How could one patriarch elevate anything to dogma without the benefit of a truly ecumenical council?How could a priest elevate anything to a dogma?
Jon
- Status
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
Huh?How could one patriarch elevate anything to dogma without the benefit of a truly ecumenical council?
Jon
Here is what Luther said on the subject:How could a priest elevate anything to a dogma?
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”
Apparantly, he agreed with the Catholic Church - before 1950.
Jon
B
benidict
Guest
my apologies John, but im lost in the sauce. lol! could you please clarify? thanks brother. peace to you and yours.How could one patriarch elevate anything to dogma without the benefit of a truly ecumenical council?
Jon
Where in the early Church is the practice of one patriarch given the power to infallibly declare dogma?
Jon
P
PRmerger
Guest
What was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is *not *an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.
It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.
Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 2-11 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!” )
At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.
For example, the solemn declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not newly formed in 1854. It was a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose 1854 as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.
However, this dogma was ancient, dating back to the times of the apostles.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Do you mean St. Peter? When Jesus declared that he would build his church on him? And that he had the keys to the kingdom?
If not, I don’t know to what you’re referring. Patriarch is not a term I use.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
By sitting on the Chair of Peter in Rome.How could one patriarch elevate anything to dogma without the benefit of a truly ecumenical council?
Jon
“Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
Matthew 16, 17
PAX :heaven:
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: When Peter admitted Gentiles without circumcission.
I think I made this comment before - here or on another thread - nothing that I read about Catholic mariology indicates to me that, in any way, shape, or form, do Catholics raise the Blessed Virgin’s status to that of “near divinity”. To argue that they do is to argue from a false perception.
Jon
B
bjryman
Guest
REMEMBER TRADITION VERSUS Sola/Solo Scripture DRIVES OPINION
At the time of the Reformation the original grievances against the church were very focused and few … mostly about Martin Luther’s challenges. Calvin and others with the anaBaptists being the most radical, drove the wedge much, much further. They HAD to don’t you see. In order for them to truly separate from all the Church connections, they HAD to terminate the belief in Tradition…even though it was tradition that was passed down by their forefathers.
So, therefore, any of the Church’s teachings that are significantly based on tradition, word of mouth or actual practices, must be mostly ignored by the reformists. This position especially applies to Marian doctrine.
If one cannot get over the fact that tradition and the bible comprise the entire history and dogma of Christianity…then all this debate is irrelevant.
I am not even positing a position here, for or against. Simply recognizing the gap, very wide indeed, in communication when one begins without the acceptance of both verbal, actual tradition along with biblical scriptural documentation as what comprises our faith.
Otherwise, the debaters here are always dealing with “half a deck” as we say
At the time of the Reformation the original grievances against the church were very focused and few … mostly about Martin Luther’s challenges. Calvin and others with the anaBaptists being the most radical, drove the wedge much, much further. They HAD to don’t you see. In order for them to truly separate from all the Church connections, they HAD to terminate the belief in Tradition…even though it was tradition that was passed down by their forefathers.
So, therefore, any of the Church’s teachings that are significantly based on tradition, word of mouth or actual practices, must be mostly ignored by the reformists. This position especially applies to Marian doctrine.
If one cannot get over the fact that tradition and the bible comprise the entire history and dogma of Christianity…then all this debate is irrelevant.
I am not even positing a position here, for or against. Simply recognizing the gap, very wide indeed, in communication when one begins without the acceptance of both verbal, actual tradition along with biblical scriptural documentation as what comprises our faith.
Otherwise, the debaters here are always dealing with “half a deck” as we say
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think I already knew that.
M
mortonsam
Guest
My position is NOT to measure one’s importance by how many times one is mentioned in Scripture. I never said that and I think you know that but you wish to continue to blur the point. Here’s the facts: Mary is not mentioned past the Book of Acts and Phillip is not mentioned multiple times by Christ nor carries the accountability of holding a large office in the NT. Phillip is not recognized even to the degree as other saints in the RCC, but Mary on the otherhand is revered by many titles in the Catholic church including Queen of Heaven, Immaculately concevied, perpetually virgin and didn’t ever sin. One of the Popes even created a prayer to Mary which is arguably darn close to worship. Both Phillip and Mary are saints correct? Why not show the same kind of honor and recognition for Mary as the other saints. Why is it elevated far beyond?I think you’re taking my argument too far.
morton’s position is: one’s importance in Christianity ought to be measured by how often someone is mentioned in Scripture.
My argument: many, many important saints, martyrs, evangelists are not mentioned more than once or twice in Scripture; to wit: St. Philip.
To state that someone needs to be mentioned past a certain book in Scripture in order to determine one’s importance is arbitrary. Not to mention, un-biblical.
Why would that be necessary? Who determined this criterion?
M
mortonsam
Guest
By sitting on the Chair of Peter in Rome.
But supreme authority in the Early Church didn’t not look like this before 1054AD.
But supreme authority in the Early Church didn’t not look like this before 1054AD.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok. So what was your reason for pointing out that Mary was not mentioned once past the book of Acts?
M
mortonsam
Guest
M
mortonsam
Guest
Because of the obvious contrast between the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology.Ok. So what was your reason for pointing out that Mary was not mentioned once past the book of Acts?
M
mortonsam
Guest
But even being so, she is still not divinity so then why show reverence for her which is far and away beyond that of any of the other saints? Why is it necessary? Why not spend that time and energy on Jesus Christ the King of Kings and the Lord of lords?
- Status