Glaring Hiatus

[FightingFat]

Let’s not forget that Jesus was in the minority when He stood in front of the Sanhedrin. As was Stephen, As was James, as was Paul. Being part of a large, official religious body that believes it speaks for God isn’t necessarily synonymous with being right about something.

I just had to mention that if you are a follower of Jesus, i.e. a Christian, you are (like it or not) a member of the largest religion on the planet.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I just had to mention that if you are a follower of Jesus, i.e. a Christian, you are (like it or not) a member of the largest religion on the planet.

Let’s not forget, that all of the people I mentioned were Jews being judged by Jews. The fact that everyone in the room was a Jew didn’t diminish the fact that those individuals were in the minority.

The signature is there to reduce the number of unproven assertions I have to deal with and thusfar it’s worked really, really well-fewer “it is thus and so” and more “I believe it is thus and so because” Makes for a much better discussion.

On another point, if you wanted to start a new thread with your posts 59-61, I’d be happy to discuss them.

 

[FightingFat]

Let’s not forget, that all of the people I mentioned were Jews being judged by Jews. The fact that everyone in the room was a Jew didn’t diminish the fact that those individuals were in the minority.

The signature is there to reduce the number of unproven assertions I have to deal with and thusfar it’s worked really, really well-fewer “it is thus and so” and more “I believe it is thus and so because” Makes for a much better discussion.

I think I understand. What you’re trying to stop is people saying that they believe insert whatever belief you are challenging here because the Church says it is the truth?

I suppose one has to wonder where you discern what you believe then if you do not accept the teachings of the Church? From Berean2’s handle, I should imagine he takes it from Sacred Scripture. I imagine you do to, but wouldn’t assume so much with out asking. This being the case, one wonders about the original Bereans, where they learned the faith? Was it Scripture?

 

[Contarini]

What evidence would I need to present in order to show the veneration given to Mary other than what is present within Roman Catholic theology?

Well, you could point to places where Marian devotion really does patently undercut devotion to Christ. As it stands, you simply assume this to be true and then point to the existence of Marian devotion as evidence that devotion to Christ is being undercut. When I say “but these same people were clearly devoted to Christ,” you respond in effect “yes, too bad they were devoted to Mary too.”

The thesis I’ve been proposing is that generally in Church history Marian piety has flowed from and reinforced a “high” Christology. I admit that unhealthy forms of Marian piety both flow from and reinforce Docetist trends (as in the belief that since Mary is “just human” it’s easier for us to go to her as an intercessor than to go to Jesus our Divine Judge). But Bernard is a counter-example here too, since Bernard stresses Jesus’ true humanity and His tender love for us.

To turn your question around, I don’t see what evidence could ever persuade you. You are convinced on a priori theological grounds that Marian devotion is bad. Fine–the case needs to be argued on those other grounds. But in your post #35 you used Catholic devotional practice as evidence *against *the connection between Mariology and Christology. In response to that, I pointed out that this devotion was typically connected very closely with devotion to Christ, thus supporting my thesis. You seem to me to be responding that the mere existence of Marian devotion proves that Marian devotion isn’t Christological. That doesn’t make sense, so perhaps I have misunderstood you.

In the Catholic understanding, devotion to Mary is a consequence of Christology. And the history of Marian devotion supports this. It supports rather less well the claim that Marian devotion is somehow in competition with faith in Christ, although I understand that if you believe this on other grounds then the historical connection between Mariology and Christology isn’t enough to persuade you otherwise.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You could have asked why that picture of her is missing from the early extra-biblical writings as well. The Apostolic Fathers have references to Jesus being born of a virgin, but that is about as far as it goes. The glaring hiatus is longer than you have described.

But again, I don’t see this as a “glaring hiatus” at all but a process of development beginning within the New Testament itself.

If you start from the perspective that Marian devotion grows out of the Incarnation, a passage like Ignatius to the Ephesians, chap. 19, clearly appears as a link between the birth narratives in Luke and later, more explicitly Marian developments of those narratives such as the Protoevangelion of James, as well as theological claims about Mary’s role such as Irenaeus’s identification of her as the new Eve.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I believe if some folks could grasp that it would help them shake the “Let’s add a new Marian Dogma” fever when it strikes them. Which I believe would be good for all concerned. Blessed, Ever Virgin, Mother of God, yes…but let’s stop there.

Well, on RC grounds development of doctrine is seen as an unending process that leads to deeper and fuller understanding of the truth. With the exception of some ressourcement theologians like Louis Bouyer, who are much closer to the Orthodox (and in my opinion to the early Church), doctrinal definition tends to be seen in more positive terms than in the East. Many RCs don’t see why they should ever “stop”–they use the fact that the Orthodox stopped (at least in terms of dogma) as evidence against Orthodox claims to be the true Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That Marian devotion began in the East does not contradict the fact that excessive Marian devotion of the type that we see today has arisen within Roman Catholicism, especially since the medieval period.

Are you saying that you don’t have a problem with the kind of Marian devotion expressed, for instance, in this text? You don’t have a problem with the Orthodox frequently calling out in their services, “O Theotokos, save us”? But you do have a problem with the devotion to Mary that flourished in post-Reformation Catholicism. That’s a position with which I might agree, particularly if we are talking about some of the 19th-century developments in which Mary’s role was less explicitly linked to the Incarnation than had previously been the case. However, the differences are quite nuanced and I would like to be sure that we are talking about these specific later developments. There’s plenty of Marian piety in the East that Protestants typically would see as truly excessive. In fact, you run into it in the Eucharistic Liturgy itself far more in the East than in the West, because of the greater conservatism of the Latin Mass, which led to much of the Marian devotion being expressed in popular devotions clearly separate from the Mass.

We don’t all know this. Obviously, there are some problems with such an argument, such as the fact that Jesus isn’t a covenant, so Mary wouldn’t be a carrier or “ark” of any covenant.

What on earth do you mean, Jesus isn’t a covenant? What was that whole “new covenant in my blood” business about, then?

Of course Jesus is a covenant–or rather, Jesus is *the *Covenant. That’s about as basic a way of summarizing the essential claims of Christianity as I know.

There is no way to test such fanciful interpretations.

Sure there is–by comparison to the Rule of Faith.

We can easily point out absurdities to which the parallel can be pushed–for example, must Mary have been stolen by God’s enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing? Who was Mary’s Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)? One cannot feel free to pick and choose what aspects of Mary’s life he wishes to parallel, and which he does not–

Why on earth not? That’s how typological use of the OT works when the New Testament writers do it. Check the context of just about any OT passage applied to Jesus in the NT and you’ll find all sorts of details that don’t fit at all. To make any typology or claim of prophetic fulfillment work you *have *to pick and choose.

there are no rules in this kind of interpretation

Are you really unaware of the rules by which patristic and medieval interpreters operated? I can understand that you disagreed with them, but do you really not even know they exist?

One influential set of rules was borrowed by Augustine from Tyconius and can be found (in Augustine’s version of them) in De Doctrina Christiana 3.31-37. Indeed, all of De Doctrina is relevant in this regard.

Perhaps we should start a new thread about Biblical interpretation, because you are consistently making assumptions about “good” Biblical interpretation with which I thoroughly disagree.

That being said, I also disagree with the way modern Catholic apologists use typological arguments like this one, as if they could somehow “prove” to Protestants that Mary is the Ark.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I especially second this:It seems to go back to the assumptions that you mentioned in an earlier post, Contarini: are the RC assumptions articulable/listable? Or are we dealing with a situation of “It’s all infused into the Pope (or the Councils) by the Holy Spirit!”? (RC’s, can you weigh in on this as well, please?)

I don’t think a “list” is possible, because it’s more a question of a way of thinking. I know this is maddening to Protestants, and in many ways the RC’s have set themselves up for criticism in this regard because they tend to favor lists and sharp definitions and legal formulae. So when they use more traditionally Catholic language it sounds fuzzy and self-serving.

(One can of course articulate the assumptions that make a Catholic approach–not just RC but also Eastern Orthodox, and shared by many Anglicans and some other “Protestants” as well. But not perhaps in as clear-cut a way as you’d like.)

Another problem is that the modern RCC has backed off to a great extent from traditional methods of Biblical interpretation, which has created a gap between church teaching and exegesis. (Or widened it–perhaps that gap has been there to some extent ever since the rise of a more juridical approach to Church teaching in the eleventh century). In my opinion, one reason Roman Catholic preaching is generally so bad is that priests are taught methods of Biblical interpretation that don’t allow them to get much out of the text, and certainly don’t allow them to engage in a rich and robust proclamation of the Gospel as Catholics understand it without going beyond what “exegesis” will justify.

Ironically, the post-Vatican-II move toward a fairly strictly historical-critical approach in Catholic seminaries and other institutions of theological learning coincided with a rediscovery of the riches of traditional Biblical interpretation by theologians like Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou. Unfortunately, as in so many other things, it was the more negative and critical part of the “new theology” that caught on fastest. But the more constructive agenda is catching up, it seems. I often disagree with Scott Hahn (he is the person who has popularized the “Mary as ark” interpretation among American Catholics today, I believe), but in many ways I think his work is a sign of health in contemporary Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[SirThomasMore]

Again, this thread is soley based on a faulty premise as Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura

 

[Contarini]

I think I would distinguish between these two internally coherent positions with this observation:

a) someone who does not view Matthew and Luke as Holy Scripture could conclude that the idea that Mary conceived Jesus without sexual intercourse was developed between the time that the Pauline epistles were penned and the time that those gospels were penned.

b) in contrast, unless one is of that attitude that the Church was divinely guided and protected from any error, I don’t know how one would avoid concluding that the “Catholic” Marian doctrines were developed well after the fact from nothing but pious imagination.

First of all, I don’t think infallibility is the issue. Maybe in the first instance, given how difficult the virginal conception is for many modern folks (so that many of us need the infallible authority of the Church telling us that this is a non-negotiable). I would also add that it would be quite possible to hold Matthew and Luke to be Holy Scripture and still interpret the virginal conception as a pious legend–unless one is going to maintain that Holy Scripture contains no pious legends. (I’m being somewhat facetious, since that is probably what you do believe.) What prevents us from doing so is the historic proclamation of the Church (and to some extent also Luke’s clear intention to write a work of history). In short, the virginal conception may need infallibility for us to believe it because it’s a concrete claim about something that happened, and something that takes considerable faith to believe since it’s not the sort of thing that normally happens and is found with very different details in two Gospels which many scholars would put fairly late in the first century. Similarly, the only way I could believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (particular virginity in partu) would be to accept it on the authority of the Church. It’s one of the very few things that I hesitate to accept as an Anglican but would have to accept if I finally became Catholic or Orthodox.

But with regard to Marian piety generally, I think that this has much to recommend it on its own ground as a devotional elaboration on Christian belief in the Incarnation.

At any rate, the broader question in both cases really isn’t about infallibility but about whether we take a critical view of doctrinal development or not. What I mean by a critical view in this context is setting up what appear to be earlier stages in the tradition over against later ones. That is what the OP did. But in typical conservative Protestant fashion, the OP drew the line at applying this methodology *within *Scripture.

My challenge is: why? Given that acceptance of Scripture in the first place depends to some extent on accepting the historic witness of the Church, this methodology doesn’t make sense to me.

Your response appears to be that the virginal conception story can stand “on its own” much better than later developments can. Sure, if we are talking about historical claims. In other words, if any of the things that Christians have traditionally claimed about Mary are true, then the virginal conception would be the most likely even on strictly historical grounds, because it dates from earlier texts than the other claims and might conceivably (as I believe, at least in the case of Luke’s narrative) have arisen from the Gospel writers’ inquiries into the circumstances of Jesus’ birth rather than simply from “pious imagination.” Or, to put it more personally, I believe that the virginal conception really happened, even though I need lots of “help” from the authority of the Church to do this. I don’t think I could persuade myself to believe that everything in the Protoevangelion of James really happened as described. That text is quite obviously pious legend.

If we are talking about the relative likelihood of the virginal conception, the perpetual virginity (and other stories about Mary found in the Protoevangelion of James), and the Assumption/Dormition legends being historically accurate, then I certainly agree that each of these stories is progressively much less likely than the one before. But I took the OP to be speaking primarily about doctrine. And that’s the ground on which I answered. The best explanation for why Mark and Paul don’t talk about the virginal conception, or show much interest in Jesus’ birth at all, is that their theology didn’t require it. Something had changed *theologically *by the time we get to Matthew and Luke (of course it might not be change but just a different perspective held by people who lived at the same time–but since Matthew and Luke do appear to be some decades later, change is quite likely). As Christians came to reflect more deeply on who they believed Jesus to be, they came to see the circumstances of His birth as more important than they had previously thought.

Similarly, language about Mary as the New Eve and the God-Bearer, as well as devotional practices such as making icons of her and asking for her prayers, developed out of a deeper understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation and a cultural and spiritual life based on that mystery.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Again, this thread is soley based on a faulty premise as Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura

Yes, but the OP didn’t explicitly invoke sola scriptura. The OP invoked the alleged improbability that Paul would have been “silent” on Marian doctrines if he had believed in them. You don’t need sola scriptura to make that point–that’s why I’ve been trying to show that unless you assume the authority of Scripture on the one hand and sola scriptura on the other, there’s no reason to ask this question only about the non-Biblical teachings concerning Mary.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The same thing can be done on most any topic where “development of doctrine” has worked its magic. Take the later, unbiblical version and demonstrate that it doesn’t exist in the early church. Then you either have people who accept the doctrine without proof, or people who are willing to discuss the topic within a frame of reference that accepts that what is believed in Catholicism today on that topic goes beyond the early church’s practice. It makes for much more productive discussions.

But the point of the concept of “development of doctrine” is that it just isn’t that simple.

There isn’t some point at which people wake up in the morning and say “what new thing can I believe today?” There are some fairly dramatic points where new doctrines appear to be invented, such as Augustine’s doctrine of original sin or Luther’s doctrine of justification. And it’s no accident that these doctrines divide Christians and are both highly dubious (actually I’d say that Luther’s doctrine is worse than dubious). But most of the time, what happens is that people follow through the implications (both theoretical and experiential) of what they believe, and find that this has implications they may not have thought of previously. (This is certainly what Augustine thought he was doing, which is one of the things that gets him off the hook a bit in contrast to Luther with his bold claim to have rediscovered the Gospel.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The problem with that, of course, is Rome does not dogmatically assert that it has developed… but essentially said the acorn was already an oak tree right from the get go.

Where do you find Rome making such a claim.

Of course, a cursory reading of church history shows that the acorn was an apple seed and not an oak tree at all…but that’s neither here nor there.

With all due respect, that’s an astoundingly arrogant claim. There are learned people who have come to very different conclusions on whether the seed as an acorn or an apple seed. That is enough to make it clear (unless you are accusing all RC scholars, including those like Newman who converted to Roman Catholicism, of dishonesty or carelessness) that a cursory reading of church history isn’t sufficient at all. I’m not sure that any amount of reading of church history is going to lead to decisive conclusions on this matter.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Demonstrating precisely why such typological inferences that Scripture doesn’t give us explicitly (such as the typology in Hebrews, where it actually says it’s a type and not an interpreted type) should be rejected out of hand.

And this another example of the “Scriptural exceptionalism” that I have been pointing to throughout this thread. Of course it’s a consistent position–we confess the Bible to be inspired by God, so on the one hand we can simply take the Marian stories in the Bible on faith and reject the others, and on the other we can accept that what would normally be called “bad” interpretation is good when inspired writers do it.

We can do this, but I don’t see why anyone would do so if there was a half-decent alternative. Conservative Protestants feel forced to make awkward moves by this because if they didn’t they’d either have to cease to be conservative or cease to be Protestants (or both!). But it’s not exactly a point that recommends conservative Protestantism.

To the point at issue: don’t you think it is odd that God would inspire people to read Scripture in ways that are highly misleading to the rest of us if imitated? Isn’t it more likely that when the early Church continued to read Scripture as the Apostles had done, they were on the right path?

Of course, they could do this because they had the Rule of Faith and weren’t limited by that unfortunate bit of Western rationalism usually called “Sola Scriptura.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

One has to be blind not to see the repeated references to 2 Samuel in Luke, 1.

Robert, with all due respect, you weaken the Catholic case when you make statements like this. You don’t need them. The analogies to which you point are obvious if one is reading with a Catholic lens. They clearly are not obvious to everyone, and telling people that they should see what they don’t see is not helpful.

Edwin

 

[SirThomasMore]

Yes, but the OP didn’t explicitly invoke sola scriptura. The OP invoked the alleged improbability that Paul would have been “silent” on Marian doctrines if he had believed in them. You don’t need sola scriptura to make that point–that’s why I’ve been trying to show that unless you assume the authority of Scripture on the one hand and sola scriptura on the other, there’s no reason to ask this question only about the non-Biblical teachings concerning Mary.

Edwin

Actually, any mention of Paul saying or not saying in the Epistles IS sola scriptura. As we do not accept Sola Scriptura, the OP is moot and irrelevant

 

[Contarini]

Mega-thanx to all who continue to contribute here: all of the discussions/info “funnel” into the “Big Question” I had behind my poorly articulated OP. I still would like to know whether there’s some sort of list of premises or a description of the paradigm that’s used in RC Scripture interpretation, because the RCC seems to read a whole lot more into any given verse than the average Protestant reading would yield.

That idea would seem to be supported by this:

When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can ***all ***prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. (1 Cor. 14:26ff, my emphases)

Indeed. But the Pastoral Epistles give a very different picture, which is why most scholars think they are not by Paul.

Again, the distinctions that you want to draw between the New Testament and later developments can in fact be found (in embryo) within the New Testament itself. The older German scholarship argued that the Pastorals and other dubiously Pauline letters like Ephesians were examples of “early Catholicism” (though this phrase seems to have gone out of fashion).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually, any mention of Paul saying or not saying in the Epistles IS sola scriptura.

Are you saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura can’t talk about what Paul does or does not say?

This is the kind of approach that forces many people to believe in Sola Scriptura.

Edwin

 

[SirThomasMore]

Are you saying that anyone who doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura can’t talk about what Paul does or does not say?

This is the kind of approach that forces many people to believe in Sola Scriptura.

Edwin

If you choose to believe Sola Scriptura, that is perfectly fine. I am not asking you to believe otherwise. I simply stated that the OP hints that because Paul did not state it in his Epistles…etc…

That tacxtic might work for someone who believes in Sola Scriptura…but for one who does not, the lack of mention in the Epistles means little.

Sola Scriptura, in all honesty, makes me chuckle. It is amusing for me to think about how all the Apostles and their students went around teaching with nothing. There would be no way for them to teach and nothing to teach with, as there was no “scriptura” to be solo about. I get this picture of Peter saying, “I am here to teach about something but I can;t because I do not have the Scriptura to do so yet, but if y’all come back in a few years, I will have a lot to say.”

Anyway, that is the picture I get when I think of sola scriptura.

 

[Spirithound]

Similarly, the only way I could believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (particular virginity in partu) would be to accept it on the authority of the Church.

I would like to ask you about this particular sentence; I think it is on-topic. It has occurred to me that as a Catholic, and even just as a Christian, Mary’s perpetual virginity is the least-insane thing I am asked to believe. With my apologies for reverting to a more vernacular tone , What’s the problem?