Historical Objectivity of Rome

Billy,

It seems your all upset that I used the word "ascension" to describe Mary's body being taken up into heaven

"Her body is incorruptible and she ascends to heaven." - Dr. Walter

rather than the word "assumption" in regard to the following quotations from ECF which reads as follows:

"We apostles, therefore, having beheld the sudden precious translation of her holy body, glorified God, who had shown us His wonders at the departure of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose prayers and good offices may we all be deemed worthy to receive, under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come...." [/COLOR]St. John the Theologion, The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Vol. VIII, p. 591, "The Falling Asleep of Mary"

Notice that ECF does not use the Roman Catholic technical term "assumption" either. However because I inadvertantly did not use the proper ROMAN CATHOLIC technical term to describe this ECF statement you accuse me of confusing the ascension of Christ with the resurrection and departure of Mary and assume that I do not know that Mary was taken up not by her own power but Christ went to heaven by his own power.

Why do you demand Roman Catholic technical terminology for explanation of ECF statements unless it is because you really do defend ECF as Roman Catholic doctrine and therefore defend Roman Catholic doctrine as well?????

My error was an inadvertant slip of the tongue not ignorance between the ascension of Christ with the translation of Mary into heaven but your demand for Roman Catholic techical expression "assumption" when the ECF statement does not use that term demonstrates clearly you defend ECF to be Roman Catholic in doctrine. Are you not just playing a syntactical game of hide and seek with me in this matter?

Now, since the technicality of terms is out of the way (however, I doubt you will believe my explanation) let me remind you of your own stated position:


"I am defending the teachings of the ECF's. If they happen to have been Catholic, then there is nothing I can do about that." - Billy

Here is the ECF statement on Mary for you to DEFEND since that is your stated position:

"As the all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary......because the day of her departure is at hand.....And again she prayed, and said: O Lord Jesus Christ.....in every time and place where there is mention of my name, make that place holy, and glorify those that glorify thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplications, and all their prayer......We apostles, therefore, having beheld the sudden precious translation of her holy body, glorified God, who had shown us His wonders at the departure of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose prayers and good offices may we all be deemed worthy to receive, under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come...." St. John the Theologion, The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Vol. VIII, pp. 587, 588, 591, "The Falling Asleep of Mary"

So, Billy, do you defend this ECF statement? Do you believe you are "under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come"? ECF says the apostles believed this and they are followers of the apostles!

So, Billy, when you pray, do you come to Jesus in her name and "those that glorify thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplications, and all their prayer......" This very thing is ordered by Peter in this very context to a man named "And Jephonias himself, when Peter ordered him, that the wonderful things of God might be showed forth, stood up behind the counch, and cried out, Holy Mary, who broughtest forth Christ is God, HAVE MERCY UPON ME." Ibid., p. 591

So, Billy, do you practice what you preach? You claim to be a defender of ECF, do you practice what you claim to defend?

 

My friend,

Isn't this the case with most Roman Catholic dogma? Does not the practice and teaching of it precede the formalization and definition of it in the history of Roman Catholicism?

 

Brother,

I did answer her post in detail in post #114 as follow:

Lori,

I fail to find any logical comparison in your argument. The Scriptures do speak about some being raised from the dead at the resurrection of Christ. The Scriptures speak plentifully of the nature of God in regard to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Where do the scriptures speak at all about Mary being a con-redemptrix? Where do the scriptures speak at all about Mary being sinless? Where do the Scriptures speak at all about Mary being the "Queen of heaven"? Where do the Scriptures speak at all about Mary being the Mother of the Church? Where do Scriptures speak at all about Mary being an eternal virgin? etc. etc. etc.?

If I followed your reasoning, then I would have to conclude we shouldn't speak at all about Mary in regard to any of these things because the Scripture doesn't.

 

Billy,

I am still waiting for your defense of ECF in regard to the following:

"I am defending the teachings of the ECF's. If they happen to have been Catholic, then there is nothing I can do about that." - Billy

Here is the ECF statement on Mary for you to DEFEND since that is your stated position:

"As the all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary......because the day of her departure is at hand.....And again she prayed, and said: O Lord Jesus Christ.....in every time and place where there is mention of my name, make that place holy, and glorify those that glorify thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplications, and all their prayer......We apostles, therefore, having beheld the sudden precious translation of her holy body, glorified God, who had shown us His wonders at the departure of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose prayers and good offices may we all be deemed worthy to receive, under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come...." St. John the Theologion, The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Vol. VIII, pp. 587, 588, 591, "The Falling Asleep of Mary"

So, Billy, do you defend this ECF statement? Do you believe you are "under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come"? ECF says the apostles believed this and they are followers of the apostles!

So, Billy, when you pray, do you come to Jesus in her name and "those that glorify thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplications, and all their prayer......" This very thing is ordered by Peter in this very context to a man named "And Jephonias himself, when Peter ordered him, that the wonderful things of God might be showed forth, stood up behind the counch, and cried out, Holy Mary, who broughtest forth Christ is God, HAVE MERCY UPON ME." Ibid., p. 591

So, Billy, do you practice what you preach? You claim to be a defender of ECF, do you practice what you claim to defend? Can you defend these things with the scriptures???

 

Roman Historians and Martin Luther

“It took Roman Catholicism a long time to come round to giving Luther a cold and careful look. For over four and a half centuries, since the night that Luther nailed up his Ninety-five Theses against Indulgences on 31 October 1517, Roman Catholicism took an unrelenting line of vicious invective and vile abuse against Luther's person, while virtually disregarding his vital and vivid religious experience, his commanding and irrefutable biblical theology, and his consuming concern to reform the Church according to the teaching and purpose of its founder, Jesus Christ. It is one thing to offer criticism; it is quite another to hurl scurrilous abuse: the former creates and maintains some relationships; the latter will deaden and destroy any relationship that exists.” - Atkinson, James. Martin Luther: Prophet to the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids: WB Eerdman’s Publishing co., 1983), 3.

 

Another view of the Montanists

Any knowledgeable Roman Catholic who reads this will probably feel that we are in error when listing the Montanists as forerunners of modern Christianity. Roman Catholic writing abounds with references to their heresies, and counts the person they admit to be the most eminent Latin ecclesiastical writer of the early church, Tertullian, as falling into Montanist heresy (Markoe, p. 10). In his book, Catholicism (page 611), Priest Richard McBrien classifies the Montanists as a purist heresy, that is, they considered themselves holier than the Church............ Henry Vedder, A Short History Of The Baptists, pp. 58,62: "169 (The Montanists) clearly apprehended the truth that a Church of Christ should consist of the regenerated only. Of course the Montanists immersed - no other baptism , so far as we know, was practiced by anybody in the second century. There is no evidence that they baptized infants, and their principle of a regenerated Church membership would naturally require the Baptism of Believers only."

Robert Rainy, The Ancient Catholic Church, p. 170: "Montanism is best understood as a reaction against a condition of the Church and of the Christian life, which seemed to the Montanists to be pitched too low and also to have decayed from an earlier and purer standard."

Thomas Armitage, History Of The Baptists, p. 176: "History has not yet relieved the Montanists of the distortion and obliquity which long held them as enemies of Christ; while in fact they honestly, but in some respects erroneously, labored to restore that Christ-likeness to the Churches which had so largely departed." On p. 177: "Tertullian and the Montanists denied that baptism was the channel of grace."

W.A. Jarrell, Baptist Church Perpetuity, p. 69: "In historic times, Phrygia comprised the greater part of Asia Minor. `Montanism' appeared there about the middle of the second century (150 A.D.). Montanism enrolled its hosts and was one of the greatest Christian influences throughout the early Christian centuries. As there was, at the time when the Montanists arose, no essential departure from the faith in the action, the subjects of Baptism, Church Government and doctrine, the Montanists, on these points, were Baptists."

I.A. Dorner, The Person Of Christ, Volume I, page 398: "If now Montanism implicitly reproached the Church with hitherto possessing too little of the Holy Ghost, it is evident that, dogmatically viewed, the charge implies, that however much the Church might have spoken concerning the Son, or the Logos, and the Father, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had been hitherto kept in the background."

Arthur McGiffert, A History Of Christian Thought, Volume I, page 168: "The Montanists were entirely orthodox in their theology. The truth is their interests were not theological but practical."

They were thoroughly conservative in their attitude, reproducing in a remarkable degree the spirit of the primitive days which had largely disappeared."

William R. Williams, in Lectures On Baptist History quotes Comte de Champagny, a thoroughly orthodox Catholic, "it was hard to find any doctrinal errors in (Montanist) views; they were rather like the Jansenists or Methodists in their high views of religious emotion and experience. They were accused of claiming inspiration, when they intended, probably only, like the early followers of Cameron among the Covenanters, or Wesley among the English Methodists, the true experience of God's work in the individual soul."

Ernest William Moller, in his article, Montanism from Schaff-Herzog's Encyclopedia Of Religious Knowledge, Volume II, page 1562, speaking of Tertullian states, "To him the very substance of the Church was the Holy Spirit and by no means the Episcopacy whose right to wield the power of the keys he rejected." He further states, "Montanism was, nevertheless, not a new form of Christianity; nor were the Montanists a new sect. On the contrary, Montanism was simply a reaction of the old, the primitive church, against the obvious tendency of the day, to strike a bargain with the world and arrange herself comfortably in it."

We will close this section on the Montanists with an incisive quote from Eusebius, and then leave you to come to a conclusion. Eusebius Pamphilius, in Ecclesiastical History, page 229, says, "Montanism continued for centuries and finally became known under other names."

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Mont.html

 

Did I unnecessarily offend him? Do I need to change deoderant?