with history.

Quit playing games and just admit that history was wrong from 200 AD - 1,400 AD. Stand up and say it instead of trying to twist history to your liking. At least Joseph Smith admitted Christianity went flying off the rails after the last Apostle died.

De Maria said...

Michael Taylor said...
Like I said, since the IC isn't in scripture….


It is implied strongly in Scripture. Whereas, any Protestant doctrine which conflicts with Catholic Doctrine is absent from or contradicts Scripture.

Go ahead an walk us through your reasoning on why you think kecharitomene teaches the IC.

Because "kecharitomen" means "ever full of grace". And where grace exists in its fullness, there is no room for sin. Therefore Mary was always full of grace.

In fact, take all the time you need. I'll even host your response on my blog when you're finished.

Lol! Feel free. I'll debunk your arguments again as I have in the past.

To date I've only ever heard you make unsupported assertions. Like I've said to you before: talk is cheap.

I'll let the readers decide between you and I who's arguments make more sense and have better support.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...
De Maria,
"Hail, Full of Grace, "kecharitomen", teaches the Immaculate Conception" is false. That phrase has nothing to do with conception or sin. No Greek lexicon of the NT defines that word in the way you are claiming. This is an example of twisting the Scripture which false teachers do.


I trust our Catholic teachers. You trust your Protestant teachers.

Considering that every single Protestant doctrine which conflicts with Catholic Doctrine is absent from or contradicts the Word of God in Scripture, it is you how rely upon false teachers. Whereas our Teacher, the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
Then you trust in false teachers since we know the facts do not point to Mary being sinless or immaculately conceived. You would make a good Mormon.

Anonymous said...

De Maria,
You asked Michael--"I'll let the readers decide between you and I who's arguments make more sense and have better support."

Michael does. There is no way for you to debunk his arguments and you have never done. You can't even properly define "kecharitomen".

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

The only Mormon like believers on this site are Protestants. Why? Because they believe in Church failure and progressively change history to suit their needs.

You abhor an intelligent and rational examination of history because it's Catholic. I posted three links that demonstrate the "always" comment about the IC was true. History is correct but your pride and rebellious nature against God stop you from seeing truth. Hopefully our prayers will help you.

Michael Taylor said...

Cwd,

Thanks for the links. I finished responding to the Ark of the New Covenant link. I'll post that today.

I honestly don't see that any of you have offered "proof" or anything like a sustained argument on behalf of your beliefs, so I find the claim that I'm ignoring you/your material to be disingenuous to say the least. I responded to you on my blog *in length*. You posted, then deleted a comment. I don't really care if you plan to comment on it or not. But how you can say I ignore you simply baffles.

On another point, the epistemological mess that is your position simply astounds. When I say that I accept Rome's true doctrines and reject it's false ones, I am assuming that the truth can be sufficiently recognized by fallible minds. (If you're reading this, then so do you.)

What's your alternative? It sounds like you're deferring to Rome to supply you with the truth. But why? How did you determine that Rome gets to determine the truth for you? Didn't you have to rely on your fallible understanding to come to the point where you stopped trusting you and started trusting Rome? Or is Rome just your principle? Sola ecclesia rather than sola scriptura.

As for knowing what is in the Bible, let me give you a very imperfect analogy: How does anyone know 2+2 =4? The answer: Because 2+2 is 4. If it were not, then they could not know it. There's an old scholastic dictum that you should know: The order of being precedes and determines the order of knowing. If this is true (and I take it to be axiomatic), then the only way for anyone, including Rome to know which books are inspired, is for the books to actually be inspired.

A long time ago, long before Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy proclaimed itself infallible, people already knew which books were in the Bible. (People began circulating and copying the books they recognized as scripture long before any official body authorized them to do so. The only reason that explains that is if the people already thought of those books as scripture.)

Be that as it may, don't hear me as saying that the teaching church (councils, decrees, etc.) have no place in determining our knowledge of the canon. This seems to be what you mean, at least in part, by the word "tradition." Fair enough. I agree that *part* of how we have come to know what the Bible is rests upon *tradition.* I disagree, however, that such is the *only* way we have come to know this. Why?

Back to the analogy: 2 +2 =4 can be passed down orally for generations. But it's not the passing down that makes it true. The truth itself (order of being) had to precede our recognition and handing on of this truth (order of knowing). That's our [Protestant] claim about the Bible. That which was passed on in the churches (including the church of Rome) ultimately depends upon the God who inspired the original texts themselves.

So when you say that we would not know what the Bible is without Rome, there is definitely some truth to that. But when we say Rome would not know the Bible without those who handed it down to them, there is truth in that too. And when we push all the way back, it ultimately comes down to whether or not we believe the books that were being read in the churches and copied by its scribes were what they thought they were. And if they were right, then it can only be because those books are in deed the Word of God. Or do you have another theory?

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

So what gave anyone the right to remove 7 books from the OT? The Christian Bibles always had these seven books until the Reformation came along. Did truth change? If so, who told you that it did?

The Jews rejected the 7 books as too Christian. You reject these books as too Catholic. What is truth to do?

Argument and deductive reasoning is proof. That's why I keep hammering on you to define the word that's acceptable to you. You keep stating that I don't have "proof" and then I give you proof and you don't like it.

The links I sent to you are proof that the IC preceded the 19th Century. Will you recant your claim it didn't? I doubt it.

I really don't read your blog. Sorry.

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael -

The problem you encounter is that the Catholic position emerged from history and these "churches" that you reference. The Protestant position didn't emerge. In fact, it wasn't even invented until the 15th Century.

Why do I say this? Because you cannot find anyone who believed like you do in history and rejected the Mass. You take bits and pieces of Church Fathers for support, however, those Church Fathers believed in the Mass and had a sacerdotal form of worship.

A sacerdotal form of worship is incongruent with Protestantism.

In the end, you must either reject history itself since it was overwhelming Catholic and sacerdotal and then claim your superior exegesis generates the Protestant position.

Just admit the above and we can move along. I suspect you won't because it will demonstrate ignorance. You are the one that is trapped from an epistemological standpoint by history, I am not. Nor do I believe the Protestant mind, which is often devoid of any historical context, has the correct exegesis.

Michael Taylor said...

Cwd,

I will answer no more of your questions until you deal with the answers I already gave you.

If you don't read my blog, then I guess that's the end of our conversation, since that's where I've answered you. (I really don't care if you read anything else in my blog, as that is not the point.

Perhaps it's the lawyer in you that makes you think you're entitled to ask all the question without having to answer any of your own.

But that's not dialogue, that's monologue. If you want to continually spam the same false version of history that you swallowed when you apostatized, feel free. But don't expect the rest of us to play along.

If there were an "ignore" list on blogger, I'd be putting you on that list right now.

I've not only responded to you (on my blog, where there's adequate space to do so), but I've also interacted with other blog articles you've sent me the links to. So I've done you that courtesy. You have not reciprocated and I therefore consider further interaction with you to be a waste of my time.

Blessings to you.

Mike Taylor

cwdlaw223 said...

Michael

If you believe history is on your side you need help. If you can't respond in a sentence or two (like I do to your questions) it most likely means you're making up an answer. Truth isn't that hard to find and it certainly isn't in one man.

cwdlaw223 said...

If you can't respond here for everyone to see that's your problem. There's a reason you fear my questions because the answers prove you wrong or ignorant.

Anonymous said...

Biblical and early church history is not on the side for a lot of RC doctrines and practices.

There is no mass in the NT.

De Maria said...

Anonymous said...

Michael does. There is no way for you to debunk his arguments and you have never done. You can't even properly define "kecharitomen".


You have a right to your opinion. But you are still wrong. Kecharitomen means "ever full of grace" and the Word of God can not be broken. This is the word that the Angel spoke by the command of God the Father and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

And therefore proves that Mary was immaculately conceived.

Sincerely,

De Maria

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

Scripture wasn't necessary to contain the liturgy of the Mass because it preceded most of the NT.

Don't forget, there is NO historical support for any of your core doctrines. None whatsoever. There's no proto-Protestant on this earth until the 15th century.

Baptism removes sin = early Church
Mass = early Church

Those two concepts above are anti-thetical to Pism. (Took awhile for the concept of the Trinity to develop).

You keep operating from a fundamental error that all that is necessary for Christianity must be spelled out in recipe form in scripture. Scripture wasn't written that way and surely doesn't state such a ridiculous concept.

Anonymous said...

cwdlaw,
You don't know "Scripture wasn't necessary to contain the liturgy of the Mass because it preceded most of the NT."

Pouring water over someone and saying some words does not remove sin. A person must first repent and believe in Christ and then that person is forgiven. Then a person is to be baptized.

Steve Dalton said...

Anon @ 06/08/13 @ 8:44 AM, read Mk 16:16 and IPet. 3:19-21. It does remove sin.

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

History is against you once again. Of course, you have better exegesis and knowledge of the early Church. Those guys were stupid. :)

cwdlaw223 said...

Reading the Bible and looking for recipes therein doesn't make it a cook book (even though you desperately need it to be like that for sola Scriptura to work).

cwdlaw223 said...

Anonymous -

I most certainly do know the liturgy of the Mass preceeded a good bit of the NT. You just don't like history and when it wasn't on video you claim it didn't happen. The Mass consuming Catholic position didn't emerge per se, it was always there.

You are the one trying to bind Christianity to a book and nothing else. Of course, the Catholic position is congruent with scripture, just not your interpretation of scripture.

Next you'll tell us the Mass never existed and was an invention in the 4th Century.

cwdlaw223 said...

De Maria -

Here's a good article on the topic of
κεχαριτωμένη, kecharitomene:

http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=50095

21st Century man knows much more than those idiots in history.

Anonymous said...

Cwdlaw,
We always start with the NT to determine what is apostolic since the NT alone contains all that we know of what the apostles taught. . There is no mass in those writings.

cwdlaw223 said...

There is no Trinity, justification by faith alone, sola Scriptura, apostles creed, Nicene creed, Hypostatic union in the NT either but that doesn't stop you.

You just want to ignore the effect of the Apostolic teaching which is evidenced by the Mass.

Only you believe all we know from the Apostles is in the NT. let me guess you want me to prove oral teaching was written down?

BTW - The same tradition that allows you to know what is scripture works for the teaching and mindset passed down from the Apostles. Watch out for that loosening and binding (or was Christ really talking about a seat belt).

De Maria said...


Hi cwdlaw223 said:

Here's a good article on the topic of
κεχαριτωμένη, kecharitomene:


Here's a better one.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm

Sincerely,

De Maria

cwdlaw223 said...

Thanks. I've never been hung up on Mary like the Ps on this site. It's a secondary issue and if Rome is who she claims she is, it doesn't matter. The Mass and authority of Rome are the big issues.

Scholastic man does not want to believe in the supernatural or that a Church on this earth has authority over his interpretation of scripture.

De Maria said...

Sorry. I misunderstood your prior message and thought I was responding to a Protestant. Thanks for the link. I love the Ave Maria. And the article is awesome.

Sincerely,

De Maria