Mary as ever virgin

[Agathon]

I have, and it’s not Gnostic. Don’t say I take apocryphal works over the Gospels.

 

[Sean77]

You can repeat the same statement all you like, but the evidence is just a few lines above. If that disturbs you, it should. Anyway, I can see that you are getting upset and beginning to take this personal. That’s not my intention. I will let the conversation die for a bit.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t think Catholic Apologetics was too concerned about the sources of their doctrine since you use Origen’s statements to originate the doctrine of Purgatory, and use gnostic documents to support the Marian dogmas.

Of course we are concerned about the sources of our doctrine. The problem is that we don’t espouse Sola Scriptura, because this is not what the Apostles believed and taught. We have these doctrines about Mary passed down to us through the Sacred Tradition, which the Holy Spirit has preserved infallibly in the Church. Their origin is from the Apostles, who knew and lived with Mary, and knew personally that Jesus had no siblings born of Mary. The basis of the doctrine is not found in Origen, or any other non canonical work. There are some references to the doctrine in later non-canonical works, but they reference what was already held and believed by the Church.

 

[Sean77]

I understand what you are saying, and I can see that you are in genuine in what you believe regarding your epistemology. However, the records that we know are from the apostles do not espouse the doctrines of which you are speaking. You can claim apostolic origin, but as demonstrated above the documents that actually provide the basis from which this doctrine arrived are spuriously ascribed to the apostles, despite the fact that they depart from what was already stated in the gospels, and were of dubious authorship as even attested by the early fathers. In other words, on what basis can you even ascribe it to apostolic tradition, if that is your source of doctrine?

 

[Fauken]

If that’s what you want to hang your hat on rather than the narratives of Luke and Matthew, be my guest.

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=386567

“The Protoevangelium is not to be classed with the Gnostic writings of old, which were products of heretical groups, claiming secret knowledge. On the other hand, as you note, we cannot elevate this work to the level of Sacred Scripture, as it has no guarantee of inerrancy. This early work reflects at least some ancient traditions, held by at least some substantial part of the early Church. As to the general preference for the view that the “brothers” of the Lord are likely kinfolk, and not step-siblings from a previous marriage by Joseph, we have likely been strongly infuenced by the Western Fathers, including Saint Jerome, who strongly dismissed the view that they were step-siblings. Saint Jerome had a great command of the ancient languages and customs, and while not an infallible source, is worth attending to.”

 

[guanophore]

However, the records that we know are from the apostles do not espouse the doctrines of which you are speaking.

I don’t think this claim can be made. As much as I do wish that it was more explicit in Scripture, so that we would not have this conflict/disagreement, they do not deny or contradict it either.

The difference for Catholics is how we interpret the NT. Catholics read the NT as a product of Sacred Tradition (the teaching of the Apostles) and through the lens of the faith they left with the Church. Those who are separated from the Sacred Tradition usually use lenses from the Reformation, including Sola scriptura. This is why we understand the text differently.

You can claim apostolic origin, but as demonstrated above the documents that actually provide the basis from which this doctrine arrived
**

**

This is an error in attribution. The doctrines of the faith were committed once for all to the Church, and there was no further public revelation after the death of the last apostle. That is why other documents produced subsequently cannot be the “basis” of any doctrine.

despite the fact that they depart from what was already stated in the gospels

They depart from your perception of what is written. But the NT and the Sacred tradition both come from the same Source (the Holy Spirit) and therefore cannot contradict each other.

In other words, on what basis can you even ascribe it to apostolic tradition, if that is your source of doctrine?

The same basis for the contents of the NT, of course. If you cannot trust this, then you cannot trust the doctrine of the Trinity, or the contents of the NT, as these were derived from the same source.

Honestly, you make it sound as if God is not able to preserve His Word where He placed it!

 

[anon10271182]

Yes I can look for “Sola Scriptura” in numerous translations and Bible editions but just…won’t…find…it…anywhere.

 

[guanophore]

Yes I’ve looked for “Sola Scriptura” in numerous translations and Bible editions but just…don’t…find…it…anywhere.

One would think that a central doctrine that forms the basis of all other doctrines would be found in Scripture…

 

[anon10271182]

The term itself is absurd, considering the chronology of the Canon.

 

[anon10271182]

“Kinfolk.” Which Protestants interpret as “full siblings.” Because…

 

[Agathon]

@Fauken has answered with a link. You’d do well to look it up.

 

[guanophore]

The term itself is absurd, considering the chronology of the Canon.

I notice that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, introduced by the Reformers, is said to “assume an authorized canon”, so people using it do not need to grapple with how the canon was formed. It is almost as if some of them believed the NT dropped out of the sky fully formed!

“Kinfolk.” Which Protestants interpret as “full siblings.” Because…

Actually I think they do this as much out of ignorance of Jewish tribal structure as they do to reject Catholic Teaching. If one has spent any time with Native communities and understands how clans are structured and interact with each other, it is second nature to understand that there are many layers of relatives that are too close for marriage. Anyone who was too closely associated by blood is called a “kinsman” or a “relative”. Hebrews had this same kind of tribal identity and this is why there is no word for “cousin” in Hebrew.

Very close relatives are brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. We see this demonstrated throughout the NT.

 

[anon10271182]

Jesus is the embodiment of the New Covenant, not its vessel.

 

[anon10271182]

A very cogent analysis. Protestants have invented much of their own dogma.

 

[jcrichton]

Jewish law would have required that a younger brother of Jesus assume Mary’s care and protection upon Jesus’ death. Yet our Lord gave His mother to the Apostle John…

Exactly!

…which makes Jesus the most confused sensei, er Rabbi ever to have existed: on one hand He is Teaching “greater Justice” and on the other hand He seems to be holding a grudge against His purported blood siblings that rejected Him and His Teachings… He would take this to the epitome of callousness as He Commands one of His Followers to dispose His purported blood siblings from the rights and obligations of caring for His elderly mom.

Go figure–in a blind effort to give the Virgin other children these zealots theorists ignore all rationality and commonsense–well, at least they stick to the one rule: protestation!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Agathon]

Very close relatives are brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. We see this demonstrated throughout the NT.

I myself believe they were stepbrothers.

 

[jcrichton]

I notice that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, introduced by the Reformers, is said to “assume an authorized canon”, so people using it do not need to grapple with how the canon was formed. It is almost as if some of them believed the NT dropped out of the sky fully formed!

…and it ignores that Scriptures do not Teach sola Scriptura and that those who espouse themselves to sola Scriptura only follow their own interpretations of Scriptures or the interpretation of their founders–sola Scripturalists seldom conform to the Authority of Scriptures as they often claim that they do.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Jesus is the Ark of the Covenant

I think that you misunderstand the purpose of the ark. The ark is not the embodiment of God; it is the place where God meets with His People.

Jesus is not a vessel; Jesus is God Himself.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

A very cogent analysis. Protestants have invented much of their own dogma.

…which is quite interesting (their inner struggles) as they: a) denounce the papacy, yet every single one of them can be a pope at the second he/she determines that he/she does not need to follow “xyz” methodology and create/invent a new one, b) claim no church authority, yet lord their ways over their flocks, and, c) disclaim a creed and dogma while living under both–which are as malleable and fluid as air/wind.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[DeepDeepTrouble3]

Having sex means babies. Having half-siblings wouldn’t be fitting.