PROTESTANTS! Answer me this....

[Mannyfit75]

Pope Gregory didn’t think the first book of Maccabees was canonical, at least he didn’t according to this quote.

Gregory the Great - “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed” (1 Macc. 6.46). (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

The incident with the elephant occurs in chapter 6 if memory serves me.

It just struck me that it is possible that this was written before he became pope and therefore wouldn’t matter one way or the other.

However, if he wrote this when he was pope, and it is obvious that he didn’t regard 1 Maccabees as canonical, he would be denying a dogmatic decree from the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hipo, if in fact these councils were dogmatic or infallible, whatever the term is.

I know I keep beating this drum but I thought Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were regional councils and therefore wouldn’t meet the requirements of being infallible councils.

Pope Damasus affirmed The Council of Rome with the Deutorocanonical Canon of Scripture. Pope Gregory the Great was a Pope who reign in 594-604 A.D. What he said regarding Maccabees was an opinion, and he knew well that Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. affirmed the Septuguaint, and he couldn’t reverse it because the Holy Spirit would not allow him to reverse the Councils.

No Pope have ever reverse their position or their predecessor position on any Magisterium document by the Church, especially when it comes to the canon of Scripture.

POPE Gregory the Great made no Magisterial pronouncements concerning the canon. In his commentary on Job, Gregory did reject the Deuterocanon of the OT, but this was a private composition, not an offical Church document. There is no evidence that he wrote this book while he was Pope. Gregory was a churchman for his whole life and a Pope for only a short time. Most likely this book was written prior to his becoming Pope. His personal opinions are not infallible in any case, only his official pronouncements as Pope

 

[justasking4]

If all of Scripture is God-breathed, and Scripture tells us to adhere to the traditions we have received, then yes: the adherence to sacred Tradition is a Scriptural admonition.

What are these “sacred Traditions” that you are referring to?

Can you give me a couple of examples what they are?

 

[Mannyfit75]

What are these “sacred Traditions” that you are referring to?

Can you give me a couple of examples what they are?

Your Answer: What is Sacred Tradition?

 

[justasking4]

Okay let’s do this the protestant way… make it say what you want it to say:

“So then, brethren, stand at ease, and hold loosely to the traditions which you were only told about, whether by word of mouth of by a letter from anyone.”

now I get it… Traditions are of no importance nor are those who held them fast.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Oral Tradition of the Church:

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth.”

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is “preached” (not read) to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church’s living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have “heard” (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have “heard” (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God’s word is manifested “through preaching” (not writing). This “preaching” is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was “preached” (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles’ successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God’s appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

 

[Mannyfit75]

((more info))

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God’s word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God’s law of honoring one’s father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) means “to hand on” teaching.

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.

1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.

1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been “entrusted” to you. The word “entrusted” is “paratheke” which means a “deposit.” Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is “tradition,” or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.

 

[Reformed1]

Pope Damasus affirmed The Council of Rome with the Deutorocanonical Canon of Scripture. Pope Gregory the Great was a Pope who reign in 594-604 A.D. What he said regarding Maccabees was an opinion, and he knew well that Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. affirmed the Septuguaint, and he couldn’t reverse it because the Holy Spirit would not allow him to reverse the Councils.

No Pope have ever reverse their position or their predecessor position on any Magisterium document by the Church, especially when it comes to the canon of Scripture.

POPE Gregory the Great made no Magisterial pronouncements concerning the canon. In his commentary on Job, Gregory did reject the Deuterocanon of the OT, but this was a private composition, not an offical Church document. There is no evidence that he wrote this book while he was Pope. Gregory was a churchman for his whole life and a Pope for only a short time. Most likely this book was written prior to his becoming Pope. His personal opinions are not infallible in any case, only his official pronouncements as Pope

I understand that Gregory’s opinion, erroneous or not, doesn’t impact his infallibility as you guys define it, but it would still be troublesome if as pope, he set himself in opposition of a dogma would it not?

When you say that there is no evidence that he wrote this book while he was pope, is that based on your opinion or do you have some knowledge of this? I’m still searching.

 

[justasking4]

Your Answer: What is Sacred Tradition?

Very confusing article. It creates questions and problems for this claim of “sacred Tradition”. One such problem is the idea of seeing things “reflected in scripture”. With such an idea almost anything could be said to be true. For example the idea that Mary is the ark of the covenant is without any foundation in scripture if we are to properly interpret it. No prophet, apostle or Christ Himself never make any reference of Mary being this.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Very confusing article. It creates questions and problems for this claim of “sacred Tradition”. One such problem is the idea of seeing things “reflected in scripture”. With such an idea almost anything could be said to be true. For example the idea that Mary is the ark of the covenant is without any foundation in scripture if we are to properly interpret it. No prophet, apostle or Christ Himself never make any reference of Mary being this.

Perhaps your education level is not college level so you lack some understanding of the main points of the article.

Take a look at this link:

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_in_the_bible.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

I understand that Gregory’s opinion, erroneous or not, doesn’t impact his infallibility as you guys define it, but it would still be troublesome if as pope, he set himself in opposition of a dogma would it not?

When you say that there is no evidence that he wrote this book while he was pope, is that based on your opinion or do you have some knowledge of this? I’m still searching.

There is no evidence that he he wrote it in Ex-Cathedra. To make a doctrine infallible it has to be a written context of union with the Church, and its bishops.

It’s much like when Pope Benedict XVI made a statement about Islam a few months ago.

Take a look at this article from Catholic.com

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

Very confusing article. It creates questions and problems for this claim of “sacred Tradition”. One such problem is the idea of seeing things “reflected in scripture”. With such an idea almost anything could be said to be true. For example the idea that Mary is the ark of the covenant is without any foundation in scripture if we are to properly interpret it. No prophet, apostle or Christ Himself never make any reference of Mary being this.

In the Book of Revelations, before Revelation 12 describe the Ark. Remember at the Early Church there were no verses, and all Christians at the time knew who the mother of Jesus was.

The Article provides evidence of Mary. Mary isn’t the Ark, but symbolically she is the New Ark because she carried Jesus in her womb for 9 months.

The Ark carried the Word of God. Mary carried the Word of God made flesh when she was pregnant with him. The Ark of the Covenant first disappeared in 1 Sam 4:11 when the Philistines overtook Israel. But it was returned to the Israelites after it became a curse to those who did not believe in the One True God. (1 Sam 6:4) This tells us that the Ark has a propensity to turn up after it is captured. It disappeared again, during the Babylonian conquest around 600 B.C. never to be seen again to this day.

Catholics believe it did come back again, just as it did the first time it was lost. Originally the Ark of the Covenant contained the word of God etched on stone by God’s own hand. The Ark was not the Word itself but it was nevertheless very important. Mary carried the “word made flesh” inside her the same way the Ark carried the 10 commandments which were the Word of God manifest in the real word. (Jn 1:1) The Ark turns up in Revelation 11:19. It is presented as Mary, the mother of Jesus.

19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 12 :1 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne… 13 So when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent . Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus.

Some Evangelicals have suggested that woman crowned with stars in this passage is Israel and that the 12 stars represent the tribes of Israel. They say the woman is not Mary. The problem with this interpretation is that the passage clearly says her children are those who “hold the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 12:17) which the children of Israel clearly have not done, but the children of Mary surely have. Catholics believe this started with John at the foot of the cross when Jesus presented Mary to him as his mother. (Jn 19:26)

Catholics believe this passage of Revelation makes clear several important points:

The Ark of the Covenant has been restored to the temple
The temple is now heaven (See also Heb 9:1-12)
A woman with a crown is there - the new Ark
She gave birth to the son who will rule the nations and is at God’s throne
The devil is very interested in destroying her but she is safe
Her children are all faithful Christians.

 

[Reformed1]

There is no evidence that he he wrote it in Ex-Cathedra. To make a doctrine infallible it has to be a written context of union with the Church, and its bishops.

It’s much like when Pope Benedict XVI made a statement about Islam a few months ago.

Take a look at this article from Catholic.com

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009sbs.asp

I agree that he didn’t present it ex-cathedra. We agree on that.

But, I thought that if you or any other Catholic, including the pope, denied a dogmatic teaching of the church they became heretical. Is this right?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I agree that he didn’t present it ex-cathedra. We agree on that.

But, I thought that if you or any other Catholic, including the pope, denied a dogmatic teaching of the church they became heretical. Is this right?

If Pope Gregory say it in the Chair of Peter, yes he would be. But he didn’t. His opinion is his opinion. Let us define what a heretic is according to the Catholic Church. A heresy is “theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church.”

As you can see, Pope Gregory doesn’t fit the role of a heretic because he did not state the Maccabees in “ex cathedra” nor was it written in Magisterium document.

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=Mannyfit75;1755768]Perhaps your education level is not college level so you lack some understanding of the main points of the article.

Take a look at this link:

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_in_the_bible.htm

A college level education is not required to understand the marian dogmas. What i do see lacking is poor exegesis of scripture by the catholic church. So much is read into the scriptures by the catholic church to support these doctrines.

 

[Mannyfit75]

justasking4:

A college level education is not required to understand the marian dogmas. What i do see lacking is poor exegesis of scripture by the catholic church. So much is read into the scriptures by the catholic church to support these doctrines.

These doctrines are Apostolic in origin and the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus upon his ascension into Heaven. I don’t believe that Jesus would lie to Peter that lead His Church into error.

The CC teaches a unified doctrine and sets of belief. Unlike the Protestant Churches which have a different menu of doctrines, and belief all their own due to their sola scriptura and sola fidi doctrine.

The Protestant Church have inconsist belief and many of their belief contradict one another. There are some Protestant Churches who believe contraception is ok. While another is against it. There is another who support gay marriages, and ordained gay ministers. There are some the ordain women which is against Scripture.

The Catholic Church teachings are consistent. It is against contraception, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and other immoralities…

There use to be a time when Protestants were against contraception, but that change in the late 1800 to 1900s. The Catholic Church have taught Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture for over 2,000 yrs. Protestantism has only been around since 1517…

 

[Mannyfit75]

justasking4:
A college level education is not required to understand the marian dogmas. What i do see lacking is poor exegesis of scripture by the catholic church. So much is read into the scriptures by the catholic church to support these doctrines.

If you want to discuss Marian doctrine, you are better off to start a new thread. I know this forum cover so much about Mary, you should start posting your opinions on those.

 

[justasking4]

In the Book of Revelations, before Revelation 12 describe the Ark. Remember at the Early Church there were no verses, and all Christians at the time knew who the mother of Jesus was.

The Article provides evidence of Mary. Mary isn’t the Ark, but symbolically she is the New Ark because she carried Jesus in her womb for 9 months.

If you were to exegete these passages of scripture you would never arrive at this conclusions. In fact i don’t think these passges were ever thought of like this for centuries. The original authors did not have these things in mind when they wrote.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you were to exegete these passages of scripture you would never arrive at this conclusions. In fact i don’t think these passges were ever thought of like this for centuries. The original authors did not have these things in mind when they wrote.

Oh really then. Let us take a look at the Early Church Fathers and their writings.

On Mary:

They were taught by the Apostles and read the Same OT text.

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead.” Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).

“Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350).

 

[Mannyfit75]

I. Mary is the Mother of God

“After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead.” Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).

“Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350).

“And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God.” Athanasius, Orations III, 14(A.D. 362).

“Just as, in the age of Mary the mother of God, he who had reigned from Adam to her time found, when he came to her and dashed his forces against the fruit of her virginity as against a rock, that he was shattered to pieces upon her, so in every soul which passes through this life in the flesh under the protection of virginity, the strength of death is in a manner broken and annulled, for he does not find the places upon which he may fix his sting.” Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 14 (A.D. 370).

 

[Mannyfit75]

II. Mary’s Immaculate Conception

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).

“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.” Ephraim, Hymns on the Nativity, 15:23 (A.D. 370).

“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).

“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).

“As he formed her without my stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain.” Proclus of Constantinople, Homily 1 (ante A.D. 446).

“A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns.” Theodotus of Ancrya, Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446).

“The angel took not the Virgin from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged from Joseph, but gave her to Christ, to whom she was pledged in the womb, when she was made.” Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 140 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary.” Jacob of Sarug (ante A.D. 521).

“She is born like the cherubim, she who is of a pure, immaculate clay.” Theotokos of Livias, Panegyric for the feast of the Assumption, 5:6 (ante A.D. 650).

“Today humanity, in all the radiance of her immaculate nobility, receives its ancient beauty. The shame of sin had darkened the splendour and attraction of human nature; but when the Mother of the Fair One par excellence is born, this nature regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God… The reform of our nature begins today and the aged world, subjected to a wholly divine transformation, receives the first fruits of the second creation.” Andrew of Crete, Sermon I, On the Birth of Mary (A.D. 733).

“[T]ruly elect, and superior to all, not by the altitude of lofty structures, but as excelling all in the greatness and purity of sublime and divine virtues, and having no affinity with sin whatever.” Germanus of Constantinople, Marracci in S. Germani Mariali (ante A.D. 733).

“O most blessed loins of Joachim from which came forth a spotless seed! O glorious womb of Anne in which a most holy offspring grew.” John of Damascus, Homily I (ante A.D. 749).