Discussing Mary

[juliamajor]

There were various tests the written scriptures had to pass before they were considered inspired-inerrant. Now, how do you go about proving an oral tradition when there are no written records of it outside the written scriptures? If there was an oral tradition of the apostles which there might have been, where is it? How do you know today what an apostle said that is not written in scipture?

What various tests? canonicity tests? Four criteria 1. Apostolic Origin( had to be attributed to an apostle or based on the teachings /preachings of first generation apostles 2.Universal Acceptance-acknowledged by major Christian communities 3.Liturgical use-Read publicly as christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper. 4.Consistent message-Ideas compatible with other christian writings. Again the Gospel had no Authors name on it so how do you know each was written by which? it is through early church Fathers ORAL tradition that we know this. It wasn’t because one of the Gospel writers left a autograph on his first edition! “Thanks Theophilus for the (name removed by moderator)ut! I’ll do those rewrites soon.I think I’ll have to punch up the Jerusalem Council a bit- not enough drama. I’ll check those hemorrhoids when I get make to Greece! Love ya baby! your beloved physician -Luke”

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2731116]This is a great question, justasking. We know the validity of the Traditions because they are consistent with the Teaching of the Apostles. None of them contradict the scriptures.

The successors understood certain things more fully, and their understanding developed over time. When Jesus promised that He would send HIs spirit to guide them into all truth, He kept His promise.

It could just as easily be said that these things are not a fuller understanding but false teachings. This is clearly in line with what the scriptures warned about.

If you are speaking about the Assumption, most likely not, since most of them died before she did.

Then this further supports my position that they knew nothing of it and it cannot be apostolic in the strict sense as coming from the apostles themselves. Nor do we have any bishops handing down any tradition about this in the first century.

It’s a miracle!

This is not true

What do you have then? What can you trace directly to Peter or Paul for example a teaching that is not in scripture?

Well, you are in a bit of a fix then, because none of those original documents have survived. What we have now are translations, largely collected, preserved, and promulgated by Catholics.

We do have the very manuscript evidence of any document in the ancient world. Even without the originals we can be assured that what we do have is over 95% in line with the originals.

The Word of God (Jesus) transmitted His message orally to the Apostles who entrusted that message to faithful men who could teach others also. Yes, Jesus’ promised to protect the message, both in writing, and orally, and He has done both.

Would we agree then that this is only the NT scriptures then?

Ex Cathedra statements, yes, otherwise, no.

Couple of questions:
1- how many Ex Cathedra statements have been made?

2- if they are considered on the same level as scripture i.e. inspired-inerrant then should they not be added to the back of your catholic bible?

 

[juliamajor]

It could just as easily be said that these things are not a fuller understanding but false teachings. This is clearly in line with what the scriptures warned about.

Then this further supports my position that they knew nothing of it and it cannot be apostolic in the strict sense as coming from the apostles themselves. Nor do we have any bishops handing down any tradition about this in the first century.

What do you have then? What can you trace directly to Peter or Paul for example a teaching that is not in scripture?

We do have the very manuscript evidence of any document in the ancient world. Even without the originals we can be assured that what we do have is over 95% in line with the originals.

Would we agree then that this is only the NT scriptures then?

Couple of questions:
1- how many Ex Cathedra statements have been made?

2- if they are considered on the same level as scripture i.e. inspired-inerrant then should they not be added to the back of your catholic bible?

How do you know without the originals that 95% is true? I"d like to know where you came up with that one. Since every book of the bible is a copy. Transmission of scripture started in three steps 1. jesus who spoke and taught in the flesh. 2. the disciples and apostles and those who witnessed HIM passed on the info to friends relatives and anyone who would listen by word of mouth.3. When problems hit the early church and the Parousia has not come apostles feel that oral must into written while they are still alive and witnesses are alive. COPIES OF COPIES are made and passed down and down. The copyists are not infallible- mistakes could have been made= glosses added to scripture where they don’t belong- what do the Fathers do- they sat down saw the problem and started the canon but no matter how you try you cannot get away from the fact that the NT canon relies on tradition- that horrible dirty word- oral then written but none the less tradition. To deny the importance of tradition in the early church is really a pipe dream and not very intellectually honest:blush:

 

[justasking4]

How do you know without the originals that 95% is true? I"d like to know where you came up with that one. Since every book of the bible is a copy. Transmission of scripture started in three steps 1. jesus who spoke and taught in the flesh. 2. the disciples and apostles and those who witnessed HIM passed on the info to friends relatives and anyone who would listen by word of mouth.3. When problems hit the early church and the Parousia has not come apostles feel that oral must into written while they are still alive and witnesses are alive. COPIES OF COPIES are made and passed down and down. The copyists are not infallible- mistakes could have been made= glosses added to scripture where they don’t belong- what do the Fathers do- they sat down saw the problem and started the canon but no matter how you try you cannot get away from the fact that the NT canon relies on tradition- that horrible dirty word- oral then written but none the less tradition. To deny the importance of tradition in the early church is really a pipe dream and not very intellectually honest:blush:

There are some excellent resources out there that you read that will show just how acurrate the manuscripts are. Not sure what you mean by “To deny the importance of tradition in the early church is really a pipe dream and not very intellectually honest”?
What does “Tradition” have to do with the transmission of the texts of the NT thru the centuries?

 

[MariaG]

What does “Tradition” have to do with the transmission of the texts of the NT thru the centuries?

The same church that the Holy Spirit had use to keep His word true is the same Church that the Holy Spirit used to keep the Oral Traditions we were told to hold fast to.

You trust the the Holy Spirit could do the first, but not the second.

 

[juliamajor]

There are some excellent resources out there that you read that will show just how acurrate the manuscripts are. Not sure what you mean by “To deny the importance of tradition in the early church is really a pipe dream and not very intellectually honest”?
What does “Tradition” have to do with the transmission of the texts of the NT thru the centuries?

The oldest extant manuscript Siniaticus is from about the 3rd century-no originals. Early Fathers relied on testimony witnesses -not written word- TRADITION- is what Fathers looked to ORAL evidence- Tradition is How the bible survived Tradition is how we got the canonized version of the bible instead of a plethora of other manuscripts in existence at the time of the first canonization.How and why do you think they chose what they chose instead of the "Shepherd of Hermas
or Protoevangelium of James? TRADITION- TRADITION-TRADITION( thank you Fiddler on the roof)

 

[justasking4]

part `1

MariaG;2730913]While all New Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, do you not think it is possible that the Holy Spirit is still leading the Church to all truth?

Since we agree that there is no new revelation going on, then what are we left with? It is claimed that the HS is guiding the catholic church and yet what is the evidence for it? For example if you claim the HS has always guided your church, how do you explain the inquisitions that went on for a long time? Was the HS guiding then? I would think the popes of the time thought so.

Does not the Holy Spirit teach you new things daily? Weekly?

Yes but it is based on what already what He has given the church in the scriptures.

But the Holy Spirit hasn’t lead a whole Church? Those promises only apply to individuals?

What do you mean by “leading” here? How is it known and by whom?

So you have issues with the assumption or that Catholics teach that it is true? Since scripture does in fact have assumptions of others in scripture I assume that is is the later?

Just because something may have happened to others in scriptrue does not mean it happened to Mary.

We don’t have any record of it no. If anyone knew though, it would be John and in Revelations, as you know, Catholics claim that some of it applies to Mary.

This means it is based on speculations then.

But again, do you not believe that you are being led by the Holy Spirit to all truth?

No. If you look at where this appears in the gospel of John this is a promise given to His disciples. This is why it is best to think that this refers to the NT itself.

Do you not “discover” new things daily when you read scripture?

sometimes.

And even if the apostles completely understood all of Christ’s teachings, do you really believe all that they taught, fully understood everything?

No.

Or is it as scripture says, that they were not ready to hear everything He had to say but He will send the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us?

This is why the letters of the NT are so important. They help to explain how the things of the gospels are worked out.

And we had to get much right or the world would have been bereft of any Christians at all for 1500 years.

The catholic claims more than just this. It claims it can never be wrong in matters of faith and morals etc.

No. That is not true. Infant baptism is a direct teaching of the Apostles but is not explicit in scripture, (unless you are a sacramental Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox then it is quite clear )

I agree that some aspects of infant baptism are derived from the scriptures some of it is not.

It was passed down “orally” or more probably, just by actions as we believe that they baptized infants. We also believe the Prayer to the Saints, or asking saints to pray for us was a direct teaching of the apostles, passed down orally, in scripture directly in the deuterocanicals, and implicit in scripture.

This is one of the main areas of contentions between us. You are willing to go beyond what the scriptures teach and use some kind of “traditions” to justify our diffferences.

But who has the ulitimate authority to interpret correctly what those teachings are? Nowhere in scripture, does scripture itself claim that the written word in and of itself has ultimate authority and nor does it claim to be self-interpretative.

Jesus established a Church, a teaching authority to take the disputes that He knew would arise among His followers.

I could easily argue that protestants make the same claim.

Apostolic Church
Jn 15;16 - Jesus chose special men to be his Apostles
Jn 20:21 - Jesus gave the Apostles his own mission
Lk 22:29-3 - Jesus gave them a kingdom
Mt 16:18 - Jesus built Church on Peter, the rock
Jn 10:16 - one shepherd to shepherd Christ’s sheep
Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17 - Peter appointed to be chief shepherd
Eph 4;11 - church leaders are hierarchical
1Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - identifies roles of bishops, priests, deacons
Tit 1:5 - commission for bishops to ordain priests

Authoritative Church
Mt 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles
Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sin
1Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)
Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ’s voice
Mt 18:18 - power to legislate
Mt 18:17 - power to discipline

 

[justasking4]

part 2

We would agree that it is the NT alone that are inspired and inerrant and do not put them on the same inspired level as that of scripture.

Are not papal pronouncements of “ex cathreda” on the same level as (name removed by moderator)iration and inerrancy?

However, we do put them over the writings of other Christians who today teach things that are contrary to things taught by those who were taught by the apostles. Who do you think knew more about infant baptism, someone taught by the apostles who wrote about infant baptisms or someone interpreting scripture from scripture alone? What about the Real Presence of Christ? Do you think that those who write today it is only symbolic are more reliable than those who learned from the apostles? Asking saints to pray for us?

Are you saying that the apostles taught you should pray to people in heaven or that babies should be baptiized? Or that the concept of transubstantiation was taught in the NT?

We can show you all of those things from scripture. We can show you ECF writings. Yet you still choose to believe the writings and interpretations of people who came much later.

Have you read the church fathers?

If you do this for things like infant baptism and the Real presence, how on earth can we get you to understand the teachings of Mary:shrug:

The marians doctrines are not difficult to understand. Its what they are based on and what follows from them that is the problem.

 

[justasking4]

The same church that the Holy Spirit had use to keep His word true is the same Church that the Holy Spirit used to keep the Oral Traditions we were told to hold fast to.

You trust the the Holy Spirit could do the first, but not the second.

How do you go about trusting the HS when you know that it is through fallen sinful men He sometimes works thru? For example when you look at church history and look specifically the inquisitions and the evil that came about by them, how would a catholic trust the HS that was leading the catholic church during this period?

 

[guanophore]

It could just as easily be said that these things are not a fuller understanding but false teachings. This is clearly in line with what the scriptures warned about.

Were there a person who would say such a thing, such a person would indicate that they were clearly ignorant about their family history.

Then this further supports my position that they knew nothing of it and it cannot be apostolic in the strict sense as coming from the apostles themselves. Nor do we have any bishops handing down any tradition about this in the first century.

You are certainly welcome to your position, justasking. We know that not all of what Jesus said and did was written, and we know that not all of what the Apostles did was written. Not finding such details in our NT does not mean they were not believed, or talked about. The lack of written record on Marian from the first century also does not preclude that such doctrines were believed and taught.

The fact that they continued to be taught, and were eventually written about, and not refuted by the church as heresies indicates that they are consistent with Apostolic Tradition.

Couple of questions:
1- how many Ex Cathedra statements have been made?

Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

1. 
   “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
   
   Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
   
   Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
   
   Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
   
   Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
   
   Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
   
   Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.
   

   2- if they are considered on the same level as scripture i.e. inspired-inerrant then should they not be added to the back of your catholic bible?

   The canon is closed. These teachings are found in the Catholic Catechism, which is often used as a companion to the Bible for authorized instruction in the faith.
   

   What does “Tradition” have to do with the transmission of the texts of the NT thru the centuries?

   One of the factors used to determine canonicity, then later, accuracy, was the consistency of the written with the oral tradition.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2734644]Were there a person who would say such a thing, such a person would indicate that they were clearly ignorant about their family history.

Not ignorant but knowledgeable if you look at the history.

You are certainly welcome to your position, justasking. We know that not all of what Jesus said and did was written, and we know that not all of what the Apostles did was written. Not finding such details in our NT does not mean they were not believed, or talked about. The lack of written record on Marian from the first century also does not preclude that such doctrines were believed and taught.

Then how do you know they were believed and taught in the first century if its not written down? Claiming some kind of oral tradition is not evidence or proof.

The fact that they continued to be taught, and were eventually written about, and not refuted by the church as heresies indicates that they are consistent with Apostolic Tradition.

Huh? How does this follow? Can you give me some examples of
“that they continued to be taught, and were eventually written about,”?

Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

1. 
   “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;

1. 
   

   Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;

   Do you know if these were prefaced as being “ex cathedra”?
   

   Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;

   Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;

   Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

   Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and

   Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

   The canon is closed. These teachings are found in the Catholic Catechism, which is often used as a companion to the Bible for authorized instruction in the faith.

   One of the factors used to determine canonicity, then later, accuracy, was the consistency of the written with the oral tradition.

 

[guanophore]

If you look at where this appears in the gospel of John this is a promise given to His disciples. This is why it is best to think that this refers to the NT itself.

How is your “speculation” of **" why it is best to think"B] any different than the speculations of Catholics? At least we agree on one thing, that Jesus made this promise to his disciples that He would lead them into all truth. He did not say He would lead the book into all truth, or that people would know truth through the book. The promise was made to the people. That said, the book was produced, and the interpretation of it should not be separated from the persons to which the promise was made.

The catholic claims more than just this. It claims it can never be wrong in matters of faith and morals etc.

How can you reconcile the two? Either Jesus lied to His disciples, or He kept His promise!

This is one of the main areas of contentions between us. You are willing to go beyond what the scriptures teach and use some kind of “traditions” to justify our diffferences.

It is a contention because you deny the other 2/3 of the Divine Revelation. Scripture is part, and a very important part, but you have the formula backwards. The scriptures do not go beyond the Teachings, from which they were summarized.

They are not “some kind of traditions”, but the Sacred Teachings entrusted to the Apostles.

Are not papal pronouncements of “ex cathreda” on the same level as (name removed by moderator)iration and inerrancy?

Yes.

Are you saying that the apostles taught you should pray to people in heaven or that babies should be baptiized? Or that the concept of transubstantiation was taught in the NT?

Absolutely.

Have you read the church fathers?

Absolutely.

The marians doctrines are not difficult to understand. Its what they are based on and what follows from them that is the problem.

It is only a problem for those who have rejected part of the Revelation.**

 

[guanophore]

How do you go about trusting the HS when you know that it is through fallen sinful men He sometimes works thru? For example when you look at church history and look specifically the inquisitions and the evil that came about by them, how would a catholic trust the HS that was leading the catholic church during this period?

This is a good question, justasking. We can trust because we know the character of God. We know that the HS does not lie, and that even though sinful persons may misunderstand, or sin through greed and power grabbing, that He will keep His promise to guide us into all truth. Throughout history, disciples of Christ have committed horrific crimes, beginning with the betrayal of Judas. His betrayal does not make the message of Christ any less valid. Neither do the sins committed during the Inquisition, or any other period of history, nullify the Holy Church.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2734748]How is your “speculation” of **" why it is best to think"B] any different than the speculations of Catholics? **
What is the evidence for Mary’s assumption for example? Compare that with the evidence for the resurrection of Christ in
I Cor 15:1-8. The 2 are light years apart in evidence. One has a solid eyewitness base of more than 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ while there is none for Mary. I Corinthians was written quite early while the claims for Mary assumption accounts was not known for centuries. Big difference.

At least we agree on one thing, that Jesus made this promise to his disciples that He would lead them into all truth. He did not say He would lead the book into all truth, or that people would know truth through the book. The promise was made to the people. That said, the book was produced, and the interpretation of it should not be separated from the persons to which the promise was made.

Not sure what you are getting at here. The Jewish culture put a lot emphasis and importance on the written word. Look at how they looked at the OT. They considered those writings to be inspired and inerrant. There was nothing that was higher in authority than the OT scriptures. We can see how the early Christians also had this same mind set in regards to the gospels and the letters of the apostles.

How can you reconcile the two? Either Jesus lied to His disciples, or He kept His promise!

He didn’t lie to His disciples since it is their writings that we consider inspired-inerrant. What we disagree on are the “successors” possessing the same promise i.e. that they could not err.

It is a contention because you deny the other 2/3 of the Divine Revelation.

What are you referring specifically here to?

Scripture is part, and a very important part, but you have the formula backwards. The scriptures do not go beyond the Teachings, from which they were summarized.

Not so. There is much in catholic teachings that goes beyond the scriptures. Mary’s assumption is but one example of something that is taught as dogma and yet has no support in the scriptures as actually happened.

They are not “some kind of traditions”, but the Sacred Teachings entrusted to the Apostles.

Is it not true the the catholic church uses the term “Sacred Traditions” as something different than what is scripture?

 

[MariaG]

part `1

Since we agree that there is no new revelation going on, then what are we left with? It is claimed that the HS is guiding the catholic church and yet what is the evidence for it? For example if you claim the HS has always guided your church, how do you explain the inquisitions that went on for a long time? Was the HS guiding then? I would think the popes of the time thought so.

Guiding a Church to true doctrine does not guareentee right actions by those within the Church. Scripture shows the truth of this when Jesus told the apostles to “do what they tell you to” referring to the Pharisees “for they sit in the seat of Moses”. The apostles were supposed to do what they were told to do, but not follow the actions of the same people who failed miserably at living the Word of God in their lives.

Darn it, why do I do this. I don’t have any more time, but I WILL get back to this post.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[guanophore]

What is the evidence for Mary’s assumption for example? Compare that with the evidence for the resurrection of Christ in I Cor 15:1-8. The 2 are light years apart in evidence. One has a solid eyewitness base of more than 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ while there is none for Mary. I Corinthians was written quite early while the claims for Mary assumption accounts was not known for centuries. Big difference.

In terms of their place in time, yes. But Mary has appeared to even more than Jesus did, even as He said “greater things than I do will you do, since I go to the Father”. However, since you do not accept any of this testimony, you must purport that it does not exist!

Not sure what you are getting at here. The Jewish culture put a lot emphasis and importance on the written word. Look at how they looked at the OT. They considered those writings to be inspired and inerrant. There was nothing that was higher in authority than the OT scriptures. We can see how the early Christians also had this same mind set in regards to the gospels and the letters of the apostles.

Yes, there was. I agree with you that they considered the writings inspired and innerrant, but also the Sacred Oral Tradition. Jesus believed and taught this way, which is why we do so today.

He didn’t lie to His disciples since it is their writings that we consider inspired-inerrant. What we disagree on are the “successors” possessing the same promise i.e. that they could not err.

Why is that? Why would Jesus promise, made “until the end of the age” suddenly become null and void?

What are you referring specifically here to?

The full Divine Revelation is contained in the Sacred Writings, the Sacred Oral Traditions, and the Teaching Authority of the Church appointed by Jesus.

Not so. There is much in catholic teachings that goes beyond the scriptures. Mary’s assumption is but one example of something that is taught as dogma and yet has no support in the scriptures as actually happened.

You only say this because you don’t understand the scriptures the way they were written. The NT is the reflection of the Apostolic Teaching, not the source of it. You do not see the Apostolic Teachings in the NT because you have rejected the Authority that Jesus appointed to guide His Church, and to produce those scriptures to which you cling so closely.

Is it not true the the catholic church uses the term “Sacred Traditions” as something different than what is scripture?

The NT is derived from the Sacred Traditions. Not all of them are are written there, and it was never intended to be a complete compendium of the Traditions. As you can see from my signature, from the beginning, there were two sources.

 

[cranster]

I want to interrupt briefly to say that I’m a recent revert and have been following this thread from the beginning and am very greatful for all the wonderful insight. Great questions Justasking. Your questions and the some of the great responses are giving me a much deeper understanding and love of our Blessed Mother and the Catholic Church.

 

[Larry1700]

Bowing during the Creed – for Mary or for Jesus?

I’m a Baptist convert, and pray the Rosary daily, but it still bothers me to see some people bow during the portion of the Creed about Jesus, “who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

Since all other portions of the Creed relate to either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and pertain to creation, crucifixion, etc., the only conclusion I can come to is that the bow is for Mary.

I know the Church condemns worship of Mary, and does not place her on the same level as the Holy Trinity, so the bow really bothers me. In addition, I think it sends the wrong message to uninformed Catholics, as well as non-Catholics.

Am I missing something?

 

[davidv]

Bowing during the Creed – for Mary or for Jesus?

I’m a Baptist convert, and pray the Rosary daily, but it still bothers me to see some people bow during the portion of the Creed about Jesus, “who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

Since all other portions of the Creed relate to either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and pertain to creation, crucifixion, etc., the only conclusion I can come to is that the bow is for Mary.

I know the Church condemns worship of Mary, and does not place her on the same level as the Holy Trinity, so the bow really bothers me. In addition, I think it sends the wrong message to uninformed Catholics, as well as non-Catholics.

Am I missing something?

Yes. Any honor given to Mary honors her Son.

 

[justasking4]

MariaG;2739218]Guiding a Church to true doctrine does not guareentee right actions by those within the Church.

Why shouldn’t? If the catholic cannot err, then it should also follow that it can not sin either.

Scripture shows the truth of this when Jesus told the apostles to “do what they tell you to” referring to the Pharisees “for they sit in the seat of Moses”. The apostles were supposed to do what they were told to do, but not follow the actions of the same people who failed miserably at living the Word of God in their lives.

Good point and one that also applies to catholic church.

Darn it, why do I do this. I don’t have any more time, but I WILL get back to this post.

God Bless,
Maria