. We rely on sacred tradition and the teachings of the Church because they are just as valid as the scriptures, and all of the Catholic Churches teachings have their roots in scripture. Jesus established his Church not the Bible, and only his Church has the authority to determine all Christian doctrine and teaching which includes interpretation of scripture.
No problem, Sir Thom: I was not offended.
wasn’t trying to be substantive or to ruffle your feathers….merely pointing out that our respective biases are quite different and so when we get to the fork in the road, you’ll be going right and I’ll be going left
OK. So, given the topic of this thread, let’s apply your remarks to the Marian beliefs….and from this it appears that we both start from the position that Tradition wrt Mary is only a mere possibility.
I don’t see how this follows. If one assumes that the perpetual virginity, the sinlessness, the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption are all Tradition (I think they have been declared as such by the CC), then why is all of Christian faith (or all of faith wrt Mary) lost if that proves to be a bad assumption? Why are these beliefs packaged with and can not be separated from the virginal conception?
OK, I will stipulate that all Marian Tradition of the first century can be found in Scripture, and cannot be reliably found anywhere else…and my reason is the glaring hiatus. Wrt the gospels, I look at the works of Irenaeus and conclude that he was well positioned to give evidence as to the number and identity of the gospels that were recognized by the orthodox community (in his area at least) as being valid gospels. Are you saying that b/c I recognize his evidence as being good evidence in that regard, that I must view his “Mary = the new Eve” as also valid? Again, I don’t see how that follows given that one opinion related to what the orthodox community was actually doing and the other opinion related to what he saw in scripture. They are quite different things. Further, why must I recognize the perpetual virginity, the sinlessness, the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption as Tradition based on my acceptance of Irenaeus’s view of the four gospels? Which of these did Irenaeus (or the other ECFs of his time) endorse?
I think it is helpful for these discussions to distinguish between Tradition and Scripture, but since I have narrowed the discussion to Marian beliefs, it might not matter…also some of the NT I’d agree was tradition first, but some of it I wouldn’t agree was ever (only) tradition
well, if the ECFs didn’t act infallibly wrt adding the Catholic Marian beliefs then by adopting them wouldn’t you be straying from pure historic Christianity?
why would I need to? I think pious imagination came up with those other Marian beliefs over centuries and that they are in error…why would that mean I must give up on my belief in the virginal conception?
So which books (from the same time period as the four gospels) did Irenaeus reject as gospels and what did they claim for Mary? Now if they didn’t claim anything for Mary, what is the relevance of this to our consideration of whether the Catholic Marian beliefs are Tradition or are tradition or are flat out error?
There is a vast difference between preserving the factual truth of ante, post and in partu virginity and adding that idea or reading between the lines of scripture and building that belief on inferences drawn from a word or phrase.
Oops. I scanned it (well, not the whole thing) and can’t find it, so I don’t have it.
Oh really? Which package do you have in mind….the package of the first century church?..the package of the four century, the sixteenth, the twenty-first…and if it is the 21st century church, which church is the church? The package is periodically changing and the requirement to accept the last package offered makes no sense if the changes are in error.
So the earlier church had the power to make up Marian Tradition and to shape it into what they wanted it to be, but we somehow can’t say, “Thanks, but no thanks”? I couldn’t disagree more.
what would you envision as the critical mass necessary for a revision of Marian Tradition?
agreed
thanks…returning to the idea that you have been presented with a package deal by the church, it seems that b/c one can’t be exactly sure of what the first (century) package contained and b/c you require a level of certainty for yourself beyond the certainty one can have wrt that first package, that you have concluded that God must have ensured that all the subsequent packages contained only valid “developments” of previous packages. On that basis you have the required comfort that the package that you have accepted is adequately valid for your purposes. In so doing, you seem to have created a God that behaves as you need him to behave.
yep, I understand that with you it is “all or nothing”….do you realize how your approach would work if applied in the courts of your land? The judges would have to instruct the juries on the Contarini Rule of Evidence which would sound like this: Without the prosecution’s witnesses there would be no case, they are the sole source of evidence for the case. Therefore, you must accept all the evidence from the prosecution’s witnesses or dismiss the case. You are not allowed distinguish between hearsay evidence and eye witness evidence. All evidence is to be given equal weight. If you want to reject any evidence from a prosecution witness, then you must reject all evidence offered by the prosecution b/c it isn’t worth the effort to try and determine what actually happened if the prosecution hasn’t got it entirely right. You must convict on all charges and not just some.
Who said anything about throwing out the inheritance altogether. There is that “we must accept all the evidence or none of it” concept again. The assertion that any building on an inheritance is valid and that any review of that building results in a new religion is simply begging the question.
Yet again, must it be all or nothing in your mind?..is it that one must be either a devout orthodox scholar who swallows the last package whole or a secular scholar who rejects any package?
I suppose that is possible, but being a possible thing, doesn’t make it a likely thing. I would suggest an approach that stays away from the extremes of a hermeneutic of suspicion and a hermeneutic of questioning adherence.
not at all…I’d be inclined to think you are part of the church, notwithstanding your overall lack of congeniality.
duly noted, we won’t look to you for any help.
I think you are right as far as our differences go…I’m asking “do I have any good reason, as someone who derives my faith from the catholic Church of the early centuries, to think that they were incapable of error in the packages that they put together.” And the answer is a resounding “no, not even close.”
Yes I did…my proof reading stinks…thanks for catching it…“questioning adherence” could describe an approach that I would endorse.Rad, did you possibly mean “unquestioning”?
Fair enough.
That doesn’t make sense if you are talking about the same “glaring hiatus” as the OP. The OP referred to the fact that Paul doesn’t mention Marian doctrine (and as I pointed out, that includes the virginal conception). I don’t see how this fact can be the basis for the conclusion that “all Marian Tradition of the first century can be found in Scripture.” You must be talking about some other glaring hiatus. If you’re talking about the alleged “hiatus” in post-Biblical literature, I don’t see that there is one. I see continuous development from the Synoptics to Ignatius to the Proto-Evangelium and Irenaeus, not a “hiatus.”
Indeed. But why should this be of such decisive importance, unless you are starting out with a hermeneutic of trust with regard to Catholic Tradition? Why is Irenaeus anything more than a leader of one particular second-century sect which managed to out-compete other sects in the long run? Even if you conclude that his community is relatively closer to original Christianity than the others (and with regard to the Ebionites in particular I’m not sure how you could prove this–even with regard to the Marcionites I think it’s hard–the Valentinians are much easier to dismiss), it doesn’t follow necessarily that anyone by the late second century believed exactly what the first followers of Jesus believed.
No, not at all. Most folks don’t consider his bit of “apostolic tradition” about the Millennial grapevines to be valid, or even his claim that Jesus was 50 when He was crucified. I’m saying that I don’t think I’ve seen a good argument from you or from other radical Protestants showing why you accept the one and reject the other. And I still haven’t–all you’ve been able to say is that he reflects what his particular religious community believed, which is pretty much a truism. You even use the word “orthodox,” which is a pretty flagrant petitio principii.
I don’t see this at all. You are assuming that in the one case he’s following something called “the orthodox community” (again, this is question-begging terminology since it assumes at the very least that this community, and only this community, had preserved the Faith up to *that *point, something your premises do not allow you to assume) and that in the other he’s just making up an interpretation based on his own private reading of Scripture. I see no ground for this assumption.
The conception of the perpetual virginity was certainly around by Irenaeus’s time. I can’t think of direct evidence indicating whether he accepted it or not, but as far as I can remember I think his discussion of Marian theology is entirely consistent with the perpetual virginity.
Only if they were not just fallible but actually wrong.
It doesn’t mean that you must, only that you ought to be able to give a reason why that does not simply reduce to “because one is in Scripture and the other isn’t.”
He rejected the Gospel of Thomas, which may date from the same period as the later canonical Gospels (particularly John). However, this is an unfair question–even if it were true that no other Gospels were valid, it wouldn’t follow that all four canonical Gospels were valid.
The relevance here is not in what other Gospels claim for Mary, but in what Matthew and Luke claim for Mary.
This description of what you think early Christians were doing is based on false assumptions about how Biblical exegesis works–certainly about how it worked in the early Church. Early Christians explicitly appealed to the Rule of Faith and interpreted Scripture in the light of that Rule. I don’t think anyone claims that the PV is true based on “inferences drawn from a word or phrase,” though there’s no knowing what some silly modern RC apologists might try. Early Christians routinely engaged in what looks like “strained” exegesis to moderns (and by “early Christians” I include the writers of the NT and the early preachers recorded in Acts, as well as Jesus Himself as recorded in the Gospels), because they were reading Scripture in the light of a “rule of faith” and not attempting to engage in the superstitious modern practice called “literal interpretation.”
In the absence of a time machine, only 21st-century packages are available to us. That’s the basic point I’m trying to make. I think the basic point on which we differ is that you seem to think that the Christian Faith can be reduced to a set of doctrines or practices that can be enumerated and studied historically. I accept the premise that the Christian Faith is a living, organic whole, which may change in various ways but which does so based on its own inner dynamics.
The Church claims not to have “made up” Marian Tradition. It’s a question of whether one trusts the Church or not.
I’m not sure I’d put it that way, but if for instance members of one of the historic Communions came more and more to question the in partu virginity (to mention the part of Marian doctrine, other than the specific RC developments, that I find most questionable), and eventually it were to become accepted that this was merely pious tradition, I would not see this as violating the “package” principle.
First of all, I don’t see that “certainty” is the point at all. I don’t have certainty for any part of the Christian Faith.
One can say that about anyone’s religious beliefs.
Not when it comes to evaluating evidence. My point is, again, that a bunch of probable evidence does not in itself provide a basis for faith. There is always, if not a “leap,” certainly a decision to take a particular “package” on trust. And I don’t see why any package that you or I come up with on the basis of our historical reconstruction of what early Christians might have believed and practiced can possibly be a reasonable basis for faith. I think this is demonstrated by the fact that you and other radical Protestants never seem able to give remotely convincing reasons why you accept on trust certain bits of the tradition and not others. You claim to have such reasons, but they always turn out to be circular, in that they rest on assumptions you have no right to make except on the basis of faith.
That refutes flawed Catholic arguments in defense of the IC, not the IC itself. The IC is, as I understand the RC position, “fitting” but may not be “necessary.” Your argument only pertains to the alleged (by some) necessity of the IC. One can still argue that it is fitting for Christ to save His Mother in the most perfect manner possible.
A good question. By doing so we would then think/place a limit to God’s purpose/power.
Which is the problem with the whole speculative concept of “fitting” to begin with. You find the Gnostics and Docetics using the same argument. “It was not fitting that God should incarnate Himself in human flesh.” Unfortunately, we’re in no position to dictate what is or is not fitting for God. What is fitting for God is what He did, not what we think He should have done.
This same question was answered on Catholic Radio the other day. I forgot which show.
That is quite an ability to see that you possess….some might consider your ability to “see continuous development” as self-serving and over-reaching. Yes, I am talking about the hiatus that continues into Post-Biblical literature. What did Ignatius add? Wasn’t it that her virginity and the birth were hidden from the ruler of this world? That comment is hardly a bridge that covers the hiatus from the gospels to the Proto-Evangelium and Irenaeus. Since Ignatius doesn’t actually assert anything close to what becomes the Catholic Doctrines of Mary maybe we should view Ignatius’s remark as a “development” toward Tertullian’s apparent view that Mary had other kids and that she should be included with those who did not believe and that she was the new Eve. One can only wonder why we don’t have a record of someone from the orthodox camp arguing with the Gnostics that, “If Jesus didn’t actually come in the flesh, then there would have been no need for Mary’s immaculate conception, or for Mary to be preserved from sin, or for her to be bodily assumed b/c w/o Christ coming in the flesh, her flesh would not have touched Christ’s flesh and she would not have played much of a special role, if any….but we all know that these things are claimed for Mary and have been claimed from the start and they stand as irrefutable proof of Jesus coming in the flesh.” (See below for my use of “orthodox”)
I guess it is a matter of faith. Irenaeus was a leader of one particular second-century sect which managed to out-compete other sects in the long run. I have faith that God had his hand on the survival of that sect over the other contenders, but from there I must decide the extent to which God safeguarded the original message. I do not see any reason to believe that the safeguarding was absolute wrt official doctrine….The claim that Jesus promised inerrancy (re doctrine), but not impeccability (re conduct) strikes me as disingenuous and self-serving.
agreed, I would not declare that anyone from the late second century believed exactly what the first followers of Jesus believed.
I used the word orthodox b/c that is where his sect has been placed on the spectrum. I wouldn’t suggest that Irenaeus’s set of beliefs was absolutely true to the original set and so that is not what I mean by orthodox. Now, why should someone believe in the virgin conception vs the virginity ante, post and in partu? Try as you may to manufacture a continuum of “development” from the alleged actual event through to the fantastic Proto-Evangelium it just doesn’t work for me. The evidence that we have suggesting that the virgin conception was believed from the outset is so much better than the evidence that we have suggesting that the perpetual virginity was believed from the outset. The difference would be akin to the difference between eye-witness and hearsay evidence. If you can’t note the dramatic difference in that evidence and see that the difference could form a basis for favouring one over the other, then I am at a loss as to what I should add.
well if “why this and not that” hasn’t led you to “all or nothing”, then what of the modern package have you rejected, or is it a mere coincidence that you hold to the entire package? What am I free to reject?..please tell me that I am free to reject the Catholic Marian doctrines for starters.
Your use the word “sound”, but I fail to see soundness in assuming that a continuous development bridges the gap between the Synoptics and Ignatius and the Proto-Evangelium and Irenaeus. I also fail to see how taking the whole “package” on faith is more sound than taking a portion of the “package” on faith.
here you have jumped to the wrong conclusion wrt my use of “orthodox”
I don’t see any reason to assume that it isn’t a made up interpretation of his or of someone from his time, but that wasn’t the only difference. The thing being done is different in each case. In one case Irenaeus is offering an opinion as to the validity of gospels. In the other case Irenaeus is offering an opinion as to who Mary was in comparison to an OT figure. We have access to those same gospels and to the OT describing Eve and what she did. I have no reason to believe that Irenaeus was better positioned to say if Mary was the new Eve or that she was the new Ark than a modern theologian. Irenaeus, however, was better positioned than a modern theologian to tell us what he viewed as the four (and only four) valid gospels…and it is likely that his congregation believed the same as did he.
Consistent?..what, other than a flat out denial could one not label as consistent? Tertullian’s comments, however, weren’t consistent with the perpetual virginity of Mary and his opinion (IMHO) merits a lot more respect than the Protoevangelium of James.
How is it that you can not see a difference wrt these two lines? In picking which gospels should be seen as valid, Irenaeus and the church of his day were selecting from existing works. Wrt what should be believed about Mary it doesn’t appear that Irenaeus was selecting from existing Marian theologies. It appears that doctrines concerning the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption had not yet been developed. As you say, “groundwork” was being laid at that time upon which a ever growing edifice would be constructed.
How about this for a reason. The virginal conception can be found expressly stated in two works that can be reliably pegged as being first written in the second half of the first century. In contrast, the perpetual virginity can be found expressly stated in works that have been pegged as being first written in mid to second half of the second century (with these later works lacking IMHO the truthful ring of the earlier two works that support the virginal conception ). From there it just gets worse for the other Marian beliefs. It isn’t that one is in Scripture and the other isn’t, it is that one can be found very early in the historical record (in what has been designated as scripture ) and the other is found much later in the historical record in what is rather dubious material. Earlier and respectable vs. later and dubious.
That is not my point. As indicated above, it goes to point out how in one case Irenaeus was selecting from existing things and in the other case, it is most likely that the things had yet to be created.
Organically? Later you say:
“a living organic whole”? What in the world is that? So it isn’t inorganic. Well we have ruled out mineral, but now I gotta know if it is animal or vegetable before I can use my 20 questions to guess what you are trying to claim. “Organic” sounds like the sort of word I guy might use if he wanted to insist that the emperor was wearing a fine set of clothes.
IMHO, you flatter the early Christians with this. They did indeed engage in strained exegesis whilst they read scripture in the light of their “rule of faith” which differed from one ECF to the next. In preserving scripture and other respected works, the early Christians were very concerned with retaining what was originally written w/o adding their own insights (for the most part). In reading scripture in the light of their “rule of faith” the ancients weren’t at all reluctant to add their own (uninspired) insights such as the example of the phoenix.
You need to talk to more modern Catholics as that is indeed their practice.
No, not reduced to a set of doctrines, though compiling a set of doctrines seems to be a rather common activity for denominations. Also, it is not as if doctrine is unimportant or that the development of doctrine can not be seen in history. I agree that only 21st century packages are available, but it is possible to try and make a 21st century package that resembles a possible 1st century package.
Understood. I just don’t see anything that should be called historic continuity.
You haven’t taken this far enough back. I would suggest that the bigger backfire resulted from an obviously corrupt Church trying to pass itself off as the holder of the one true package and enforcing that claim through political power, violence and intimidation. Once it lost the power to enforce its claim the inevitable explosion resulted. The problem is not the existence of extreme liberalism, as those views will arise now that freedom of ideas exists. The problem is that doctrinal change is obvious to all. Your solution of labeling it organic development just doesn’t appeal to me. Another solution is required.
That should be: The modern Catholic and Orthodox Churches claim that " Marian Tradition has not been made-up. It’s a question of whether one trusts those Churches or not.
This sure sounds like an “all of the last package or nothing approach”, your protestations notwithstanding.
Well, if you don’t have certainty about any part of the Christian faith, then you shouldn’t be certain that one of the restoration efforts hasn’t succeeded.
Well, those bits do help someone get an idea of how that faith looked in the past vs. how that last package looks today. From over here the obvious conclusion is that the faith has been distorted (in a bad way). Now, b/c of that distortion it may be impossible to recreate the original faith, but the solution is not to accept the distortion by renaming it a development. The solution is to try and reestablish the original, but to do so with the understanding that your effort will not be entirely successful and it shouldn’t be presented as perfect…just as an effort to improve.
and that was exactly my point.
agreed, we each step out in faith from a certain point. I can’t step out from your point (standing on the premise of an organic faith embodied by one or more of the four contenders) as I see what, IMHO, must be considered distortions….I simply can’t ignore that.
b/c I see those distortions, it seems improvement is not only possible, but it is something that should be pursued.
