I believe I can “cut to the chase” here, by stating that any ordinances and traditions that are being practiced by Christians (including, but in no way limited to Roman Catholic Church), but are not laid out in the New Testament (include the Apocryphal books, if that helps), constitute the “doctrines and commandments of men, that make the Word of God of no effect.”

[Mark 7:1-13]

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM

.
Your use of Mark 7:1-13 is tendentious at best. It is difficult to imagine how any respectable authority could get away with proposing Sola Scriptura today, if had not been first instituted by the Reformation before the advent of modern social science and modern Biblical research. Knowing what we now know about culture and the transmission of oral history in Semitic cultures during Antiquity any original proposition in favor of Sola Scriptura would likely be “dead on arrival” today. It’s just not intellectual and historically tenable.

Mike OMalley on February 21, 2013 at 9:35 PM

.
Saying “Your (my) use of Mark 7:1-13 is tendentious at best”, is a charge (accusation) of ‘taking it out of context’, or ‘twisting it to fit an agenda.’
You’re going to have to explain ‘in what way or how’ my use of Mark 7:1-13 is doing that.

I believe that [II Peter 1:(the entire chapter)] is a good (but not the only) argument for “Sola Scriptura”. I’m pretty sure that’s pre-Reformation.

[Galatians 1:6-9] doesn’t mention scripture specifically, but I still believe it applies.

I believe Revelation 22:18-19 applies to all scripture, and not JUST the book of Revelation.

If you or anyone else doesn’t believe the same, all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say “Okay, you’re on your own.”

I believe I can “cut to the chase” here, by stating that any ordinances and traditions that are being practiced by Christians (including, but in no way limited to Roman Catholic Church), but are not laid out in the New Testament (include the Apocryphal books, if that helps), constitute the “doctrines and commandments of men, that make the Word of God of no effect.”
[Mark 7:1-13]

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Celibacy entered the Church by way of the 1st century AD Jewish Essenes and the followers of the priestly Teacher of Righteousness. Modern archaeological research indicates that John the Baptist and the Early Jewish Church were likely rooted in no small part in 1st century Essene communities that practiced celebacy.

Your use of Mark 7:1-13 is tendentious at best. It is difficult to imagine how any respectable authority could get away with proposing Sola Scriptura today, if had not been first instituted by the Reformation before the advent of modern social science and modern Biblical research. Knowing what we now know about culture and the transmission of oral history in Semitic cultures during Antiquity any original proposition in favor of Sola Scriptura would likely be “dead on arrival” today. It’s just not intellectual and historically tenable.

The Catholic church of the 1600s was a grotesquely corrupt organization. pendell2 on February 21, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Modern post-WWII historical research does not support your claim Mr. Pendell2. In England in particular, modern historians have been largely unable find evidence that supports the English Reformation’s charges that the Roman Catholic Church in England was corrupt. Elsewhere in Europe modern historians have found that ecclesiastical corruption as charged against the Roman Catholic Church was all either introduced or aggravated by the Black Death (the Bubonic Plague) and that the Roman Catholic Church was self-reforming and significantly reducing those earlier instances of corruption by the time the Reformation started.

I think the Catholic Church has served the US far better than it has Mexico or France, and I think that’s because it’s never had the power here that it did there. Maybe that’s what “separation of church and state” is all about? Maybe by taking the church out of the sphere of worldly politics it better equips it to do its proper job?

pendell2 on February 21, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Be mindful that the “worldly” power of the Papacy long resisted and rolled back genocidal Islamic jihad against Western and Central Europe, built Western Civilization out of the ruins of the Barbarian Invasions, and financed the primary scientific research that the Scientific Revolution and the Modern World is built upon.

The relationship between America and the Catholic Church has been mutually beneficial. It was native born American Roman Catholics who contributed the beneficial experiences of American democracy to the Catholic Church as a whole during the Vatican II Council.

I wonder what Jack Chick would have said if the “Catholic moment” had NOT meant widespread persecution (no one’s tried to burn ME at the stake) but greater faithfulness to the original Bible’s teachings than most Protestant churches can muster? Coupled with much, much better social outreach with things like hospitals instead of megachurches with food courts?

I think the Catholic church has been a force for good in American politics — but it wouldn’t be if it first hadn’t had its role greatly humbled. The Catholic church of the 1600s was a grotesquely corrupt organization. Say what you will about Benedict and John Paul II, they’re a serious cut above the antipopes of the renaissance. And I think a big part of that is the constant dwindling of the RCC’s temporal power.

I think the Catholic Church has served the US far better than it has Mexico or France, and I think that’s because it’s never had the power here that it did there. Maybe that’s what “separation of church and state” is all about? Maybe by taking the church out of the sphere of worldly politics it better equips it to do its proper job?

The above comments section with all the whining about who did what to who in the past 2K years of history, and ordinances, vows, Catholic versus Protestant blah blah blah — relate that to the OP article. You want a reason for “decline of influence”? It is right in front of you.
SunSword on February 21, 2013 at 7:27 AM

I seriously doubt that. These arguments have been going on for centuries and currently the debate is less frequent, public and less intense than it has been for 500 years.

Public education and subsidized higher education in this country is where the morals, traditions, philosophies, and competence of our Republic have been under constant, withering assault. Until government is out of those areas, nothing will change. Nothing CAN change.

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM

.
I answered your claim that celibacy for the clergy isn’t mentioned in the bible.

I provided a link that has a concise history of the doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church as the Eastern Church(s) sees the issue differently.

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 5:11 PM

.
The link that you provided, took me to a site selling the book you were pointing me to.
I simply wasn’t prepared to buy the book, read it, THEN come back and respond to you.

I believe I can “cut to the chase” here, by stating that any ordinances and traditions that are being practiced by Christians (including, but in no way limited to Roman Catholic Church), but are not laid out in the New Testament (include the Apocryphal books, if that helps), constitute the “doctrines and commandments of men, that make the Word of God of no effect.”
[Mark 7:1-13]

My paternal immigrant ancestors are from two main lines.

Presbyterian Ulster Scots who settled in the Virginia Frontier and the son fought in the revolutionary war.

Later Irish Roman Catholics on my paternal grandmother’s side fleeing one of the famines shortly after the slow reform of the Penal laws in Ireland settled in St. Louis.

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism — the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so.

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Very good points. I wish you were around the other day to foil me instead of the folks I got.

Anyway, I have a geographical answer answer to your remarks about Protestantism and religious persecution.

The American Thirteen Colonies.

And I proudly offer this from my favorite state:

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/

And I offer this from the UVA teacher to those on this thread who recently observed that Muslims would make great fertilizer:

Over the years, students who take my course in New Religious Movements enter with the same perspective of the broader culture – extreme skepticism, if not outright disdain, toward groups that popular culture knows as “cults.” Early in the term I tell them that how we respond to new religions is the real test of our commitment to religious freedom. Commitment to religious freedom, I argue, is in our self-interest, even if we have not religious beliefs ourselves. Religious freedom requires we “tolerate” groups we consider to be deviant and even troublesome.

This might include Muslims or even Mormons and the Branch Dividians (Waco, for those who don’t know).

“This is the fundamental problem in American politics,” Dean said. “Somebody has to tell the middle class that either your taxes are going up or your programs are going to get cut, or else we’re going to go into financial oblivion.”

Howard must have been drunk or over medicated. Party members are not supposed to speak such truths.

The Catholic church brought us the Dark Ages. They committed genocide to such an extent it would make Hitler blush. They attacked Christians as well as all others. You either believed their Pope was divine or you died. Add up the Latin numbers on the Popes crown 666. The Holy Roman Empire ruled for 1260 years just exactly like the bible said 42 months = 1260 days or years as common in the bible.
Paul said All men sin and fall short of the Glory of GOD. Yet the Pope is somehow an exception not according to Christ or Paul.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM

What do you know, even Steveangell does math.

Seriously, are you insane?

You posted this at 3:35.

335 = 333 + 2
Thus “plus” looks like the cross Jesus was crucified on.
Since we’re talking about evil and stuff, tip the cross over a bit.

333 x 2 = 666

Get away Satan, who the Hell do you think you’re fooling?

The Catholics are the ones in the Glass House. They can not defend themselves so they just try to shut every one out or ignore them. Just what Satan would want.

Jesus constantly based his teachings on previous scriptures. He had no problem with debate he never ever said shut up just trust me.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Having read your comments, you are coming across as judgemental and uncharitable. Quite frankly, you also seem uninformed since you are making very general sweeping statements. Do you think you will win more people to whatever protestant sect you call home by attacking Catholics?

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

The Catholics are the ones in the Glass House. They can not defend themselves so they just try to shut every one out or ignore them. Just what Satan would want.

Jesus constantly based his teachings on previous scriptures. He had no problem with debate he never ever said shut up just trust me.

“It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism – Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley — advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the ‘crime’ of heresy . . . Rousseau says truly:

The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .

Auguste Comte also writes:

The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached. (Philosophie Positive, IV, 51)

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism — the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so!

Nor should we ever forget that . . . the Protestants were the aggressors, the Catholics were the defenders. The Protestants were attempting to destroy the old, established Christian Church, which had existed 1500 years, and to replace it by something new, untried and revolutionary. The Catholics were upholding a Faith, hallowed by centuries of pious associations and sublime achievements; the Protestants, on the contrary, were fighting for a creed . . . which already was beginning to disintegrate into hostile sects, each of which, if it gained the upper hand, commenced to persecute the rest! . . . All religious persecution is bad; but in this case, of the two parties guilty of it, the Catholics certainly had the more defensible motives for their conduct.

At all events, the argument that the persecutions for heresy, perpetrated by the Catholics, constitute a reason why one should not enter the Catholic Church, has not a particle more force than a similar argument would have against one’s entering the Protestant Church. In both there have been those deserving of blame in this respect, and what applies to one applies also to the other.

(Stoddard, 204-205, 209-210)..”

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html

However this is completely wrong. If the EU is able to destroy the Catholic Church they will follow that by destroying Christianity in totality.

I leave it to GOD to judge. But I do seek out truth just the facts for me. I do not believe in restricting religion.

However Islam is not just a religion they are a Political System as well and the Political is the greater part of what Islam is. It is not compatible with any other Political System period. It should be illegal in every country.

When Protestants are willing to have an intellectually honest discussion as to the history of mass executions…rapes of nuns…seizure of Catholic property & wealth and Persecution of Catholic clergy and laity in formerly Catholic Nations during the reformation and subsequent centuries…

Then we can talk about the injustice of Torquemada.

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 4:21 PM

You are saying they eventually took some of what we took from them back. Thus we will not talk about taking it first.

Hugh?? How does that follow?

Add up the numbers from the letters on the Popes crown 666 same in Latin or Roman Numerals. No funny business just add them up.

The Holy Roman Empire ruled 1260 years not my word check it out yourself.

The Church fostered genocide all over the world very well documented. Spain was especially bad because that was just two groups of Catholics fighting for control of the Church. But the Spanish lost and were mostly murdered.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM

“Now granting for the sake of argument, that all that is usually said of Catholic persecutions is true, the fact remains that Protestants, as such, have no right to denounce them, as if such deeds were characteristic of Catholics only. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones . . .

It is unquestionable . . . that the champions of Protestantism – Luther, Calvin, Beza, Knox, Cranmer and Ridley — advocated the right of the civil authorities to punish the ‘crime’ of heresy . . . Rousseau says truly:

The Reformation was intolerant from its cradle, and its authors were universal persecutors . . .

Auguste Comte also writes:

The intolerance of Protestantism was certainly not less tyrannical than that with which Catholicism is so much reproached. (Philosophie Positive, IV, 51)

What makes, however, Protestant persecutions specially revolting is the fact that they were absolutely inconsistent with the primary doctrine of Protestantism — the right of private judgment in matters of religious belief! Nothing can be more illogical than at one moment to assert that one may interpret the Bible to suit himself, and at the next to torture and kill him for having done so!

Nor should we ever forget that . . . the Protestants were the aggressors, the Catholics were the defenders. The Protestants were attempting to destroy the old, established Christian Church, which had existed 1500 years, and to replace it by something new, untried and revolutionary. The Catholics were upholding a Faith, hallowed by centuries of pious associations and sublime achievements; the Protestants, on the contrary, were fighting for a creed . . . which already was beginning to disintegrate into hostile sects, each of which, if it gained the upper hand, commenced to persecute the rest! . . . All religious persecution is bad; but in this case, of the two parties guilty of it, the Catholics certainly had the more defensible motives for their conduct.

At all events, the argument that the persecutions for heresy, perpetrated by the Catholics, constitute a reason why one should not enter the Catholic Church, has not a particle more force than a similar argument would have against one’s entering the Protestant Church. In both there have been those deserving of blame in this respect, and what applies to one applies also to the other.

(Stoddard, 204-205, 209-210)…

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Interesting how it leaves this verse out the very next one 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

So I am left to believe that the Church could care less if their Priest burn. It is well known that very few Priest keep their vows to virginity.

Funny to start by saying there is no support in Scripture for this but so what you should not mock us for doing it anyway.

Adam was given Eve because it is not good for man to be alone.

Paul was just justifying himself being single. Nothing wrong with that especially when it made it clear that others had better marry or burn.

Neither of those are “ordinances.”

They are exhortations to remain celibate, if you perceive no real desire on your part to be married.

There is nothing in the New Testament that makes reference to taking vows of, on, or about anything ….. except when getting married.

listens2glenn on February 20, 2013 at 4:56 PM

I answered your claim that celibacy for the clergy isn’t mentioned in the bible.

I provided a link that has a concise history of the doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church as the Eastern Church(s) sees the issue differently.

When Protestants are willing to have an intellectually honest discussion as to the history of mass executions…rapes of nuns…seizure of Catholic property & wealth and Persecution of Catholic clergy and laity in formerly Catholic Nations during the reformation and subsequent centuries…

Then we can talk about the injustice of Torquemada.

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 4:21 PM

You are saying they eventually took some of what we took from them back. Thus we will not talk about taking it first.

Hugh?? How does that follow?

Add up the numbers from the letters on the Popes crown 666 same in Latin or Roman Numerals. No funny business just add them up.

The Holy Roman Empire ruled 1260 years not my word check it out yourself.

The Church fostered genocide all over the world very well documented. Spain was especially bad because that was just two groups of Catholics fighting for control of the Church. But the Spanish lost and were mostly murdered.