Is Scripture nullified by CC Tradition ?

[Pastor_Robert]

Sorry you cannot get onto a Reformed Baptist board, which one? Maybe I can change that?

Regarding Peter I’ll have a read, it sounds interesting.

Regarding Mary was there a silence

Regards

RB

 

[Pastor_Robert]

Just read article defending Mary’s perpetual virginity. Utterly amazing and quite frankly typical.

Cousins, sons of Joseph but not Mary, it is hilarious if it were not so serious. What a travesty and what lengths the CC goes to in order to maintain its tradition.

Accusing the Reformers of believing this is a new one on me, interesting not one quote from them which can be checked is given. This is not very scholarly at all.

I will stick with what the Spirit of God has written and believe His word alone, it is safe ground when faced with myths and fables.

 

[Church_Militant]

Pastor Robert:

Okay let’s consider

The perpetual virginity of Mary.

Is it not the case that scripture cites Christ as having siblings in Mark 6v3 ?

There is one to start with

Regards

RB

See this on the CA Homepage for historical evidence:
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

You want quotes Pastor? No Problem:
Luther- Works of Luther Vol. 11, pages 319-320 Vol 6 page 510
“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.”

Calvin- Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published in 1562
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.”

Zwingli- Zwingli Opera, Vol 1, page 424
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”

Well there ya go…Direct quotes from all three “Pillars of the Reformation” saying that they too share our beliefs.
Pax tecum,

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Pastor Robert:

Just read article defending Mary’s perpetual virginity. Utterly amazing and quite frankly typical.

Cousins, sons of Joseph but not Mary, it is hilarious if it were not so serious. What a travesty and what lengths the CC goes to in order to maintain its tradition.

Accusing the Reformers of believing this is a new one on me, interesting not one quote from them which can be checked is given. This is not very scholarly at all.

I will stick with what the Spirit of God has written and believe His word alone, it is safe ground when faced with myths and fables.

Pastor with all do respect you need to use a little less angst and learn the meaning of humility:nope: Myths and fables indeed:tsktsk:

 

[dennisknapp]

Pastor Robert:

Just read article defending Mary’s perpetual virginity. Utterly amazing and quite frankly typical.

Cousins, sons of Joseph but not Mary, it is hilarious if it were not so serious. What a travesty and what lengths the CC goes to in order to maintain its tradition.

Accusing the Reformers of believing this is a new one on me, interesting not one quote from them which can be checked is given. This is not very scholarly at all.

I will stick with what the Spirit of God has written and believe His word alone, it is safe ground when faced with myths and fables.

Funny, I will stick with the Church Christ establish then the innovations of 16th century men.

Please visit this thread, I would be interested in your opinion.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36091

Peace

 

[Church_Militant]

dennisknapp:

Funny, I will stick with the Church Christ establish then the innovations of 16th century men.

Please visit this thread, I would be interested in your opinion.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36091

Peace

I’m with you DK…and it looks like the Pastor is in for a shock when he finds his way back. I knew there was a reason that I prayed that rosary tonight!

Myths and fables my aching foot! Indeed! “Reformed”, yet doesn’t even agree with the very “reformers” that he is so proud of. No Tradition… no magisterium… no history… no Catholics fallin’ for their messages.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[jimmy]

Pastor Robert:

Just read article defending Mary’s perpetual virginity. Utterly amazing and quite frankly typical.

Cousins, sons of Joseph but not Mary, it is hilarious if it were not so serious. What a travesty and what lengths the CC goes to in order to maintain its tradition.

Accusing the Reformers of believing this is a new one on me, interesting not one quote from them which can be checked is given. This is not very scholarly at all.

I will stick with what the Spirit of God has written and believe His word alone, it is safe ground when faced with myths and fables.

The thing is, I don’t think you are a linguist. One of the greatest linguistists Christianity has seen, saint Jerome who was fluent in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew wrote a treatis on “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary; Against Helvidius”. He studied under a Jewish scholar and was very knowledgable on these issues. He outlines the main points. He mentions the fact that brother did not mean brother in the sense that it is meant now in todays society. Look at Abraham and Lot. Lot is called Abrahams brother but he was Abrahams nephew.

 

[jimmy]

Another issue in regards to Tradition is the assertion that Peter was the first Pope.

This I know is based on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16 which of course I as a Protestant would dispute.

What evidence is there that Peter was ever in Rome?

sincerely

RB

Was Peter Ever in Rome?
Was Peter in Rome?
Was Peter in Rome?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Pastor Robert:

… I will stick with what the Spirit of God has written and believe His word alone, it is safe ground when faced with myths and fables.

Well, the written Word tells us specifically in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to obey the oral traditions passed down in the church. By refusing to believe church traditions, you are ALSO refusing to believe the written Word as well.

And as far as your cute little closing remark about myths & fables is concerned … Are you implying that something which is written automaticly becomes more truthful than something that is not written down? That is illogical. Is a myth any less of a myth or a fabel any less of a fable because it is written down? The truthfulness or falseness of something is independent of whether it is written down or not.

 

[Liberian]

Pastor Robert:

Sorry you cannot get onto a Reformed Baptist board, which one? Maybe I can change that?

Regarding Peter I’ll have a read, it sounds interesting.

Regarding Mary was there a silence

Regards

RB

Pastor,

I don’t know what board the other person was referring to, but last Sunday I registered on “www.baptistboard.com”. I gave my denomination as Catholic and in my brief statement of faith I said that I had received Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior when I was 14 (which is true, by the way, thanks be to God). Later that day I received an e-mail from them saying that my registration had been rejected.

I’m a little fuzzy on the details of Peter’s grave, but apparently a few centuries ago some workmen digging in the basement of St. Peter’s Basilica found a wall on which was written “Here is Peter.” Behind the wall was the skeleton of a man who died about the time Peter died and was about as old as Peter was when he died. Apparently Jesus’ words to Simon bar-Jona “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build My church” were meant literally as well as metaphorically.

One of the present Pope’s titles is “Successor to St. Peter.” And various ancient church historians trace the line of popes from St. Peter. I daresay that won’t cut much ice with you as it’s not in the Bible. But I have to ask, did history end when John wrote “Amen” at the end of the book of Revelation?

Regarding the “brothers of Jesus,” I think you are showing your cultural bias. When I lived in Liberia, people introduced themselves to me all the time as “brothers” when they did not have the same mother and father, and sometimes when they did not even have the same mother or father. The term for men with common parents was “brothers for true.” So the idea that “Jesus’ brothers and sisters” were sons of Joseph from an earlier marriage or cousins is not at all far-fetched. If you consider it a travesty, well, that is your interpretation; calling it a travesty is most manifestly not in the Bible.

• Liberian

 

[gardenswithkids]

Pastor Robert:

Regarding Mary was there a silence

Pastor, I suggest you may want to maintain silence about Mary before you said something you regret about the mother Jesus chose for Himself. Sometimes I hear or read Protestants say things about the mother of Jesus that they would never say about their worst enemy’s mother, what less their best friend’s. If you value your friendship with Jesus, be very careful of what you say about His mother.

God sent an angel to tell her what God thinks of her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you” Luke 1:28. Scripture repeats praises of Mary when St. Elizabeth greets her and says, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your women." Luke 1:42 Catholics frequently meditate upon these verses from scripture when we pray the Hail Mary. You may not enjoy reflecting on those particular scripture verses, but please don’t criticize us for relecting on scripture. We are fulfilling another scripture verse "…Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed"** Luke 1:48. **

You may not understand or believe all that the Catholic Church teaches about Mary. But Jesus fulfilled the law and was without sin, and so He honors His mother as the Ten Commandments say to do. (You probably know where to find the Ten Commandments and those scripture verses about Jesus being without sin.) Much of what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary can simply be explained by the fact that Jesus honors His mother. Please be careful what you say about your Friend’s mom.

 

[mlchance]

Pastor Robert:

The perpetual virginity of Mary.

What evidence is there that Peter was ever in Rome?

As soon as you can name a single person identified in Scripture as the child of the Virgin Mary other than Christ Jesus, you can start to doubt her perpetual virginity.

Peter in Rome: See 1 Peter 5:13 for Peter’s own admission that he was there. And let’s not ignore the ample historical testimony outside the Bible as well.
Pastor Robert:

Accusing the Reformers of believing this is a new one on me, interesting not one quote from them which can be checked is given. This is not very scholarly at all.

It is quite scholarly, in fact, and your words only betray your ignorance.

Martin Luther: “Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb… This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

John Calvin: “Helvidius [a fourth-century heretic] has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.”

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe according to the words of the Gospel that a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and remained a virgin pure and intact in childbirth and also after the birth, for all eternity. I firmly trust that she has been exalted by God to eternal joy above all creatures, both the blessed and the angels.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mercygate]

Liberian:

Pastor,
. . .

Regarding the “brothers of Jesus,” I think you are showing your cultural bias. When I lived in Liberia, people introduced themselves to me all the time as “brothers” when they did not have the same mother and father, and sometimes when they did not even have the same mother or father. The term for men with common parents was “brothers for true.” So the idea that “Jesus’ brothers and sisters” were sons of Joseph from an earlier marriage or cousins is not at all far-fetched. If you consider it a travesty, well, that is your interpretation; calling it a travesty is most manifestly not in the Bible.

• Liberian

And nobody ever seems to mention Jesus’ own words to Mary Magdalene in John 20:17-18: “Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Mary Mag’dalene went and said to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord.”

Back to back the word for brothers (adelphou) – i.e., the same word as “brothers for true” – is used to designate “the disciples.” Clearly, “brothers” need not mean children of the same mother.

 

[deb1]

This is from the KJV of the bible Genesis 13:8 And Abraham said unto lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be **brethen **

GEnesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan

Genesis 14:16 And he brought back all the goods and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also and the people.

If you read the above verses you will see that Lot can not both be Abram’s nephew and his brother. Yet, the bible refers to Lot as both Abram’s brother and his brother’s son.

 

[deb1]

This is for Pastor ROberts,

members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/mary3.html

I haven’t read this whole site but it talks about the Aramic use of the term brother for any male relation.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Pastor Robert, I’d like to respond to your issues regarding the virginity of the Theotokos, but do want to affirm that Tradition and Scripture are considered to have equal authority in catholic spirituality, and I say this as an Anglican, not as a Roman Catholic. Someone above wrote that Tradition contains the oral teaching of Our Lord and His Apostles–I believe this is true.

Regarding Our Lady, I think much of the Protestant flap over her virginity is entirely misplaced. Whether or not she had other children after Jesus is beside the point (though I happen to believe she didn’t)–this does not change the fact of her virginity. A too-great focus on the Mother’s sex life has led the Protestant churches, for the most part, to ignore Our Lady’s spiritual virginity which is perpetual, and of which her physical virginity is only a symbol. That the Church in her Tradition maintains this physical virginity is to underline the immensity and importance of her spiritual virginity. Whether or not she was “factually” a virgin after the birth of Our Lord is immaterial. She remained IN TRUTH a virgin.

It is simply a facet of our Christianity that the Blessed Mother is both what she is and more than what she is. She represents un-fallen nature. She is Virgin Nature in all of her God-given splendor. And it must be remembered that this splendor is indeed God-given and a grace–hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (in the West) and of her Perpetual Virginity. The spiritual power of virginity is accessible to all people, whether or not they have had sex in their life, because it is the power of un-fallen humanity–a power that we have in Christ by the grace of the Spirit.

To deny the symbol of physical virginity to the Virgin Mary is to open the door to a denial of her True Virginity. This has been a great mistake of the Protestant Churches, and is a function, to me, of inroads made by a dangerous materialistic spirituality.

But these are just my two cents. Someone else may have something different to say. But for me, I maintain the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos! God grant that by her intercession, we may come to a greater knowledge of her Son!

–Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[pacersFan]

Church Militant:

See this on the CA Homepage for historical evidence:
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

You want quotes Pastor? No Problem:
Luther- Works of Luther Vol. 11, pages 319-320 Vol 6 page 510
“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.”

Calvin- Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published in 1562
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.”

Zwingli- Zwingli Opera, Vol 1, page 424
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”

Well there ya go…Direct quotes from all three “Pillars of the Reformation” saying that they too share our beliefs.
Pax tecum,

Very nice! I had heard recently that the major leaders of the Reformation believed in The Church’s teachings on topics such as Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, and I had not had a chance to research it yet.

 

[Marie]

Pastor Robert:

In the days of the Lord Jesus the Jews had a great body of tradition that took precedence over scripture in terms of authority. Jesus never mentioned tradition except to condemn it and warn against it. Mark 7:8,9,13.

Does our Lord not condemn the Pharisees for doing precisely what the CC does today? Does the elevating of a body of human teaching to equal or be viewed as superior to scripture not nullify the scriptures altogether?

I would like to hear you on what ‘tradition’ means in the CC system and which is superior in authority, tradition or scripture. Should we test tradition by scripture or scripture by tradition?

Looking forward to hearing you.

Warmest regards

RB

Does our Lord condemn the Protestant’s for throwing out 7 books of the bible? Does He get upset when they choose the Jewish Canon’s which were not set until AFTER Our Lord came. Does it rankle Him that He set the church as a VISABLE church with one head and the Apostles chosen by Him and their successors and yet now every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks He is His own disciple and Apostle?

Probably…but man has grown cold and follow after their own interpetations and Traditions these days.

 

[Marie]

What can we learn about the early Church from extra-Scriptural sources?

St. Cyprian of Carthage (baptized ca. A.D. 246)

You have written also, that on my account the Church has now a portion of herself in a state of dispersion, although the whole people of the Church are collected, and united, and joined to itself in an undivided concord: they alone have remained without, who even, if they had been within, would have had to be cast out. Nor does the Lord, the protector of His people, and their guardian, suffer the wheat to be snatched from His floor; but the chaff alone can be separated from the Church, since also the apostle says, “For what if some of them have departed from the faith? shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect? God forbid; for God is true, but every man a liar.” And the Lord also in the Gospel, when disciples forsook Him as He spoke, turning to the twelve, said, “Will ye also go away?” then Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the word of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure, that Thou art the Son of the living God.” Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.

In the 1st century, St. Ignatius, **Peter’s appointee to the Antiochian bishopric, addressed his letter to the Roman Church like this: **

…to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, I wish abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.
In his letter to the Smyraean Church he wrote:

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist [the Catholic word for “Communion”], which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

 

[Marie]

[Speaking of Bishops] For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus [see Colossians 4:8-10 and Philemon 1:10] himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.
While Scripture is evidence enough for the marks of Christ’s Church, we can see in the writings of Ignatius – written in the first century, within 67 years of Christ’s resurrection, by a close friend and appointee of the Apostle Peter and friend of Polycarp – that the early Church had a very Catholic interpretation of Scripture:

the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Epistle to the Philadelphians)
the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (Epistles to the Philadelphians and the Ephesians)
the threefold character of the hierarchy (Epistle to the Magnesians)
the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Epistles to the Magnesians, Smyraenians, and the Trallians)
the importance of unity of the Church (Epistles to the Trallians, Philadelphians, and the Magnesians)
emphasis on the holiness of the Church (Epistles to the Smyraeans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans)

the catholicity of the Church (Letter to the Smyraeans)

the infallibility of the Church (Epistles to the Philadelphians and the Ephesians)
the doctrine of the Eucharist – i.e., belief in Transsubstantiation or the Real Presence of Christ in Communion (Epistle to the Smyraeans)
the Incarnation (Epistle to the Ephesians)
the supernatural virtue of virgnity (Epistle to Polycarp)
the religious character of matrimony (Epistle to Polycarp)
the value of united prayer (Epistle to the Ephesians)
**the primacy of the Chair of Peter (Epistle to the Romans, introduction) **
a dencouncing of the doctrine of private judgement in matters of religion (Epistle to the Philadelphians)1

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, born between A.D. 115 and 125 (or between 130 and 142, the date is unclear though it is certain that he met Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna) wrote in his Adversus Haereses Book III Ch. IV about sorting Truth from heresy:

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth.

Which Church was he talking about? The Church built by Christ on the rock of Peter:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere" (ibid., Book 3, Ch 2, 2).

So you think you know better than the early followers of Christ?