Glaring Hiatus

[Non_Serviam]

Actually, I am not aware of any scholars who think that the original versions of either Matthew or Luke did not contain birth narratives. The addition of the respective birth narratives is generally considered to be one of the contributions of the respective authors of what we call “Matthew” and “Luke.” In other words, both authors took Mark and Q and added some of their own material, including the birth narratives. So no one expects to find what you describe. I think it’s generally agreed that these Gospels were complete in more or less the form we have them by the year 90 or so. (I’d date them earlier, but I’m near the conservative end of the spectrum.)

While the comment about “scholars” sounds a bit “no true Scotsman”-ish, let’s let that slide and I’ll stipulate to what you’ve said here, since you didn’t go all German on me.

Clearly we agree on the basic point that the birth narratives are in some sense related to Marian doctrine.

I would agree cautiously with your claim that the “core kerygmatic teachings” don’t include the virginal conception, in the sense that Paul says nothing about it and the sermons recorded in Acts don’t mention it. However, it is in the Creeds, and from my perspective that makes it part of the Church’s kerygma.

Edwin

Certainly we agree, just as we agree on the point about the creeds. I’m not trying to establish a Deuterokerygma, rather simply making the point that Physics and Nature required the Apostles to begin their teaching with something and I don’t believe Mary was one of the first points of doctrine. Important nonetheless, but not first.

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.

 

[mark_a]

This:

While I would disagree with your conclusion that this makes the Eastern churches more orthodox in an apostolic sense, I think it would be correct to say that the East has had far more impact on the development of Roman Catholic theology than Rome would be willing to admit. At least as regards Marian devotion.

Does not square with this:

However, I believe this is precisely why the Marian cultus that has arisen within Roman Catholicism is such an unspeakable tragedy.

We all know that the core of Marian teaching is from Luke’s comparison of Mary to the 2Sam Ark returning to David.

 

[FantomScholar]

This:

Does not square with this:

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.

We all know that the core of Marian teaching is from Luke’s comparison of Mary to the 2Sam Ark returning to David.

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. There is no way to test such fanciful interpretations. 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–there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion.

Other questions could be asked. Since Joseph of Arimathea carried Christ’s body after He had died for the sins of the world (Matthew 27:57-60), does that make Joseph of Arimathea the “Ark of the New Covenant”? Should we assume that Joseph of Arimathea was immaculately conceived? Why should we assume that there even is a New Testament parallel to the Ark of the Covenant? And if we do make that assumption, why is Mary the only candidate for fulfilling this parallel? Wouldn’t somebody like Joseph of Arimathea be an even better candidate, since he was the one who bore Christ’s body after He had just made the sacrifice of the new covenant?

 

[mark_a]

Wouldn’t somebody like Joseph of Arimathea be an even better candidate, since he was the one who bore Christ’s body after He had just made the sacrifice of the new covenant?

In a sola scriptura vacuum, that could possibly work for me.

However, I know of no such Apostolic teaching from the Eastern Churches.

 

[Linda_Marie]

This is very instructive, Linda Marie. Is dogma, then, everything contained in the CCC?

No, not everything in the CCC is dogma. The CCC contains the teachings of the Church. Only some of the teachings of the Church have been declared dogma.

The Church holds off declaring teachings dogma unless there has been a serious heresy refuting or contradicting a teaching. For instance, the dogma of Mary, Mother of God was declared to combat the heresy that Mary was only mother to the human Jesus and that Jesus was somehow separated into a human half and a divine half. Although many today think this declaration is about Mary, it is not. It is about Who Jesus is.

Although I swam the Tiber some 30 years ago, I am still learning so I may not be entirely correct, but I think there are something like only 7 teachings that have been dogmatically declared in the history of the Church.

 

[Berean2]

Contarini & Fantom: :clapping: :clapping: You guys are honing in exactly on what I was trying to get at in my inarticulate way. Please keep going, bec. this is all highly informative. I especially second this:

There is no way to test such fanciful interpretations…there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion…Why should we assume that there even is a New Testament parallel to the Ark of the Covenant?

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?)

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.

Rad, please weigh in more here @ this thread: I need folks like you, FS, NS and Contarini to fill in the gaps in my knowledge/understanding. My knowledge of Church history and thought is nowhere near as extensive as that of FS, NS and C. I’m keen on increasing in insight.

No, not everything in the CCC is dogma. The CCC contains the teachings of the Church. Only some of the teachings of the Church have been declared dogma…The Church holds off declaring teachings dogma unless there has been a serious heresy refuting or contradicting a teaching…but I think there are something like only 7 teachings that have been dogmatically declared in the history of the Church.

Linda Marie, thank you for this, but now I have another question, then: where would an inquirer find a list of all the dogmatic teachings of the church? And do I understand correctly that if it is not dogma, the individual RCer is not bound by it (bec. you did say before, “In being the person, the human being, from whom God took flesh and became Man, Mary Co-operated in a Singular and Unique fashion for all eternity. Even so, this is NOT dogma.”)? It’s all terribly confusing.

Diana Leslie, your post(s) are intriguing because they again bring me to wonder what the rationale is behind interpreting the verses that way. Oh, and as for your question: generally, Protestant churches focus on Christ, not on Mary, so they don’t “do” anything to call her blessed: they figure if the Scripture says she is, she is.

 

[FightingFat]

This is very instructive, Linda Marie. Is dogma, then, everything contained in the CCC?

No, the CCC contains doctrine.

 

[FightingFat]

where would an inquirer find a list of all the dogmatic teachings of the church? And do I understand correctly that if it is not dogma, the individual RCer is not bound by it (bec. you did say before, “In being the person, the human being, from whom God took flesh and became Man, Mary Co-operated in a Singular and Unique fashion for all eternity. Even so, this is NOT dogma.”)? It’s all terribly confusing.

snot really that confusing. You could find a solid explanation here amazon.com/Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig/dp/0895550091/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274195355&sr=8-1

 

[Radical]

Rad, please weigh in more here @ this thread: I need folks like you, FS, NS and Contarini to fill in the gaps in my knowledge/understanding. My knowledge of Church history and thought is nowhere near as extensive as that of FS, NS and C. I’m keen on increasing in insight.

I don’t have much to add…Contarini and Fantom are having the type of discussion that is a pleasure to see. I fully agree with Contarini when he observed;

But why? Obviously you have a theological reason for doing so–you (like me) accept Matthew and Luke as Holy Scripture. But of course those of us with a broadly Catholic approach to the faith (among whom I would include myself) also accept tradition as authoritative. To a skeptic who accepts none of this as divinely inspired and looks at the question from a purely historical point of view, it does indeed look as if Marian piety is a later development unknown to the first believers, and as if the virginal conception is the first step in that direction. To Catholics, it looks as if Marian piety is a legitimate and necessary outgrowth of what we believe about Jesus, and develops as a result of and in parallel with the development of Christology–beginning with an interest in stories about Jesus’ birth on the part of Matthew and Luke (writing early enough that they could collect reliable stories–Luke may have spoken to Mary directly) not shown by Mark or Paul. Both these positions are internally coherent.

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.

Fantom was spot on when he observed:

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. There is no way to test such fanciful interpretations. 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–there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion.

I would only add that, from what I have seen, not only is picking and choosing involved, but once the picking and choosing is done, then what was picked is fudged to make it a more striking parallel. I had a bit of fun pointing that out on this thread where I did the same sort of thing to present Stephen as the New Ark.

 

[FantomScholar]

I would only add that, from what I have seen, not only is picking and choosing involved, but once the picking and choosing is done, then what was picked is fudged to make it a more striking parallel. I had a bit of fun pointing that out on this thread where I did the same sort of thing to present Stephen as the New Ark.

You can also see this in how Catholic apologists read Peter in the New Testament. I remember reading, I believe it was in a book by Dave Armstrong, 51 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy, and it was filled with this sort of picking. Any assertion made about Peter, even simple descriptive statements, is read as a proof for Peter’s authority. This also happens with the church fathers. Anything that a father ever said about Peter that was nice is seen as a proof for the papacy.

 

[Radical]

You can also see this in how Catholic apologists read Peter in the New Testament. I remember reading, I believe it was in a book by Dave Armstrong, 51 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy, and it was filled with this sort of picking. Any assertion made about Peter, even simple descriptive statements, is read as a proof for Peter’s authority. This also happens with the church fathers. Anything that a father ever said about Peter that was nice is seen as a proof for the papacy.

agreed…it drives me nuts. The claims are so over-the-top its hard to know where to start.

 

[Non_Serviam]

agreed…it drives me nuts. The claims are so over-the-top its hard to know where to start.

In the case of Peter, you start with a thread like this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=452227 you make a clear distinction between clear statements demonstrating something and derived or interpreted statements. It becomes obvious very quickly that there are none of the former and that the belief stands on a whole bunch of the latter. Then you go from there.

 

[Radical]

In the case of Peter, you start with a thread like this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=452227 you make a clear distinction between clear statements demonstrating something and derived or interpreted statements. It becomes obvious very quickly that there are none of the former and that the belief stands on a whole bunch of the latter. Then you go from there.

In theory, your approach sounds brilliant, but in practice I have found that some people just don’t value the distinction between clear statements and self-serving interpretation…but then again, that could just be a self-serving rationalization on my part.

 

[KathleenGee]

I believe the answer to the dispute of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is to study the life of St. Bernadette. Mary appeared to her and told her name, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception’…Our Lady of Lourdes.

Has anyone here seen the corpus of St. Bernadette?? The more her corpus remains here in earthly linear time, the more beautiful it becomes, reflecting Bernadette’s growth of God in heaven.

 

[FantomScholar]

In the case of Peter, you start with a thread like this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=452227 you make a clear distinction between clear statements demonstrating something and derived or interpreted statements. It becomes obvious very quickly that there are none of the former and that the belief stands on a whole bunch of the latter. Then you go from there.

I had the pleasure of looking it over and replying to a couple of posts there. It’s truly fascinating, I must say.

 

[Non_Serviam]

In theory, your approach sounds brilliant, but in practice I have found that some people just don’t value the distinction between clear statements and self-serving interpretation…but then again, that could just be a self-serving rationalization on my part.

Well, you can only go so far as to be part of a thread with a very clear topic like the one I posted and then refuse to go chasing off on tangents. That’s why I stopped posting there, none of the Catholics could offer any statements that even approached the topic until 100’s of years after the fact.

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.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I had the pleasure of looking it over and replying to a couple of posts there. It’s truly fascinating, I must say.

What you need to be careful of is responding to an inferred or extrapolated proof as if it is an explicit statement. The “proofs” offerred by Erich that you responded to weren’t explicit statements, and without getting his acknowledgement that he was offering a lower quality of proof, the debate keeps going in circles.

You argue at one level and some Catholics provide “evidence” that doesn’t meet the same standard-when you start getting into “might haves” and “could have meants” then just about anything is possible.

That’s why it is important to be clear on what is explicitly stated and what isn’t, then you have common ground to work with and the possibility of fruitful dialogue.

 

[FantomScholar]

What you need to be careful of is responding to an inferred or extrapolated proof as if it is an explicit statement. The “proofs” offerred by Erich that you responded to weren’t explicit statements, and without getting his acknowledgement that he was offering a lower quality of proof, the debate keeps going in circles.

You argue at one level and some Catholics provide “evidence” that doesn’t meet the same standard-when you start getting into “might haves” and “could have meants” then just about anything is possible.

That’s why it is important to be clear on what is explicitly stated and what isn’t, then you have common ground to work with and the possibility of fruitful dialogue.

From my understanding of what he was saying vis a vie the papacy… he made the argument that the papacy as it exists today has developed throughout the centuries into its present form. It was an acorn within the ancient church that developed into the modern oak tree. 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.

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.

 

[FightingFat]

You guys are saying a lot, but you don’t seem to be backing it up with much!

It’s not something that’s easy to throw out without a layered understanding, but— fundamentally, community in history requires both societal and legal elements, as a community, the Church also requires these things with the addendum that the Church must be focused on Jesus Christ.

However, not everyone agrees that this is the case—toward the end of the last century, the Protestant theologian Rudolf Sohm defended a widespread and longstanding thesis when he said that the true nature of the Church stands in direct contradiction to Law. He asserted that the form of the primitive Church was charismatic, in which only the power of persons led by the Spirit prevailed. This form, Sohm contended, was changed toward the turn of the first century into a “sacramental-legal” form, which he maintains, is early Catholicism. Toward the end of the twelfth century this form was then modified further, and became the corporate-legal constitution of the new Catholic Church. Here Sohm presents the hypothesis that authority in the Church detached itself from its sacramental roots, and became independent. The theologian, Michael Schmaus has no doubt the various offices in the Church could have developed in this way, but states that today, this thesis is generally rejected, even by Protestant theologians.

In answer to Sohm, Schmaus maintains that there is an obligation inherent in the kerygma “The acceptance of the divine invitation on the part of men is a decision about salvation.” He sees the Church, essentially, as the community of those baptised faithful who accept the offer of salvation in Christ and receive it in constant renewal, endeavoring to transmit it to others through proclamation and witness. Thus, for Schmaus, proclamation of the kerygma infers structure as it is essential in order to maintain the integrity of the kerygma.

For the Hebrews, God with them was the Law that he gave them, the Law that allowed them to be “a light unto the nations”. “There is no order without Law” and it is vital that the divine self-communication should be mediated and extended to others via the correct order. This order must be founded on divine commission.

Although Christ never spoke in clear terms with regard to any particular kind structure for the post-apostolic Church, He did endow it with certain legal elements. This provides reasonable grounds for the experimentation, searching and wrestling with the problem of structure that can be evidenced in the early Church. The development of a distinction between laity and hierarchy is a legal element which is clearly a development conditioned by contingent historical situations, indeed, one can see this reflected in specific periods of history. Yet it could easily be seen as an expression of the divine will also. This process may have led to a kind of “cross pollination” of legal ideas from the secular field, we can note however, that the characteristic difference between Church and state has been maintained. For Schmaus, this provides the evidence needed to demonstrate that the Law of the Church has the stamp of the holy upon it.

For Christians, the spiritual authority given to the officials of the Church means an obligation of service (Mt 20:25 ff.), therefore there should be no opposition between love and law in the Church; “between the official Church and the spiritual Church.” Although the official Church is the very channel and instrument for the Holy Spirit’s work, the Holy Spirit is not bound Himself by the structure of the Church and blows where He will (cf. Jn 3:8).

 

[FightingFat]

As far as apostolic succession is concerned, The Catholic Church derives a hierarchical structure from a tradition that stretches back to the primitive Church. Today, there is often less credence given to any “handing on” of practices, and it is true that we do not have a Scriptural record of any explicit instruction given to the apostles by Christ Himself. However, the appointment of successors does seem implicit in the nature of the commission He gives them. The Gospel is to be proclaimed until the end of time, and yet no new channel of revelation was instituted. The faith deposited by Jesus Christ must then be contained, intact, in perpetude. This is a fundamental tenet of the Catholic Church then: it must be apostolic in terms of both its teaching and its origins:

The Church of Christ knows that its teaching should be identical with the message announced by the apostles.

Apostolic succession then, is a matter of purity: the purity of the Gospel and the preaching of an unabridged and undistorted message, identical with that preached by Christ two thousand years ago. The common Protestant objection to the perpetuity of the apostolic office is based on the unique nature of the apostle’s witness. This is correct in that the apostles preached about what they themselves had seen and heard. It would be true that any successors to these original witnesses could not receive any new revelation.

The apostles had a unique foundational role, and can have no successors in that task.

Yet an examination of Scripture reveals that Christ asserts that He will remain present with the apostles until the end of time (Mt 28:20); He commands them to carry the Gospel to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8); and He calls another apostle, Paul, after His ascension and gives him a particular, extensive mission. It seems clear then, that Jesus’ mission must be carried on after the death of the apostles. Since Jesus founded His Church on men and on the saving encounter of man with man (and not on a book), the mission of spreading the Gospel requires preachers:

The objectivised message of salvation becomes capable of being heard only through the word of the proclaimer.

This is the very nature of the kerygma, as it cannot be discovered through reflection or any inner process, but rather is a Word which is given, passed from one to another.

According to Schmaus, despite the necessity for all baptised Christians to bear witness to Christ, the authentic or binding proclamation could only occur through those who were directly appointed by Jesus Christ Himself. These were the apostles, not just the twelve, but (according to Luke 10: 1-20) but others, also. This scene in Luke is reminiscent of an Old Testament scene (Num 11:16f) where Moses is asked by God to choose seventy elders to rule the people of God with him. This seventy shared in his authority. Schmaus asserts that these were the first bishops, and that new members were appointed to fill gaps—for example the appointment of Matthias at the suggestion of Peter to fill up the college of apostles after the desertion of Judas (Acts 1:15-26).

Richard McBrien offers a critique of this idea based on two observations. Firstly, he asserts that a bishop is a residential pastor of a diocese, whereas the first apostles were “missionaries and founders of local churches.” Secondly, he notes that although some local churches were led by bishops (Gk. episkopoi, cf. Acts 20:17-35), it is unclear whether these were appointed by St. Paul, or indeed any apostle.

The point McBrien makes, is that the idea of each validly ordained Catholic bishop being able to trace his Episcopal ordination in an unbroken line back to one of the original twelve apostles is a “simplistic [and] mechanistic notion”. McBrien supports the theories which, he purports, are upheld by “most other Catholic theologians writing after Vatican II”, yet I would say is most clearly put forward by the Protestant theologian Karl Barth; that to view apostolicity in purely historical or juridicial grounds, or to limit it to Episcopal ordination would presume to control the workings of the Holy Spirit, limiting His work to being “transferred” from one person to another.

The alternative postulated, is one which holds true to the ideals espoused by Martin Luther:

The true apostolic succession is the Gospel. Whoever preaches the pure Gospel stands in apostolic succession.

The important element of what McBrien states here should not be confused with rebellion; it is not that he considers the doctrine of apostolic succession as defined in Lumen Gentium ¶ 20 “is without any theological or historical basis. It is just that this particular explanation of it is not valid.” Rather, the emphasis on the definition in LG ¶ 20, that apostolic succession is “by divine institution” should be more that the development of the Church’s hierarchy took place under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit, than the passing on of a baton.

It seems to me that these are very subtle arguments. My own experience discussing this issue with Protestants is that it tends to lead to a sticky dead end if one chooses to rigidly try and prove that Christ explicitly determined the Episcopal structures of the local churches. Raymond Brown asserts Christ did not leave a blueprint for the Church to follow precise organisational directions. He did lay the foundations for the Church in various, indirect ways; the gathering of disciples, the institution of the Eucharist, etc.