Isn't it all a great circle? Can anyone break it?

[Marc_Anthony]

Sorry, I should have explained.

The Catholic Church teaches (which I also believe) in the divinization of the adamic race in the salvation which is in Jesus Christ, from the basis of his incarnation to the flesh and his glorification as a human being.

Mary is unique in the sense that she occupies a place that is distinct from all others. This is granted since she is the Mother of God, the Queen by virtue of her bearing the Messianic King. This is an appropriate uniqueness that no Church Fathers or depository of the apostolic tradition has any conflict with. That Mary is the 2nd Eve, mother of the Church, and is the vehicle for the salvation of the world specifically in her bearing the Christ-Child has nothing but continuity of thought in comparison to the early church documentation.

However, the inappropriate uniqueness is her present role in the salvation of the world. She actually has a status in co-operation with Jesus Christ. This has no finding in any early church father. The present day dogma rests on the oral vehicle and transmission of this teaching from the early years of the church to much later.

Actually, your description of Catholic teaching is pretty accurate!

Her status in “co-operation” is an infinitely inferior one; Mary herself is not the MEssiah, but as the Messiah’s Mother as Christ came through her we go through her to reach Christ. But she is not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Granted.

But no depository of the apostolic tradition was in practice of seeing her as co-mediatrix. Not only is there no documentation, but the ECF’s gloss over her.

And to mention her as the “cause” of salvation for the world, due to her bearing the Savior in her womb, is one thing. But it is entirely another thing to mention that she has this power presently as a co-mediatrix.

And to mention her as the 2nd Eve is functional. her obedience took the place.

But again, the fathers don’t go farther than this.

 

[stewstew03]

… Not only is there no documentation, but the ECF’s gloss over her.
…

“Glossed over” Mary? I find it hard to take comments like this seriously, so you’ll need to qualify your statement.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

In other words, they did not write about her much whenever she is spoken about. She has no more elaboration than being a special woman in salvation history, namely, she bore the christ-child, and by this and her obedience she was a cause of salvation.

But documentation on her anymore than this is non existant.

Now some may say ‘‘why does it need to be documented? The church has faithfully transmitted the whole and pure gospel the same now as was is in the beginning’’.
They will argue that one is not obliged to write about anything until there is a reason. And if there is no reason, it is left unsaid.

But compare how we treat Mary today versus how the body of christ did in the beginning. Statues? Holy days? Divine power to save and bring victory?

This is one of those redwood tree doctrines taken from an apple tree seed. The development is simply too stretched.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Guys maybe we leavet off the rising Marian conflagration - it seems a tangent to this thread. By all means start a separate topic (of which there are many) if needed.

 

[Contarini]

You sound as if you are proposing that we know Christ to be God Incarnate NOT through Scripture alone but through Tradition? Yes?

Yes.

Not following you, Edwin.

If I take the claims of the NT that the Church was founded by Christ, and then take the word of this Church founded by God that the Scriptures are the inerrant revelation of God, how is that circular?

Because you’re accepting the claims of the NT by faith, not simply engaging in historical reasoning as the “spiral argument” claims.

I don’t have a problem with the alleged “circle.” I have a problem with the “spiral argument” as a solution to it. As I said much earlier, it’s only a circular argument if you’re treating the whole thing as a syllogism. In fact our decisions in these matters rest on many converging pieces of evidence of many kinds, which come together in a non-quantifiable way to make a cumulative case. If that sounds vague, it’s because each issue is different and because the considerations on both sides really are too many to list exhaustively. This gives the impression of “blind faith,” but it’s not blind faith at all, although it does have an element of choice and isn’t simply the inevitable result of a chain of reasoning.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

partaking of the divine nature? (2 Peter I believe)

Ah, yes. 2 Peter 1:4. Partakers of the divine nature. As in: we share in the divine life through our participation in the atoning death of Christ. When we receive Him, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we share in His life.

And, as such, Mary’s role is indeed unique.

But we don’t proclaim her to be “uniquely divine” as you earlier stated.

 

[PRmerger]

The argument that the Church made an infallible decision on which books go into the canon and are consider the word of God is not a strong argument for the unique characteristics of the Papacy modern day.

You are correct, but it is an argument against those who proclaim they are Sola Scriptura advocates.

And it is an argument for the infallibility of a church: the Catholic Church.

In the first place, the Church that decided which books go into the NT, they did not make the decision arbitrarily, as if it was rooted and grounded in their own personal and ever-present living authority (as many Catholics today rest in)

Correct.

Rather, there was actually a criterion that was separate from the human beings who were bishops; which these bishops tried as hard to adhere to.

Yes. That criterion was the* kerygma* that had been proclaimed, once for all, to the saints.

Investigations were conducted. Debates went back and forth. And the Church was confident which writings that have been handed down were of apostolic origin (whether by an apostle or a student) and which faithfully transmitted the deposit that was originally in the apostolic churches prior to.

And don’t forget this very important criterion: that which was read and proclaimed at the Divine Liturgy.

The modern Catholic apologist is going to point to the “bare” decision of the Catholic Church on making this decision while not addressing the “means” by which the Church made this decision.

Could you point to a modern Catholic apologist who has done this, Erick?

They did anything but base their decision on some present and living authority that resided in the minds of the bishops themselves.

It was only through the assistance of the Holy Spirit that the canon of Scripture was discerned.

Now, compare the means by which the Church made the decision on the Canon with the means the Church came to teach the modern doctrines of Mary’s unique divinity and role in salvation history for our world of humanity, and you will see many differences. The Canon was based off of many sources of evidence and logic

And the dogma of the Trinity? Based off many sources of evidence and logic? :nope:

The marian doctrines are few and late coming, far from being anywhere near the evidence of the 27 books we have in the NT.

That a dogma or doctrine is formally proclaimed is not evidence that it is new or “late coming.”

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single formal Marian dogma or doctrine was ever pronounced.

 

[Contarini]

It’s funny that you think infallibility is necessary where I don’t think it is, and the other way round. . . . now to the specifics:

Oh, but, Edwin, you absolutely do. There is no other way to know that Hebrews is inspired but that the Epistle of Barnabas is not…except through the testimony of an infallible Church.

Untrue unless you mean “know without any possibility of being wrong.” And that’s impossible even for someone who believes in the Church’s infallibility, because that belief is itself fallible (again, this is the basic “problem” that the spiral argument is usually–mistakenly–invoked to solve).

As you say below, we trust plenty of fallible authorities. You can trust the Church even recognizing that it could be wrong. That’s inescapable, because again your act of faith in the Church’s infallibility is itself fallible, so there’s always the possibility that you are wrong and so that the Church is wrong. The difference between fallibility and infallibility is that with a fallible authority you examine each issue separately, but with an allegedly infallible one you sign a “blank check”–you can always choose to withdraw your faith in the Church as a whole, but as long as you believe in it you accept its infallibility. That doesn’t affect your level of certainty very much, but it affects your relationship with the community of the Church very much indeed, as recent experiences within Anglicanism have shown.

Ok. Then where do you think she erred in discerning the canon of Scripture? Do you think that she should have excluded Revelation and included the Shepherd of Hermas?

I don’t. And more to the point, those who deny infallibility (which I’m not doing) also generally don’t think the Church erred on the NT canon. They do typically think that the consensus of the Church erred on the OT canon, but even there they’re reluctant to draw this conclusion and so tend to play down that consensus as much as possible, pointing to the doubts expressed about the deuterocanonical books right up to the sixteenth century.

You can think that the Church could have erred without thinking that the Church has in fact erred. You don’t seem to be making this distinction.

Absolutely not!

Are not children required to remain loyal to their parents even if they are fallible?

Did not the Israelites follow Moses, even when he was leading them the wrong way?

We need not follow the Church only because she is infallible, Edwin. That is irrelevant to our obedience.

Again, distinguish between being infallible and being right. The Church’s authority rests on the truth of its teaching. If the Church could dogmatically teach falsehood–if it could utterly corrupt the deposit of faith–then it wouldn’t have authority once it did so. Of course it could have authority and be fallible. It could even have authority and be wrong–to some degree (indeed, I would argue that it obviously has been, although that will lead us into one of those endless semantic arguments about when something is “the Church teaching” and when it’s just authorities in the Church saying things that people take to be authoritative teaching but turn out not to be). But there is a point beyond which to be wrong is no longer to be the Church. If (per impossibile granting infallibility/indefectibility) the Unitarian Church had started out as the Catholic Church, it would no longer be the Catholic Church once it taught Unitarianism!

We do not obey because she is infallible. We obey because she is the Body of Christ.

Right. But my point is that since Christianity is a doctrinal religion (not solely doctrinal, of course, but irreducibly doctrinal), once a church has fallen into a certain degree of error it’s no longer capable of being the Body of Christ. Hence infallibility, which is the guarantee that by the power of the Spirit the Church will not fall into that kind of error.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Yes.

Then we are agreed. At least here.

However, if we take the NT on its face value, simply as a historical document, approaching it as I would, say, the Koran, it is quite evident that the NT proclaims that Jesus is divine.

Because you’re accepting the claims of the NT by faith, not simply engaging in historical reasoning as the “spiral argument” claims.

Admittedly I don’t hang around history scholars much, but you are the first person I have ever heard who can say that it’s unclear from the NT that Jesus established a church.

As my favorite academician, Peter Kreeft often says, “I have verified over and over again the principle that there is only one thing needed for you to believe any of the 100 most absurd ideas possible for any human being to conceive: You must have a Ph.D.”

and another one of his quotes: “Most people—outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it* not only true, but certainly and obviously true.”

NB: no comment being made about you, personally, Edwin as a PhD. Just agreeing, in general, with Prof. Kreeft’s observations that it’s usually those in the higher echelons of academia that will swallow that which the unwashed masses know, through basic reason, to be ludicrous.

*“it” here referencing another commonly accepted truth. Not a reference to the NT proclaiming Jesus established a church.

 

[Contarini]

However, if we take the NT on its face value, simply as a historical document, approaching it as I would, say, the Koran, it is quite evident that the NT proclaims that Jesus is divine.

Well, if you’ve followed any of the threads on Islam in which I’ve participated you know that I don’t think much of non-Muslims declaring what is “quite evident” from the Qur’an.

It’s evident that the Gospel of John proclaims Jesus to be divine in some sense–not necessarily fully divine–and a less clear argument can be made for most other parts of the NT.

Admittedly I don’t hang around history scholars much, but you are the first person I have ever heard who can say that it’s unclear from the NT that Jesus established a church.

That’s not what I said. Obviously it’s clear from Matt. 16. What is unclear, according to most Biblical scholars (including many Catholic scholars), is whether the *historical *Jesus established a Church. As I’ve said over and over, the mainstream view among scholars using purely historical methods is that the Matthaean additions to the story of Peter’s confession reflect early Christian theology of the later first century (specifically the theology of a particular community, though I’m suspicious of the way scholars tend to assume that there are specific, self-contained “communities” behind each Gospel).

it’s usually those in the higher echelons of academia that will swallow that which the unwashed masses know, through basic reason, to be ludicrous.

That’s simply a fallacy. It’s not through “basic reason” that you “know” what you think you know about the New Testament. It’s through reason informed by faith. Which is fine. But that makes mincemeat of the “spiral argument.” The argument assumes some kind of objectivity. Now the only way you can even remotely approach such objectivity is through long, hard, critical study of the evidence, looking at the original languages, poring over ancient inscriptions to get an understanding of the cultural context, considering every possible interpretation from every possible angle. No one person can do this. No one person can check their own work adequately–our powers of self-delusion are too strong. You have to have a guild of scholars who collectively do the necessary work and debate with each other vigorously. Of course in practice this isn’t going to work perfectly. Of course individual scholars are going to say crazy things–in a way that’s their job (see the point above about examining every possible interpretation). And of course the community as a whole is going to have its biases, which have to be accounted for. But that’s the only way you can make any statement about history that you can expect people outside your religious/ideological community to take seriously. If you don’t care about doing that, then fine. But don’t endorse a “spiral argument” that supposedly bases faith on purely historical analysis, and then dismiss any historical conclusion that challenges your faith. When you do that you aren’t acting on the basis of “basic reason” (which I think is an Enlightenment superstition anyway), but on the basis of faith. And you should be honest enough to admit it.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Untrue unless you mean “know without any possibility of being wrong.”

No, I don’t mean that.

So if you don’t use the authority of the Church to discern that Hebrews is inspired, by what canon do you declare Hebrews to be inspired?

As you say below, we trust plenty of fallible authorities. You can trust the Church even recognizing that it could be wrong. That’s inescapable, because again your act of faith in the Church’s infallibility is itself fallible, so there’s always the possibility that you are wrong and so that the Church is wrong.

True, this.

The difference between fallibility and infallibility is that with a fallible authority you examine each issue separately, but with an allegedly infallible one you sign a “blank check”

Correct.

And in your paradigm, Edwin, the result is creating a church in your own image.

If you have designed a theology that happens to conform to everything that you, coincidentally, believe, then you have created a false idol.

You must be able to say that you have changed your view of God simply because that is what God has declared…

rather than saying, “I believe God is ____ and therefore God* is *_____”

 

[PRmerger]

IYou can think that the Church could have erred without thinking that the Church has in fact erred. You don’t seem to be making this distinction.

This is a philosophical absurdity, Edwin

Based on what, then, do you believe that the Church did NOT err in discerning the NT canon?

 

[Contarini]

This is a philosophical absurdity, Edwin

It’s a philosophical absurdity to say that fallible people can get stuff right? You’ve lost me.

This is basically what the Orthodox do believe. They define the “Church” as those in apostolic succession who hold to true doctrine. So if a large part of the Church erred, then those who didn’t would be the Church and the others would no longer be (at least in the fullest sense). They don’t believe that any particular institution is juridically infallible (Catholics often misunderstand this, I think). There’s no absurdity here at all.

If one were to claim that the Roman See had never erred in 2000 years but theoretically could err in the future, even that wouldn’t be a philosophical absurdity, but it would start to look like a remarkable coincidence. After all, a major argument Catholics have over the Orthodox is that Rome didn’t err in the first 700 years or so–2000 would be an even better argument. But not one whose rejection would be philosophically absurd.

But in fact no one thinks this. All who are not in communion with Rome and reject Rome’s infallibility think that Rome has erred at least on some points (such as the claim of papal infallibility, for starters!).

What we are talking about is the question of whether the early Church erred. And we aren’t even talking about a single institution within the Church–the canon was decided through a long period of consensus. To say that they got it right does not mean that in some institutional way the Church had to get everything else right in the future.

Based on what, then, do you believe that the Church did NOT err in discerning the NT canon?

Based on a lot of things. For one thing, as I’ve said several times now, I don’t reject infallibility. I am somewhat tentative about it (in its Catholic as opposed to Orthodox version), but I’m inclined to accept it. But there are other factors too, such as a general disposition to give the historic Church the benefit of the doubt; the historical arguments conservative Protestants make, though they aren’t enough on their own; the witness of the Spirit; and the theological/spiritual beauty of the orthodox Christianity one of whose foundations is the NT canon.

There is no one foundation for these kinds of decisions. You choose to trust or you don’t. There is no syllogism that can “prove” that you ought to, but that doesn’t make it an irrational leap in the dark.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No, I don’t mean that.

So if you don’t use the authority of the Church to discern that Hebrews is inspired, by what canon do you declare Hebrews to be inspired?

I do use the authority of the Church. Indeed, I believe that the Church is infallible–whether that’s in the retrospective Orthodox sense or the Catholic sense is a bit harder to determine, but I lean toward the Catholic view these days.

If by “you” you mean “a hypothetical Protestant,” then most thoughtful Protestants also use the authority of the historic Church, even though they don’t think it’s infallible. They give it the benefit of the doubt unless there are very strong arguments to question it.

I agree that those who don’t are in a pickle. Go argue with them. I am not one of them and have no brief to defend them.

And in your paradigm, Edwin, the result is creating a church in your own image.

If you have designed a theology that happens to conform to everything that you, coincidentally, believe, then you have created a false idol.

I entirely agree. I’m not sure why you think that is “my paradigm.” You appear to be making some highly unjust and unreasonable assumptions about what I believe.

Obviously, in the end one must follow one’s conscience. No matter how much you say you believe in an authority outside yourself, you must have a criterion by which you choose to accept that authority. This is inescapable.

But I entirely agree that one of the criteria one should use in choosing an authority (not one of the major ones–it’s theoretically possible that a valid authority might say only things one wants to hear, but it’s very unlikely and would posit an entirely improbable amount of virtue and wisdom in oneself) is that it challenges one’s assumptions and inclinations without revolting one’s conscience.

You must be able to say that you have changed your view of God simply because that is what God has declared…

rather than saying, “I believe God is ____ and therefore God* is *_____”

This sounds good but it doesn’t hold up. If you don’t start with a belief as to who/what God is, then you have no way to know whether God has declared something, and no reason to believe what “God” says, since the word “God” would be meaningless.

And fortunately, it’s not the approach I find in the great Catholic theologians. Aquinas grants that people do have by reason a concept of God. He builds on that rather than asking people to violate this. That’s why I side with Aquinas and Lewis on this one against, for instance, Barth, appealing as I find Barth’s Christocentrism. (Calvin is sort of in the middle on a theoretical level, although the practical things he thinks God decrees are far more disturbing than in the case of Barth.)

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a philosophical absurdity to say that fallible people can get stuff right? You’ve lost me.

It is only when you assume that this person got it right that you assume that she was infallible.

Otherwise, if you’re not sure if she got it right, then, you can declare that she may, indeed be fallible.

But you have made the claim that you don’t believe that she erred. How do you know this? Because you, tacitly, acknowledge that she was infallible.

 

[Contarini]

It is only when you assume that this person got it right that you assume that she was infallible.

Right, but the reverse is not true.

Otherwise, if you’re not sure if she got it right, then, you can declare that she may, indeed be fallible.

But you have made the claim that you don’t believe that she erred. How do you know this? Because you, tacitly, acknowledge that she was infallible.

First of all, this is not about my belief, as I keep saying. (You may be using “you” in the generic sense to mean “one,” and if so that’s fine.) I am strongly inclined to accept infallibility.

But logically the two things are distinct. Surely you can see that we declare all the time that we think someone is right about something without any implication that we think they are infallible. I don’t see how you can possibly believe this consistently. You seem to trot out this confusion between being right and being infallible when it’s convenient–as when in another thread you cited my rather obvious statement that all human sources are fallible as a reason to discredit scholarship I had cited. I just can’t make sense of your beliefs on this point.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not what I said. Obviously it’s clear from Matt. 16. What is unclear, according to most Biblical scholars (including many Catholic scholars), is whether the *historical *Jesus established a Church. As I’ve said over and over, the mainstream view among scholars using purely historical methods is that the Matthaean additions to the story of Peter’s confession reflect early Christian theology of the later first century (specifically the theology of a particular community, though I’m suspicious of the way scholars tend to assume that there are specific, self-contained “communities” behind each Gospel).

Professor Contarini, you are making me :whacky:

(But only in a good way.)

What is your position: from the text of the NT, is it correct to conclude that Jesus (or his disciples) founded a church? yes? or no?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not through “basic reason” that you “know” what you think you know about the New Testament. It’s through reason informed by faith. Which is fine.

True. If what you are referring to is theology.

But I am simply making the point that it is from the NT alone–as a historical text–that we can see that a man named Jesus (or his disciples) established a church.

I do not need faith to see that.

Atheists can proclaim as much.

 

[bmonk]

Correct.

And in your paradigm, Edwin, the result is creating a church in your own image.

If you have designed a theology that happens to conform to everything that you, coincidentally, believe, then you have created a false idol.

You must be able to say that you have changed your view of God simply because that is what God has declared…

rather than saying, "I believe God is ____ and therefore God* is *

_____"

Actually, we don’t create the Church in our image, we submit our own judgment and will to God’s, who gave us the Church, and promised (by the Holy Spirit) to keep it in the truth necessary for salvation. It is not by any particular quality of the (human) Church that we are assured it is infallible–it is by the guidance of the Spirit, as Jesus promised, that we can believe it infallible.

That’s why the “bad” popes and bishops and others are not an argument against the Church. Rather, the fact that they were not enough to destroy it, as so many other human institutions have been destroyed or gone astray from their purpose throughout history, is evidence that some force or person has been guiding the Church.

The fact is, I trust the Church’s wisdom and judgment more than I trust my own. That’s why it is better to trust its infallibility–in the cases where I know something, it is better than I, and in the cases where I don’t know enough, I trust the guidance of God.