St.Mary Doctrine

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

The roman Catholic church has been around since Christ founded it upon the rock of Peter,

The notion of sola scriptura attracts your criticism later on in your post. But surely there is more profit in such a principle than in the doctrine of everything but scriptura which seems to characterise your own position. I mean, your scriptural defence of the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception relie on an extremely tenuous rendering of a single word in a single place in scripture. PianoMans link to Scott Hahn reveals it awash with speculative musings - which the scriptural text in question doesn't do anything like enough to support.

Here again (Peter, the rock), we've a massive doctrine founded on a miniscule piece of scripture and before we know it you've pulled a whole church from your non-scriptural hat.

what even puts the protestant sola scriptura position in greater contradiction is the fact that the Bible does not contain an inspired table of contents, which forces the protestant to look outside of scripture to see how its canon was determined, this smashes the protestant theory of ''Bible alone'' theology.

I think you'll find that the thinking behind sola scriptura has to do with deciding on the safest course of action - one which reduces the possibility of error to a minimum. Such a doctrine wouldn't be pronounced infallible, nor even scriptural - but it would be pronounced a best bet - something which has been made patent by the doings of the church and it's members (RC and otherwise) in the intervening years. Quite how you figure to step beyond scripture so as to include the machinations of sinful men - when scripture gives you paltry warrant for doing so/warns of wolves in sheeps clothing - is beyond me.

You have to start somewhere and self-evidently, scripture must be that starting point. The decision to progress from there requires warrant. No warrant then no progression from scripture - as in being demonstrated in the case of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. The same thing goes for any notion you care to mention.

It's quite simple/

Piano man

Hi! I don't know if we lost any posts in that crash, but anyway continuing from where I left off...

Antiskeptic, you have a point in saying that Scott Hahn's oration style (the article is a transcript) is brisk and cheerful, and yes he does embellish the texts with his own ideas at times. But note that he is always explicit as to when he is theorising and when he is being factual.
For instance, in relation to the Genesis description you had a problem with, he states

...This is my own hypothesis. This is my own interpretation. You don't have to abide by it, but my view is that the nahash, the serpent is deliberately depicted as a kind of, I'd say mythical figure but I don't want to deny the historicity of this text. It's just that Hebrew historical narrative can often use mythical imagery to communicate historical truth...

I suggest you read the entire article, and discuss the factual evidence, such as Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, her role in the context of Jewish society and the Davidic Kingdom, all of the implicit statements and parallels between the Old and New Testament.

Slav, thanks for the article on the Orthodox view - I'd never heard of the Dormition before. When I get the chance I'll have a proper read of it, and get back to you!

I'll try and put together my own personal view and experience over the next short while - college is getting busy at the moment, so bear with me.

God bless:)

santing

Stephentlig wrote: »

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

I like you quoting Tertullian. "they were believers ... in the church of Rome" The expression church of Rome here means "they were believers in the place called Rome, according to the doctrine of the catholic (=generic) Church. Tertullian continuous later to show that there were many Churches built on the "catholic" or "apostolic" foundation, where Peter was just one of the Apostles.

ibidem Chapter 33, In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. ... To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic.

Ample proof that the equation Catholic Church = Roman Catholic Church was not made in the mind of Tertullian. His thoughts are more in the line Roman Church is part of the Catholic Church...

In the passage Tertullian writes: "Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old." How could that be a heresy as the New Testament was only defined (by a generic council) at Trent? Again, in Tertullian's mind the New Testament was a given.

In Chapter 31 Tertullian shows himeself to be a protestant:

From the actual order, therefore, it becomes clear, that that which was first delivered is of the Lord and is true, whilst that is strange and false which was afterwards introduced. This sentence will keep its ground in opposition to all later heresies, which have no consistent quality of kindred knowledge inherent in them - to claim the truth as on their side.

Tertullian tells us to go back to that which was first delivered! Back to the Scriptures. Everything that is not derived from there is heresy.

wolfsbane

postcynical wrote: »

A non-scholarly input, from a Catholic perspective. PDN made a very good post on another thread, explaining how an unbeliever might come to faith - describing one of the possible ways which God might nudge one of His children towards the light.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63870345&postcount=6

Now consider somebody whose encounters with Christianity are in a Catholic setting. This person has evidence that Mary intercedes with God - time has shown that prayers to God through Mary are effective. This does not steal the limelight from her son; she is never elevated above being a saint, a person. Prayers to and through Mary are a path to God, a tried and trusted path which works.

The Mass reading today was the wedding feast of Cana, and Mary's role in this was minor but central - she was the one who asked her son to intercede and save the party. She prompted all that followed.

The one who comes to Christ in a Catholic setting comes in spite of Mariology, not because of it. Same as for the Mormon reading the Book of Mormon, or the Muslim praying to Allah. If they feel their prayers were answered, that only inclines them away from the only One who answers prayer. But it may be used of God to confirm to them that a spiritual world exists - and He uses His word to draw them to Himself.

Mary's example is the one to follow, not what the RCC says of her. She told the disciples to do all that Jesus commanded. That's the same thing any faithful Christian tells another.

Stephentlig

I like you quoting Tertullian. "they were believers ... in the church of Rome" The expression church of Rome here means "they were believers in the place called Rome, according to the doctrine of the catholic (=generic) Church. Tertullian continuous later to show that there were many Churches built on the "catholic" or "apostolic" foundation, where Peter was just one of the Apostles.

“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

santing

Stephentlig wrote: »

“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

Again, read the passage. Tertullian's reference to Peter is accompanied to references to other Apostles to show that each had their own contribution on building the Church of Christ. Nothing of this was handed down by successors. When Tertullian speaks about "the rock on which the church should be built.' he means Acts 2. etc. Every other time Tertullian mentions "the Rock" he means Christ.
With regard to "the keys," similar things can be said. I give two (lengthy) quotes of Tertullian:

Scorpiace Chapter 10
remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him. ... I shall carry with me excellent keys, the fear of them who kill the body only, but do nought against the soul:

On Modesty Chapter 21
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,” (Mat_16:18) “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” or, “Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” (Mat_16:19) you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church; “and,” I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church; and, “Whatsoever thou shall have based or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth. (Act_2:22 et seqq.) (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom
...
And thus, from that time forward, (Mat_18:20) every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted “a Church,” from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly “the Church,” it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s.

Pink Boots

I've been lurking and following this thread for quite sometime, and have to admit that what I see is the protestant side twisting everything that Stephen or anyone else gives. Reading this thread, I remembered the time I was gonna be protestant and I thank God I'm still Catholic.

I have learned you can only get through to someone if they are open to the truth, but if they are grounded in what they believe in, then just like santings response, they'll twist it to the grave.

as Stephen pointed out, you are all qouting from other sources other than scripture, you should be qouting and teaching us about your protestant faith from ''scripture alone'' contradicting your doctrine repeatedly.

antiskeptic

Pink Boots wrote: »

I've been lurking and following this thread for quite sometime, and have to admit that what I see is the protestant side twisting everything that Stephen or anyone else gives. Reading this thread, I remembered the time I was gonna be protestant and I thank God I'm still Catholic.

Hi Pink Boots. Welcome to the fray.

The problem some of us appear to be having is the lack of support Stephen supplies with what he says. Remember that the thread starter is Stephen himself. Which means that his various assertions need to be backed up with evidence/reasoned argumentation.

He says for example, that Mary was born without original sin. His evidence/argumentation for that assertion is;

- Mary is described as "full of grace" in scripture
- Jesus is described as "full of grace" elsewhere in scripture
- Jesus was born without original sin
- ergo: Mary was born without original sin.

Can you see how poor an argument this is? The problem isn't that we twist things. The problem is that we aren't given enough to twist

I have learned you can only get through to someone if they are open to the truth, but if they are grounded in what they believe in, then just like santings response, they'll twist it to the grave.

Santings response quoted Tertullian so that we could see what Tertullian said in the context of his saying so. Stephen quotemined Tertullian to make Tertullian say what Stephen wanted Tertullian to say.

How do you read this from Tertullian? Do you think it supports the notion of forgiveness coming through the Roman Catholic Church?

Tertullian wrote:

And thus, from that time forward, (Mat_18:20) every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted “a Church,” from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly “the Church,” it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s.

as Stephen pointed out, you are all qouting from other sources other than scripture, you should be qouting and teaching us about your protestant faith from ''scripture alone'' contradicting your doctrine repeatedly.

The thread isn't concerned with the protestant faith, it's concerned with the narrow area of Roman Catholic doctrine concerning Mary.

There is no problem with examining what the early church fathers say in response to Stephens assertion that the early church fathers support the Immaculate Conception/Assumption of Mary/Roman Catholicism - the one true church of God, etc. In looking to what the early church fathers say, the Protestant isn't looking to the early church fathers for his doctrine, he's merely looking to see do they say as Stephen says they say.

It's the fact that scripture doesn't teach these things - and that the early church fathers are turned to next in the hope of support from them - that should cause alarm bells to ring in you.

Assuming for a moment that it wasn't taught in scripture, would it concern you that Immaculate Conception wasn't taught in scripture? Or that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church? I mean, why would you rely on the word of the Roman Catholic church to tell you it is the one, true church if scripture doesn't say so?

keano_afc

One other thing I've gathered from this thread is that in Stephen's world, not being Catholic automatically consitutes you being a member of the Protestant church.

That might be seen as non-contributory, but it has been bugging me for a while.