Bible Discussion with Family baptized but no longer practicing Catholics

[sola_scriptura]

I remain unconvinced. I don’t agree that the Russian Orthodox author I cited gains anything personnally by his conclusion that St. Ignatius was indeed speaking of the primacy of Rome. Your attempt to make this out to be a singularly Roman view is unconvincing. The evidence speaks for itself, which is why Christianity since the 1st century insisted upon the primacy of Rome, the “minority” view of a small circle of protestors notwithstanding.

Well, let’s separate my thoughts regarding the motivation of Rome from my analysis of the evidence. First I reviewed the evidence (a few words from Ignatius that IMO referred to Rome presiding over its own congregation rather than the whole Christian church). Then I speculated about what the motivations might have been to interpret such scant evidence the way they did. In short it doesn’t matter whether the Russian Orthodox theologian you cite had no obvious motivation to prop up Rome – many good men are simply wrong, and on this count I disagree with the good theologians analysis of the evidence concerning this issue.

I see, now you’re onto another minority view of a narrow circle of protestors about Mary. See here: Doctrines about Mary are Biblical

That you also claim Marian doctrines are a singular view of “Rome” is equally absurd.

For instance, according to Protestant pastor, Charles Dickson:

Additionally, from the Eastern fathers:

Seems to me, your dispute regarding doctrines about Mary is just one of many Protestant vs. Protestant disputes.

You cited a single pastor – which shows no consensus. Moreover, I don’t necessarily dispute the Council of Ephesus (I would just say if Mary was a virgin Joseph must have brought children into the marriage).

However, I strongly disagree with St. Ephrem’s characterization of Mary as a mediatrix. Such a depiction is unbiblical. It doesn’t just create something that scripture is silent on – it directly abrogates scripture, which is heretical.

This is a presumption on your part, as many Catholic were not “raised” Catholic, but converted from Protestantism and Orthodoxy, or other religions, or even raised atheist or agnostic. Yet, they come to assent to the truth of Catholic teaching, by the grace of God.

There are far more protestants who came from Catholicism that the other way around? So I’m not sure why you would rely on such an argument?

St, Maximus of Constantinople, for example, affirmed:

Furthermore, even some Orthodox scholars expressed their substantial agreement with Catholic ecclesiology and papal infallibility. For instance,

19th cent. Russian Orthodox scholar Valdimir Soloviev concluded:

Did Soloviev become a Roman Catholic? I mean if he agrees with Papal infallibility why would he remain EOC? If I thought the Pope were always right in matters of faith & morals I’d jump across the street and dive in the Tiber in a second (although I heard the Tiber is quite polluted these days – maybe I’d wear a good scuba outfit ).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… many good men are simply wrong, and on this count I disagree with the good theologians analysis of the evidence concerning this issue.

I’m sure he likely would think, (as I do), that you are wrong.

You cited a single pastor – which shows no consensus.

I wasn’t attempting to show Protestant consensus. I was showing how absurd the claim is that only Roman Catholics could believe such things about Mary. Again, no matter how many would like to pretend otherwise, this is a Protestant vs. Protestant dispute, one of many. There IS no consensus in Protestantism about many number of things considered to be the essential doctrines of Christianity.

However, I strongly disagree with St. Ephrem’s characterization of Mary as a mediatrix.

No surprise. However, this Eastern father’s testimony was presented to show that the so-called Roman doctrines of Mary are not singularly that of “Rome” as was implied. I had no expectation that you’d agree with his holy Church father.

There are far more protestants who came from Catholicism that the other way around? So I’m not sure why you would rely on such an argument?

You forget the genesis of the response, which was the absurd implication that we believe as we do because we grew up Catholic. As if Catholics are somehow brainwashed to believe the Catholic faith in their childhood years and can never break away from it. On the contrary, some of Protestantism’s foremost scholars have become Catholic. It seems their fervent study of Scripture brought them to fully assent to the Catholic faith. In fact, most Catholics I know are either converts or reverts (that is, left the Church, discovered the baffoonery in their prodigal ways, and then returned).

Did Soloviev become a Roman Catholic?

Some claim he did, others say he didn’t. Regardless, at the time he wrote what he wrote, he was Eastern Orthodox (as he explicitly affirmed) and (like St. Maximus of Constantinople) his understanding of papal primacy was spot on, and had nothing to do with being “raised” Roman Catholic.

Consequently, it is untenable to claim that only those who grew up Roman Catholic could authentically believe the primacy of the Bishop of Rome included both honor and jurisdiction over the universal Church.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I’m sure he likely would think, (as I do), that you are wrong.

I wasn’t attempting to show Protestant consensus. I was showing how absurd the claim is that only Roman Catholics could believe such things about Mary. Again, no matter how many would like to pretend otherwise, this is a Protestant vs. Protestant dispute, one of many. There IS no consensus in Protestantism about many number of things considered to be the essential doctrines of Christianity.

No surprise. However, this Eastern father’s testimony was presented to show that the so-called Roman doctrines of Mary are not singularly that of “Rome” as was implied. I had no expectation that you’d agree with his holy Church father.

You forget the genesis of the response, which was the absurd implication that we believe as we do because we grew up Catholic. As if Catholics are somehow brainwashed to believe the Catholic faith in their childhood years and can never break away from it. On the contrary, some of Protestantism’s foremost scholars have become Catholic. It seems their fervent study of Scripture brought them to fully assent to the Catholic faith. In fact, most Catholics I know are either converts or reverts (that is, left the Church, discovered the baffoonery in their prodigal ways, and then returned).

Some claim he did, others say he didn’t. Regardless, at the time he wrote what he wrote, he was Eastern Orthodox (as he explicitly affirmed) and (like St. Maximus of Constantinople) his understanding of papal primacy was spot on, and had nothing to do with being “raised” Roman Catholic.

Consequently, it is untenable to claim that only those who grew up Roman Catholic could authentically believe the primacy of the Bishop of Rome included both honor and jurisdiction over the universal Church.

You can present all the semantics and claims of wayward theologians you like. It still won’t right the errors of Rome.

Whether Mary was a virgin or not cannot be shown by apostolic sources, period. Moreover, the idea of Mary as a co-redeemer or mediatrix contravenes scripture. It doesn’t much matter how the RCC came to its erroneous conclusions – it’s enough for me to know that they’re wrong.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You can present all the semantics and claims of wayward theologians you like. It still won’t right the errors of Rome.

Whether Mary was a virgin or not cannot be shown by apostolic sources, period.

It depends upon what you mean by “apostolic sources.” If you mean this in an absurdly narrow sense which excludes apostolic tradition, then not even the contents of the Bible can meet your criteria. For example, you cannot prove from this notion of “apostolic sources” which version of the Book of Daniel is inspired, sacred Scripture. See here: [How Big is Your Book of Daniel](http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2007/01/how -big-is-your-book-of-daniel.html)

So I’d say your epistemology is severely flawed.

Moreover, the idea of Mary as a co-redeemer or mediatrix contravenes scripture.

I disagree. St. Paul calls Christians “co-workers” with Christ. If Christ is indeed our redeemer, then it follows that Christians are “co-redeemers” as we share in that work of Christ. If you understood what “co-redeemer” and mediatrix authentically meant, the doctrine is most definitely congruent with and nourished by Sacred Scripture.

While you may have your opinions about the wrongness of Catholic doctrine, I’m certain your opinons are fallible. I place my trust, instead, in the teachings of the holy apostolic Church which has existed and preached in every century since the advent of Christ, and find all other novel claims originating from flawed epistemology of 16th century protestors to be unconvincing.

 

[patrickmwebb]

Yeah … I’ve heard it all before. No interest in arguing this point. I’m quite well informed & have an intimate knowledge of the truth. Solid protestants won’t be led astray by any of this. May as well discuss something we agree on rather than beat each other over the head. However, if you continue with this discussion I should say that you’ll be wasting your time. I’ve studied theology for many years & have discussed the concept of apostolic succession, Mariology, and other favorite topics of Catholics many times. I’ve studied law (hold a law degree), I’ve been to Iraq and back, and nothing – I mean nothing will ever lead me astray. The reformed faith is the single best explanation of the word of God out there.

I feel a touch of humility wouldn’t go too far astray on you, my friend. "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and reveled them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will. [Matthew 12-25-27]. You can swim on the surface of the Ocean but unless you are prepared to fathom its depths, you won’t be able to comprehend the mystery and beauty thereof. I feel that, whatever subject, that, might be discussed with you, would be in vain, because there is none so blind, as those that won’t see, nor def, as those that won’t hear. You, go into discussion, with a prefixed mind. Wining the argument, is the end you seek, not discovering truth. I will try to get something very special across to you, I pray that God will grant you the grace to take in what I’m saying and meditate on it before you jump to the defence of your ego. You say where was the invisible Church, for the first 1,500 years. Read Ephesians-chapter -four. We are the body of Christ. He is the invisible Spirit of his Church. “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and one Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.” Eph-4-I-7. “You did not so learn Christ!-assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus.” Eph-4-20-22 eg. his body the Church. There is so much in this one chapter. Jesus died on the Cross to give us life, his life. He descended and only he can ascend, he is our head and we are his body.“Now I rejoice in my sufferings four your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the Church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints.” Jesus must put all principalities dominions and powers under his feet. We are being given a share in his suffering, and also in his resurrection. "Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which do no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Phile’tus who have swerved from the truth by holding that [the resurrection is past already]. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing the seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and,“let every one who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” the Eucharist is a continuation of the last supper unbroken the true food of salvation if we are fed with this food we have true life in us. I will leave it at that for now. “Oh that to day you would harden not your hearts.”