Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[apophasis]

Add two more generations, and we’re into the fourth century. So, while the quotes provided are not from the Apostles themselves, there is no reason to believe that what those authors wrote was not handed on from the Apostles.

You admit that no quotes are provided from the Apostles themselves. Now I’d say that’s a pretty strong reason for at least doubting or questioning their Apostolic origin. Of the extra-biblical Marian doctrines held by the RCC, no Apostolic quotes are ever provided. Writings which quote the personal beliefs of men are, but none from the Apostles themselves. If they were the “teachings” of the Apostles, then let’s see some quotes from the Apostles.

BTW, scripture itself demonstrates this succession of Apostolic teaching:

“Succession of Apostolic teaching?” What is that? I know the RCC claims for itself “Apostolic succession” (the office) for its Bishops, but what’s “succession of Apostolic teaching?”

Now we find in Scripture that all who claim to be Christians are exhorted to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). So certainly there was to be a continuation and struggle to hold on to the teachings that were “once for all delivered” (see 2 Cor. 11:3-4). But can we confidently include the extra-biblical, Marian dogmas to this “once for all delivered” faith?

Do you mean by “succession” of Apostolic teaching that there would be new revelations concerning the faith by men apart from the Apostles and after the Apostolic age? If so, I would be interested to know where this is actually taught.

2 Timothy 2:2
2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations contained in this passage:

1. Paul
2. Timothy
3. The men Timothy would select
4. Those that Timothy’s men would teach

So it goes.

And yet, strangely enough, in ALL of Paul’s teachings in his Epistles to the churches, regarding the faith, he never even once mentions Mary. But you would have us believe that he secretly (not publicly) taught the Marian dogmas, and that for her own protection (this is what I was told on other threads).

But Paul instructs Timothy to entrust to faithful men those things which he heard Paul publicly teach in the presence of many witnesses. Strange indeed is the notion that Paul never spoke publicly of the Marian dogmas, only privately. And stranger still is that Paul instructs Timothy to entrust to faithful men those things he heard from him publicly - “in the presence of many witnesses.”

If Timothy himself passed on the Marian dogmas, which he himself received from Paul (privately), then you should be able to provide quotes by men who quote Timothy, since your argument is that the connection between the 1st century and the 4th or 5th is very close.

However, both Peter and Paul warn of false teachers that will rise up right after their departures (1 Pet. 2:1; Acts 20:20-30). Men who will not “earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints,” but will themselves introduce destructive heresies. Doctrines not taught by the Apostles. We’re warned that very early error will be introduced into the church alongside Apostolic truth, like the enemy that planted tares alongside the wheat (Matt. 13:25). And no doubt, like the “tares,” some of these doctrines will be allowed to continue until the end of the age (13:30).

 

[Randy_Carson]

You admit that no quotes are provided from the Apostles themselves. Now I’d say that’s a pretty strong reason for at least doubting or questioning their Apostolic origin. Of the extra-biblical Marian doctrines held by the RCC, no Apostolic quotes are ever provided. Writings which quote the personal beliefs of men are, but none from the Apostles themselves. If they were the “teachings” of the Apostles, then let’s see some quotes from the Apostles.

As you know, there is no verse in the Bible which says, “Mary remained a virgin all the days of her life.” So, if this is what you need to see in order to be satisfied, then I’m afraid you will be disappointed.

However, I begin my search for understanding with the concepts of the infallibility and authority of the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter, the rock, and the Apostles. This Church, built by God and led by the Holy Spirit, can be demonstrated to have been in continuous existence from the time of the New Testament to this very day.

Once I understand that the Catholic Church has been given real authority by God and that it is protected from teaching error, then I can accept her judgment concerning matters that are not explicitly stated in scripture.

I’m sure that you would agree that the New Testament was never intended to be a comprehensive work of systematic theology. Our understanding of theological truths can develop from what we know from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Tell me, do you find anything in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary to be contrary to the Word of God?

“Succession of Apostolic teaching?” What is that? I know the RCC claims for itself “Apostolic succession” (the office) for its Bishops, but what’s “succession of Apostolic teaching?”

Forgive me if I was unclear here. What I mean is that the teachings of the Apostles were handed down from one generation of believers to the next as demonstrated in the letter to Timothy that I quoted previously. Some of the Apostles teaching was written down and some was handed on orally. My apologies for my lack of clarity.

Now we find in Scripture that all who claim to be Christians are exhorted to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). So certainly there was to be a continuation and struggle to hold on to the teachings that were “once for all delivered” (see 2 Cor. 11:3-4). But can we confidently include the extra-biblical, Marian dogmas to this “once for all delivered” faith?

Actually, the challenge here would be for you to prove that Marian doctrines were not part of that deposit of faith. Just because the first extant writings from the fathers date from later centuries, it does not by any stretch prove your case that the earlier believers did not hold these beliefs. I have asked you to provide examples of complaints from those who objected to the introduction of these heretical novelties, but you have none.

The fact is that some ideas that we hold today were not fully formed in the first two or three centuries, but this only means that it took time for them to fully develop them - just as the ideas about Christology or even the canon too time to sort out.

Do you mean by “succession” of Apostolic teaching that there would be new revelations concerning the faith by men apart from the Apostles and after the Apostolic age?

No. Public revelation has ceased with the death of the last Apostle, and the Catholic Church does not teach that the Apostles taught another gospel in secret. Therefore, the rest of your post about private teaching is moot.

However, I would argue (as I hope you would) that doctrine can and does develop.

 

[YADA]

Here’s a quote from a pro-Essene site which seems to mesh well with what I’ve been reading of Essenes elsewhere…

They accorded great importance to the teachings of the ancient Chaldeans, of Zoroaster, of Hermes Trismegiste, to the secret instructions of Moses and of one of the founding Masters of their order who had transmitted techniques similar to those of Buddhism, as well as to the revelation of Enoch.
I’ve also been reading that the Essenes actually rejected much of Jewish scripture and in fact banned sacrifice, contrary to Mosaic law. The stuff I’ve been able to uncover about the Essenes strikes me as being very much like the Gnostics. Very un-Christian actually.

1. A scriptural passage stating Mary took a vow of celibacy, or otherwise remained celibate throughout her life.
2. A passage from an early church writer around or before the fourth century which states such.

No proof-reading is required, nor is any deep logic required to understand that scripture doesn’t tell us Mary remained a virgin. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary simply isn’t found in the earliest history of the church. This is fact, not conjecture, and not rhetoric.

Don’t know what site you were posting about [you did not give it] I do have on my book shelf Geza Vermes Complete Translation of the dead Sea Scrolls…the rules of the community don’t mention the teachings of Chaldeans, or Zoroaster, or Hermes Trismegiste or Buddha.

They were not Christians but Jewish. Hard to say thay had abandoned the Jewish writings since they preserved them in such great number [and in three languages].

As for the biblical passage, you have it The Angel said you will [future event] have a child…Mary asks how this can be because I know not man?

A young woman betrothed in marriage would know perfectly well that she would conceive [future event] by engaging in sexual relations…this passage does not make sense except in light of Mary’s remaining chaste, even after marriage.

You can also negate your arbitary cut off for a mention by an ECF However, we do not possess in total all of the early writings. Many beleifs were not addressed until a controversy arose. No ECF states in a pre 4th century writing that Mary was not ever virgin. When the claim appears in writings it appears in such a manner that it seems to be a common belief, no writings argue otherwise when it does appear in the written record. That provides better evidence than yoru arguements.

Now you may have a different interpretation and look at the historical record with your bias’ in place, your perogative…but you have and are accepting innovations in christian belief that have no basis like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide…

Sola Fide has no sciptural passage [in fact there is a passage that prohibits that belief and calls it dead] and no ECF support, just Martin Luther…

Sola scriptura simialrly has no scriptual base and no ECF especially in the first centuries as it sis not exist as compiled. You “bible” does not even have the writings included in the earliest bibles…

You accpet what your bias’ allow you and refute what you bia’ won’t…A faith built upon such a foundation is not solid IMHO

 

[guanophore]

But Mary is not called by Catholics “the Ark of the Word of God,” but the “Ark of the N.C.”

Here’s the core problem: How could Mary be the “Ark of the N.C.” when it is explicitly stated that Jesus Himself was “born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4)? Until the day of His death He walked in total submission to the Old Covenant.

Abraham and Moses were also born under and functioned under previous conditions. I don’t see how that makes the covenants God made with them later not valid.

What is illogical in calling Mary the “Ark of the N.C.” is that it would imply that the “New” covenant was submissive (even inferior) to the “old.”

I don’t see where you get that? It seems to be a judgemental attitude toward the Old Covenant, which is unusual for you, since you are the one championing the fact that God’s promises to the Jew will be fulfilled in due time, and that He is not finished with them yet. Jesus never taught that the New Covenant was “better”. His sacrifice is better, because of the nature of it. The Old covenant had a different function, and purpose.

The truth/fact is, Mary didn’t carry the “New Covenant” in her womb. She carried a male Child, born a Jew, born under the Law (the Old Covenant). And for this reason they presented the proper sacrifice for the “first-born” son out of her womb (according to the old covenant), and circumcised Him (according to the old covenant).

Jesus is the Lamb that was slain for our sins. It is his shed blood, as you keep saying, that sanctifies that New Covenant. She carried the Lamb in her womb, and from her body the blood was formed that paid the price for sin on the cross. He is flesh of her flesh.

The New Covenant was not inaugurated until approx. 33 years AFTER He left her womb. Allow me to reiterate: The N.C. was not inaugurated by birth but by blood. It was not the result of a conception, but the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of the One who was conceived.

I think the inauguration started much sooner. Perhaps it was consummated on the cross, but John preaches that the kingdom had come, and Jesus teaches that The Kingdom was among them already.

 

[guanophore]

Before or after His birth?

Perhaps at His Baptism? When He was baptized, He sanctified the waters of baptism, so that they could wash away sins.

Ezek 36:25-28
25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Born under the “old” or “new” covenant?Not a conclusion based on your two former statements. You simply declare it.It’s a teaching accepted by the “simple,” maybe. But given any REAL thought, it can’t be classified as a “truth” at all. Only an assertion, a declaration without validation. There’s no need to “undo” something that was never “done” in the first place. Instead a misnomer had been corrected.

What do you think is the source or the reason for such a declaration?

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Mary’s question to the angel is puzzling. If she was engaged to be married, why should she ask how this was going to happen and say “but I am a virgin!”? Wouldn’t the child be the natural result of her impending marriage?

Some have argued that Mary had taken a vow of chastity, but this would have been ridiculous for a Jewish girl engaged to be married!

She may have taken the angel to be referring to an immediate conception, which would have been *out of the question *before marriage.

In any case…I find it mind-numbing that so much time would be spent on this subject. Mary - ever virgin or not - has NO impact whatsoever - on our salvation. None.

 

[guanophore]

If you read the NT which is all the writings of the apostles you won’t find them teaching or even hinting at such a thing.

Please give up this tired and useless arguement, ja4. You will never convince an educated Catholic that the NT is all we have from the Apostles!

 

[PC_Master]

Banks of the Tiber> Amen. I totally agree with your post. I continue the debate for purposes of deepening my understanding of God, not for determining my salvation, or any sort of “good standing” in the church. Even if scripture actually stated that Mary remained a virgin, it wouldn’t change my faith – only my perception of Roman Catholicism.

guanophore> Educated Catholic? Okay – mind showing me your credentials, or what qualifies you as more educated than others…or myself?

Where did they get these “personal beliefs”?

From prayer, scripture study, and learning the teachings of those men who were in the faith before them?

You’re assuming it has to be completely defined within these sources, with no additions from elsewhere. Why is a gradual development and alteration of theology so unimaginable to you?

At some point, whether it was with the formal establishment of Roman Catholicism, or whether it was at the Great Schism, or whether it was at the reformation – at some point, heresy came along. Heresy is never invented out of nowhere…at least not well-believed heresy.

How many generations back before you get to the Apostles?..Five or six at most depending on which of the Fathers we’re considering.

Well, I’d reckon the number to be more like as many as ten, but regardless of this, let’s consider for a moment what your position may be on this. How many generations does it take for heresy to creep into the church?

If you said, for instance, 20 generations, then it’s reasonable to assume that after only 10 generations, you could see a difference halfway between the beginning and the 20th generation. After 5 generations, you’ll still be one-quarter of the way there.

On the other hand, perhaps you assert that over 3 generations there can be no error, and that Irenaeus of Lyons held the infallible truth because it was passed completely (without error or omission) to him by Polycarp, who received it (again, without error or omission) from the apostle John. In such a case, if complete and inerrant transmission from one generation is not only possible, but required because of Apostolic Succession and the sacrament of ordination, you’ve created a case by which no validly ordained priest or bishop could ever be called heretical.

You mean like sola scriptura and sola fide? No one ever heard of these absurdities prior to Martin Luther, yet they caught on pretty quickly, didn’t they?

The idea of scripture being the sole rule of faith indeed is heresy, and yet, there are instances of it appearing throughout history, even in the early fathers.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Okay. Could you provide a few quotes?

On what – unanimity of the early fathers? Persons being rejected as fathers for not agreeing with church doctrine? What?

The issue really rests on two things which I am unable to provide quotes for…

1. We lack an exact specification of how we determine who the early fathers are, and how we validate those qualifications as being correct and of God. You should provide this, as you probably have more knowledge in this area than I do. To me, it seems to be a pick-and-choose session of whomever agreed with church leadership.
2. We lack any claim of a specific issue where the early fathers were unanimous, either in confirming a belief, or in rejecting one. At the very least, if such is to be found, it’s regarding issues that are not contested between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In other words, if unanimous consent of the fathers is the test of what the church believed, then most things, including the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, fail the test.

In his book, The Fathers of the Church, Mike Aquilina lists four criteria which were established by St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century:

a. Orthodox doctrine
b. Holiness of life
c. Church approval
d. Antiquity

All of these points need further elaboration for me to understand them properly, but in regards to them, the following come to mind…

a. Orthodox doctrine – What is that supposed to mean?
b. Holiness of life – Of the writer, or the follower of the teaching? What makes me more holy by believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity than by not believing it?
c. Church approval – What’s the measuring rod you use to determine if something was approved by the church at any given point in history?
d. Antiquity – The older, the better? Thus, a position taught in the 18th century is invalid if it was not taught in the 15th century? Doesn’t it stand to reason that something taught in the fourth century is invalid if it was not taught in the first century then?

Well, duh…since none of them were “Protestant” in their understanding, why would you expect any of them to affirm your doctrines?

I think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote. To clarify, what I mean is that the doctrines that Roman Catholics hold which Protestants disagree with are not found in the early fathers much at all, and certainly not with unanimity. I was speaking of doctrines Roman Catholics hold, not of ones that Protestants hold, though I admit there’s not unanimous consent for any of those either (this isn’t a problem, for unanimous consent of the fathers is not a criterion for Protestantism).

For the same reason that Athanasius disagreed with Arianism despite the fact that virtually all of Christendom embraced it at one point. Because it is wrong!

The tired claim that all of Christianity was following Arianism doesn’t seem to mesh with fact, but perhaps you could show me some historical details (no citing NewAdvent or other similarly-biased sites, please) that support your claim?

Even one of the Old Testament prophets bemoaned the fact that he was the only one who remained faithful to God while the rest of Israel was serving false gods. Yet, God was faithful to Israel and sent this lone voice to continue preaching the truth.

And you believe this was not a literary device? Do you honestly believe that every person in Israel turned their back on God except for one? If you really wish to defend this precarious position, I’d really like to know which prophet this was, and when this all happened.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Your approach requires that a heresy crept in so slowly over time that eventually EVERYONE accepted it and no voice was raised against it.

No – my approach requires that the heresy crept in so slowly over time that the majority did not recognize it as heresy and thus accepted it. Voices are raised against many things, but it is often only the prominent issues that are written on – why write about something the majority knows and will tell to their fellow believers who question it?

Oh, and let’s also consider that Christianity as it existed in Rome once it was legalized, shortly after consisted of a great many worshipers who were previously pagan, who now had no choice but to be “Christians” due to the law. None of them would have balked at all at seeing a semi-deified woman, for this is a regular undertone in various pagan religions.

Thus, you declared Jesus Christ to be a liar for He said that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against the Church that He promised to build. If the Church embraced a heresy - a lie from the pit of Hell - then Hell has been victorious over the Church and over Jesus.

You’re assuming that “church” refers solely to the Roman Catholic Church, a position which leads you into circular logic, for one of your supposed proofs that the RCC is the true church is that the gates of hell haven’t prevailed against it.

Either the church has not fallen into error, and this proves it’s the true church, or you have another proof that it’s the true church, and thus can know it’s not in error. You can’t have it both ways, and yet both claims are repeatedly thrown around in here mindlessly.

Yes. So?

Okay, references are provided that speak of vows made to God. You agree with me that these scriptures don’t actually mention celibacy at all. But the entire point of presenting them was to provide scriptural basis for a vow of celibacy in Jewish culture.

Pretty much. But this is not unusual.

You also can’t prove any of it. I can just as easily say that the truth was initially taught in the churches verbally, with some writings being done to correct heresies here and there (mostly by Paul), but that over time, more heresy crept in and more people became dissuaded from the true faith. Since all of this happened during a period where there are very few written accounts of teaching, you can’t disprove what I’m saying any more than I can disprove what you’re saying.

Verbal teaching that was not written down directly at the time means that we don’t actually know what was taught. That there are virtually no references to Marian devotion prior to the fourth century means that we don’t know that such was taught prior to the fourth century at all, much less as something of significant importance.

When was the doctrine of the Trinity formalized? The hypostatic union? The filoque? When was the canon of scripture finally nailed down?

What’s your point here?

Where does the Bible teach that the Bible Alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer? (it doesn’t)

It certainly doesn’t teach that. That doesn’t make the doctrine false, necessarily. What does make it false is that Jesus himself said that he would send the holy spirit to lead us (each of us, as best I can understand the Greek) into all righteousness. If it’s all in scripture, there is no need for the holy spirit.

I have no proof? Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant traditions all hold to this ancient belief, and you come along 2,000 years later and say, “The Bible doesn’t say anything about this, so I refuse to believe it.” Okay. That’s solo scriptura (not even sola scriptura).

Well, since tradition clearly affirms that this has been the belief of the church throughout it’s entire history, surely you should have no problem finding this apparently key teaching in written form some time before the fourth century. Even that standard is being a bit lax, really, but let’s start with that.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Wrong. Elizabeth was already in her sixth month at the time that the angel spoke with Mary.

I’m well aware of this, but an event within the past six months would be considered recent, in my opinion, and it is that recency that I was referring to. Elizabeth had found out that she was going to have a child (from her husband, who no doubt told her in some form, though he couldn’t speak), and it happened shortly thereafter. Mary learned of this news no earlier than six months previous to the annunciation by Gabriel.

Now, here she is, being told the same thing – you’re going to have a child. Her marriage with Joseph is at least three months off (she stayed with Elizabeth for three months, which it’s doubtful she would have done if the wedding was to happen in that time), and yet the angel is telling her she’s going to have a child. How can this be? She’s not married yet! (Adding “yet” to the passage is no more leading than the attempts by GoodFella to imply perpetual virginity from a present-tense statement.)

Are you implying here that 18th Century Enlightment is a bad thing you want no part of?

I’m rather speaking of the further implications being made – that such “enlightenment” is actually invention that didn’t exist at all previously, a notion which I thoroughly reject.

You mean other than, “How will this be since I am a virgin.”?

As covered previously, the word “am”, as well as the Greek equivalents in this case, refer to a temporary state of being, not a perpetual one. Virgin is a noun here, not a “role in life”, as GoodFella and others have suggested. Understanding Mary’s statement to be perpetual requires a deeper thought process, dragging in information from sources that even Rome itself did not canonize, and even then, requires someone to lay the foundation of the concept before a reader would ever make that implication from reading the text. Such a methodology would be a dismal failure in terms of writing a gospel.

I have the Tradition of an infallible Church and the witness of nearly 2,000 years of Catholic and non-Catholic believers to support me. You have…nothing but your own fallible personal interpretation of the Bible and your Protestant bias that the Catholic Church must be wrong.

Nice rhetoric. How about some proof that the early church actually believed this? You say it did, I say it didn’t. Since it’s kind of hard to affirm a negative, I’ll ask you to provide some proof of your position. What can you offer to demonstrate that the perpetual virginity of Mary was believed from the beginning of the church?

Spoken like a true Paulist Protestant.

Paul’s warning was valid because there were many heretics in that day, and it was important to understand and stick with the truth.

“Those”? Gee, that sounds like more than one person to me.

Absolutely. There were many who were great teachers in the church in early days. I’m not at all of the opinion that Paul was the sole teacher of the flock. There were at least a dozen others (the apostles, and that’s not counting the others they taught).

Protestants seem to disagree with one another about these things. There cannot be one meaning of scripture for the Methodist and another contradictory meaning for the Baptist. Clearly, one of these groups is interpreting scripture incorrectly yet most Protestants would claim that they are both members of the “invisible” church. Is contradictory doctrine acceptable in the church as you define it?

You’re using rhetoric to evoke the idea in the reader that only total unity can represent Christ’s true church. And here’s the flaw in that – the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have a history of being totally united. It’s had some of the largest schisms in the history of Christianity. Schisms are not a sign of unity in Roman Catholicism any more than they are in Protestantism.

If you will kindly point me to the post where this is discussed, I will be happy to engage you there.

Read up a few posts. I’ve illustrated it pretty clearly there, several times.

This concludes what will probably be my final post in this thread until such time as someone actually addresses the points I made previously.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, my post was addressed in general to a lack of respect for even the simplest logic, something which was demonstrated vividly by Mickey’s post.

I can’t argue with that.

Faith without logical support and proof is blind, and blind faith will not persuade anyone, whether the faith be for, or against, a certain belief.

Yes, but there is also a point at which one must realize that logic fails, and accept the mystery. My mind is boggled at the concept of the Trinity. I have ready many logical formulations, but in the end, I just accept the mystery.

which will only convince those who already believe it.

I agree with this also. For those who have accepted the entire deposit of faith, the evidence is very convincing, and otherwise, no.

Generally speaking, yes. I believe that the apostles recorded teaching would not have omitted anything vital to the faith. They wouldn’t be that blind. Thus, it makes anything outside of that a triviality, except as confirmed otherwise by the holy spirit, which guides each of us into the fullness of truth over time, as we’re actually willing to listen to that truth.

If this is true, why did Jesus appoint His apostles at all? why did they ordain others?

That’s right, because it isn’t Apostolic. You’re standing on the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, when there is no early text proving any sort of supernatural succession of officers within Christianity.

Do you think that there was nothing supernatural in the replacement of Judas?

Had the Apostles themselves all received the fullness of truth directly from the Holy Spirit, and had Apostolic Succession taken place which would result in that fullness of truth being given to the successors, we’d have no indications of any teaching by anyone who was a valid successor of an Apostle that would be considered heretical.

This is an absurd line of reasoning. It is the same as saying that Jesus did not teach the truth, because some of the discples abandoned Him.

And yet, at the least, you’d conclude that many priests and bishops who became Lutheran or Anglican were indeed teaching heresy, despite this supernatural protection of God’s true church.

This is just a misunderstanding of the gift of infallibility, which probably belongs on another thread.

If you accept that man can err in things you believe are wrong, you must also accept that man can err in the things you believe are right.

Yes, but the Church cannot err, because the Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit, and not of man.
PC Master;2842570:

Roman Catholic doctrines find scriptures that can be made to where they seemingly agree with the church

, not actual scriptural support. Many implications can be found based on scripture, but implications require outside knowledge, and thus have a source outside of scripture which must be believed before scripture can be seen to agree.

This is true. And since we know that the scriptures came out of the Apostolic Teaching, we know that both sources are valid and reliable.

You actually should state it more correctly – Roman Catholic interpretation

of scripture is such that no doctrine or dogma of the Roman Catholic Church is in conflict with it.

I object the term “Roman” used here.

However, there are two flaws. First, that the RCC is the measuring rod of scripture, and at the same time, uses scripture to support its dogmas. It’s circular logic.

Not entirely, since Catholic Teaching came first from Jesus.

Second, lack of direct conflicting passages does not make for actual support of a belief. Lack of information cannot be assumed to have a certain meaning.

Sure, but we know that not all of what was taught and believed was written down, and that the rest has been preserved in other forms.

 

[guanophore]

Agreed – most teaching in the beginnings of the church was verbal. But the original teachers of the church indeed wrote down many things of importance within their lifetimes.

People seem to think that the oral teaching stopped, or disappeared somehow after the writings. This is not the case.

Moreover, their teaching wasn’t actually according to “Sacred Tradition”, but according to the leading of the Holy Spirit,according to the teachings of Christ.

You are making a distinction that does not exist. Sacred Tradition is exactly that, the Teachings of Jesus according to the leading of the HS. It did not disappear after the writings.
PC Master;2842571:

according to the teachings of Christ (which we have largely recorded in the gospels).

We don’t have them “largely” because the books would fill the whole world! We have them represented, that we might believe.There are many other things He said and did, all witnessed by the Apostles, and handed down to their disciples.

They didn’t simply fall back on “this is how we’ve always done it” – instead they said “we believe God wants us to do this”.

You are confusing traditions of men with the sacred Traditions.
However, you are right, that the Sacred Traditions preserved it the way it was taught by Jesus.

And yet, Paul specifically indicates in many places that he’s instructing them to keep to the truth

that Paul has taught them, and not simply to accept something else as truth, simply because someone else claims it to be true. In fact, we are to study to show ourselves approved.

We study the Apostolic faith, both in scripture, and in Tradition.

Mmhmm – apparently the supernatural protections of Apostolic Succession and the Sacrament of Holy Orders didn’t work on him. He fell into heresy despite these sacraments.

Of course, anyone can reject the grace transmitted through the sacraments. It doesn’t invalidate the Grace, or the Source, who is God!

Wasn’t that the claim at the Council of Jerusalem? “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”.

Yes, but you are bolstering the case for Sacred Tradition.

You really should include the Roman Catholic Church in that, since it’s only the Roman Catholic Church itself which holds that it is the original church.

I object to the word “Roman” used in this context.

No other denomination agrees with that, even in secular history. If splintering and lack of agreement is a sign of fault for any church which does it, then the Roman Catholic Church is guilty as well, for it schism’d with several groups throughout its history.

I think it is a sign of fault, but it is not right to blame it on the HS.

On the other hand, if the schismatics are simply condemned as heretics, and this was God’s way of removing the heretics from the midst of his true church, then what’s to say that it wasn’t the Orthodox who were right, with Rome being removed as a heretic.

Nothing.

All you have is your interpretation of scripture and your faith in the RCC, neither of which anyone that you'll debate with will hold as rules of faith.

This is not true. The Romans also have the Apostolic Teachings.

Agreed. The doctrine of “Sacred Tradition” as held by the Roman Catholic Church is also

a false doctrine of men.

I think you don’t understand the doctrine, based on the evidence of your above comments, so I am going to try to excuse this

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Yes, but there is also a point at which one must realize that logic fails, and accept the mystery.

So you believe it based on faith, not fact? That’s fine.

I agree with this also. For those who have accepted the entire deposit of faith, the evidence is very convincing, and otherwise, no.

More generally, I was referring to almost any belief system. If I believe President Bush is a good man (no, I’m not talking politics – just using an example), you can show me something good he’s done, and I’ll simply use it to easily reinforce my belief, perhaps almost blindly. On the other hand, if I think he’s a very bad man, and you point out something good, I won’t swallow it nearly as easily.

If this is true, why did Jesus appoint His apostles at all? why did they ordain others?

I don’t claim to know the mind of God, but my understanding is that the holy spirit works to lead believers into all truth, not the entire world.

Do you think that there was nothing supernatural in the replacement of Judas?

By whom? Matthias or Paul? And what is it you believe is supernatural?

This is an absurd line of reasoning. It is the same as saying that Jesus did not teach the truth, because some of the discples abandoned Him.

Not at all! You’re forgetting a key factor – human beings are imperfect. Jesus taught perfectly (I’m sure you’ll agree), and yet the disciples fell away because man is imperfect. Likewise, I hold that even had the apostles given the truth in perfection to their successors, those successors were themselves men, capable of mishearing, misunderstanding, or even intentionally contorting and misusing what they were taught. And so on it goes, down through the generations, not because of any fault in Christ, but because of fault in the imperfection of man.

This is just a misunderstanding of the gift of infallibility, which probably belongs on another thread.

No – the claim was that those who heard from the disciples of the disciples of the apostles were so little removed from Christ himself that they could accurately teach without introducing heresy. For there to not have been the possibility of heresy, you must confer infallibility or some other supernatural protection on each bishop and priest (though I don’t agree that they were separate positions in early days).

Yes, but the Church cannot err, because the Soul of the Church is the Holy Spirit, and not of man.

And you judge that the church is right when it says this about itself based on your own reasoning and rationalization, do you not? You believe that the church is right when it says it cannot err, correct? The question I was getting at is – why can’t you be wrong in that belief?

This is true. And since we know that the scriptures came out of the Apostolic Teaching, we know that both sources are valid and reliable.

I totally agree that genuine apostolic teaching, or even later teaching which is in agreement with the former and which is in agreement with the holy spirit, is reliable. However, you haven’t established that the teachings of the modern Roman Catholic Church are the same as the teachings in the earliest centuries of the church.

I object the term “Roman” used here.

Why must we go through this again? What term would you prefer I use, besides “just Catholic” to describe the church which is headquartered in Vatican City? I can’t simply rely on terms like Orthodox, Apostolic, Catholic, Holy, or One, because those terms are all used by several other major denominations, and to call the Roman Catholic Church just “Catholic” would be to imply that I believe that it is indeed the universal church, a belief I do not hold.

Not entirely, since Catholic Teaching came first from Jesus.

Which is only survived in the gospels, right? The meaning of those texts are discerned solely by the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s a giant circle.

Sure, but we know that not all of what was taught and believed was written down, and that the rest has been preserved in other forms.

That there could have been oral teachings not contained entirely in scripture I accept. However, that we can know for certain that things found nowhere in the early history of the church were in fact taught in that time I wholeheartedly reject.

I think it all really comes down to this…

Is it possible Mary remained a virgin throughout her life? I suppose, however odd it seems, it’s possible. Is there any proof in scripture? No. Is there any in the earliest fathers? No. Is there any indication that this belief was taught in the earliest centuries of the church? No.

And even if it were fact, what difference does it make, anyway? Why is it important that we know or recognize this?

 

[YADA]

Is it possible Mary remained a virgin throughout her life? I suppose, however odd it seems, it’s possible. Is there any proof in scripture? No. Is there any in the earliest fathers? No. Is there any indication that this belief was taught in the earliest centuries of the church? No.

And even if it were fact, what difference does it make, anyway? Why is it important that we know or recognize this?

Perhaps because Mary helps point the way to Christ and exemplifies the Christian who “Does whatever he [Jesus] tells us”

And perhaps because this belief [from the early church - even if it is not ‘early’ enough for us but one that was also held by the Reformers] - which of course does not really matter - [but we’ll argue about it like our salvation depends upon it] is a reason to celebrate Jesus and follow the scriptures and “Call Mary Blessed” in our generation…Blessed because she said yes, putting her life on the line in faith and trusting God…

 

[PC_Master]

Perhaps because Mary helps point the way to Christ

How exactly? Am I incapable of seeing him without Mary? If Mary were only a virgin up until she bore Jesus, and did not remain a virgin after that, would she not still be able to point the way to Christ in some fashion (whatever fashion it is by which she does this currently)?

…and exemplifies the Christian who “Does whatever he [Jesus] tells us”

How does her perpetual virginity have anything to do with that? Are you now saying God told her to take this vow, and that her doing so was a sign of true obedience to God?

Assuming again for a moment that she didn’t remain a perpetual virgin, and assuming she never took such a vow, how would she not still exemplify the Christian who “does whatever Jesus tells us”?

And perhaps because this belief…is a reason to celebrate Jesus…

You need a reason to celebrate Jesus aside from the fact that he saved us all from damnation? Sorry, but the latter is good enough for me.

…and follow the scriptures and “Call Mary Blessed” in our generation…Blessed because she said yes, putting her life on the line in faith and trusting God…

So her being blessed is because of her willingness to do whatever God commands, right? I still don’t see how perpetual virginity affects this – if she were not to have taken a vow of celibacy, could she not still have followed God’s commands and still be worthy of being called blessed?

I like where this is going. We seem to have reached a stand-still on whether or not it did happen. Perhaps we can at least figure out what difference it would make if it did.

 

[Good_Fella]

Generally speaking, yes. I believe that the apostles recorded teaching would not have omitted anything vital to the faith. They wouldn’t be that blind. Thus, it makes anything outside of that a triviality, except as confirmed otherwise by the holy spirit, which guides each of us into the fullness of truth over time, as we’re actually willing to listen to that truth.

According to your faulty reasoning, however, everything the Apostles recorded must be understood to be literal and explicit, or else it wasn’t recorded. The Old Testament texts concerning Christ and his redemptive death and resurrection were not explicitly and literally recorded. The promised Paraclete enlightened the Apostles and helped them understand the veiled meanings concerning Christ in the OT on Pentecost. Likewise, the Spirit of Truth has enlightened and guided the Apostolic Church through the centuries in discerning the implicit truths contained in Scripture concerning Jesus, Mary, and the Trinity. Augustine tells us that the NT is contained in the OT, and the OT is revealed in the NT. Meanwhile, the Spirit has not guided Protestantism in all truth, since it is a divided house.

Both OT and numerous NT passages support the concept of Apostolic Succession and the Apostolic teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So do the writings of the early Church Fathers, who saw themselves as successors of the Apostles. Find my posts concerning Apostolic Succession. A divine office never expires, but continues through the ages. This tradition of ordination has existed to the present day in the Church. Individual bishops and priests however are not gifted with the charism of infallibilty which lies with the Pope in union with the whole college of Bishops as exercised together in Church Councils or by the Pope alone when he officially speaks ‘ex cathedra’ in an Apostolic Constitution. Lone Bishops and priests like Arius, Nestorious, and Luther taught fallibly and not in union with the entire Church. Church Councils and Papal Bulls denounced them as heretics and excommunicated them.

The Sacred and Universal Magisterium does not err in its official teachings. Independent bishops and priests can err, but their teachings are not official doctrines of the universal Church. They alone as individuals do not have the power to “bind and loose”.

Some Protestants believe in predestination, while others do not; some Protestants believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not; some Protestants believe in dispensationalism, while others do not; some Protestants believe in the consubstantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, while most others do not; most Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit is God, while a few others do not; some Protestants believe that Mary was Ever-Virgin, while others do not. The Holy Spirit is not present where we have a conflict of truth among differing churches and traditions. Or are there numerous Holy Spirits for each dissenting splinter group? Jesus sent the Paraclete to instill and preserve the unity of faith in His Church (not churches).

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition form the Deposit of Faith. Sacred Scripture is infallible because Sacred Tradition (the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation) is infallible. If Sacred Scripture were not infallible, it would be because Sacred Tradition were not infallible. Sacred Scripture emerged from Sacred Tradition. Canonical texts were infallibly distinguished from the non-canonical texts.

I guess you also think the written form of the Constitution of the United States of America is based on circular reasoning.

There is a lack of information concerning the Trinity, for example. Give any non-Christian, who is unaware of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, a copy of the Holy Bible and see if he can figure out for himself that there are three divine Persons in One God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Numerous heresies sprang up in the early Church because the written Word was not explicitly clear on matters concerning the Trinity and Christ. Without the Apostolic teaching authority of the Catholic Church,who alone has the authority to interptet Scripture, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Bible alone would be an insufficient source of divine revelation.

Correct, and any well-studied Protestant will tell you as much. Some see the passage to indicate a partial list of qualifications for what can be considered scripture.

Again, some Protestants do, while others don’t. But the point is ‘sola scriptura’ is an unscriptural concept: a human invention of Martin Luther.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Did you notice how the passages you quoted don’t actually mention a vow of celibacy?

Which pledge or vow do you think is being discussed in this passage?

Oh, so we have some written evidence within the first few centuries AD to that effect? Like, say, before the fourth century? I would expect to see such if we know for certain that the apostles believed this. Or do you hold it was all simply verbal teaching for that entire period, with it never being written down to counter a heretic who disputed it?

We do know that many things did not get written until there was a dispute.

What, aside from the pagan Vestal Virgins of Rome gives you the idea that a life of consecration equated (in that era) to a life of celibacy. Were the priests not consecrated? They were married (and had children).

The Monastic Traditions of the East.

Agreed, but sex between a married couple isn’t promiscuous at all. It’s design.

If a person has a vow, it would be considered a form of adultery.

And I suppose you know that Mary was to be married to Joseph very shortly after the angel’s visit?

Yes. Scripture tells us that they were betrothed. This lasted usually a year.

Mary had recently heard that an angel announced that her cousin would conceive, and it happened (quite possibly in very short order).

Where did you find THIS in scripture?

Perhaps Mary simply wasn’t supposed to be married to Joseph any time soon? After all, she went up to visit Elizabeth for at least 3 months, so wedding probably wasn’t supposed to occur until after that. Why would the angel tell her something if it wasn’t going to happen almost immediately? And we accept as fact that it did happen almost immediately. So, Mary stating that she was a virgin could easily refer to her virginal status at the time.

Certainly the angel referred to Mary’s current state, but being betrothed, any young woman who intended to do what is customarily done within marriage would not wonder how she was going to get pregnant.

True, but it does imply (because of the use of “will” as opposed to “would”) that future action is intended. If you never intend to buy a house, why would you even speak of a down-payment?

It is late. I just don’t understand this.

All scripture actually says is that Mary was a virgin at the time of the annunciation by the angel. We know that she soon thereafter conceived, went to visit Elizabeth, stayed for at least three months, and then returned. We know Joseph married her, and didn’t have sex with her until she had given birth to Jesus. What we don’t know is whether she actually had taken a vow of celibacy (and in fact there’s nothing to indicate she did, nor any cultural reference to such a practice in that era of non-pagan origin). We don’t know that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Speak for yourself. Those who have received the Sacred Traditions know differently. Try posting that over on the Eastern forum, and see what happens.

Fortunately, it’s only a minor issue, which wouldn’t change my faith even if it were true.

If that is the case, why fight so much over it?

 

[guanophore]

Priests surely made vows to the Lord, but we know they didn’t remain celibate.

So, if a man sins, and fails to keep his vow, then the vow never existed?

I suppose there’s other proofs that might be valid, but I haven’t thought of what they might be.

Will you now consider calling an ecumencial council of you, yourself, and you, to determine this?

I’ll kindly ask that you stop the slander. Thanks.

Sorry, but slander is false representation. You have already represented yourself by your own confession.

Moreover, their teaching wasn’t actually according to “Sacred Tradition”, but according to the leading of the Holy Spirit, and according to the very teachings of Christ (which we have largely recorded in the gospels). They didn’t simply fall back on “this is how we’ve always done it” – instead they said “we believe God wants us to do this”.

You have demonstrated that you cannot tell the difference between Sacred Traditions, and traditions of men.

Agreed. The doctrine of “Sacred Tradition” as held by the Roman Catholic Church is also a false doctrine of men…

Where do you think this idea came from? Your own mind? Do you believe you can think of anything new under the sun? You are a product of the enlightenment, whether you know it, or not.

Blind assertion. And you haven’t yet countered my discussion of Apostolic Succession.

I think this belongs on another thread. In fact, I think I started one myself! I will move this quote over there.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore> Educated Catholic? Okay – mind showing me your credentials, or what qualifies you as more educated than others…or myself?

What made you think I was referring to myself? On the contrary, I am much better educated in the Protestant traditions, having spend so many years in such communities, and in Protestant Seminary. No, the Catholics here are much better educated than I , and I say again, no educated Catholic will be pursuaded to jettison the Sacred Deposit of Faith, whether it is found in scripture, or not.

You have demonstrated that you are uneducated. You do not understand the Sacred Tradition, what it is, or how it operates. You cannot distinguish it from the traditions of man.

The idea of scripture being the sole rule of faith indeed is heresy, and yet, there are instances of it appearing throughout history, even in the early fathers.

Continued…

Well, at least we agree about something!