Could Mary have sinned?

[Good_Fella]

Mary is never referred to as the mother of the church by any writer of Scripture. Its not even implied.

Mary is our spiritual mother and the Queen Mother of the Church: the New Davidic Kingdom of the New Covenant. Kindly reflect on the following passages: Psalm 49,5; 1Kings 2 17-20; 15,13; 2 Chronicles 22,10; Neh 2,6; John 2,3, 7; 19, 25-26; Rev. 12,17.

The psalmist tells us that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary, the Queen of Heaven stands at the right hand of the Son of God. In the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the king does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and he does not refuse the requests of his mother, Mary, the Queen. In the OT Davidic kingdom, the queen intercedes on behalf of the king’s followers and his brethren (kin). She is the Queen Mother of all the king’s subjects, the ‘Gebirah’. Likewise, Mary is our eternal Gebirah in the new Davidic Kingdom - the Church: God’s people of the New Covenant and the kingdom of heaven. In the OT Davidic kingdom, the king bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand where he has set a throne for her next to his. As children of the New Covenant, and brethren of our Lord, the King of kings, we should imitate our King by paying the same homage to his mother as he does. By honouring Mary, our Queen Mother, we honour her Son, the King. The Queen Mother is a powerful and influential position in the David kingdom. In 1 King 15, 13 the Queen Mother is removed from office, prefiguring the perfection of the Davidic kingdom with the reign of Christ the King whose mother Mary resumes the office of the Queen Mother eternally, with divine warranty. Queen Mother Athalia destroyed the royal family of Judah on account of the death of her son King Ahaziah, which signifies she had a vital role to play in the Davidic kingdom. During the time of her office, she sat next to the king as intercessor before him on behalf of his subjects.

Jesus did make Mary the mother of us all when he said to John: “Behold your mother.” This was immediately after, while dying on the cross, he “first” said to Mary: “Woman, behold your son.” John is not addressed by his given name, but refererred to as a “son”. The generic address signifies that John stands for all of our Lord’s brethren and all of humanity. And notice that Jesus calls Mary by the more generic term “woman” instead of the more specific generic term “mother”. The term “woman” harkens back to Genesis 3, 15 where Eve is addressed as “woman”. One can surely perceive, as John and the Church Fathers did, that Jesus has given the Church and all of humanity a new spiritual mother as opposed to our ancestral biological mother. Mary became the New Eve and mother of us all as soon as Jesus gave up his spirit on the Cross. Revelation 12 confirms the significance of John’s Gospel in light of Genesis 3: The “woman’s” (Mary’s) offspring are those who follow Jesus. Mary is our mother, for we are her offspring in Jesus Christ, our Lord and brethren, whom she gave birth to. As our mother, she tells all her offspring in Christ to do his will. At the wedding feast in Cana she tells the servants, who prefigure us, to “do whatever he tells you.” And it is at the wedding feast where Mary significantly and visibly exercises her office as Queen Mother by interceding on behalf of the guests, thereby prompting Jesus to begin his ministry by performing his first miracle. Jesus heeded his mother’s request, just as the king of the Davidic kingdom bowed to the wishes of his mother. Most Protestants are offended by the thought of Jesus heeding the requests of his mother, who is merely a human creature. But that is because they fail to keep in mind that Jesus is equally both God and man. They practically put our Lord’s human nature in a dark closet and lock the door.

The evangelist John clearly identified Mary with the Gebirah, and so he wrote about the wedding feast in Cana. And what he wrote in Scripture expressed the traditional belief about Mary in his church. Scripture comes from Tradition! :yup: The deposit of faith is both Scripture and Tradition. As long as non-Catholics maintain that Scripture is the sole medium of divine revelation, they will never preceive and accept the fullness of divine truth. :nope: Scripture does not explicitly and definitively say :“Mary is the Queen Mother of the Church and the New Eve.” But Mary’s office and role in the kingdom of heaven is certainly implied. The implications in the Old Testament are so strong that John had to express and hand down what he and his church understood at the time. The Church Fathers carried on and developed these biblical themes perceived and presented by the apostle.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Part 1
Interesting qestions but separate issues to the one at hand.

It is not a separate issue. Only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. Our Lord promised Peter and the Apostles that the Paraclete would guide his Church in all truth and preserve her from error. (cf. Jn 16, 12-13). This promise applies to both our Christological and Marian doctrines. Ironically, Protestants accept the Church’s Christological doctrines, but not her Marian teachings. This is because Protestantism is a pick-and-choose-whatever-you-want-to-believe-in tradition. Hence, Protestantism is a disunity of faith. If it were a matter of getting some doctrines right and not others, then there would be no point in Jesus sending us the Spirit of truth; for we wouldn’t be in a position to know which doctrine is really true and which one isn’t. But this is the dilemma the Protestant churches find themselves in, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is One and Apostolic in her teachings, so it is obvious where the Spirit of truth is present and active. The spiritual orphans Jesus mentions are those who have removed themselves from the historic Christian faith and the Catholic Church - and thereby the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Part 2
Good Fella;3125396]

Actually much of what you say here is to be applied to your church. If its starting premise is as you say–" “spiritual sense” to disclose as opposed to the “literal sense” of understanding the sacred texts." no wonder it arrives at such an unbiblical conclusion. With such a starting almost anything could be said.

As far as i know the ones who write these commentaries are far more knowledgeable about the scriptures than those not trained in this area. What these commentaries certainly show at times is that they don’t support what many are saying here.

You can claim all this you want to. What i want to know is if catholic scholars support these conclusions. From what i have read so far they do not. I would think there are some who do.

All this shows me is how he viewed Mary. What it does not show on what basis in Scripture does he make some of the claims. For example where does it say in Scripture of Mary that “You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold!”? What NT writer describes her that way?

If you read the discourses (kerygma) of Peter and Paul in Acts, you will see that they speak of Jesus in light of the Old Testament texts which stand by themselves. It took a “spiritual sense” for the apostles to draw a connection between Jesus and the Old Testament prophecies that pertained to the Jewish historical past. The Church has approached the Scriptures from a purely spiritual view since her primitive existence in apostolic times.

What commentaries do you keep referring to. Provide an example for a change instead of making bald abstract assertions. The commentaries generally focus on the historical aspect of Scripture. Exegetes are not primarily concerned with spiritual and theological implications contained in the written texts.

Please be more specific about these so-called Catholic scholars. Who are they, and what do they say? In the past, a few Catholic scholars, including Aquinas, objected to the belief in the Immaculate Conception. But theologians, exegetes, and independent bishops do not comprise the apostolic teaching authority of the Sacred Magisterium: the Pope in communion with all the Bishops of the world in their official capacity to teach and govern. The charism of infallibilty does not extend beyond the Magisterium: Teaching Office of the Church. Theologians, exegetes, and independent bishops are fallible in their respective capacities. Aquinas said that if the Church declared the Immaculate Conception dogma, he would give his full assent of faith to this teaching. Theologians and exegetes who question Church dogma dissent impiously, while they have no apostolic authority to teach. Martin Luther is a good example. He was excommunicated for his impious dissent. At the time, before the doctrine of the IC aspired to a dogmatic teaching, a religious assent of mind and will was expected of Catholics, but there was still room to piously dissent and question the teaching and belief which was in need of further clarification and a definition. Meanwhile, Church doctrines need not be dogmatically defined in the strict sense in order to be regarded as infallible teachings.

In his Gospel, Luke draws a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant. So it is clear that the evangelist is expressing a belief of the primitive church in Jerusalem about Mary. You see, even Luke perceives divine truth by the path of the spiritual sense, drawing an analogy between Mary and the Ark, the Old and the New. Scripture comes from Tradition! The Church Fathers took up and developed the Lukan theme of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. The early Church Fathers did believe that Scripture was materially sufficient. But they did not believe that Scripture was formally sufficient, as I said above in a reply. They believed, just as the NT writers believed, that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition, and only the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church could interpret Scripture accurately.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[NotWorthy]

Mary is never referred to as the mother of the church by any writer of Scripture. Its not even implied.

Let’s see. The early Roman’s executed all the leaders of the Church. What do you think they would have wanted to do with the King’s mother of this New Church?

Mary is still alive when most of these Scriptures were being written.

Hmmmmmmm…

And besides, if Jesus is killed for his kingship, the whole royal family would have been killed. Yep, the Romans would have rounded up James, and Joses, and the rest of the numerous brothers and sisters that our dear Mother of God’s human nature also had (please note the tongue in cheek on this last comment).

 

[Deana]

Let’s see. The early Roman’s executed all the leaders of the Church. What do you think they would have wanted to do with the King’s mother of this New Church?

Mary is still alive when most of these Scriptures were being written.

Hmmmmmmm…

And besides, if Jesus is killed for his kingship, the whole royal family would have been killed. Yep, the Romans would have rounded up James, and Joses, and the rest of the numerous brothers and sisters that our dear Mother of God’s human nature also had (please note the tongue in cheek on this last comment).

Mother Mary only had Jesus. She didn’t have any other biological children. Brothers and sisters is used ib that days context for cousins and other family members.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mother Mary only had Jesus. She didn’t have any other biological children. Brothers and sisters is used ib that days context for cousins and other family members.

At the risk of repeating myself:
(please note the tongue in cheek on this last comment).

 

[MariaG]

Where is the evidence-proof that Mary was “preserved from all stain of original sin”?
No one in the entire Scripture makes such a claim nor implies it.

I would be glad to answer these questions, with the scripture. And could you please answer the questions I have asked in previous posts?

1. You believe in original sin? edit: I see you have answered this one to the best of your ability in post 238. Probably need a thread devoted to original sin to explore whether or not your understanding matchest he Catholic Church But for the moment, I think we can say yes, you believe in the concept of original sin.
2. You believe Romans is referring to original sin and not personal sin?
3. You believe baptism is an actual miracle which removes original sin, and one is born again through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? If an actual miracle, do you baptize infants? Why or why not?
4. You believe baptism is only symbolic?

As for scripture, I would first say that Jesus Himself told us that the disciples of Christ were not ready to hear everything He had to tell them, but He would send them a comforter who would guide them to all truth(Jn 16:13 ). Scripture also tells us what the pillar and foundation of truth is, the Church(1Tim 3:15).

For scripture, much of what we have is typology. And just as today, as Christians we can read the OT and see that much of it refers to Christ, we can see the typology of Mary. These truths have been revealed and help us to better understand the complete Holiness of God and the great gift of God incarnate. If they are not true about Mary, it is not that it takes away from Mary, but it diminishes the Holiness of God.

While you certainly can choose to disagree with the interpretation that the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, has been led to, for you to continue to insist that there is “no scripture” that we have for Mary and the immaculate conception is completely false.

God Bless,
Maria

Scripture of Mary’s immaculate conception in the next post .

 

[MariaG]

Taken from Scripture Catholic

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 reverence 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.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

 

[MariaG]

I ask you to study the Scriptures for your beliefs. How can God show me something like this if the Scriptures don’t teach it?

I disagree with you that the scriptures don’t speak on Mary’s immaculate conception.

What would you say if i did take your approach --“Just ask God to show and tell you the Truth,” and He told me it was not true?

What would you say if I have in fact taken your approach, and found just the opposite?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3135633]If you read the discourses (kerygma) of Peter and Paul in Acts, you will see that they speak of Jesus in light of the Old Testament texts which stand by themselves. It took a “spiritual sense” for the apostles to draw a connection between Jesus and the Old Testament prophecies that pertained to the Jewish historical past.
The Church has approached the Scriptures from a purely spiritual view since her primitive existence in apostolic times.

What do you mean when you say–“The Church has approached the Scriptures from a purely spiritual view”?

What commentaries do you keep referring to. Provide an example for a change instead of making bald abstract assertions. The commentaries generally focus on the historical aspect of Scripture. Exegetes are not primarily concerned with spiritual and theological implications contained in the written texts.

See my response below.

Please be more specific about these so-called Catholic scholars. Who are they, and what do they say? In the past, a few Catholic scholars, including Aquinas, objected to the belief in the Immaculate Conception. But theologians, exegetes, and independent bishops do not comprise the apostolic teaching authority of the Sacred Magisterium: the Pope in communion with all the Bishops of the world in their official capacity to teach and govern. The charism of infallibilty does not extend beyond the Magisterium: Teaching Office of the Church. Theologians, exegetes, and independent bishops are fallible in their respective capacities. Aquinas said that if the Church declared the Immaculate Conception dogma, he would give his full assent of faith to this teaching. Theologians and exegetes who question Church dogma dissent impiously, while they have no apostolic authority to teach. Martin Luther is a good example. He was excommunicated for his impious dissent. At the time, before the doctrine of the IC aspired to a dogmatic teaching, a religious assent of mind and will was expected of Catholics, but there was still room to piously dissent and question the teaching and belief which was in need of further clarification and a definition. Meanwhile, Church doctrines need not be dogmatically defined in the strict sense in order to be regarded as infallible teachings.

In his Gospel, Luke draws a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant. So it is clear that the evangelist is expressing a belief of the primitive church in Jerusalem about Mary. You see, even Luke perceives divine truth by the path of the spiritual sense, drawing an analogy between Mary and the Ark, the Old and the New. Scripture comes from Tradition! The Church Fathers took up and developed the Lukan theme of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. The early Church Fathers did believe that Scripture was materially sufficient. But they did not believe that Scripture was formally sufficient, as I said above in a reply. They believed, just as the NT writers believed, that Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition, and only the apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church could interpret Scripture accurately.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

What i’m asking in regards to my questions on catholic commentaries is: do catholics use them in forming their views and beliefs? If so, what do they say? Do they support what you believe?
This is a valid issue in regards to these things since scholars are the ones who study the Scriptures at more depth than most people. Their conclusions should be considered in forming beliefs.

If they don’t support church doctrines then this shows there are problems in the church in how it understands Scripture.

How can you say you have the truth for a doctrine if the details of Scripture don’t support the doctrine?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[MariaG]

Whatever you want to call it i.e. original sin in catholic theology i go by Romans 5:12 and other passages in scripture that speaks of the fallness of man that still has its effects in all men and women today. We “inherit” this sin nature from Adam and this explains why all men have a bent towards sin in which on their own they powerless to stop.

Does this differ from the doctrine of orignal sin and if so how?

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;3136404]I disagree with you that the scriptures don’t speak on Mary’s immaculate conception.

Where then does it mention it?

What would you say if I have in fact taken your approach, and found just the opposite?

Then lets bring our “research” to the table and discuss it. We have an opportunity with our differences above.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Church_Militant]

Where then does it mention it?

Then lets bring our “research” to the table and discuss it. We have an opportunity with our differences above.

Done…

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Link

 

[MariaG]

Where then does it mention it?

Then lets bring our “research” to the table and discuss it. We have an opportunity with our differences above.

Post #248.

Okay, I already posted some, in the post right after I asked you some questions Answers?

 

[MariaG]

Done…
Link

This is much more in depth, and specific than the typology I posted.

We should really start here:thumbsup:

 

[Church_Militant]

This is much more in depth, and specific than the typology I posted.

We should really start here:thumbsup:

:tiphat:

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;3136392]Taken from Scripture Catholic

Part 1
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.

Does anyone in the OT ever imply or state explicitedly that the mother of Messiah would be like this?
Anyone in the NT make this connection?

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.

If what you say is true then why did not people die when they touched Mary?

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.

This is reading into the text what is not there.

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

Did anyone in the NT venerate Mary like this? Does anyone sing songs to her for example?

B]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.

Why did the Baptist leapt for joy? Was it because of Mary’ own nature or because of Who she was carrying?
Does the Baptist ever refer to her in his ministry?

 

[epostle]

In the ancient eastern church, there were (broadly) 2 schools of biblical studies: the Antiochene and the Alexandrian. Antiochene scholars emphasized the literal, historical method whereas Alexandrians were more prone to allegorization. Origen was an Alexandrian.

But Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius were of the Antiochene school and this method eventually gave rise to the Bogomil and Paulician heretics.
Theodore of Mopsuestia was another scion of this school who was never condemned in life but whose works were later censured after his death at the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople. Orthodox members of the Antiochene school included St. John Chrysostom.

Protestants in the 16th Century would look back to the Antiochene school as their intellectual forbears. That is one reason why St. John Chrysostom has always been unpopular with them.

**But a careful study of Church History shows that the desire to be crassly literal lay at the root of all the heresies of the Patristic period. **The willingness to be flexible and to interpret difficult passages allegorically has been the usual manner of orthodoxy.
By doing so, paradoxes and outright contradictions are avoided. It also allows one to move beyond the literal meaning of the text to discern larger patterns of similarity between various portions of the Bible.
Scott Hahn has championed this understanding and has pointed out in some of his recent talks on a biblical worldview that the NT writers used allegorical methods in interpreting the OT. The reformers and their descendants have stated that this method cannot be used ‘safely’ in the Church because the Holy Spirit alone can do this safely and he no longer works within the Church as he did among the Apostles. This is one consequence of denying the existence and charism of the Magisterium.

Bottom line: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results. They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.
The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.
Virtually every major heresy has been the result of being too rigid and methodical in interpreting the Bible while not being willing to interpret the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this is the opposition of Spirit and letter, which St. Paul warned against:

2Cor 3:5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

This error is a form of Pelagianism where human effort is pitted against the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.
What’s great about the Catholic Church is that she accepts both of the methods of Antioch and Alexandria. She sees them as two gifts.

 

[guanophore]

What i’m asking in regards to my questions on catholic commentaries is: do catholics use them in forming their views and beliefs? If so, what do they say? Do they support what you believe?

I am sure many of use read and use commentaries. I actually have more Protestant commentaries than I do Catholic, since I attended a Protestant Seminary. However, it would be improper to base one’s beliefs on the contents of the commentaries, since they are not infallible. In places where they disagree with the Apostolic Teaching, they are erroneous.

This is a valid issue in regards to these things since scholars are the ones who study the Scriptures at more depth than most people. Their conclusions should be considered in forming beliefs.

There are two erroneous assumptions in this statement. One is that the scholars (authors of commentaries) study the scripture more than the members of the Magesterium (or that the Magesterium does not contain learned scholars). The other is that their conclusions should be considered in the formation of belief. I say this is erroneous because they do not have the gift of infallibility, therefore, using their conclusions as a basis of faith is too risky. This statement also is made from a foundational viewpoint that the Teaching Authority of the Church is not the custodian of the Revelation of God, which is also a false premise.

If they don’t support church doctrines then this shows there are problems in the church in how it understands Scripture.

No, ja4, it shows that they have rejected, for whatever reason, the Divine Deposit of Faith that was given to us by the Revelation of Jesus Christ. There is no case in which scholarship and study can ever “trump” Jesus and His expression of Truth from the Father.

How can you say you have the truth for a doctrine if the details of Scripture don't support the doctrine?

Because the doctrine comes from Jesus, and not all of what Jesus said and did was committed to writing.

 

[epostle]

Heretics try to limit mystery. When I talk to some (not all) Protestants, they tend to rationalize everything. When I look at Protestant doctrine, I do not see development, but reductionism.
They tried to reduce “faith” without the sacraments, revelation to Scripture alone, righteousness into a mere declaration without the person’s status itself. I hope I do not offend anyone here, and I’m not trying to, but whenever I read Protestant theology, it seems like it is a reductionist Christianity.

When they do not understand how the Cross and the Mass can be the same sacrifice, they reject it.
If they do not understand how Mary can be the Mother of God without producing divinity, they reject it.
If they do not understand how a person can partake the sufferings of God so that he can offer his sufferings for another, they reject it.
If they cannot understand why a mere man is chosen to feed His sheep, they reject it.

My question is, as it is the same to Ockhamists or reductionist philosophers, why take the reductionist position rather than the mystery? **Is it because if we take the mystery, we will have to acknolwedge our limitations? The issue is really humility isn’t it?
**
The Antiochene “method” was abstracted from their whole system. What was advocated by the radicals was a truncated version of it that was reduced it to a mechanical method instead of a tool to aid faith. Many were seduced by the Antiochene “method” because it appealed to their rationalism. I think this is why the ‘reformers’ and their descendants have fallen into that trap.
There were problems with the extremists using the Alexandrian “method” as well, but they were always perceived as flighty and Gnostic and so they had less attraction to educated people. Their heresies degenerated into folk practices.
Carried to an extreme, the Antiochene “method” leads to a greater dependence on human nature than is wise. I think it assumes a kind of Pelagianism. The Alexandrian approach recognized that “there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in {OUR} philosophy.” Humility is the only way to approach the text. Having absolute assurance in our Greek grammar and our concordances is just another form of works righteousness.