# Roman Catholic details



## D. Paul (Jul 23, 2007)

I have come across a Roman Catholic website while looking for info on Marian apparitions. It is so much different listening to RC's teach RC's rather than listen to debate or read about it. 

I wish I knew exactly who the speaker is. I have listened to Which Came First...Church or Bible and Mary and the Bible plus...

Certainly these issues were well known and worked through by the Reformers and by those Reformed today. However, I have not heard the RC side presented in such a manner as this, especially concerning the "Church or Bible" lesson. 

Is anyone familiar with this site or have any of you already worked through these issues satisfactorily? Someone PLEASE listen to at least the Church/Bible and offer help.

I also find John Corapi on EWTN to be helpful in understanding Rome better. 

But seriously, it is too easy to dismiss a teaching or thought just because it comes from Rome. They can be compelling to someone like myself.


http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 23, 2007)

Which came first, the Church or the Word of God? 
If you can't figure that out then think about this; How did the Church become the Church? How do Christians become Christians? Through effectual calling, which is accomplished by the Word of God and the inner working of the Holy Spirit. The word of God must come first logically because it is through that means that God calls and bring his Church into being.


----------



## D. Paul (Jul 23, 2007)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Which came first, the Church or the Word of God?
> If you can't figure that out then think about this; How did the Church become the Church? How do Christians become Christians? Through effectual calling, which is accomplished by the Word of God and the inner working of the Holy Spirit. The word of God must come first logically because it is through that means that God calls and bring his Church into being.



Agreed. I have generally scoffed at the idea of it being vice versa. But see, the way the Q is framed allows the speaker to claim the Church gave us the _completed_ bible as far as what books it contains. He grants that the OT was in use but his arguments for the NT is what I refer to when saying I have not heard it presented in such a manner. 

I have read several "How we got the Bible"'s and felt comfortable. This guy just has a way...you'll see. And I'm just not capable yet to have an answer.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 23, 2007)

With regards to Marian apparitions, which are false, and from Satan, they represent how ALL RC teachings are useless and unnecessary to convert and live as a Christian. For example, there is the case of Mexico were every missionary work from the Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc. failed to convert the native people of Mexico until the RC's came up with a Marian Apparition in 1531. The natives just syncretized their pagan beliefs with pseudo-christians beliefs. No Biblical Gospel was preached, only medieval RC teachings with the "sword" that is.


----------



## D. Paul (Jul 23, 2007)

Certainly the apparitions are of Satan and the doctrines of Rome are false. But I have only heard people speak out against these things from the contrary position e.g. Robert Zins, Richard Bennett, Alan Cairns. OK, fine. But this is my first exposure to someone taking these very same objections and giving the RC answer to them as to why they hold to them. I'm not saying I am persuaded by them but rather than  it has compelled me to search out answers almost point for point. I figure if ones more capable than am I were to hear these things they could be helpful on the specific points rather than give general condemnations. I guess that is what I'm hoping for...help.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 23, 2007)

Well technically he is correct. The church was in existence well before the Bible came into being. Were not Adam and Eve the first members of 'church'?

_Heidelberg Catechism_

Q54: What do you believe concerning the "Holy Catholic Church"?
A54: That out of the whole human race,[1] from the beginning to the end of the world,[2] the Son of God,[3] by His Spirit and Word,[4] gathers, defends and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion [5] in the unity of the true faith;[6] and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.[7]

1. Gen. 26:4
2. John 10:10
3. Eph. 1:10-13
4. Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17; Isa. 59:21; Eph. 5:26
5. Rom. 8:29-30; Matt. 16:18; Eph. 4:3-6
6. Acts 2:46; Psa. 71:18; I Cor. 1:8-9; 11:26; John 10:28-30
7. I John 2:19; 3:21; Gal. 3:28

This is far from saying that Rome is a legitimate or true church because it is not. But the history of God's people does extend back into a time when there was no scripture written down.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 23, 2007)

Donald,

Why don't you just then read their own doctrines like the Council of Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. You will see that what they have in writing is different then what and how they practice their beleifs. Besides being familiar with their doctrines you will more educated then the majority of RC's including their priest, bishops, and cardinals.


----------



## D. Paul (Jul 23, 2007)

SolaGratia said:


> Donald,
> 
> Why don't you just then read their own doctrines like the Council of Trent, Vatican I and II, etc. You will see that what they have in writing is different then what and how they practice their beleifs. Besides being familiar with their doctrines you will more educated then the majority of RC's including their priest, bishops, and cardinals.



About six months ago I found the Catechism of the Catholic Church along with the Catholic Encyclopedia for a great price. Very helpful. 

Maybe, for me, it was the fact that I _heard_ firsthand what they teach along with the how's and why's. Again, I'm not traumatized but there's a reason why Catholics are bulldogs for their religion. These guys are persuasive.

Thanks, POIMEN, for taking a listen.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 23, 2007)

Donald,

In RC's, official RC teaching like what is found in their church councils, dogmas, catechism, books, works, etc. are only official within the church if they are approved by the RC magisterium. For instance, if you read any book written by a RC priest, apologist, theologian, etc. it is not official RC teaching if the book does not have the stamped seal of the Vatican Church. So one might hear a liberal RC priest in TV say that he believes in Sola Fide or that the church now believes such and such, it is not true unless it is found within the approved RC magisterium teaching. They might sound convincing because they like to use philosophy or wordly wisdom but it does not matter what they say to persuade you if they don't preach the word of God. I have heard numerous RC priest and apologist come out sounding like evangelicals especially here in the U.S.


----------



## DTK (Jul 23, 2007)

D. Paul said:


> I have come across a Roman Catholic website while looking for info on Marian apparitions. It is so much different listening to RC's teach RC's rather than listen to debate or read about it.
> 
> I wish I knew exactly who the speaker is. I have listened to Which Came First...Church or Bible and Mary and the Bible plus...
> 
> ...


The argument is an old one, and was addressed by a number of the Reformed. In his classic work, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture_, here's how William Whitaker addressed it... 


> *William Whitaker (1547-1595):* There remains now one other argument, which Stapleton indeed hath not made use of: but I perceive that some other papists are exceedingly delighted with it. It is to this effect: The church is more ancient than the scripture; therefore it ought to have more authority in respect of us than the scripture. So Eckius, in his Enchiridion: so Hosius, Lib. iii. _De Auctoritate Scripturæ_: so Lindanus, in his Panoply, in many places: So Andradius in the third book of his Defense of the Council of Trent: so Schröck the Jesuit, in his 13th Thesis; and some others beside. I answer: In the first place, I confess that there was a time when the word of God was not written, and that the Church existed then: but it does not, therefore, follow that the church was more ancient than the word. For the doctrine was the same when not written, as it is now when it is written; and that was more ancient than all churches. For the word of God is the seed of the Church. Now the seed is always more ancient than the progeny of which it is the seed. When I speak of the word of God, I mean no other than that which is now written: Secondly, Neither is that assertion true, that all things that are junior are of less authority. For Christ was later in time than John. Shall the authority of John be greater in respect of us than Christ? No one in his senses will affirm that. This argument therefore is but slight, and of no importance whatsoever, although it be handled very shewily by some authors. Some of the papists have laboured, as if they were on a question of chronology, to shew that the word was unwritten for more than two thousand years, and that the gospel was preached about thirty years before it was written. But there is no reason why we should give this argument a larger answer in this place. William Whitaker, _A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton_, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), pp. 331-332.


Picking up on one of Whitaker's points above, John the Baptist preceded the Lord Jesus Christ, and was the human instrument who pointed to Christ and identified Him as "the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world." But what person in their right mind would then argue that John's authority was greater than that of the Lord Jesus simply because he preceded the Lord Jesus in time? The argument is ludicrous. Besides, the Roman communion never bequeathed the OT Scriptures to the church universal, because Paul testifies explicitly that they came to us via the OT People of God, Romans 3:2.

DTK


----------



## D. Paul (Jul 24, 2007)

I have spent more time with the scriptural arguments than I have with their teaching on Mary. But even Bishop Ussher in his long-awaited work Body of Divinity makes the case for the perpetual virginity under First Head, Object 1 pg 16. This is why it becomes difficult, for now I must find out what influenced Ussher to state it. Surely he was aware of the RC view.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 24, 2007)

The reformers were still living in their own times. They came out of a society that exalted virginity as the ideal worldly human state. And even after many of them came to accept marriage was God's gift, and not merely a place to vent their "animal" passions, they still put virginity, and the Virgin, on an absurdly high pedestal.

Many are aware that among our fathers, Calvin also (in his commentaries) defended the perpetual virginity of Mary. But something happened in a single generation of putting marriage back its place of honor, as the normal God-given and blessed state of mature humanity: the whole culture shifted in lands where Protestantism held sway. A second generation--whose father's had read the value of marriage from the Bible, and passed that along--did not read the passages regarding Jesus "brothers", regarding Mary not having sexual relations with Joseph "until" Christ was born, etc., the way their father's had, but through a fundamentally differently conditioned set of eyes.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 24, 2007)

This previous thread may be of interest: Was Mary a virgin?


----------



## Scott (Jul 24, 2007)

D. Paul said:


> I have spent more time with the scriptural arguments than I have with their teaching on Mary. But even Bishop Ussher in his long-awaited work Body of Divinity makes the case for the perpetual virginity under First Head, Object 1 pg 16. This is why it becomes difficult, for now I must find out what influenced Ussher to state it. Surely he was aware of the RC view.



As I understand a number of reformers (eg. Luther and Calvin) affirmed this too.


----------



## DTK (Jul 24, 2007)

D. Paul said:


> I have spent more time with the scriptural arguments than I have with their teaching on Mary. But even Bishop Ussher in his long-awaited work Body of Divinity makes the case for the perpetual virginity under First Head, Object 1 pg 16. This is why it becomes difficult, for now I must find out what influenced Ussher to state it. Surely he was aware of the RC view.


The problem here is not so much a pious belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary as held by Ussher or any other of the reformers. The problem is taking a pious belief, exalting it, and then pronouncing it as *dogma*, i.e., something necessary to be believed for salvation. When Rome dogmatizes all such beliefs and makes them equal to the essentials of the Christian faith, this is where deviation from the biblical gospel comes into play. Rome has dogmatized such pious beliefs, even something like the bodily assumption of Mary (for which there is no proof either in Scripture or in tradition), and made them as important to be believed as something like the virgin birth of Christ or the deity of Christ. This is deviation from the gospel, and stands under the apostolic anathema of Galatians 1:6-9.

With respect to the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, even someone like Basil of Caesarea believed in it, but made it very clear that it should not be placed in the category of *dogma*, i.e., something necessary to be believed in order to be saved. Here is his ancient testimony...


> *Basil of Caesarea (329-379):* "[The opinion that Mary bore several children after Christ]...does not run counter to faith; for, virginity was imposed on Mary as a necessity, only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation, while, on the other hand, her subsequent virginity had no great importance with regard to the mystery of the Incarnation." _Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem_, PG 31:1468.(See. footnote 174 of Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., _Mariology_ (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), Vol. 2, p. 277).



This same Roman Catholic Marian scholar makes this point with respect to the witness of Basil of Caesarea...


> *Carol:* For, it is evident from this discourse that in a region of the Greek world, apparently Asia Minor, an important Churchman, without any doubt the Archbishop of Caesarea, St. Basil, did not hold the perpetual virginity of Mary as a dogmatic truth, nor did his metropolitan Churches. Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., _Mariology_ (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), Vol. 2, p. 277.


DTK


----------



## Mathetes (Jul 24, 2007)

I keep hearing that Calvin believed in the perpetul virginity of Mary, but then I remember also reading, “The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God...besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews” (Harmony of the Gospels, vol. 1)

Maybe the difference is that he's referring to a _vow_ in specific, but he still seems to cast disdain on the idea that Mary would have gone through a life of Jewish marriage without relations.


----------



## D. Paul (Jul 24, 2007)

"Matt 1:24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. and he called His name Jesus."

...end of story. So how does anyone even make an attempt to suggest a different meaning? Calvin states the only reason to raise a question regarding Mary's perpetual virginity is curiosity and those who continue the argument are simply fond of disputation. Harmony of the Evangelists pg 107


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Jul 25, 2007)

It is the Word of God that gives rise to the Church, and not vice-versa. (Ephesians 2.20). God speaks to His Apostles and Prophets, their Word is believed, and the Church is formed and perpetuated. Even in Adam's day, the Word of God preceded the formation of the Church, for God spoke the Church into existence. Rome does not, and can never have an authoritative Scripture, because she cannot brook the competition. If there is another authority greater than hers, she seeks to discredit it, and to rule over it. The same has been her history with regard to rightful civil authority, etc. 

My own opinion is that this is why, in Trent, the Apocryphal books were included in the Romish Canon. Not because of their inspiration (which they obviously do not possess) nor even for their usefulness, but precisely for the opposite reason, so that their inaccuracies and faulty doctrines might appear the more absurd, causing many to turn to the absolutely authoritative Church instead of the Word of God.

I have an RCC friend--he's not your typical RC--he's plugged in to his Church's teaching. He tells me every time we speak of this doctrine how his church doesn't need a Bible that it verbally and plenarily inspired, because they have a continuing infallible apostolic witness in the Vatican. This is axiomatic for them. It is their assumed starting point, against which no argument can be brought, including, but not limited to, the contradiction of papal authoritative statements, he contradiction of the papal statements by the Word of God, the obvious moral profligacy of the popes, etc. Again, she will have no competition. 

Read Dr. Reymond's brief but excellent essay on the formation of the NT Canon, where he references FF Bruce, Warfield and others showing that the Canon of the NT was not authorized by a church council, but that the Spirit of God 'forced' the NT canon upon the Church apart from dogmatic "approval and authorization" from the Church.


----------



## Scott (Jul 25, 2007)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> I have an RCC friend--he's not your typical RC--he's plugged in to his Church's teaching. He tells me every time we speak of this doctrine how his church doesn't need a Bible that it verbally and plenarily inspired, because they have a continuing infallible apostolic witness in the Vatican. This is axiomatic for them. It is their assumed starting point, against which no argument can be brought, including, but not limited to, the contradiction of papal authoritative statements, he contradiction of the papal statements by the Word of God, the obvious moral profligacy of the popes, etc. Again, she will have no competition.


As a practical matter, this has been my experience too. The Catholics I know in real life tend to have nearly no knowledge of the Bible and don't seem to have a desire to. The exceptions are former protestants who converted for religious reasons (as opposed to the much more common reason of marriage) and some of their followers. These types of converts commonly complain about the anemic preaching in Catholic churches.


----------



## D. Paul (Jul 25, 2007)

[QUOTE 

Read Dr. Reymond's brief but excellent essay on the formation of the NT Canon, where he references FF Bruce, Warfield and others showing that the Canon of the NT was not authorized by a church council, but that the Spirit of God 'forced' the NT canon upon the Church apart from dogmatic "approval and authorization" from the Church.[/QUOTE]

Is there a link to this essay?

And thank you so much for providing that type of analysis. Your statement "If there is another authority greater than hers, she seeks to discredit it, and to rule over it." is precisely what I gathered as being the case when I listened to these lessons. Nothing has changed in Rome.


----------

