According to that logic, the following could not be believed in because they aren’t explicitly mentioned:
1] The Most Holy Trinity - nowhere is the Dogma of the Most Holy Trinity anywhere expounded upon. Yes, the Lord mentions baptising in the Name of the Father &c., at the end of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and the debated Comma Johanneum in the Epistles of St. John the Apostle also mentions the Trinity, and of course types of the Trinity in the Old Testament, but there is nothing substantial, or expansive. Nowhere would one understand anything about the Trinity solely from “sola Scriptura”. In order for a Protestant to believe in the Trinity, with all it’s complex theological and philosophical parts, requires assent to the Council of Niceae, and of other relevant Church Councils and Church writings. Thus, using Sola Scriptura does no help at all.
2] The Hypostatic Union - Nowhere does the Bible expound upon the Hypostatic Union of Christ, videlicet, that He is both God and Man, complete and whole, with a rational soul. In order to believe in this Dogma, one would need to assent to Church Councils. Sola Scriptura cannot help here.
3] The Destruction of Jerusalem - in A.D. 70, the Roman General Titus had flattened Jerusalem. We know because of historical records. But, none of the New Testament authors ever mentioned it, so it must not have happened according to our Protestant objector!
4] Sola Scriptura - Our objector most likely believes in Sola Scriptura (which seems evident from his objection). Yet, from thence can he show one verse where such a doctrine is taught? Can he show a verse from St. Paul, or from one of the other venerable Authors, that states that the Scriptures alone are our guide and authority? I believe the answer is no. In fact, the Scriptures teach that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Tim iii, 15), precisely because the text of Scripture can be corrupted and willfully mistranslated, but the Church’s teaching cannot change, thus She is like a pillar and the ground, which cannot be moved. And because She is Divinely Protected, She is like the house built on rock (Luke vi, 48), the same being St. Peter (Matt xvi, 18).
St. Paul only states that Scripture is profitable (2 Tim iii, 16), as he says also the same about his own advice (2 Corinth viii, 10), and also states that good works are profitable (Titus iii, 8). So, do we proclaim “sola opera” (works alone)? Or perhaps “soli consilii” (advice/counsel alone)?
Lastly we may add this:
The Body of Mary - Considering that the Infant Church jealously kept the bodies of Her members, especially those of fame such as the Martyrs and Apostles, where is the body of Our Lady? We have Her sepulchre, but She is not in it! So, where is She? Does our objector believe that the Church wouldn’t keep the body of the Mother of the Messias somewhere safe?
So we give undue emphasis on Mary? Well, blame the Church Fathers for that!
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John Book 1, ch 6 (A.D. 185-254):
For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus…
Peter of Alexandria, Fragments 5 par 7 (A.D. 260-311):
*
[T]he only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, being in the end of the world born according to the flesh of
our holy and glorious lady, Mother of God, and Ever-Virgin*, and, of a truth, of Mary the Mother of God; and being seen upon earth, and having true and real converse as man with men, who were of the same substance with Him.
Note well the dates of these. They are before the Council of Nicaea, which supposedly “paganised” the Church. We where praising Mary long before Constantine!
By quoting from Philippians, our objector implies that we somehow don’t confess that Christ is Lord. Have they read the Collects from Mass, where it ends “Per Dominum Nostrum Iesum Christum…” or “Through Our Lord Jesus Christ…”? By the way, if Christ
alone is to be exalted, that must
exclude the Father and the Holy Ghost, right?
By honouring the Mother of God, we give glory to the One Who created Her and fashioned Her to be His very Mother. Protestants confuse veneration with worship, as they cannot tell the difference. Thus a simple prayer such as “Mary, pray for me to God” translates to them as “Mary, you are God”!
However, Protestants have no problems venerating such people as George Washington [there is even an idol of him dressed as Jupiter:
), Henry VIII or Luther. They create statues, monuments, mountain ranges, even temples (like the one to Abraham Lincoln), and that’s fine. But damned be the Catholic who should venerate the very Mother of God!
