Another Question For Protestants

[Tigerhawk]

Contarini:

OK, but this is clearly the problem in the minds of a lot of people on this board.

So we both agree that wasn’t the problem.

Contarini:

Very true–in fact the original Protestants were generally more traditional in this regard (most of them believed in the Perpetual Virginity, as you probably know). But as far as I know that was not the context for the definition in the 19th century.

Well, that’s hard to see historically without a very generous account of development. I can’t imagine any of the Popes in the early Church imagining that they had the authority to appoint bishops, for instance–or getting away with it if they tried to do such a thing.

OK, why was it defined then, instead of at any point in the five centuries between Scotus and Pius IX?

Why did the church say they did?

Contarini:

First of all, by “unnecessary” I mean that one can speak adequately of the Virgin Mary without it. I was making a critique from the point of view of an Anglican, so obviously I wasn’t claiming that everyone believed it anyway. However, within the Roman Communion it does look as if most people believed it–as far as I know the stir came from the idea of a non-conciliar definition, not from the doctrine itself.

The Catholic Church doesn’t define doctrines for itself alone. The fact remains that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not universally accepted.

Contarini:

I don’t believe that the Church is to be identified solely with the body of churches in communion with the See of Rome, no. Of course, since Vatican II that statement has been qualified quite a bit. This is not the place to discuss the meaning of the claim that the Church “subsists” in the Roman Communion.

I hardly think it’s fair to call me cynical. My interpretation of the reason behind the definition is the *non-cynical *version! The cynical view is that the Pope simply defined it as a way of demonstrating his authority–that it marked the beginning of an era where Popes tried to govern the Church by fiat in a way they had never done before.

You seem to have a lot of contempt for popular piety, if you think that ascribing a definition to it is somehow “cynical.”

IN Christ,

Edwin

I apologize for the use of the word cynical. It was a poor word choice. What I was trying to convey was your lack of acknowledgement of the role of the Holy Spirit in the infallibility of the Church.

Which then explains why you think the Church can be wrong in its doctrines.

God Bless

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by** BrianH **

What have I said that would make you think that?

I said this;

"The Immaculate Conception is not even hinted at in scripture except for one phrase…“full of grace” Luke 1:28 of which the meaning of is greatly debated(of course Catholics disagree thus the whole second Eve…Ark of Covenant argument). It is also a later developing Christian tradition based upon my reserach."

Hi Brian,

I just lost most of my post, and due to time, I won’t search down the quote (AGAIN) that made me think you had not personally read all the Scripture Catholics say is the foreshadowing of Mary and the Ark. ( It was not the above quote )

I am glad you have personally read the Scripture dealing with Mary and the Ark.

originally posted by BrianH
This clearly shows that I am familiar with your guys theology…how many non-Catholics even know about the second Eve and Ark of Covenant Catholic argument?

I said this in response to if i have read Mr. Hahns book:

"Nope have not read it. I have read the Bible enough to know that many people will see all manners of foreshadowing and ignore everything else around it."

Oh come one Brian! If you have been around this site for any amount of time you should realize that just because a person says they do not find an argument compelling does not mean YOU actually read the argument, and in this case the Scripture. Frequently the person has read a summary from a fellow Protestant who tells why he finds the argument lacking, but has not actually opened up their Bible and looked at the Scripture themselves, (not to mention they haven’t prayfully asked the Holy Spirit to lead them while doing so.)

Since I have been away from the boards for awhile, I am unaware(can’t remember?) what kind of person you are. Having “met” Edwin/Contrarini before, I knew he had most likely read it for himself since he prides himself on his intellectual discourse.

I do believe you when you say you have read the Scripture for yourself and no offense was meant when I said “it appears” you had not read it yourself.

This is laughable:
“Brian apparently has not even read the scripture”

There is no way I can say this without sounding prideful Maria…so get my drift…I have read the whole book…a lot. That is precisly why I do not believe the Immaculate Conception is there
I understand your argument. I do not agree with it.
Thanks
Respectfully
Brian/

Once again Brian, I am glad you have read the Scripture. But just so you know, your post again, the way you word it, tells me you have read your whole Bible, but makes me wonder if you have read the Scripture from Scripture Catholic or the Bible that specifically deals with Mary and the Ark. I believe you when you say you have read it,

but “I have read the whole book…a lot.” are the words that would make me question whether you have read the Scripture while researching the issue. They infer to me that you read your Bible alot, not necessarily that you have read the specific verses while researching the “Catholic position”.

I believe you when you say you have read them.

The above was just a specific example, (since I don’t want to go back and find the other one.) No offense was meant, and if I hadn’t just got back from a month or so off, I probably would not have worded my post that way, even if I had thought it

Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant for any lurkers or those who wish to review.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[BrianH]

Maria
What kind of person am I?!?!
Well…a nice one of course
Take care
Brian

 

[MariaG]

Hi:wave:

originally posted by **Contarini **
None of those people believe in the Immaculate Conception either (OK, in Islam there’s no idea of original sin, so there’s no analogy). I don’t know of anyone who thinks that the Biblical evidence is stronger for the IC than for the Trinity. I think that would be a truly bizarre opinion.

Never said that anyone thinks the evidence is stronger for the Immaculate Conception than the Trinity

originally posted by Contarini
Furthermore, you can’t refute an opinion by simply pointing out that people disagree. That’s a silly relativistic dodge–common in our society, but Catholics should know better. (It’s no different than the claim “no one religion can be true because many religions claim to be.”)

Interesting. Futhermore. To a “bizarre opinion” that was never made by me.
I actually enjoy how you try to tear down a person and their credibility before tackling the real arguments. Yet I find it funny since your arguments are quite good on their own without having to make me look more stupid than I actually am.

Bringing up the fact of disagreement was to show that the Bible is not self explanatory and even a basic for Christianity, the Trinity, is not clear from Scripture. While you admit that Tradition plays a part in the belief and understanding of the Trinity, there are many more who would claim, “Scripture is clear on the matter.” That is just hypocrisy in order to not admit that their beliefs were influenced by Sacred Tradition and not just based on the Bible alone. While I realize this is not your stance, it is the stance of many here on this forum.

For better clarity, I have posted my argument that “makes no sense at all”

originally posted by MariaG
And while you feel the evidence is stronger for the Trinity, others would disagree completely with the evidence of the Trinity at all from Scripture. (JW, Oneness, Islam, etc.)

You disagree with the implicit evidence for the Immaculate Conception, yet there is scriptural evidence for it. So for the Catholic view, it seems hypocritical to accept the Trinity yet reject the Immaculate Conception when both, from the Catholic interpretation are equally and strongly implicit in Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. It seems like one can pick and choose which Traditions one chooses to believe.

This makes no sense at all. The fact that you can make this argument just shows how much people in our society have lost any conception of what a sound argument is. You’re saying that it’s somehow “hypocritical” to accept evidence one finds convincing and reject evidence one doesn’t? That’s the weirdest definition of hypocrisy I’ve ever heard of.

No. I am not saying that.

What is hypocrital are those who believe in the Trinity without admitting (or even understanding?) that Tradition is part of the reason why. And then go on to reject the Immacculate Conception because it is not “in the Bible”. That is the hypocrisy. Neither the Trinity nor the Immaculate Conception is “clear” from Scripture. Both use Tradition to clarify Scripture.

The person who understands that the Trinity is part of Tradition and find Scripture and Tradition compelling for the Trinity but not for the Immaculate Conception is not a hypocrite, but they are picking and choosing what they will choose to believe.

originally posted by** Contarini**
Very few Catholics would make a silly argument like this. You have no right to claim that Catholics as a whole are behind this nonsense.

Once again, you are trying to cut down my credibility on an argument, I never made. Good try though.

originally posted by Contarini
Of course we pick and choose what to believe. Everyone does it. Catholics do it. You choose to accept the authority of the Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church.

Yes, you are correct there. But as far as I am concerned, the only question for a Christian once they realize this, since the Bible tells us to be one, is should I be Orthodox or Catholic?

(continued)

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by Contarini
The problem with this whole line of argument is that certain Catholic apologists are trying to get around the necessity for having a real argument at all. So you try to come up with some methodological short-cut that will excuse you from actually examining the evidence. This is (thank God) not typical of Catholicism as a whole. But it’s all too typical of “internet apologetics.”

As I have pointed out before, the 'silly arguments" were never made by me. Truly, at the beginning, I find these attempts to undermine my credibility funny, but they wear in time.

**You are smart enough to not need to resort to this. **

Why not stop trying to twist the words to make them say something they don’t? (I apologize if I give you too much credit. Maybe you truly do think I am saying those things?)

Please understand that I’m not attacking Catholicism or even the IC.

Nope, actually you are attacking me and my intelligence.

I’m attacking this particular invalid and rather insulting line of argument, which suggests that examining two similar arguments and accepting one while rejecting the other is somehow “hypocritical” (even if one can give reasons why one is valid and the other isn’t).

But since I never made that argument, it is a moot point.

originally posted by Contarini
Well, that’s another example of the kind of contorted thinking that overly orthodox Catholicism falls into.

Not to overgeneralize or anything. And not an argument I made either.

Once again, for clarification. My words on Augustine were in response to words of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Augustine clearly did not think of the Real Presence in quite the same way post-Tridentine (or even post-Lateran IV) Catholics do. However, one can certainly argue that he didn’t reject the Real Presence in the “metabolic” (i.e., somewhat undefined version of transubstantiation) sense, because St. Anselm clearly spoke of the Eucharist in a metabolic sense and Augustine never suggests that Anselm was in error. Indeed, my (Methodist) advisor David Steinmetz says that there are passages where Augustine speaks in a metabolic way as well. I don’t think I’ve come across those passages myself, but Steinmetz knows what he is talking about.

What the example of Augustine does show is that there was a broad range of patristic explanations of the Real Presence, including some more characteristic of Protestantism today and others that more closely resemble the Catholic/Orthodox view. The fact that your dogmatic commitments make that hard for you to recognize (though more liberal Catholics like Gary Macy have no problem with it) is a problem with your understanding of Catholicism, and it gives the lie to the claim that your faith is fully in accord with that of the Fathers.

I am tired of having to go back and find what you said and then waht my response was to what you said to put things in context.

The only reason I brought up Augustine was to show that individuals in the Church can be used to “prove” that the Church never believed or taught something. Quoting a person, even a well respected one does not “prove” a point.

I truly was going to try to answer everything point by point. But I am tired of having to go back and put everything in context and having you call arguments that I have never made silly, as well as trying to place labels on me.

I had forgotten why I usually do not respond to your posts. They are truly time consuming and exhausting trying put all things in context and rebut your constant attempts to undermine my intelligence. (Some would say that is not a hard thing, yet I hope I have shown that most of your claims of my “silly arguments” were not in fact what I said at all.)

I bid you goodbye.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

BrianH:

Maria
What kind of person am I?!?!
Well…a nice one of course
Take care
Brian

Glad to hear it Brian .

Maybe I can catch you on a different thread.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

I’m baffled. Protestants believe in the Trinity. There are those who don’t, but Trinitarian Protestants would generallly agree that we have far more in common with Catholics than with non-Trinitarians.

I am happy to tell you why I don’t believe in the IC, but it might be better first for you to say why you think a Trinitarian Christian ought to believe in the IC (apart from the authority of the See of Rome defining the dogma).

Edwin

Because it is mythically appropriate - most of all because the Hero of the Story is an Incarnate myth ; or rather, is the Archetypal and Exemplar Myth.​

This is not the weakness it may seem, because myth and history and legend and fiction and poetry and creation are all much the same kind of thing; they are all forms of God’s story-telling. Jesus is the only story ample and various enough to be able to turn myths about goddesses who are mothers of kings of the gods into the historical reality which is the BVM bearing the Incarnate God; and, to embody the truth in conceptions of Divine Triads in a form which is accessible to men - both forms of myth are united in Him.

Dorothy Sayers is very good at thinking in this way; just like C. S. Lewis.

I can see no reason to believe the Mary-related dogmas except because they are mythic - there is no evidence for them except that people have believed them - and people have believed may things ##

 

[Tigerhawk]

Contarini:

OK, why was it defined then, instead of at any point in the five centuries between Scotus and Pius IX?

I went and did a little background digging in on the history of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception for you.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott:

Since the seventh century a Feast of the Conception of St. Anne (Conceptio S. Annae), that is, of the passive conception of Mary, was celebrated in the Greek Eastern Church. The celebration and the Feast spread later to the West, first to sourthern Italy, then to Ireland and England, under the title, Conceptio Beatae Mariae Virginis. The object of the celebration of the feast was initially the active conception of St. Anne, which, according to the Proto-Gospel of St. James, occurred after a long period of childlessness, and was foretold by an angel, as an extraordinary manifestation of God’s grace.

At the beginning of the twelth century, the British monk Eadmer, a pupil of St. Anselm of Canterbury, and Osbert of Clare, advocated the Immaculate (passive) Conception of Mary, that is, her conception free from original sin. Eadmer wrote the first monograph on this subject. On the other hand, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, on the occassion of the institution of the Feast in Lyons (about 1140), warned the faithful that this was an unfounded innovation, and taught that Mary was sanctified after conception only, that is, when she was already in the womb. Under the influence of St. Bernard, the leading theologians of the twelth and thirteenth centuries (Petres Lombardus, St. Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquanis), rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Their difficulty was that they had not yet found the way to bring Mary’s freedom from original sin into consonance with the universality of original sin, and with the necessity of all men for redemption.

The correct approach to the final solution of the problem was first achieved by the Franciscan theologian, William of Ware, and this was perfected by his great pupil John Duns Scotus (1308). The latter taught that the animation (animatio) need not precede the sanctification in order of time (ordo temporis) but only in order of concept (ordo naturae). Through the introduction of the concept of praeredemptio (preredemption), he succeeded in reconciling Mary’s freedom from original sin with her necessity for redemption. The preservation from original sin, is according to Scotus, the most perfect kind of redemption. Thus, it was fitting that Christ should redeem His mother in this manner. The Franciscan Order allied itself with Scotus, and in contrast to the Dominican Order, decisively advocated the doctring and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

In the year 1439, the Council of Basle, in its Thirty-sixth Session, which, however, had no ecumenical validity, declared in favour of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Sixtux IV (1471-1484) endowed the celebration of the Feast with indulgences, and forbade the mutual censuring of the disputing factions. The Council of Trent, in its Decree on original sin, makes the significant declaration “that it was not its intention to involve Mary, the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin and Mother of God in this decree”. In 1567, Pope Pius V condemned the proposition advanced by Baius, that nobody but Christ had been free from original, and that Mary’s sorrows and her death were a punishment for actual sins or for original sin. Popes Paul V (1616), Gregory XV (1622) and Alexander VII (1661), advocated the doctrine. On the eight day of December, 1854, Pope Pius IX, having consulted the entire episcopate, and speaking Ex Cathedra, declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be a Dogma of the Faith.

As you can see Scotus was not the originator although he was a key figure.

It dates back to the seventh century.

The Council of Trent did not specifically leave out the declaration from the Council of Basle. It did however specifically exempt Mary from the doctrine on Original Sin.

When it was finally defined as a dogma it was only after consulting the entire episcopate of the Catholic Church. It was not a Pope acting alone.

The doctrine was in development and being championed for about 1200 years and had been defend by several Popes throughout the centuries.

Just some reading I find interesting which seems to refute some of the points you have made here.

God Bless.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Erich:

Again, from the same February 2001 issue of This Rock magazinerotestants and Catholics alike would agree that there are exceptions. For example, a child below the age of reason is not capable of committing actual sin. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin.This is indicated by Paul later in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

Jesus is another significant exception to the rule, having been exempt from actual and original sin (Heb. 4:15). If Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the new Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the new Eve (Mary) can also be made.

There are no exceptions - everyone needs a redeemer - Mary most of all perhaps. She certainly had one. The Catholic notion of Mary has to account for her own words on the subject; not sweep them under the carpet.​

Have people not heard of original sin ? We don’t need to sin in order to need salvation - we need only be “in Adam” to need it.

To be human at all, is to need salvation; is to need grace - the only way to leave Mary out of the number of the redeemed and saved, is to leave her out of the saving purpose of Christ altogether; and that destroys her connection with Christ in His Church, which is the Life of grace - the Life of the Blessed Trinity; it puts her outside the Church we belong to, and puts her in a Church which includes herself alone - which contradicts man’s creation as a social being. Which all totally destroys her union with us, because all are redeemed and saved as a single integrated people of many individual persons.

A theology or devotional attuitude which sacrifices Catholic doctrine and the Bible to the principle that Mary must be exalted no matter what, is pulling the rest of Catholic Christianity out of shape by distorting it. The honouring of Mary is not the Main Thing about Christianity, is not its heart or purpose or fulfilment. Christian theology stays Christian only if it is wholly Christ-centred - it is only by knowing Mary in Christ that we can know her rightly. She finds her purpose and fulfilment only in her Son and God. To stretch and skew the universe, or the Bible, or the Christian Faith, or theology, or the Church, or anything else in all creation, so that it revolves around her, is to vandalise it - this is the very vandalism we engage in when we sin. To put things out of shape for the glory of a mere creature is a wrong response to the universe; it is a denial of its sacramental character, and a denial of Mary’s. She is not great enough, not good enough, not real enough, to be the centre of all things - only her Son is. ##

 

[ChiFaithful]

I have no idea what topic Gottle of Geer is discussing. Please understand that no one here believes that Mary is the center of Christianity. To spin your argument in that direction serves no valid purpose in understanding either the Immaculate Conception or the question at hand, as it provides neither genuine or reasonable insight on the topic. All that does is get people off course, when others, namely Brian H and Maria G, are providing valid, interesting explanations to the actual topic. If you would like to “stretch and skew” a new topic, please do so elsewhere.

Thanks.

 

[seabird3579]

ChiFaithful:

I have no idea what topic Gottle of Geer is discussing. Please understand that no one here believes that Mary is the center of Christianity. To spin your argument in that direction serves no valid purpose in understanding either the Immaculate Conception or the question at hand, as it provides neither genuine or reasonable insight on the topic. All that does is get people off course, when others, namely Brian H and Maria G, are providing valid, interesting explanations to the actual topic. If you would like to “stretch and skew” a new topic, please do so elsewhere.

Thanks.

All she had to tell us is that she doesn’t believe otherwise convincing evidence. She really wasted her time trying to convince Catholics that Mary is to be disregarded. This is a settled doctrine, of which, we find great Peace and Comfort in.

Faith is a gift. Ms. Gottle and others who struggle with God’s mysteries will remain in our prayers.

One of the most comforting things about my Catholic faith is that I don’t have to have a complete understanding of every spiritual mystery presented in Scripture. I can trust that the Magisterium is being guided, as promised by Christ himself, by the Holy Spirit. I can rest. I can know. Without a doubt, I can know that I will not have to rely upon my own understanding, I can trust Jesus through the Church that He established to give me the Truth.

Child-like Faith. …“unless you become like a child, you shall not enter the Kingdom of God…”

 

[Alfie]

BrianH:

The Trinity is a term which attempts to define the exact relationship that appears throughout scripture between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The relationship and the complexity of it is throughout scripture. From early on, Christians have attempted to come to terms with how to best define this.

The Immaculate Conception is not even hinted at in scripture except for one phrase…“full of grace” Luke 1:28 of which the meaning of is greatly debated(of course Catholics disagree thus the whole second Eve…Ark of Covenant argument). It is also a later developing Christian tradition based upon my reserach.

BH

Protestants believe in the Rapture of the church described in Revelations even though the word rapture isn’t used. Why don’t Catholics believe in the rapture?

 

[seabird3579]

Alfie:

Protestants believe in the Rapture of the church described in Revelations even though the word rapture isn’t used. Why don’t Catholics believe in the rapture?

You would need a whole new thread for that answer …

 

[ChiFaithful]

seabird3579:

You would need a whole new thread for that answer …

I agree.

 

[MariaG]

Alfie:

Protestants believe in the Rapture of the church described in Revelations even though the word rapture isn’t used. Why don’t Catholics believe in the rapture?

Not all protestants believe in the same kind of Rapture.

A better question would be, why do you believe in the Rapture?

Yes, you can point to Scripture, but we can do the same with the Immaculate Conception.

But with the Immaculate Conception, I can also point to Sacred Tradition. Scripture and Tradition. And since the Bible tells us to hold fast to traditions whether oral or by letter, I must continue to do so.

But the rapture as understood by many Christians has no oral tradition in the Church. But the Bible does tell us to watch out for those who will come along and distort His word. Truly, many Rapture theories of today are man-made traditions with very short history behind it that came along a relatively short time ago that distorts His word.

 

[Donna_P]

Contarini:

I’m baffled. Protestants believe in the Trinity. There are those who don’t, but Trinitarian Protestants would generallly agree that we have far more in common with Catholics than with non-Trinitarians.

I am happy to tell you why I don’t believe in the IC, but it might be better first for you to say why you think a Trinitarian Christian ought to believe in the IC (apart from the authority of the See of Rome defining the dogma).

Edwin

The Immaculate Conception is Biblicly based. If you truly subscribe to Sola Scriptura, then you must also believe in the Immaculate Conception.

To find the scriptural references, you must read the Old Testament. In it the New Testament is hidden in many typologies. Whereas the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. THus the Ark of the Covenant, Eve and more…

 

[Erich]

MariaG:

Bringing up the fact of disagreement was to show that the Bible is not self explanatory…

The Bible is definitely not self-explanatory. After all, Arius was able to “prove” from Scripture that the Son had a beginning and was a created being, and that therefore the Son was not God or at least not “true” God; Arius did not believe that the Son inherited from the Father His eternal and unchangeable nature.

 

[Contarini]

Maria,

First of all, I want to apologize for offending you. A certain kind of Catholic argument really gets my back up and brings out the worst in me. This is because I’ve heard this line of argument over and over again and it gets wearing. I know that Catholics feel the same way about certain kinds of Protestant arguments. This has nothing to do with tearing down your intelligence, which was certainly not my intention. And sometimes it leads me to misunderstand what people are saying because I assume that they’re repeating the usual line when they are not. I misunderstood what you said about St. Augustine for that reason–I have heard Catholic apologists try to explain away his remarks about the Eucharist so often that I assumed you were doing this, when in fact you were making a legitimate parallel with St. Thomas Aquinas. I should have seen that, but I didn’t. That was entirely my fault, and I am very sorry.

MariaG:

Hi:wave:

Never said that anyone thinks the evidence is stronger for the Immaculate Conception than the Trinity

No, but unless I misunderstood you you suggested that the fact that some people don’t see the Trinity in Scripture somehow supported the OP’s point about the “double standard” of believing in the Trinity but not the IC. It’s not clear to me what you were arguing, if you were not arguing that anyone who sees the Trinity in Scripture ought logically to see the IC as well.

Interesting. Futhermore. To a “bizarre opinion” that was never made by me.

You pointed out that some people didn’t see the Trinity in Scripture. I took that to mean that you thought that this failure on their part proved something about whether the Trinity was taught in Scripture or not. It appeared to me that you were trying to refute the claim “the Trinity is found in Scripture” by pointing to people who didn’t see it there. That is “refuting an idea by pointing out that there are people who disagree.” Apparently I did not understand what you were actually arguing–and I still don’t.

As you point out later, I do not believe that the Trinity is self-evident in Scripture. I do believe that it is taught implicitly in Scripture, and I do believe that it is far more clearly implied in Scripture than the IC. In other words, I agree with the OP that the arguments are of roughly the same kind–both doctrines tease out the implications of what Scripture teaches in the light of later developments of doctrine. I simply think that Trinitarian dogma is a persuasive development of the implications of Scripture, while the case for the IC is rather weak.

Bringing up the fact of disagreement was to show that the Bible is not self explanatory

I don’t think it is. Why “bring up” an argument that doesn’t apply to anything I had actually said? In fact, you admit that you knew quite well that I think the Trinity is based in tradition (as well as Scripture). You are offended at my response, and I’m sorry for my tone, but can’t you understand why I would think that a post addressed to me was addressing what I believe (instead of what some other Protestants believe)?

and even a basic for Christianity, the Trinity, is not clear from Scripture.

I think clarity is relative. I don’t claim that the Trinity is perfectly clear, so that any intelligent person could see it. But I think the arguments for it are cogent and should carry conviction. It seems to me that the Trinitarian dogma explains the Scriptural evidence better than any alternative.

While you admit that Tradition plays a part in the belief and understanding of the Trinity, there are many more who would claim, “Scripture is clear on the matter.” That is just hypocrisy in order to not admit that their beliefs were influenced by Sacred Tradition and not just based on the Bible alone. While I realize this is not your stance, it is the stance of many here on this forum.

I understand how easy it is to start arguing against typical arguments from “the other side” instead of what the person you’re talking to has actually said. I did this myself with regard to your reference to St. Augustine. But can you see why I would assume that you were in fact arguing against what I had said? I mean, why not address a post to those other people? Why argue with them but address the post to me? I was truly confused by this, and that is why I responded angrily.

 

[Contarini]

What is hypocrital are those who believe in the Trinity without admitting (or even understanding?) that Tradition is part of the reason why. And then go on to reject the Immacculate Conception because it is not “in the Bible”. That is the hypocrisy. Neither the Trinity nor the Immaculate Conception is “clear” from Scripture. Both use Tradition to clarify Scripture.

The person who understands that the Trinity is part of Tradition and find Scripture and Tradition compelling for the Trinity but not for the Immaculate Conception is not a hypocrite, but they are picking and choosing what they will choose to believe.

But that isn’t what you said in the earlier post. You said:

You disagree with the implicit evidence for the Immaculate Conception, yet there is scriptural evidence for it. So for the Catholic view, it seems hypocritical to accept the Trinity yet reject the Immaculate Conception when both, from the Catholic interpretation are equally and strongly implicit in Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. It seems like one can pick and choose which Traditions one chooses to believe.

As you can see, in this earlier post you referred to my position and then said: “it seems hypocritical to accept the Trinity yet reject the Immaculate Conception” (which is true of my position). You then spoke of “picking and choosing” without making *any *distinction between this and “hypocrisy.”

I’m not sure if you actually mean what I would call “hypocrisy” (deliberate insincerity) or simply a failure to be consistent. I recognize that more and more people use “hypocrisy” when they mean “inconsistency.” But hypocrisy in the traditional sense of the word is a horrible sin, and it’s one of the things I most loathe. I didn’t take your accusation very kindly. I’m sorry for the arrogant tone I adopted (it’s the way I show anger in Internet discussions). But I hope you can see that it was reasonable for me to conclude that you were in fact accusing me of hypocrisy. I accept your explanation that that was not what you meant.

I don’t think the Protestants you are talking about are hypocritical in the stricter and more traditional sense of the word. But that’s probably not a point worth arguing here. I remain puzzled why their views are relevant to a discussion between the two of us.

As for “picking and choosing”–I am not personally “picking and choosing” except insofar as I chose to remain a Protestant of some sort, and I admit that I chose to become Episcopalian. I accept as dogmas only those dogmas handed down to Protestantism by the pre-Reformation Church. You can disagree with this, but it’s a consistent criterion and one that does not depend on my own theological speculation. I do pick and choose my theological opinions, but not my dogmas. My only dogmas are those of the Nicene Creed, and this is true of Anglicanism as a whole.

With regard to the IC, you can’t even claim that Protestants “picked and chose,” since the IC was only a commonly held opinion at the time of the Reformation.

Yes, you are correct there. But as far as I am concerned, the only question for a Christian once they realize this, since the Bible tells us to be one, is should I be Orthodox or Catholic?

I don’t agree with this. But I respect this opinion, and I struggle with the question continually. I’m happy to explain how I justify being a Protestant and how I understand the unity of the Church, but another thread would be better suited to that discussion.

 

[Contarini]

Maria,

Looking back over the thread, I can see how some of our mutual misunderstanding arose. You were primarily responding to Brian. While I basically agree with Brian that the reality of the Trinity is found in Scripture, I think he sees the matter as being clearer than I do. I responded to your post because you seemed to be repeating the OP’s contention that *all *theologies that accept the Trinity but reject the IC are somehow logically flawed. Most of my claims that you were making “silly arguments” etc., referred to that. In your earlier response, you did recognize that I didn’t think the Trinity was self-evident, but you did not give any indication that you thought this made a significant difference to the issue of “hypocrisy” or a “double standard.” Therefore, I concluded that you agreed with the OP that those of us who recognize the role of tradition in the definition of the Trinity are still being inconsistent in not also recognizing the IC.

I accept your word that this is not what you were saying. But I honestly think that it was a reasonable conclusion for me to come to. If your only disagreement is with those who think the Trinity is crystal clear to all without any reliance on traditional interpretation, then you and I have no reason to quarrel. Go get 'em, I say! (I’m not sure if this is Brian’s position or not, but he can speak for himself.)

MariaG:

Why not stop trying to twist the words to make them say something they don’t? (I apologize if I give you too much credit. Maybe you truly do think I am saying those things?)

To be honest, I think you give your own clarity of expression too much credit. I don’t see how I could have been expected to deduce from what you said (until the most recent round of posts) that your allegations of “hypocrisy” did not include my position. A lack of clarity in Internet posts is not a serious accusation, so please don’t take offense and say that I’m insulting your intelligence. It’s the nature of the medium that we often don’t pick the ideal words to convey our meaning.

I’m also a little confused as to why you didn’t simply say “none of what I said applied to you” and drop the matter there.

The OP’s argument does constitute a “methodological shortcut.” ChiFaithful seems to think that he/she can prove the IC simply by arguing that any Protestant who accepts the Trinity ought to accept the IC. You seemed to be agreeing with the OP in this regard, although you are more interested in discussing the actual merits of the doctrine itself, and that should have clued me in that your position was not the same.

The only reason I brought up Augustine was to show that individuals in the Church can be used to “prove” that the Church never believed or taught something. Quoting a person, even a well respected one does not “prove” a point.

I misunderstood you here, and this was entirely my fault–you made your meaning clear.

However, you misunderstood me in much the same way–you assumed that I was claiming that the Church didn’t teach the IC because Aquinas denied it. That wasn’t my point at all. My only point in that instance was that a great (and generally orthodox) theologian like Aquinas should not be accused of failing to do justice to the divinity of Christ.

I do maintain that the IC was not a defined dogma at the time of Aquinas, and I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. Tigerhawk has posted a handy summary of the history of the matter. As a doctrine (as opposed to the feast of the conception of the Virgin, which goes back to the 7th century), the IC seems to have originated in the 12th century. But it didn’t find general acceptance till the 14th century, after Scotus came up with some widely accepted arguments for it (I did not know about this William Ware from whom Scotus apparently derived his argument).

However, that was not the point I was making.

I’m sorry that we seem to get on each other’s nerves. I did not intend to insult your intelligence personally–I do find a certain line of Catholic apologetic deeply annoying and I respond badly to it. As I hope you can see, we’ve misunderstood each other to a large extent.

In Christ,

Edwin