Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

I don’t believe that either Augustine or Aquinas saw their “views” as the final authority.

And I don’t see my views as the final authority. We all agree that God is the final authority. The issue in dispute is the content of what God has revealed to us through the apostles. According to the RCC, doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception are not only true, but are also apostolic traditions always held by the church. According to Augustine and Aquinas, however, the doctrine is false and wasn’t an apostolic tradition always held by the church. Augustine even said that his rejection of the doctrine was consistent with the faith of the universal church.

SPH1:

Both accepted the ultimate authority of the Church.

The church of Augustine wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church. In addition to some Roman Catholic beliefs being absent in Augustine’s writings, many were contradicted, and he held to a system of authority different from that of Roman Catholicism. There are some similarities between Augustine’s view of the church and Roman Catholicism’s, but there are some contradictions as well. If he didn’t agree with your system of authority, then how can you claim that he would agree with whatever that authority system teaches today if he was alive today?

Besides, according to the RCC, the Immaculate Conception is an apostolic tradition always held and taught by the church. Why would Augustine not be aware of the doctrine, if the claims of the RCC were true? The usual Roman Catholic answer is to claim that the doctrine was always held, but in a way that could only be perceived by later generations and apart from the normal means of interpreting historical documents. Thus, a passage like Luke 1:28 doesn’t logically lead to the Immaculate Conception if we interpret it as we normally interpret historical documents, and nobody in the earliest generations of Christianity expressed belief in the Immaculate Conception, yet we’re supposed to believe that the doctrine is an apostolic tradition always held and taught by the church because modern Roman Catholic apologists decide to read it into Luke 1:28. As I said before, that’s not a historically deep approach to doctrine. It’s historical shallowness.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

As I read it, at the least Augustine believed that Mary with without any actual sin, and that this was the universal belief of the church by his time. We are well outside Protestantism and deep into Catholicism. All that remains is for the church to fully develop why Mary was without actual sin.

Where does Augustine say that Mary’s post-conception sinlessness was “the universal belief of the church by his time”? Some of his contemporaries, men like John Chrysostom and Jerome, referred to Mary being sinful after conception.

You act as if Augustine’s view was undeveloped, that it would inevitably lead to the Roman Catholic view if given time. No, Augustine did consider the issue of whether Mary was immaculately conceived, and he denied that she was, on multiple occasions. For you to suggest that he would naturally develop a belief in Mary being immaculately conceived, if he had just had more time to develop his views, is an irrational and unproveable argument. There’s nothing in the concept of Mary becoming sinless after conception that would logically require an immaculate conception. If God could intervene to produce an immaculate conception, He could also wait to intervene at a later time. There’s no reason to think that Augustine would develop your view if given more time to think about the subject. Using your reasoning, we could all claim that every person on earth would develop the same views we hold, if they just had more time to think about it. If you can claim Augustine as siding with you on the basis of such reasoning, then I can claim him as siding with me on the basis of the same reasoning.

Besides, the RCC claims that the Immaculate Conception was held and taught by the church all along. Why would a bishop living in the fifth century be unaware of the doctrine, contradict it, and need more time to develop an understanding of it?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JPrejean]

JasonTE:

As I told JPrejean earlier, there’s a difference between accepting the Immaculate Conception because of historical evidence that the apostles taught it and accepting it because of alleged papal or church authority.

I agree, and I will expand a bit on Phil’s point to segue back into that. Specifically, Phil said that:

PhilVaz:

Now we don’t believe the doctrine because this biblical/historical defense is so great (although the historical is definitely the stronger), but because we believe he is the visible head of Christ’s Church.

Phil’s said a lot here, but I think he’s bypassed the real issue by attempting to answer Mr. Engwer on his own terms. In other words, by saying that the biblical/historical defense is not great, he implicitly means that it is not great by the standard of historical evidence that Mr. Engwer is using. But the real issue is why would that be the right standard to use? Pope Pius IX would argue that the standard that Mr. Engwer is using is antithetical to the very notion of Christian truth!

Pope Pius IX was, above all else, an enemy of modernity. His condemnations of various modernist doctrines is summarized in the “Syllabus of Errors.” The particularly relevant condemned propositions here are:

1. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. – Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

1. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. – Ibid.

1. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. – Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854.

1. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. – Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, “Gravissimas inter,” Dec. 11, 1862, and “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

One might summarize all of these observations in one sentence: theology is not like any other science. In other sciences, your knowledge is based on some exercise of human rational skill, so your knowledge is only as certain as your level of skill and the information available to you. As Pius IX puts it, such knowledge is the result of a “continual and indefinite” process. But in theology, the certainty comes from the Holy Spirit Himself making our knowledge more and more certain. It is a certain and definite process by which God providentially increases the certainty of our knowledge of Him in order to allow us to know the “true science of the most abstruse dogmas” in due time. This process makes use of ordinary means, such as theological debate and historical inquiry, and so it is visible in the flow of history, but it is not the result of those means. And that is Pope Pius’s entire point: rational processes can never provide the certainty of the Holy Spirit.

Pope Pius is NOT, contra ultraditionalists and Mr. Engwer, saying that the theological formulations themselves have always been taught throughout history, which can be discerned from his recognition of the range of theological complexity and his particular condemnation of modernistic error (he didn’t condemn theological development my process per se, but only by “continual and indefinite” processes that depend on reason). I thank God for providing me with a decent analogy in my parish priest’s Trinity Sunday homily on development. For Pope Pius IX, theological development is like a mystery novel. The clues are laid out in the early stages of the novel, but people miss their significance. Some characters will not perceive the clues, and some characters will come to the wrong conclusions (blaming the innocent or excusing the guilty) (and of course, they are not wrong to do so, because it proceeds from the imperfect knowledge of the characters). In the end, the author, by way of the protagonist, pulls it all together and solves the mystery. From that vantage, we can see the significance of all the clues and say truly with our protagonist that “the answer was there all along, but we just didn’t see it.” In the same way, Catholics see theological development as a story, authored by God, leading us to truths that are hidden in the original apostolic deposit.

continued…

 

[JPrejean]

… continued
A careful study of Newman reveals an almost-identical understanding of history, despite his Protestantism at the time. He explains the development of doctrine more in a Protestant idiom, speaking of “kernels” and “implicit feelings” in the early years rather than the more traditional Catholic speech of Pope Pius IX (in which implicit doctrine and certain doctrine are both simply “doctrine”). But in either case, they do not make the factual error of asserting that doctrines do not develop nor do not they make the modernist error of assuming that they must develop according to the rules of a rationally definable process. And this highlight Mr. Engwer’s fundamental misunderstanding of Catholicism, because he evaluates historical depth and “logical development” in a thoroughly modern sense, and he misuses the analogy of the acorn in the same sense by inserting another modernistic paradigm (biological development, which also obeys a set of definite laws). When a Catholic speaks of development of doctrine, he is not proposing that theology develops according to a rationalistic set of rules, but rather, that the pattern of always-increasing certainty manifests itself in history.

For a Catholic, the modernist paradigm is utterly alien to the notion of Christian truth. And our faith in this progressive Christian truth is based not upon infallibility, but on the superiority of Christ revealed. Often, the Protestant will make an analogy to Israel and their apostasy, as Mr. Engwer does repeatedly. But for the Catholic, such an analogy is absurd. Christ is the ultimate revelation, and the Paraclete’s help to the Christian faithful is unlike any divine help given to Israel.

Moreover, it is historical nonsense and anachronism to say that the rejection of things like modalism, Sabellianism, Monophysitism, or Nestorianism can be logically derived by any application of a rationalistic set of rules such as Mr. Engwer proposes. Such a nuanced doctrine of the Trinity could not be “in Scripture” by any rule of historical-grammatical interpretation. Yet we consider such rejections absolutely certain truths of the faith. This clearly demonstrates that the Protestant claim of certainty in central doctrines based on modernism is untenable, and strongly supports Pope Pius’s contention than modernism is wholly inadequate to explain the concept of theological certainty.

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

But in theology, the certainty comes from the Holy Spirit Himself making our knowledge more and more certain…

But in either case, they do not make the factual error of asserting that doctrines do not develop nor do not they make the modernist error of assuming that they must develop according to the rules of a rationally definable process.

If doctrinal development doesn’t need to follow “a rationally definable process”, and we know that we have the correct developments because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then why are we supposed to believe that Roman Catholicism is deep enough in history to be considered apostolic? Because the Holy Spirit leads us to that conclusion apart from historical evidence?

Contrary to what you claim, I’m not a modernist. I accept doctrines of scripture that I don’t fully comprehend, such as the eternality of God. And I don’t deny that the Holy Spirit can lead us to a conclusion without historical evidence. In another thread in this forum, a thread in which you participated, I mentioned the guidance of the Holy Spirit as one of the means by which a person can arrive at a canon of scripture. But I also went on to say that Christianity is a historical, evidential revelation, and that we can also arrive at the correct canon by means of following historical evidence in a normal manner.

Both of us claim guidance from the Holy Spirit. So do Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Copts, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. The difference between the two of us is that my claims of guidance from the Spirit are accompanied with historical evidence, whereas you’re appealing to such guidance in the absence of, and even in opposition to, such evidence. Following your approach, a person could claim that the bishop of Antioch is to have jurisdictional primacy, that Joseph was immaculately conceived, that the apostle John was bodily assumed to Heaven, that these doctrines are apostolic traditions always held by the church, and that the guidance of the Holy Spirit assures him of these things apart from historical evidence.

When the Pope and other Roman Catholic authorities make references to a doctrine being historically held by the church, why would we think that we would have only the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead us to such a fact? We would expect a historically held doctrine to leave traces of evidence in the historical record if we have as high a volume of historical documents as we have for Christian history.

continued in next post

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

For Pope Pius IX, theological development is like a mystery novel. The clues are laid out in the early stages of the novel, but people miss their significance. Some characters will not perceive the clues, and some characters will come to the wrong conclusions (blaming the innocent or excusing the guilty) (and of course, they are not wrong to do so, because it proceeds from the imperfect knowledge of the characters). In the end, the author, by way of the protagonist, pulls it all together and solves the mystery. From that vantage, we can see the significance of all the clues and say truly with our protagonist that “the answer was there all along, but we just didn’t see it.”

No, that’s not what Pope Pius IX said. And that’s probably why you’ve repeatedly avoided addressing the details of what I quoted from him. The Pope does not say that “we just didn’t see it [the Immaculate Conception]”. To the contrary, the Pope makes claims about how the church regarded the doctrine, how the fathers of the church expressed their belief in the doctrine through various types of imagery, etc. You can’t regard a doctrine and express your belief in it if the doctrine is something you aren’t aware of. The Pope wrote:

“The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin – a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts…And hence they [the fathers of the church] affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.” (Ineffabilis Deus)

In your mystery novel analogy, you refer to how the author “pulls it all together and solves the mystery”. You refer to how “we can see the significance of all the clues and say truly with our protagonist that ‘the answer was there all along, but we just didn’t see it.’” But that is not what you’ve been arguing in this thread. You’ve denied that the clues can be pulled together to reach a rational conclusion that other people can reach by following those same clues. You’ve told us that we should avoid “the modernist error of assuming that [doctrines] must develop according to the rules of a rationally definable process”. How else is a mystery solved but by “a rationally definable process”?

In your novel, nobody would follow the clues. Rather, everybody would claim to have solved the mystery by means of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, even when their conclusion is directly in opposition to the rational conclusion the clues point to. Then they would claim that their conclusion has been held and taught by all of them all along, even though it’s a conclusion they just reached.

Truly, to be deep in history is to cease being Roman Catholic. Your posts have illustrated that fact.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Often, the Protestant will make an analogy to Israel and their apostasy, as Mr. Engwer does repeatedly. But for the Catholic, such an analogy is absurd. Christ is the ultimate revelation, and the Paraclete’s help to the Christian faithful is unlike any divine help given to Israel.

The issue isn’t whether there are differences. The issue is the nature of those differences. Roman Catholics often argue for the alleged infallibility of the church by citing passages such as Matthew 16:18, Matthew 28:20, and Luke 10:16. But when other passages of scripture say the same things or similar things about Israel (2 Chronicles 33:4, Isaiah 43:10, Jeremiah 31:35-37) or individual Christians (Hebrews 13:5, 1 Peter 2:9, 1 John 2:27), Roman Catholics don’t conclude that Israel was infallible or that individual Christians are infallible. If God promising that Israel won’t be destroyed and that He’ll always be with Israel doesn’t make Israel infallible, then why would God promising that the church won’t be destroyed or that He’ll always be with the church make the church infallible? If you want to argue that the church is different from Israel in the sense of the Roman Catholic denomination being infallible, you need to do more than tell us that “the Paraclete’s help to the Christian faithful is unlike any divine help given to Israel”.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Moreover, it is historical nonsense and anachronism to say that the rejection of things like modalism, Sabellianism, Monophysitism, or Nestorianism can be logically derived by any application of a rationalistic set of rules such as Mr. Engwer proposes.

Let’s discuss Modalism as an example. Would you explain how Modalism is consistent with passages such as Matthew 3:16-17 and John 1:1? Augustine considered the doctrine of the Trinity to be taught “plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation” in Matthew 3:16-17:

“For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, ‘I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?’ He answered, ‘Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled’), when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice,-the Son in the Man,-the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. For the notice of the Trinity is here conveyed to us plainly and without leaving room for doubt or hesitation. For the Lord Christ Himself coming in the form of a servant to John, is doubtlessly the Son: for it cannot be said that it was the Father, or the Holy Spirit. ‘Jesus,’ it is said, ‘cometh;’ that is, the Son of God. And who hath any doubt about the Dove? or who saith, ‘What is the Dove?’ when the Gospel itself most plainly testifieth, ‘The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove.’ And in like manner as to that voice there can be no doubt that it is the Father’s, when He saith, ‘Thou art My Son.’ Thus then we have the Trinity distinguished.” (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 2:1)

I could cite many other such comments from other church fathers as well. They didn’t hold as low a view of scripture as you do.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[PhilVaz]

JasonTE << Let’s assume, also, that I’m the worst person who has ever lived. I’m worse than Hitler. I’m worse than Stalin. I’m worse than all of them combined. How would any of those facts refute what I’ve cited against Roman Catholicism from the church fathers? >>

Again, I had to chuckle. JasonTE has a good sense of humor. And no, I think JasonTE does treat the Church Fathers a little nicer than Hitler did.

I can see JasonTE intends to stick around until either the thread is locked, or people stop responding.

Find the 3-volume MARIOLOGY edited by Juniper Carol at your local library. Or if anyone wants, I have photocopied about 100 pages from these volumes dealing with the various Marian doctrines, the history, Fathers, and development. If anyone is interested, send me an Email PhilVaz@aol.com and I’ll snail mail the 100 or so pages.

Plus, I would recommend Max Thurian Mary, Mother of All Christians written in the 1960s while he was still a Calvinist (he became Catholic in the 1980s I believe). I have that in complete photocopy also if anyone wants it. A hard to find, out of print book.

Phil P

 

[Dolly]

Phil,

May I please ask why you repeatedly mention this thread (or other threads with JasonTE responding) being locked (or his just sticking around)? Is this forum only a good old boys club for Catholics to pat themselves on the back or is it also an open forum for honest discourse and discussion? Catholics on the forum certainly don’t seem to agree with JasonTE’s arguments, but he has held himself to a high standard by dealing with what he sees as facts and not ad hominem. It is hard for me as Catholic to see the arrogance (not speaking now specifically to you) and sometimes ignorance of other Catholics to opposing views. I don’t know any non-Catholic friends of mine who would ever consider responding to the claims of the Roman Catholic church with those types of comments and attitudes. JPrejean also seems to take the high ground in dealing with the discussion. Would that others of us had the ability of those two men to maintain a courteous dialogue (not necessarily not hard hitting dialogue) and not for the Catholic party (or the Protestant for that matter) to say, “so sorry, Rome (or Geneva) has spoken, case closed” and triumphantly march off.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

JasonTE,

Just a question. I’ve read some of the posts on this thread, but not all of them, so forgive me if this has been covered, but what Protestant denomenation do you belong to?

Thanks and God bless:tiphat:

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

Where does Augustine say that Mary’s post-conception sinlessness was “the universal belief of the church by his time”? Some of his contemporaries, men like John Chrysostom and Jerome, referred to Mary being sinful after conception.

Here again, I don’t know if you’re referring to original sin or actual sin.

The Immaculate Conception Dogma presupposes that Mary had no actual sin. That belief was already widespread. The dogma (apparently an open question up until its definition) merely goes to explain the how and why Mary had no actual sin.

You mislead if you imply that because someone questioned or outright “contradicted” the Immaculate Conception that that also means they believed that Mary was a “sinner”, having actual sin.

Here are two examples of what I mean, from a Protestant at my board recently dealing with the same subject (you must be popular )

Saint Peter Lombard, like Bernard held that Mary contracted the stain of original sin: “it can be said, in fact it must be believed, in virtues of the testimonies of the fathers, that the flesh assumed by the word, like all the flesh of Mary before the incarnation, was subject to sin; but afterwards, through the work of the Holy Spirit, was fully cleansed. Such that at the moment of the incarnation it was immune from every infection of sin. **The Holy Spirit completely purged Mary from sin…in such a manner that afterwards she had no inclination to sin **(Converted Catholic Magazine, December 1951)

Even Thomas Aquinas who is considered the greatest scholar of the Roman Church opposed the doctrine of the immaculate conception as derogating or detracting from the dignity of Christ. In his Summa Theologica he writes, “The blessed virgin contracted original sin, although she was delivered from it later, because if the soul of Mary was not affected by that sin since she was conceived, it would derogate from the dignity of Christ who is the sole and universal savior of all” (Part III, quest. 27, art. 2)

I had to re-post for him the part in bold, bringing to his attention that opposing the Immaculate Conception IS NOT the same as believing that Mary had actual sin afterward.

Again, the church universally (or nearly so) believed that Mary had no actual sin. The debates around the Immaculate Conception - apparently an open question until its formal definition - merely went to explain the how and when Mary was delivered from the inclination to sin: pre-conception, post-conception, at the time of conception…or at birth, etc.

 

[PhilVaz]

Dolly << May I please ask why you repeatedly mention this thread (or other threads with JasonTE responding) being locked (or his just sticking around)? >>

Well, Karl or whoever closed 1 or 2 other threads in here because the discussion became unwieldy (too many topics, too confusing to follow), and/or there were only 1 or 2 people continuing to reply. I enjoy this discussion myself, perhaps a bit long now.

So we’re supposed to argue forever with JasonTE on whether the Immaculate Conception is true. OK. And perhaps the harder task: getting him to admit he’s wrong on any point he’s made so far.

Dolly << Is this forum only a good old boys club for Catholics to pat themselves on the back or is it also an open forum for honest discourse and discussion? >>

Honest and especially logical discourse and discussion, now that’s stretching it with JasonTE. I don’t think he’s being all that honest and/or logical with the “evidence.” He’s better than your average evangelical, I’ll grant that. He’s indeed polite, if perhaps a bit tiring. I discovered him in early 1999, so I’ve seen his stuff for 5 years. Even printed out my own JasonTE “book” of about 100 pages by taking all his current articles (as of early 2002) to Kinkos, and having them bound. I bet no one else has done that.

How about a new thread on whether JasonTE’s brand of evangelicalism is true, whatever it is.

Phil P

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

You act as if Augustine’s view was undeveloped, that it would inevitably lead to the Roman Catholic view if given time. No, Augustine did consider the issue of whether Mary was immaculately conceived, and he denied that she was, on multiple occasions.

But Augustine did believe that Mary was without actual sin. The point of the Immaculate Conception Dogma, I believe, is to explain how Mary was without actual sin. The how and why was apparently being discussed in Augustine’s time, and was an open question for theological speculation and development up until its definition by the Magisterium.

And I do expect that Augustine would hold to the definition once formally pronounced by the Church.

I consider the whole Immaculate Conception discussion to be a red herring. Mary was without actual sin - that’s the point. The Immaculate Conception Dogma merely explains how and why.

 

[PhilVaz]

SPH << I consider the whole Immaculate Conception discussion to be a red herring. Mary was without actual sin - that’s the point. The Immaculate Conception Dogma merely explains how and why. >>

Exactly, which is why this “hey, Augustine denied the Immaculate Conception, so he agrees with me” nonsense of JasonTE is just that, nonsense. Anyway, at least he’s polite about his nonsense. JasonTE needs to honestly read Carol Mariology.

Phil P

 

[Dolly]

Phil,

I said nothing about arguing forever with JasonTE about the IC. That comment, which put words in my mouth, exhibits exactly what I was talking about. I mocked no one on either side and am sure reasonable and logical thinking individuals can differ on what is logical discourse and discussion. Obviously at least two of the disputants can discourse and discuss without dissing each other. I have read, but not posted, many, many forums over the past number of years also. Yes, including posts by you and many others. Thus far, I see a trend of triumphalistic catholics and protestants trying to outdo each other----and not necessarily by honest discourse----this is done on both sides. Just because only two people are discussing something (of course bandwidth plays into it with the owners of the site) does not mean there is nothing substance going on. I have read a lot of your comments/writings but see a lot of putdowns and not always of substance or on topic. Your faith in Catholicism should prod you on to work of much depth and substance, not just calling into question the intents, motivations and beliefs of others in order to do a quick discredit. I apologize if I have done injustice to your form of apologetics, but I have to admit that you were one of the first on-line epologists I read and was very disappointed in the attitude that seemed to flow from your work and the depth of it. I hope with much prayer, study and diligence you will seek that depth and not just an identity as a ‘fighting apologist’. I mean this sincerely and in the love of Christ----I do not place myself above you in any sense and any correction I may feel a need to send your way, I have twice as much coming my direction.

 

[Richard_Froggat]

JasonTE:

Some church fathers did contradict Trinitarian doctrine. But Trinitarianism is Biblical, regardless of whether some fathers contradicted the concepts.

My version:

Some church fathers did contradict Marian doctrine. But Marian doctrine is Biblical, regardless of whether some fathers contradicted the concepts.

Mat 18:15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Not meant to be triumphalistic, but to give an example of why I stick to the “Catholic Tradition”

In JMJ, Richard

 

[CathAnFanatical]

Irish Melkite:

CathAnFanatical,

You contradict yourself. Actually, only the Latin Rite is of the Western Church. The Alexandrean, Antiochene, Armenian, and Byzantine Rites are of the Eastern Church, as is the Maronite Rite (which you overlooked). There is not a “Chaldean Rite” - the Chaldean Catholic Church sui iuris is of the East Syrian Tradition of the Antiochene Rite.

Many years,

Neil

Doh!

I typed faster than my brain…however my source did include the Chaldean Rite…maybe misplaced??

I didnt mean to include ‘West’ I thought I took that off. my bad.

So, um. besides my goof, there are the Rites…

God Bless

 

[CathAnFanatical]

forgive me guys for posting this if its already been said. But this thread has alot of pages for me to read through.

Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome everence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

**Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 **- How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

God Bless

 

[PhilVaz]

Dolly << Thus far, I see a trend of triumphalistic catholics and protestants trying to outdo each other >>

That’s what you get in your typical Protestant-Catholic discussions online. But at least it was mostly civil…

JasonTE makes some amazing claims in his Catholic But Not Roman Catholic or is it Orthodox but not Greek Orthodox series, that the Fathers had all these contradictory beliefs, and therefore the Catholic Church comes crashing down. Talk about triumphalism, a little humility would do us all good I agree…

Phil P