A Question for Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
almisry,
I’m saying that the concepts of the Eucharist, IC, Assumption, Purgatory etc… (The Trinity is accepted by most modern Christians) were understood and accepted by the people who had first hand experience to the events. They were also accepted and understood by the people in the very early Church, and correctly preserved for us today. Modern understanding which rejects those traditions is 2000 years removed and would be just as strange to the early Church as they are to modern fundamentalists.

Cardinal Newman said “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant”.
 
I’m not going to go into the late date of Purgatory.
Where did the “good thief” go? Was he in heaven? No, because Jesus had not ascended to open the gates. Was he in hell? No, because, except for Christ, it’s a one-way trip. Christ promised him “paradise”. Well, where the hell was he then? Purgatory. It’s descibed in scripture, but not by that name. Just like the trinity.
 
Where did the “good thief” go? Was he in heaven? No, because Jesus had not ascended to open the gates. Was he in hell? No, because, except for Christ, it’s a one-way trip. Christ promised him “paradise”. Well, where the hell was he then? Purgatory. It’s descibed in scripture, but not by that name. Just like the trinity.
Btw I like the sig.

Sorry, at Divine Liturgy, when the priest brings the Holy Gifts in I hear him say:

In the tomb with the Body
In Hell with the Soul
With the thief in Paradise
Sitting on the Throne with the Father and the Spirit
Wert Thou, O Christ, Thou alone uncircumscribed.

In Orthodox iconography, the good thief leads the souls into the gates of heaven.

Where in the hell was he? Well, hell.

But as Christ opened those gates, the thief was right behind: remeber “TODAY you will be with Me (the JWs try to play with this too).”

Not to canonize him, but he does summarize and reflect the Church’s belief, but if you see in the Inferno Dante talks of Christ emptying hell of the righteous.
 
almisry,
I’m saying that the concepts of the Eucharist, IC, Assumption, Purgatory etc… (The Trinity is accepted by most modern Christians) were understood and accepted by the people who had first hand experience to the events. They were also accepted and understood by the people in the very early Church, and correctly preserved for us today. Modern understanding which rejects those traditions is 2000 years removed and would be just as strange to the early Church as they are to modern fundamentalists.

Cardinal Newman said “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant”.
Yes, but for example the IC, when it first appeared in the 9th century, SS Bernard of Clarivaux, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas condemned it as a novelty. That’s part of history too. So jumping over them and claiming the Apostles believed it is beyond my gymnastic abilities.
 
The order was arbitrary and not in the order of importance.

The concepts were understood in the early Church and formaly defined in later centuries.
Not the IC. It appears in the 9th cent. and is condemned as a novelty in the following centuries.
I understand you can’t fathom it, but that does not make it any less true.
What I’m interested in are what are the oral traditions you hold fast to Since it’s a command from Sacred Scripture?
For one, the Assumption.

This argument is good against the Protestants, but falls flat against us Orthodox: we have more Tradition than one could handle.
 
Not long ago I heard a Protestant preacher make the following humerous statement to emphasize how Jesus was perfect, and I am relating this as well as I can remember:

How would would you like to have been one of Jesus’ brothers or sisters? Mary would be saying, “James, why can’t you be more like Jesus?” James would probably answer, “Why can’t you be more like Jesus?”

My question: Would you or would you not be affected by this anecdote?

Question not understood 🙂​

 
The truth is far simpler than having to do flips and circles and other acrobatics to try and disprove Scripture. Mary stated, “I rejoice in God my Savior.” Mary needed a Savior same as all of us. Forget the pretzel logic.
Imagine you are about to step in a pile of dog dung. But before you do, I yell out “Look out, watch your step!” You can say that I saved you from doing that. All humans need the Savior. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mary stepped in it.
 
Not the IC. It appears in the 9th cent. and is condemned as a novelty in the following centuries.
There are a few ECF’s that believed in the IC before the 9th century.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

Just because a few didn’t believe in the IC doesn’t mean that is wasn’t a widely held belief.

Besides, and correct me it I’m wrong but Bernard, Bonaventure, and Aquines were not ECF’s. It’s true that they are all doctor’s of the Church, but they held those beliefs before they were officially defined.
 
There are a few ECF’s that believed in the IC before the 9th century.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience … (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).
The Annunciation, happened way after her conception.
Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” . . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
Ditto.
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).
Talks of her being All Holy, immaculate, of personal sin. Not the crux of IC.
Hippolytus
He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).
The terms defilement and corruption used by the Fathers usually refers to her virginity. But I’ll give you that his might be useful to your argument, although it is also used to show she was free of actual sin (compare Luke 1:6, were their IC of Elizabeth and Zachariah?).
Ephraim the Syrian
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).
Again, the All-Holy, immaculate, stain, etc. language is used to show the she had not personal sin.
Ambrose of Milan
Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).
Again language used to say she was free of personal sin, but the last line, yes, could be used for your argument.
Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).
Again, Annunciation, not IC.
Augustine
We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).
Again associated with the annuciation, but can be construed (because vague) to your cause, but all the personal sin issue.

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).
Proclus of Constantinople
As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).
Ditto.
Jacob of Sarug
[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].
Interesting, because the IC says Mary was selected and THEN given the singular privilege.

cont…
 
Romanos the Melodist
Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).
This is interesting, how is an embryo called into the center of a crowd? It, however, does refer to your argument, but also raises the question: does it project back the lack of personal sin of Mary?
Just because a few didn’t believe in the IC doesn’t mean that is wasn’t a widely held belief.
Besides, and correct me it I’m wrong but Bernard, Bonaventure, and Aquines were not ECF’s. It’s true that they are all doctor’s of the Church, but they held those beliefs before they were officially defined.
I admit, you have done your homework.

The problem is the Churches to which all the above belonged in the East (EO, OO and Assyrian) NONE believe the IC. As these three branches all parted ways from each other, and in 1054, i.e. after the IC first appeared, the Latin church parted from the EO, you would expect, if this was such a universal catholic belief, that it would show up among them. It doesn’t.

No, they weren’t ECF. I listed them because their they were members and doctors of the Latin church, and NONE believed the IC, and some (e.g. Bernard and Bonaventure) were adament in their rejection of it as a novelty. And I am sure they were aware of some of your quotes when they did so.
 
Imagine you are about to step in a pile of dog dung. But before you do, I yell out “Look out, watch your step!” You can say that I saved you from doing that. All humans need the Savior. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mary stepped in it.
Our quetion is why, if it were possible, He didn’t tell us all not to step in it?
 
He took part of his own commandment, “honor your mother…”, to an extreme. (If you’ll excuse me, I have to 😉 )
 
Talks of her being All Holy, immaculate, of personal sin. Not the crux of IC…
I disagree, All Holy, immaculate, of personal sin is the crux of the IC.

I want to make sure we aren’t talking past each other and are talking about the IC.

first lets look at what Pius IX had to say in 1854 regarding the dogma of the IC: 135 is Pius IX

Both of these quotes are in the CCC under the IC.

135The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
 
I disagree, All Holy, immaculate, of personal sin is the crux of the IC.

I want to make sure we aren’t talking past each other and are talking about the IC.

first lets look at what Pius IX had to say in 1854 regarding the dogma of the IC: 135 is Pius IX

Both of these quotes are in the CCC under the IC.

135The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
Without original sin, the rug is pulled out from under personal sin.

Btw., before the Coredemtrix doctrine is made dogma,and we are talking of CR, let me state for the record, on behalf of the Orthodox, that we do say “Most Holy Theotokos, Save us!” but we in no way believe in the alleged coredentrix. Had many had the opportunity to do so before, there’d be no quotes of the Fathers that could be put to use for the IC.
 
I do not agree. The church has changed in many facets since the days of Christ. Many will argue that this was the call for the Reformation.
Many who do not know anything about history will do so, surely.

For you can say what you will about the Reformers, but it is simply not true that the communities they built resembled the Church of the early days where they deviated from the Catholic Church.

For all the evidence you will ever need on this, just reflect that the only common doctrine of Protestants is that which the Church handed to them through the Nicene Creed, which contains key doctrine such as that of the Trinity which is not found in the Bible, but was revealed by the Holy Spirit and passed down in the Tradition of the Church Protestants evince to abhor.

Then there’s all that business about the intolerance of the Reformers, all the property they stole, all the people they slew, etc. etc.
 
The truth is far simpler than having to do flips and circles and other acrobatics to try and disprove Scripture. Mary stated, “I rejoice in God my Savior.” Mary needed a Savior same as all of us. Forget the pretzel logic.
Sure, saints need saviors—even sinless ones. After all, even the most righteous man is a creature in need of a Creator, and unable to provide their own eternal life.

That’s a lot simpler than your view, which seems to require heaping ordure on the mother of Christ.

Christ loved her. Why do you not?
 
Every time the Early Church Fathers make Mary equal to Eve, they are telling us that Mary (like Eve) was conceived without sin.

Otherwise (if she were born into sin), it would make more sense to parallel her with Sarah, wife/mother of the Hebrew Covenant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top