Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[Algo1]

Ok, here is the official form (i.e., the summary near the end of the document):
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

First of all, let me point out an error in your interpretation of this document. Contrary to what you seem to be saying in your critique, Ineffabilis Deus does not say that all the nuances of this definition have been “constantly believed” throughout the history of Christianity. The term is used in the future tense: “…to be believed and constantly”. In other words, this definition is to be held as doctrine forever more. But what the document does say is that the core belief of the sinless nature of Mary is something that has been historically believed.

So Eric, are you now an infallible interpreter of Ineffabilis Deus?
I mean I know that you admittedly practice Biblical eisegesis, but Encyclical eisegesis too?

What does this mean exactly?

this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine.

Are we talking Newman’s acorns here? I mean it sure appears that Pope Pius IX seems to be certain of what “this doctrine” consists of.
I mean, there’s no mention of “well, you only see some folks that seemed to think that Mary was sinless in some ambiguous sense for a long time, while others even men of great renown including some Popes claiming otherwise. But we have the full revelation now”.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Can you tell us anything that Jesus told the Apostles in that 40 days that has not been traditioned (handed down} to us in the Holy Scriptures?

This should be enough to refute you!

“What knowledge or belief can we have of Christ, but on the authority of Scripture?.. How do you know that these were Christ’s words, but from the Gospel? … if you refuse to believe the Gospel, which is so generally known and received, you must fail utterly in the attempt to substitute for it any trustworthy record of the sayings and doings of Christ” (, Bk. 16, Sections 11, 12, 14Against Faustus).

Oh wait… Augustine just made the same point that you were making. I’ll try back later…

In Christ,
Pete

 

[paul_c]

Algo,
why do you think that Mary wasn’t immaculately concieved? What proof to you have?

Are you familiar St. Catherine Laboure? Mary, the Blessed Mother herself, appeared to her in 1830 and personally confirmed that she was immaculately conceived. She died in 1876 and was exhumed in 1933 Her uncorrupt body is displayed in a glass casket to this day: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bac.Catherine.Cercueil.jpg
Here’s here story from wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Labour%C3%A9

How about St. Bernadette Soubirous, the visionary at Lourdes? Mary also verified to her that she was immaculately conceived, identifying herself to Bernadette as " the Immaculate Conception" Beyond the many miracles at Lourdes, Bernadette is also an incorrupt saint: catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm

There is much proof of the immaculate conception beyond what is in scripture. That’s why scripture alone is insufficient.

 

[paul_c]

This should be enough to refute you!

“What knowledge or belief can we have of Christ, but on the authority of Scripture?.. How do you know that these were Christ’s words, but from the Gospel? … if you refuse to believe the Gospel, which is so generally known and received, you must fail utterly in the attempt to substitute for it any trustworthy record of the sayings and doings of Christ” (Against Faustus, Bk. 16, Sections 11, 12, 14).

Oh wait… Augustine just made the same point that you were making. I’ll try back later…

In Christ,
Pete

I’m sure your next post will say that Augustine only beleives scripture because the Catholic church told him it was true.

 

[EricFilmer]

So Eric, are you now an infallible interpreter of Ineffabilis Deus?

I’m not giving any kind of interpretation, fallible or infallible. I’m simply relating what the plain words of Ineffabilis Deus say, as well as what the Catholic Church teaches about the development of the understanding of doctrine.

I mean I know that you admittedly practice Biblical eisegesis…

And you practice biblical eisogetical too, Algo. After all, you believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and yet you failed to give an exegetical foundation for the following aspects of the doctrine (which I pointed out back in Post #263:

• The divinity of God is limited to specifically three persons.
• The personal attributes for the Holy Spirit in the Bible are not a simple matter of artistic personification as is seen in the OT descriptions of wisdom.
• The descriptions of the Holy Spirit are not simply descriptions of the power of God in action.
• The Holy Spirit is fully distinct from the Father and the Son.

As a Catholic, there is no problem with me utilizing eisogesis to explain a doctrine which is grounded in Sacred Tradition. But, as I have stated before, it is a problem for an adherent of Sola Scriptura.

…but Encyclical eisegesis too?

First of all, I give you perks for the humor in this statement - that was a good joke. But in all seriousness I did not need to engage in any sort of eisogesis to demonstrate that you were not correctly interpreting Ineffabilis Deus’ “to be believed firmly and constantly” statement.

Here is what the line in question from the document states:
"(The Immaculate Conception)…is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

This means that because it is now defined as a doctrine, it is “to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” In other words, whereas it has been debated among certain theologians in the past, all Catholics are now required to give it the assent of faith, as Catholics are to do with all officially defined teachings pertaining to faith and morals.

But you seem to think that what Pope Pius IX meant by that statement was: “Since the Immaculate Conception is a revealed doctrine, it has been constantly believed throughout Christian history in the exact manner that I have outlined in this document.”

If that is really your position then it is a big distortion of what the plain words of Ineffabilis Deus actually say.

What does this mean exactly?

this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine.

As I have pointed out previously, all doctrines of the Church are revealed by God and passed on since the apostolic age. The Magisterium does not create doctrines, but rather defines doctrines, and sometimes large expanses of time can go by before that happens. For example, it happened with doctrines concerning each of the persons of the Holy Trinity. Consider the fact that from the beginning of Christianity it was a widespread Christian belief that Christ is God, and yet it was not until A.D. 325 (at the First Council of Nicea) that the Church defined the doctrine that explicitly outlined that Christ is eternal and that his divinity is the same in substance as that of the Father’s. Now, does this mean that such a belief suddenly became a doctrine in A.D. 325? No, objectively speaking it was a doctrine all along, but was not officially recognized and defined as a doctrine until the Council of Nicea. The same sort of thing is being expressed about the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the above quote you presented from Ineffabilis Deus.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

Are we talking Newman’s acorns here? I mean it sure appears that Pope Pius IX seems to be certain of what “this doctrine” consists of.

Of course he is certain, otherwise he would not have promulgated it.

I mean, there’s no mention of “well, you only see some folks that seemed to think that Mary was sinless in some ambiguous sense for a long time, while others even men of great renown including some Popes claiming otherwise. But we have the full revelation now”.

This is not a correct assessment of my position, if that is what you are trying to say. Let’s walk through this sentence of yours, piece by piece:

“…you only see some folks that seemed to think that Mary was sinless”

A prevalent belief in the early Church among Catholics as well as all of the branches of the Orthodox Faith (Eastern and Oriental) constitutes a whole lot more than “some folks.”

“…in some ambiguous sense for a long time…”

I expressed no ambiguity. I said that one does not find all the various nuances of Ineffabilis Deus in the writings of the Early Church. Such nuances are not essential to the core belief, which is expressed in following definition within Ineffabilis Deus:

“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

Whereas theologians of the Eastern and Western Church have debated the concept of Original Sin, the core belief is that Mary, through a special action of God’s grace, was preserved free from sin. There is no notable ambiguity between the historical belief and what was defined in Ineffabilis Deus.

“…while others even men of great renown including some Popes claiming otherwise”

First of all, theologians have debated other doctrines also, including the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Does that make the validity of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity questionable also?

Secondly, I know of no theologian or pope who flat-out stated that Mary was not immaculately conceived. To the best of my knowledge, there were some theologians who claimed that they did not see a proposition that sufficiently explained how Mary could be preserved free of Original Sin before Christ’s death provided the power for Original Sin to be absolved. It was John Duns Scotus who eventually gave an effective explanation.

“But we have the full revelation now.”

I never said, “We have the full revelation now.” I said that the understanding of what was revealed in the past grew until it could be officially defined. Once again, if you have an issue with this about the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception then you have to have an issue with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and a number of other Christian doctrines as well.

 

[Philthy]

Sola Scriptura does not say that all truth is found in the Bible. It says that all necessary truth is there.

It may sound good SyCarl, but your version of Sola Scriptura is actually quite an irrelevant concept. The proof of this lies in the fact that no two Sola Scriptura adherents agree completely on what the “necessary truth” found in the Bible is exactly. **So what good is it to claim that all the necessary truth is there when you cannot reliably access that truth? **
From where I stand Sola Scriptura’s value seems to lie in it’s ability to justify ignoring the voice of the Church in proclaiming the “necessary truth” of the faith.