Non Catholic view of Mariology II

[SteveVH]

But interestingly the councils and fathers referred to scripture,. in their arguments about the Trinity.

The fact that the Trinity can be shown from Scripture is prima facie evidence that it was a belief held from the beginning and that it didn’t just occur nearly 400 years later when the sacred texts were canonized, or at some other council. It was believed in the first century as attested to by the writings the authors of the new Testament.

Here are some references of ECF’s prior to the canonization of Scripture:

“The oldest extant work in which the word “Trinity” itself (Greek Trias, triados) is used to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Theophilus of Antioch’s 2nd-century To Autolycus.”

“Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.” (St. Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR][3]) (Bolding mine) (Ignatius was martyred around 110 AD)

“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein.” (Justin Martyr,First Apology 13:5–6[6] - 150 A.D.)

What arguments did they use to support their view of Mary’s sinlessness? There views are only as good as their arguments

Sacred Tradition, which preceded the Bible. I think there is little doubt that the defined dogma developed over centuries, but then so did a number of dogmas that have always been believed by the Church. The lack of specific references to the sinlessness of Mary in the first few centuries could just as well be due to the fact that there were no objections to the belief and therefore the issue did not arise to a high level of commentary.

 

[Thinkingaloud]

Amen!

So who has determined that we cannot discern what kind of dwelling place would be fitting for the Lord on High? Based on what has been revealed is seems quite reasonable to profess that God deserves a pure and immaculate vessel.

1. The IC is not mentioned in scripture
2. The IC cannot be shown to have been taught by the apostles and passed on through oral tradition.
3. Theologically there’s no reason to say this belief is necessary to the Christian faith

 

[dvdjs]

1. Theologically there’s no reason to say this belief is necessary to the Christian faith

How do you judge that?

 

[SteveVH]

1. The IC is not mentioned in scripture

So what? Lots of things are not mentioned in scripture.

1. The IC cannot be shown to have been taught by the apostles and passed on through oral tradition.

There are many mentions of Mary as the New Eve. Eve was created without the stain of sin. She, however, became disobedient and sinned against God. Mary, the New Eve, then, had to also be created without the stain of sin, however remaining obedient, if she was to undo what Eve had done. The New Eve could not have been created in a lower state than the original Eve.

Eve “was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…” (Ireneaus, Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

The belief was there, if not expressed to your satisfaction.

1. Theologically there’s no reason to say this belief is necessary to the Christian faith

Who defines what is necessary to believe for the Christian faith?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

1. The IC is not mentioned in scripture

Neither is the Bible.

 

[Thinkingaloud]

So what? Lots of things are not mentioned in scripture.?

How did I know I’d get this response. Which is why I included point 2…

There are many mentions of Mary as the New Eve. Eve was created without the stain of sin. She, however, became disobedient and sinned against God. Mary, the New Eve, then, had to also be created without the stain of sin, however remaining obedient, if she was to undo what Eve had done. The New Eve could not have been created in a lower state than the original Eve…?

Eve “was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…” (Ireneaus, Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

The belief was there, if not expressed to your satisfaction…?

To say Mary was the new Eve is one thing ion comparing one decision both took is one thing., to say she mirrors Eve in everything is another matter and doesn’t naturally lead on. However., this might be worthwhile delving into. How can one separate true apostolic teaching from the father’s own private views?

Who defines what is necessary to believe for the Christian faith?

Most catholics seem to be arguing that the IC wasn’t absolutely necessary for God to do , but rather that it was fitting.

 

[SteveVH]

Most catholics seem to be arguing that the IC wasn’t absolutely necessary for God to do , but rather that it was fitting.

It is part of the story of salvation history and therefore should be believed, whether or not it was necessary.

 

[SteveVH]

Most catholics seem to be arguing that the IC wasn’t absolutely necessary for God to do , but rather that it was fitting.

Even so, all Catholics are bound to believe in the IC if they are to call themselves “Catholic”.

 

[Thinkingaloud]

Even so, all Catholics are bound to believe in the IC if they are to call themselves “Catholic”.

Sure. I understand the catholic perspective on this

 

[PRmerger]

1. The IC is not mentioned in scripture

False.

1. The IC cannot be shown to have been taught by the apostles and passed on through oral tradition.

Also false.

1. Theologically there’s no reason to say this belief is necessary to the Christian faith

Could you please tell us what beliefs are necessary to the Christian faith, and what Scripture verses tell you that it’s a necessary belief?

 

[Thinkingaloud]

False.

Also false.

Could you please tell us what beliefs are necessary to the Christian faith, and what Scripture verses tell you that it’s a necessary belief?

See previous post for my answer. I think we’ve discussed and shared our views and it’s time for me to bail out of this particular discussion. It’s been good sharing thoughts with you all

 

[PRmerger]

Most catholics seem to be arguing that the IC wasn’t absolutely necessary for God to do , but rather that it was fitting.

Indeed.

Just like it’s not absolutely necessary that you keep your Bible in a worthy place, but it would be rather unseemly if you kept your Bible here:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...Tr5BP0rl2Cp0y-tdFeiPg0tfQdJyTcbQoBKsvj-_8HNEH

Especially if there were other options, and you didn’t have to keep it in that filthy storage unit.

 

[PRmerger]

See previous post for my answer. I think we’ve discussed and shared our views and it’s time for me to bail out of this particular discussion. It’s been good sharing thoughts with you all

Dern!

You really didn’t answer what views are necessary for Christianity and how you know.

Suffice it to say that there are no Bible verses which tell you that something is a necessary belief and something is not.

That is something you glean from extra-biblical sources.

As such, that makes you not a Sola Scriptura advocate.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thinkingoutloud…

I partcipated in Mariology II.

It is not written in Sacred Scriptures as to what happened to Christ’s Church after the last apostle died.

What happened to Christ’s Church He founded on St. Peter?

We see plenty of witness of faith in the Old Testament.

Then Christ came. He died on the Cross for our sins. He rose from the dead and broke the power of sin and death, and gave us new life.

But what happened after this greatest event of all time of Christ’s life, death and resurrection??? Where is the witness of the Church???

By the way, I am a Christian.

 

[Tomyris]

Dern!

You really didn’t answer what views are necessary for Christianity and how you know.

Suffice it to say that there are no Bible verses which tell you that something is a necessary belief and something is not.

Romans 10:9?

That is something you glean from extra-biblical sources.

As such, that makes you not a Sola Scriptura advocate.

PR, what definition of SS are you using here? I’m not going to do a full-throated defense of SS here and now, but most SS advocates do not deny there are authorities besides Scripture, just that Scripture is the ultimate authority on earth. Automobiles are not in Scripture but there are few who deny their existence because they are not mentioned in Scripture (although you could, I suppose point to some things in Ezekiel ).

You seem to think Sola Scriptura = Solo Scriptura. I believe you know the difference.

 

[PRmerger]

Romans 10:9?

Not sure if you are saying that this is an essential belief–one among many? Or if it is THE essential belief?

PR, what definition of SS are you using here?

This is indeed a trenchant point, as there seems to be no consensus on what exactly SS is, as there is no one who is able to speak with authority on the definition of SS.

You seem to think Sola Scriptura = Solo Scriptura. I believe you know the difference.

Not really. I do know that there were no Protestant reformers who ever spoke of Solo Scriptura. That does appear to be an innovation borne out of valid objections to the original SS paradigm. It seems like a new definition needed to be made?

 

[PRmerger]

PR, what definition of SS are you using here?

The belief that the Bible alone is God’s Word and that it is formally sufficient for living the Christian life.

 

[Tomyris]

The belief that the Bible alone is God’s Word and that it is formally sufficient for living the Christian life.

I think that is the first time I have seen Sola Scrptura framed in terms of Catholic apologetics.
Interesting. It is also not a definition that a Protestant would typically use, as ‘formally sufficient’ is a phrase at home more on your side of the Tiber than ours. I’m not sure on what that means here.

I think it has more to do with the Bible being the final authority in contrast to the Church being the final authority. This is not a definition, not by a long shot. If the Church is doing something and it does not line up with Scripture, the Church must change. I think you would agree that the Church should obey and believe what is said in Scripture. What makes it complex is that the Church also has a role in understanding what Scripture says, but for Protestants, that understanding is always humbly open to correction. We have Scripture and we have doctrines and teachings that we believe are based on and derived from Scripture, but their only authority is that basis.

Now, back to Mary. Whatever statements are made about Mary should be in accordance with Scripture. However, there is also a lot about Mary we simply don’t know. How tall was she? Was she prone to laugh or of a melancholic disposition? Some things don’t matter, and there are other things that Scripture is silent on. I tend to lean towards the position that she got a big fat reward when she got to heaven, and that the gap in glory between where we are now and that of God is infinite, so that someone such as Mary could get a mind-blowing amount of glory. I wish her the best.

Let me amplify that: statements about her should be in accordance with Scripture and should not contradict Scripture. Additional statements we should be free to believe or not believe. What that means is that if a solid Scriptural case for the IC can be built, for example, locking out all alternatives, we should believe it on that basis, as opposed to believing it because the Church says we must. We should also recognize in Paul’s argument in Romans 14 that Christians will have disagreements on beliefs and practices and love one another. We do and will disagree about her, but we can walk in love together despite that. We see through a glass darkly, now, but one day face to face.

And I take historical records as history, believable. Lazarus is buried on the island of Cyprus, I am told, having died a bishop at the end of his natural life span. I have no reason to doubt that. There Church tradition (Tradition?) and history are fused. The Catholic and Orthodox argument is that they are always fused. The problem is that there are also pious legends about all these things that have sprung up, some of which are simply unbelievable. So we measure legend, tradition and history against the Scriptures to determine what is true.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that is the first time I have seen Sola Scrptura framed in terms of Catholic apologetics.

Would you find it more acceptable if I removed the “formally” part of the definition?

That is: SS is the belief that the Bible alone is God’s Word and that it is sufficient for living the Christian life.

 

[PRmerger]

I think it has more to do with the Bible being the final authority in contrast to the Church being the final authority. This is not a definition, not by a long shot. If the Church is doing something and it does not line up with Scripture, the Church must change.

Indeed. The Church is the servant of Scripture, to be sure.

I think you would agree that the Church should obey and believe what is said in Scripture. What makes it complex is that the Church also has a role in understanding what Scripture says, but for Protestants, that understanding is always humbly open to correction. We have Scripture and we have doctrines and teachings that we believe are based on and derived from Scripture, but their only authority is that basis.

And the Catholic paradigm is that we do not distill our doctrines from the pages of a book, no matter how holy. Our faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

As such, the Scriptures reflect out doctrines, not the other way around. SS gets it exactly backwards in attempting to glean doctrine from the written Word. The Word of God was proclaimed first through Sacred Tradition, through the Church, and then part of it was contained on papyrus.