Protestant View of Mariology

[SteveVH]

Surely Paul in one of his many inspired letters could have brought up the issue of Mary though, no?

Again, was Paul also preaching about Mary but completely left her out in all of his letters? What about James, Peter, John and Jude? Were they preaching about Mary but didn’t touch on one thing about her also?

Mary would direct them to preach about exactly what they preached about, her Son, our Savior. She always points us to her Son. Jesus had just established a Church and their job was to preach the Gospel to all nations. The Gospel is Jesus Christ, not Mary, though she is certainly mentioned in the Gospels as “full of grace” and we are instructed that that all nations will call her blessed. I doubt they had to remind the Christians of that day to honor Mary. She was right there with them.

 

[dronald]

Okay,but what you presented are questions,issues or doubts by the above folks presented before the final canonization. The canon was finalized at one point time. Does not matter, what one individual felt about certain books, it is not about individual opinions. Everything is done for the submission of the Church. Personal wills are set aside for the greater good: The church.

These doubts were after Carthage. If you’re now agreeing with the Catholic Encyclopedia that the Catholic Canon was finalized at Trent, you now agree that Protestants do not need Catholicism for the compiling of the Bible as Trent was done in response to Luther’s objections to Catholicism. Which has been my point all along and your point has been the counter.

Which book? Tobit or Maccabees?

Pope Gregory the great was against the inclusion of both in the Canon of Scripture. Again, this was after the council of Carthage.

Mary would direct them to preach about exactly what they preached about, her Son, our Savior. She always points us to her Son. Jesus had just established a Church and their job was to preach the Gospel to all nations. The Gospel is Jesus Christ, not Mary, though she is certainly mentioned in the Gospels as “full of grace” and we are instructed that that all nations will call her blessed. I doubt they had to remind the Christians of that day to honor Mary. She was right there with them.

Perhaps she was, perhaps she wasn’t; we have no true way of knowing, what we do know is that all of the Apostles were silent on the matter:

2 Tim 4:9 Do your best to come to me quickly, 10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. 12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus. 13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.

14 Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. 15 You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

16 At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. 17 But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion’s mouth. 18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

We are no longer stuck because of a much needed reformation.

Reformation can only happen from within, not from without.

See [Catherine of Siena](St. Catherine of Siena) and Gregory the Great,

 

[dronald]

Pope Gregory the great was against the inclusion of both in the Canon of Scripture. Again, this was after the council of Carthage.

Sorry, I gaffed here, I got the two books mixed up. I’m not used to discussing books left out of the Protestant Bible, so again I apologize. I can’t say for sure that he definately was against all Deuterocanonical books, but he was certainly against Maccabees. It is interesting that he does say that Maccabees is not canon well after the council we are discussing however.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Okay,but what you presented are questions,issues or doubts by the above folks presented before the final canonization. The canon was finalized at one point time. Does not matter, what one individual felt about certain books, it is not about individual opinions. Everything is done for the submission of the Church. Personal wills are set aside for the greater good: The church.

dronald:
These doubts were after Carthage. If you’re now agreeing with the Catholic Encyclopedia that the Catholic Canon was finalized at Trent, you now agree that Protestants do not need Catholicism for the compiling of the Bible as Trent was done in response to Luther’s objections to Catholicism. Which has been my point all along and your point has been the counter.

Nope…sorry,you incorrect. What you are presenting is called revisionists history and it seriously clouds accurate history. The Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563).The canon of OT and NT received final definitions, NOT final canonization: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT. Let me this clear:

Trent in essence re-affirmed the existing canon…period!

You are revising history to support a false Protestant argument. Does not matter who disagreed, it had been finalized more than a thousands years earlier.

Answer this:

If the Council of Trent added or made it final duing the council, then why did Luther make the comments years earlier, those books were not at the same canonical level? Meaning what? His Bible already included them long before he existed and long before Trent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Which book? Tobit or Maccabees?

dronald:
Pope Gregory the great was against the inclusion of both in the Canon of Scripture. Again, this was after the council of Carthage.

Present to me one of his writings were he explicitly was against its inclusion?

BTW: Are you aware many were against the inclusion of several NT books?

 

[Monergistic]

Monergistic:

Indeed. From my studying the canon, the deuters were not excluded from the first Protestant bibles.

As far I can tell, you do with the 27 NT canon,but Protestants adhere to the 39 OT books. Rejection of the 7 deuters came much later and most Protestants today simply follow such a tradition. Fine with me…their choice,but I prefer the 46 OT canon.

Yes the OT canon has been a hot piece to handle.

Protestants rather to stick to the Jewish canon and again, it is their choice. I have no problems with them following such a tradition. I prefer to adhere to the larger canon and ancient Christian tradition.

You have a different canon because you choose to follow another adopted at a later date. I am not implying anything because it is a fact the canon was closed at a specific period in time. If it was not closed as so many contest, than why isn’t the 27 NT also included in the mix? Whether some rejected it or do not accept it is another issue. No different than doctrines being defined and closed, either people adhere to them or they don’t. Tons of Christians today deny the Trinity and other doctrines,but does not matter…it is a done deal.

And worth mentioning.

First- early Protestant Bibles did include a section labeled the Apocrypha, those books being lifted from their usual place in the Septuagint and placed between the old and new testaments. But yes, that is a good point, there was a period of transition where the Apocrypha (you’d call them Deuteros) was included, labeled the Apocrypha, and then universally dropped as far as I know. Little bit like how Greek Catholic Bibles used in Eastern Catholicism include portions that are apocryphal in the west but deutero in the east- and they are noted as apocryphal if they’re in a Catholic bible. Is that transitional? I don’t really know, but I do know such inclusion doesn’t reflect on the Catholic canon and Eastern Catholics can continue to print material labeled apocryphal if they want or drop it completely as they choose, it doesn’t make a big difference to anyone.

Second, Protestants adhere to Jewish tradition re:the OT and Catholic/Orthodox tradition re:the NT, which all forms one canon. As a Catholic, you are conditioned to assume that adherence to a certain tradition presupposes a certain kind of submission to a certain authority. That assumption does not necessarily play out, especially with Protestants and most clearly with the issue of the canon. What authority is this that we supposedly submit to- a Judeo-Catholic-Orthodox authority? A Jewish one by choice and a Catholic/Orthodox one by habit? That’s messy. The cleaner and more accurate explanation is that we adhere to certain traditions, but that does not mean we automatically live in full submission to whichever authority produced that tradition, nor does it mean we feel obligated to accept every single thing that Pharisees and bishops and every kind of priest has to say about themselves. Maybe Catholics are required to play by a certain set of rules, but Protestants for the most part aren’t required to, officially or unofficially. This is not as true of mainline denominations- but even then, submission to a specific authority isn’t necessarily regarded as a metric for unity.

And third, what do you mean by a closed canon and what is the specific period of time it was closed? And who gets to close it? I’m not entirely clear on the stated Catholic position with the closed canon part.

And finally, we as Protestants have stated beliefs re:authority. Our stated beliefs re:authority are the beliefs we have re:authority. It’s not uncommon for Catholics to respond to this idea with “But you have these 27 NT books,” and it’s only the occasional Catholic that goes all the way with something like “you have given tacit approval and faith in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare for you.” You haven’t quite done this, but please don’t. We have certain beliefs about authority. Understand them, even argue that a different set of beliefs is better and/or right. But if you know our stated beliefs and tell us that our stated beliefs aren’t our real beliefs, that is a bit of a fool’s errand. And I know you’re no fool.

 

[dronald]

Nope…sorry,you incorrect. What you are presenting is called revisionists history and it seriously clouds accurate history. The Council of Trent, an ecumenical council called to respond to the heresy of the Reformers (1545-1563).The canon of OT and NT received final definitions, NOT final canonization: 46 books in the OT; 27 in the NT. Let me this clear:

Trent in essence re-affirmed the existing canon…period!

You are revising history to support a false Protestant argument. Does not matter who disagreed, it had been finalized more than a thousands years earlier.

Answer this:

If the Council of Trent added or made it final duing the council, then why did Luther make the comments years earlier, those books were not at the same canonical level? Meaning what? His Bible already included them long before he existed and long before Trent.

My premise is that Protestants do not need the CC in order to have a canon. You say the books were already canonized but again that is not what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. So if I’m using revisionist history, then so is the Catholic Encyclopedia.

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

BTW: Are you aware many were against the inclusion of several NT books?

Who was?

 

[dronald]

And finally, we as Protestants have stated beliefs re:authority. Our stated beliefs re:authority are the beliefs we have re:authority. It’s not uncommon for Catholics to respond to this idea with “But you have these 27 NT books,” and it’s only the occasional Catholic that goes all the way with something like “you have given tacit approval and faith in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare for you.” You haven’t quite done this, but please don’t. We have certain beliefs about authority. Understand them, even argue that a different set of beliefs is better and/or right. But if you know our stated beliefs and tell us that our stated beliefs aren’t our real beliefs, that is a bit of a fool’s errand. And I know you’re no fool.

I’ve been saying this as well.

 

[Nicea325]

**My premise is that Protestants do not need the CC in order to have a canon. **You say the books were already canonized but again that is not what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. So if I’m using revisionist history, then so is the Catholic Encyclopedia.

St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

Who was?

And do you think a Catholic source cannot be in error? You do not need the CC? Really? Why? Well that being the case,then you also do not need the CC for the Trinity,Hypostatic Union, Incarnation,etc,etc. Who do believe was there to defend all of those sacred teachings? The Bible-alone? The Methodist church? Without the CC/Orthodox church you wouldn’t have a book called the Bible, 66 books or 100 books, either way the CC developed the canon for us. I’ll make this very simple:

Does not matter how much you wish to discuss this issue at hand or disagree with whatever you choose, a canon was established,take it or leave it. Really makes no difference to me. The fact that Protestants love to use Jerome does not change an iota. You know why? Because Jerome being the good Catholic Chrisitan he was did not push for his personal will,rather he submitted His will for the Church. Unlike Luther,Calvin and others who pushed their agendas and doctrines, Jerome did not! He still approved and included them. JW’,Mormons reject the Trinity,do I care? No…their free-will. Again, all Trent did was re-affirm was already discussed centuries earlier.

 

[dronald]

And do you think a Catholic source cannot be in error? You do not need the CC? Really? Why? Well that being the case,then you also do not need the CC for the Trinity,Hypostatic Union, Incarnation,etc,etc.

Exactly.

Who do believe was there to defend all of those sacred teachings? The Bible-alone? The Methodist church? Without the CC/Orthodox church you wouldn’t have a book called the Bible, 66 books or 100 books, either way the CC developed the canon for us. I’ll make this very simple:

They did a great job defending teachings, and as you say there were sometimes in err. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong, sometimes there were disagreements within the Catholic Church. Luckily now we have the freedom to break off from the CC when we disagree with them; such was not possible for centuries.

Does not matter how much you wish to discuss this issue at hand or disagree with whatever you choose, a canon was established,take it or leave it. Really makes no difference to me. The fact that Protestants love to use Jerome does not change an iota. You know why? Because Jerome being the good Catholic Chrisitan he was did not push for his personal will,rather he submitted His will for the Church. Unlike Luther,Calvin and others who pushed their agendas and doctrines, Jerome did not! He still approved and included them. JW’,Mormons reject the Trinity,do I care? No…their free-will. Again, all Trent did was re-affirm was already discussed centuries earlier.

Hey, I’m just quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia on when the Catholic canon was finalized. I don’t know if you agree or disagree, but that’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says so I’m going to take it’s word for it.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

And do you think a Catholic source cannot be in error? You do not need the CC? Really? Why? Well that being the case,then you also do not need the CC for the Trinity,Hypostatic Union, Incarnation,etc,etc. Who do believe was there to defend all of those sacred teachings? The Bible-alone? The Methodist church? Without the CC/Orthodox church you wouldn’t have a book called the Bible, 66 books or 100 books, either way the CC developed the canon for us. I’ll make this very simple:
Does not matter how much you wish to discuss this issue at hand or disagree with whatever you choose, a canon was established,take it or leave it. Really makes no difference to me. The fact that Protestants love to use Jerome does not change an iota. You know why? Because Jerome being the good Catholic Christan he was did not push for his personal will,rather he submitted His will for the Church. Unlike Luther,Calvin and others who pushed their agendas and doctrines, Jerome did not! He still approved and included them. JW’,Mormons reject the Trinity,do I care? No…their free-will. Again, all Trent did was re-affirm was already discussed centuries earlier.

Please understand that many Christians firmly believe they are historic Catholics. That everything up to the Reformation is the holy Church and everything after the Reformation is also the holy Church. We are all descendants of the early Church, the ecumenical creeds and the formation of the faith. There has always been disagreement from the earliest centuries AD. Orthodox do not entirely agree with Roman Catholics. Lutherans do not entirely agree with Orthodox. Anglicans differ with Lutherans [though there is very little difference] etc. Sorry friend, but what you articulate is in many way contrary to the actual positions of the Papacy and don’t alway reflect the Roman Catholic attitude toward other Christians.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d like to point something out right quick…Protestants are extremely consistent in affirming the same 27 books of the NT canon, but we’re also awfully consistent in excluding the deuterocanon and maintaining that all that mess is apocryphal.

And you’ll have to explain how you accept this 27 book canon.

Is there some way you know that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired word of God?

What is this way?

 

[Monergistic]

And you’ll have to explain how you accept this 27 book canon.

Is there some way you know that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired word of God?

What is this way?

I don’t think you’re the right person for me to explain this to.

 

[joe371]

I don’t think you’re the right person for me to explain this to.

Why not? That was a question I could not answer as a former protestant, at least until I came to the inescapable and very disconcerting conclusion that I accept the 27-book canon based on the inerrant decision of the 4th century Catholic Church. Imagine my shock… It is true nonetheless. 7 books of the NT were not universally accepted in different areas of the Roman Empire, and some that were, at the time leading up to the 4th century, are not found in our present-day NT, which was why it became necessary for the 4th century CC to make the call, and the decision was based on sacred tradition, passed down from the apostles. Once I removed my biases based typically on either misinformation or outright disinformation and my erratic and mostly unwarranted emotions about the CC, the rest was easy…

 

[PRmerger]

And you’ll have to explain how you accept this 27 book canon.

Is there some way you know that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired word of God?

What is this way?

I don’t think you’re the right person for me to explain this to.

Why not?

The only conclusion is, naturally, that he can’t explain why he knows the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos unless he acknowledges his tacit (or explicit) submission to the authority of the CC.

Something he is not wont to do.

However, Monergistic, if I am not the person to explain this to, what about joe? Can you please 'splain how you know it’s inspired to joe?

Or is he not the person to explain it to also?

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that the letters were written by the Apostles and the Gospel of Thomas was not, is enough for me to accept that I should read them as authoritative.

Where does the Gospel of Mark say it was written by Mark, an apostle? Please cite chapter and verse.

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose if God makes all in Heaven omnipotent that’s something God does. I don’t have the text to support a claim but what I do know is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are completely omnipotent. Because I know this for a fact I don’t need to believe that Mary is ever present answering all of our requests. I know that God is though! This however is not enough for some Catholics.

Omnipotence is not required for those in heaven to hear our prayers, any more than you need omnipotence to read my words here, miles away from you.

Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, what God has ready for those who love him.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t think you’re the right person for me to explain this to.

You can explain it to me. I’m a good listener and very interested in what you have to say. I think it would be great to have an independent method of determining just what is the word of God and what is not. So, how do you do that?

Thanks.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Nicea325
And do you think a Catholic source cannot be in error? You do not need the CC? Really? Why? Well that being the case,then you also do not need the CC for the Trinity,Hypostatic Union, Incarnation,etc,etc.

dronald:

Exactly.

Ah no! You misunderstood. I never said the erred in doctrine.Name one orthodox doctrine the CC has erred? So do you believe you would have those doctrines without the CC/Orthodox? What certitude do you have those doctrines would have been defined and ratified? I am not referring to doctrine,but sources which may be providing incorrect information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Who do believe was there to defend all of those sacred teachings? The Bible-alone? The Methodist church? Without the CC/Orthodox church you wouldn’t have a book called the Bible, 66 books or 100 books, either way the CC developed the canon for us. I’ll make this very simple:

dronald:

They did a great job defending teachings, and as you say there were sometimes in err. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong, sometimes there were disagreements within the Catholic Church.** Luckily now we have the freedom to break off from the CC when we disagree with them; such was not possible for centuries**.

Nope! I never said erred in doctrine,if so tell me where I said it? Luckily? And do you call thousands of denominations breaking off due to “freedom” is something to brag about it? Tell me where Jesus ever supported such a move or belief? I am shocked you brag about something so tragic and truly believe Christ would have wanted such an ugly move?

Originally Posted by Nicea325
Does not matter how much you wish to discuss this issue at hand or disagree with whatever you choose, a canon was established,take it or leave it. Really makes no difference to me. The fact that Protestants love to use Jerome does not change an iota. You know why? Because Jerome being the good Catholic Chrisitan he was did not push for his personal will,rather he submitted His will for the Church. Unlike Luther,Calvin and others who pushed their agendas and doctrines, Jerome did not! He still approved and included them. JW’,Mormons reject the Trinity,do I care? No…their free-will. Again, all Trent did was re-affirm was already discussed centuries earlier.

dronald:
Hey, I’m just quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia on when the Catholic canon was finalized. I don’t know if you agree or disagree, but that’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia says so I’m going to take it’s word for it.

And be my guest…by all means. But I will continue to tell you Trent did not make any finalization of the canon it had previously set over 1000 years earlier. Again, it was merely re-affirmed due to the Protestant heresies.

 

[pablope]

These doubts were after Carthage. If you’re now agreeing with the Catholic Encyclopedia that the Catholic Canon was finalized at Trent, you now agree that Protestants do not need Catholicism for the compiling of the Bible as Trent was done in response to Luther’s objections to Catholicism. Which has been my point all along and your point has been the counter.

Maybe you should read what actually Trent said:

, the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Trent did not come up with a new canon…it affirmed previous decisions and on what was read in the Churches before.

Pope Gregory the great was against the inclusion of both in the Canon of Scripture. Again, this was after the council of Carthage.