Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[rmcbride77]

Well, I don’t accept “sacred tradition” in the way you do.

The verse you reference does say that there are things that Jesus did and said that aren’t recorded in scripture. But that shouldn’t be surprising should it? We shouldn’t expect everything that Jesus did or said be recorded, mainly because there is no need. As St. John says…these things are written so that you may believe.

I guess it boils down to I don’t trust your church nor do I see any reason to. If there were some way to demonstrate (this is just one example) that the apostles taught the doctrine of the assumption I might be more willing to listen to appeals to such things but as it stands, such doctrines have no tie to the apostolic times much less the apostles themselves.

Well I appreciate your honesty and candor. I also appreciate the thoughtfulness you show in your responses.

IAs you continue on your journey, continue to stay hungry for God, He will lead you into righteousness. We will stand together one day before the throne and cast our crowns before the Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of the world.

God Bless!!

 

[rmcbride77]

Well, I don’t accept “sacred tradition” in the way you do.

The verse you reference does say that there are things that Jesus did and said that aren’t recorded in scripture. But that shouldn’t be surprising should it? We shouldn’t expect everything that Jesus did or said be recorded, mainly because there is no need. As St. John says…these things are written so that you may believe.

I guess it boils down to I don’t trust your church nor do I see any reason to. If there were some way to demonstrate (this is just one example) that the apostles taught the doctrine of the assumption I might be more willing to listen to appeals to such things but as it stands, such doctrines have no tie to the apostolic times much less the apostles themselves.

Please consider the following and tell me if you have an issue with this.

[

In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, (1) and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. (2)

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.”(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html)

 

[Pwrlftr]

Please consider the following and tell me if you have an issue with this.

%between%

I’ll take a look at it and let you know.

 

[rmcbride77]

Here is more from that document:

And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[rmcbride77]

I’ll take a look at it and let you know.

Here is more in that section on handing down divine revelation

The words of the holy fathers witness to the presence of this living tradition, whose wealth is poured into the practice and life of the believing and praying Church. Through the same tradition the Church’s full canon of the sacred books is known, and the sacred writings themselves are more profoundly understood and unceasingly made active in her; and thus God, who spoke of old, uninterruptedly converses with the bride of His beloved Son; and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel resounds in the Church, and through her, in the world, leads unto all truth those who believe and makes the word of Christ dwell abundantly in them (see Col. 3:16).

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[paul_c]

Well, I don’t accept “sacred tradition” in the way you do.

The verse you reference does say that there are things that Jesus did and said that aren’t recorded in scripture. But that shouldn’t be surprising should it? We shouldn’t expect everything that Jesus did or said be recorded, mainly because there is no need. As St. John says…these things are written so that you may believe.

I guess it boils down to I don’t trust your church nor do I see any reason to. If there were some way to demonstrate (this is just one example) that the apostles taught the doctrine of the assumption I might be more willing to listen to appeals to such things but as it stands, such doctrines have no tie to the apostolic times much less the apostles themselves.

This is exactly the issue. There is no question that the Apostles had traditions that were passed down beyond what was written in the 27 books of the New Testament. We’ve listed many of them in the preceding posts and most of them have textual (but not scriptutal) references from the ECF… The question is whether you accept them as being divinely inspired if they aren’t from the 27 books. I ask you though, what conceivable benefit would the church get from making up the Assumption of Mary if it wasn’t true. What personal gain would anyone have from making this assertion? Unless you can define a reasonable motivation for the Church to lie about this, your assertion that the Church isn’t trustworthy doesn’t hold much weight. After all, why would men who have devoted their lives to God, make up false doctrines, deliberatly misleading the people? That would be an evil thing to do and I doubt they would imperil their souls in such a way…

 

[rmcbride77]

This is exactly the issue. There is no question that the Apostles had traditions that were passed down beyond what was written in the 27 books of the New Testament. We’ve listed many of them in the preceding posts and most of them have textual (but not scriptutal) references from the ECF… The question is whether you accept them as being divinely inspired if they aren’t from the 27 books. I ask you though, what conceivable benefit would the church get from making up the Assumption of Mary if it wasn’t true. What personal gain would anyone have from making this assertion? Unless you can define a reasonable motivation for the Church to lie about this, your assertion that the Church isn’t trustworthy doesn’t hold much weight. After all, why would men who have devoted their lives to God, make up false doctrines, deliberatly misleading the people? That would be an evil thing to do and I doubt they would imperil their souls in such a way…

Exactly, so what is the alternative? The alternative then is that it WAS taught and believed but not in so great a priority that it was explicitly taught in scripture. The Assumption of Mary is a NT type of the resurrection of all believers in Jesus. She was the prototype and model for us all. I guess I don’t see what problem some have with Mary in all the doctrines where she is the principal. Like a good Jewish boy, Jesus loves his Mother. In love he gave her to us through the person of John at the foot of the Cross. She in no way takes away from His glory, she is His masterpiece. Her humility and love for Jesus is a model for us all, Catholic and Protestant alike. In her words at the wedding at Cana she told the servants regarding Jesus “Do all that He tells you”… and that is what she still says today. She points us to her Son. She truly is the mother of the Church in that she intercedes from heaven as all saints do. How does that contradict scripture? I don’t see that it does. It illuminates the love of the Father and the Son for mankind. We should celebrate Mary for she is one of us and God has exalted her and called her Blessed among all women.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I ask you though, what conceivable benefit would the church get from making up the Assumption of Mary if it wasn’t true.

What personal gain would anyone have from making this assertion? Unless you can define a reasonable motivation for the Church to lie about this, your assertion that the Church isn’t trustworthy doesn’t hold much weight.

I never said your church lied, I simply believe they are wrong and in the case of the assumption there is no evidence of this doctrine existing until centuries after the apostles.

How and why did the doctrine/belief come about? An over active imagination… I don’t really have an answer for your question…I guess it could be for a million different reasons.

After all, why would men who have devoted their lives to God, make up false doctrines, deliberatly misleading the people? That would be an evil thing to do and I doubt they would imperil their souls in such a way…

I never said they deliberately did this, I am sure they (whoever they are) probably believed that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven.

As to why would someone imperil their soul? People do it all the time.

 

[rmcbride77]

How and why did the doctrine/belief come about? An over active imagination… I don’t really have an answer for your question…I guess it could be for a million different reasons.

I think St Gregory of Tours has a famous section on it in his book of miracles and that was around 575 or so… I will check my sources for the scriptural reasoning and post it.

As to why would someone imperil their soul? People do it all the time.

Apostles are not your regular Joe Six-pack( or Joe the Plumber for that matter) so you would be wrong to dismiss this point so lightly… frankly its beneath you… I would expect this sort of flippancy from Sandusky, not you Pwrlftr…

 

[rmcbride77]

From Catholic Answers:
The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

I know there is more about the Assumption than this out there and I will post when I find it

 

[rmcbride77]

From catholicapologetics.org/ap080500.htm

For Roman Catholic Christians, the belief in the Assumption of Mary flows immediately from the belief in her Immaculate Conception. Catholic Christians believe that if Mary was preserved from sin by the free gift of God, she would not be bound to experience the consequences of sin–death–in the same way we do. Mary’s assumption shows the result of this freedom from sin–the immediate union of her whole being with her Son Jesus Christ with God at the end of her life.

Catholic Christians believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was assumed both body and soul into heavenly glory.

Rom 5:12
Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned …
Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1 Cor 15:21-26
For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, but each one in proper order: Christ the first fruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ; then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Since sin and death are the fruits of Satan, the freedom of Mary from the original sin of Adam also frees her from the consequences of sin also. Then Mary best fulfills the scripture of Genesis.

Gen 3:15
I will put enmity between you (the serpent, Satan) and the woman (Mary), and between your offspring (the minions of Satan) and hers (Christ); He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

The constant faith (paradosis) of the Church affirms the belief in the Assumption of Mary.

From the 5th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption of Mary was celebrated in Syria.
5th and 6th Century:
The Apocryphal Books were testimony of a certain christian sense of the abhorrence felt that the body of the Mother of God should lie in a sepulcher.
6th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Jerusalem (and perhaps even in Alexandria).
From the 7th Century:
Clear and explicit testimony was given on the Assumption of Mary in the Eastern Church; The same testimony is clear also in the Western Church (Gregory, Tours, 538-594).
9th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Spain.
From the 10th - 12th Century:
No dispute whatsoever in the Western Church; there was dispute over the false epistles of Jerome on the subject.
12th Century:
The Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in the city of Rome, and in France.
13th Century to the present:
Certain and undisputed faith in the Assumption of Mary in the universal Church.
1950
Pope Pius XII, declared infallibly, ex cathedra: “Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul to heavenly glory.” (The Magisterium has stayed cospicuously silent regarding whether this process entailed Mary’s physical death. The teaching merely states that Mary’s body and soul were assumed at the completion of the course of Mary’s life.)

 

[Pwrlftr]

Apostles are not your regular Joe Six-pack( or Joe the Plumber for that matter) so you would be wrong to dismiss this point so lightly… frankly its beneath you… I would expect this sort of flippancy from Sandusky, not you Pwrlftr…

I didn’t mean to come of flippant. Also, I didn’t mean to imply anything about the apostles. The other poster made a comment about why would a Christain imperil their soul. I assumed he was talking about someone other than the apostles and if that is/was the case then it is true that folks do in fact imperil their souls by sinning. We are stuck with the effects of original sin…unfortunately.

 

[rmcbride77]

I didn’t mean to come of flippant. Also, I didn’t mean to imply anything about the apostles. The other poster made a comment about why would a Christain imperil their soul. I assumed he was talking about someone other than the apostles and if that is/was the case then it is true that folks do in fact imperil their souls by sinning. We are stuck with the effects of original sin…unfortunately.

thanks, yes unfortunately we are… Here is more on the Assumption but I don’t’ think it is going to satisfy your need to see more of it in scripture.

The fact of the Assumption

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.
newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

 

[Pwrlftr]

thanks, yes unfortunately we are… Here is more on the Assumption but I don’t’ think it is going to satisfy your need to see more of it in scripture.

Thanks Ron. You work too hard trying to provide information. If you are responding to me feel free to provide a link and a brief summary of what you want me to get out of the material…I suspect you are spending way too much effort.

I don’t mean to belabor the Assumption but I think that doctrine sums up my problem with tradition.

At one point I considered converting to the Catholic church. I read everything I could get my hands on and listened to hour upon hours of debates between the various Catholic apologists and everyone from Muslims, atheists, Protestants, etc.

As you probably can tell, I didn’t convert. I guess the main reason boils down to I don’t accept your church’s authority.

My problem with tradition is that in some cases where a doctrine such as the Assumption has been declared there is little historical evidence linking the belief to the time of the apostles. I see how one can go from a belief in the Assumption to seeing it in scripture but I don’t see how you can go from scripture to a belief in the Assumption.

I guess what I am trying to say is that my issue with this particular doctrine is that:
a.) We don’t find it in scripture…at least not explicitly and I don’t know how one can find it there without first accepting it based on your church’s word. This may not be true with you or anyone else, I am just sharing my thoughts on this.

b.) In this particular case the historical evidence for this doctrine is rather weak for the first several centuries. I have forgotten when evidence for the Assumption first shows up on the historical record but I belive it is around the 4th or 5th century.

I understand that lack of evidence does not prove that there was no belief but the lack of evidence to me causes me to doubt that this was taught by the apostles.

This thread has rambled all over the place hasn’t it?

 

[rmcbride77]

Thanks Ron. You work too hard trying to provide information. If you are responding to me feel free to provide a link and a brief summary of what you want me to get out of the material…I suspect you are spending way too much effort.

I don’t mean to belabor the Assumption but I think that doctrine sums up my problem with tradition.

At one point I considered converting to the Catholic church. I read everything I could get my hands on and listened to hour upon hours of debates between the various Catholic apologists and everyone from Muslims, atheists, Protestants, etc.

As you probably can tell, I didn’t convert. I guess the main reason boils down to I don’t accept your church’s authority.

My problem with tradition is that in some cases where a doctrine such as the Assumption has been declared there is little historical evidence linking the belief to the time of the apostles. I see how one can go from a belief in the Assumption to seeing it in scripture but I don’t see how you can go from scripture to a belief in the Assumption.

I guess what I am trying to say is that my issue with this particular doctrine is that:
a.) We don’t find it in scripture…at least not explicitly and I don’t know how one can find it there without first accepting it based on your church’s word. This may not be true with you or anyone else, I am just sharing my thoughts on this.

b.) In this particular case the historical evidence for this doctrine is rather weak for the first several centuries. I have forgotten when evidence for the Assumption first shows up on the historical record but I belive it is around the 4th or 5th century.

I understand that lack of evidence does not prove that there was no belief but the lack of evidence to me causes me to doubt that this was taught by the apostles.

This thread has rambled all over the place hasn’t it?

haha yes it has. I was a Protestant until about 25 years ago, I had prepared for the ministry, etc but felt a certain dissatisfaction with a number of the denominations that I had tried.I didn’t see how people could read the same bible and get such opposite beliefs on major doctrines. I guess my faith in the authority in the Church comes from the logic that God would establish his Church to be a visible sign of His presence on the earth, and would need the authority that Jesus outlines in Matt 16. Binding and loosing… otherwise it it was just some sort of “invisible” church that weren’t united in belief or practice, I just thought that was very sloppy and not like the God I read about. I was anti Catholic for a lot of my teen years… so the Catholic church was not even on the list of possibilities… but the more I read about the ECF and I actually read the CCC, I began to see the beauty of the Church. I actually didn’t totally accept doctrines on Mary and purgatory until years later. I trusted the authority of the Church. A lot of my beliefs about the church were misconceptions and once I saw the reasoning behind some of these doctrines it was a natural thing. The main thing I want to emphasize though is not the doctrines but my relationship with the Lord. I had been going around the same mountain for most of my life and once I came into the RCC, the sacraments provided the grace I needed to renew and strengthen my daily conversation with God… I just can’t say enough… but I will stop at this point. My prayers are with you that God will put you where He wants you.

God Bless

 

[twb1621]

Thanks Ron.
I don’t mean to belabor the Assumption but I think that doctrine sums up my problem with tradition.

My problem with tradition is that in some cases where a doctrine such as the Assumption has been declared there is little historical evidence linking the belief to the time of the apostles. I see how one can go from a belief in the Assumption to seeing it in scripture but I don’t see how you can go from scripture to a belief in the Assumption.

Perhaps it would help to understand and to keep in mind not only that the “woman” spoken of in the OT was Mary in the prophecies but also that she was predestined to suffer the pain of the sword as prophesied by Simeon at the temple. This was the reason Jesus referred to her as “woman” at times referring her to those prophacies. In fact, if you make the Compression, Mary’s life was (although a difference in degrees) to parallel the life of Jesus right down to His passion and suffering yet she remained as silent in her suffering as Jesus in His. It is a fact recognized by all Christians that the Blood of Christ is the Blood of our salvation. Mary was born full of grace and created by God with purity to be the ark of the new covenant just as God directed the construction of the ark of the old covenant. Mary was even more precious because it would be the Son of God who she would carry.
But most importantly, it should not be difficult to understand that if the blood of Jesus is the source of our salvation, this very blood pulsating through the veins of Jesus flowed through the veins of Mary and from her through Him. Her devotion and her immaculate nature could not have been flawed to start with and certainly could not have been soiled after sharing the living blood of Christ. If it were, there would be no salvation at all from the spilling of this very same blood and their shared torment and suffering. In sharing such a parallel it would also be a logical expectation that Jesus would have wanted her assumption as well.

As far as scripture, It would also stand to reason that considering the persecution of Christians at that time, the Apostles would have been very protective of Mary in her remaining years avoiding writing or any public proclamations having to do with her that might be used against her in some way. The logical thought would be that information regarding her life and death and assumption was passed on through Sacred Tradition but kept protected until such a time it could more safely be revealed along with the location she was originally laid to rest before the assumption. (Theoretically)

Some excerpts to ponder;
64. “Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts. [Cf. Is 2:2-4 ; Jer 31:31-34 ; Heb 10:16 .] The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation, which will include all the nations. [Cf. Ezek 3:6; Is 49:5-6; Is 53:11 .] Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel’s salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary. [Cf. Ezek 2:3 ; Lk 1:38 .]”
148. “The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’ and so giving her assent: ‘Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be (done) to me according to your word.’ [Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.] Elizabeth greeted her: ‘Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.’ [Lk 1:45 .] It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed. [Cf. Lk 1:48.]”
273. “Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. [Cf. 2 Cor 12:9 ; Phil 4:13.] The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that ‘nothing will be impossible with God’, and was able to magnify the Lord: ‘For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.’ [Lk 1:37, 49.]”
487. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
490. “To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary ‘was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.’ [LG 56.] The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as ‘full of grace’. [Lk 1:28 .] In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.”
491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. [Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.]”
catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

Unless you can show grounds to refute this of course.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Perhaps it would help to understand and to keep in mind not only that the “woman” spoken of in the OT was Mary in the prophecies but also that she was predestined to suffer the pain of the sword as prophesied by Simeon at the temple. This was the reason Jesus referred to her as “woman” at times referring her to those prophacies. In fact, if you make the Compression, Mary’s life was (although a difference in degrees) to parallel the life of Jesus right down to His passion and suffering yet she remained as silent in her suffering as Jesus in His. It is a fact recognized by all Christians that the Blood of Christ is the Blood of our salvation. Mary was born full of grace and created by God with purity to be the ark of the new covenant just as God directed the construction of the ark of the old covenant. Mary was even more precious because it would be the Son of God who she would carry.
But most importantly, it should not be difficult to understand that if the blood of Jesus is the source of our salvation, this very blood pulsating through the veins of Jesus flowed through the veins of Mary and from her through Him. Her devotion and her immaculate nature could not have been flawed to start with and certainly could not have been soiled after sharing the living blood of Christ. If it were, there would be no salvation at all from the spilling of this very same blood and their shared torment and suffering. In sharing such a parallel it would also be a logical expectation that Jesus would have wanted her assumption as well.

As far as scripture, It would also stand to reason that considering the persecution of Christians at that time, the Apostles would have been very protective of Mary in her remaining years avoiding writing or any public proclamations having to do with her that might be used against her in some way. The logical thought would be that information regarding her life and death and assumption was passed on through Sacred Tradition but kept protected until such a time it could more safely be revealed along with the location she was originally laid to rest before the assumption. (Theoretically)

Some excerpts to ponder;
64. “Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts. [Cf. Is 2:2-4 ; Jer 31:31-34 ; Heb 10:16 .] The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation, which will include all the nations. [Cf. Ezek 3:6; Is 49:5-6; Is 53:11 .] Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel’s salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary. [Cf. Ezek 2:3 ; Lk 1:38 .]”
148. “The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’ and so giving her assent: ‘Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be (done) to me according to your word.’ [Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.] Elizabeth greeted her: ‘Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.’ [Lk 1:45 .] It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed. [Cf. Lk 1:48.]”
273. “Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. [Cf. 2 Cor 12:9 ; Phil 4:13.] The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that ‘nothing will be impossible with God’, and was able to magnify the Lord: ‘For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.’ [Lk 1:37, 49.]”
487. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
490. “To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary ‘was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.’ [LG 56.] The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as ‘full of grace’. [Lk 1:28 .] In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.”
491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. [Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.]”
catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

Unless you can show grounds to refute this of course.

Thanks.

 

[rmcbride77]

Thanks.

Here is a link to a transcript of a tape by Scott Hahn on my website.
regarding the various Doctrines of Mary. Scott was a Protestant and came into the church a little later than I did.

rap.midco.net/rmcbride/mary.htm

God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m not following you. ISTM, that your response to my question is, they both worship what they don’t have in the same way;

is that right?Just because the Jews are not trinitarian, does that mean that they do not worship the same God of the Old covenant found in the Old Testament?

Bear in mind that even today, our trinitarian doctrines and the deity of Jesus make us blasphemers to the Jews.

This doesn’t mean much to me, but it should to Catholics: I don’t believe the Pope was/is speaking ex cathedra;

therefore, he could be wrong: "whoever denies the Son does not have the Father." Your opinion on that is about the same as mine is about yours.

His Holiness (and the Catechism, if you bothered to read that section. 839-845) in no way infers anything in contradiction of the scriptures. Nowhere does he or any faithful Catholic even infer that the Moslems or the Jews “have the Son”, but, as is proper for all believers, points out that both need to come to the Messiah to reach the Father. Both religions revolve around the old covenant.

You’d like to convince Catholics that this is error, when in fact it is anything but. Unlike your own errant belief in Sola Scriptura which is the actual topic of this thread.

well we are not saying that Jews and Muslims have the Father in a salvific way but we are saying they worship the same idea of God as we, although errantly and ultimately futilely if they do not have the Son…

 

[twb1621]

Thanks.

Your very welcome. There is one more point to consider regarding Honoring Mary. As Jesus said, “son, behold they mother”, this is without doubt proof of Christ’s direction to do all for her as if she were our mother and a direct command that without doubt she be honored as we would honor our mother which is nothing less than what is demanded in the commandment.