Protestants, Look at Polycarp

[Cachonga]

shoewindow3000:

The Immaculate Conception:

Justin Martyr:

First, I don’t see anything in these references that indicate Mary was believed to have been immaculately conceived (just that she was a virgin, which I agree with).

Second, in the quotes from Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:22:24), I see the word sin in brackets ([sin]) in your quote, but when I look up the reference, I don’t see this at all, which leads me to believe that this was added by a translator and was not part of his original writing.

Third, her perpetual virginity was not questioned (not that I agree with it, but I had asked about her bodily assumption).

Fourth, not a single refernce you gave cited Polycarp as a source of their belief. Since Polycarp is the topic, I suggest that you have failed to prove your original claim.

twb1621:

In the definition you referenced in Wiki, the usage as “Greatest Bridge-maker” is not an implication of a disrespectful term and has been used in more than a few circumstances. This is not objectionable at all as there are many terms used for many references even today. In these cases we must refer to the usage as it applies to the subject at hand. Refer to the circumstances and usage of the term below;

Sorry. This is not a discussion on the papacy or the primacy of Peter. My point was that the title Pontificus Maximus was originally used by a pagan high priest, which seems odd to me that God would use it for the head of His church. Again, this is off topic and I apologize for bringing it up.

 

[YourAverageJoe]

So basically, what you’re saying is, “I believe it because the Church says so.” The question about Mary was in relation to Polycarp and the Apostolic traditions he taught. If you can’t prove what he taught, how can you KNOW he actually taught it??

Yes, I believe whatever the True Church appointed by Christ feeds the flock in matters of faith and morals…this still inspite of it having many sinners, The Church can not teach error from top down. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, and not any one individual. I cant prove word for word that Polycarp on his own taught the things you mentioned anymore than I can prove prove Polycarp taught the book of Hebrews needs to be inclusive in the bible, or the doctrine of Trinity… I just do!!! Jesus demanded his apostles and their successors to feed their sheep, NOT that the sheep should decide to feed itself… case in point protestantism…

 

[YourAverageJoe]

Sorry. This is not a discussion on the papacy or the primacy of Peter. My point was that the title Pontificus Maximus was originally used by a pagan high priest, which seems odd to me that God would use it for the head of His church. Again, this is off topic and I apologize for bringing it up.

The word “God” was also used by pagans to address thier god…or gods…I think Paul addressed this when he visited Greece,…he didnt demand a new reference be made to the Father since the pagans had already for thousands of years adopted the word “god”…rather odd God would pick this term to reference himself…
but you are right, this is off topic…

 

[Cachonga]

YourAverageJoe:

Yes, I believe whatever the True Church appointed by Christ feeds the flock in matters of faith and morals…this still inspite of it having many sinners, The Church can not teach error from top down. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, and not any one individual. I cant prove word for word that Polycarp on his own taught the things you mentioned anymore than I can prove prove Polycarp taught the book of Hebrews needs to be inclusive in the bible, or the doctrine of Trinity… I just do!!! Jesus demanded his apostles and their successors to feed their sheep, NOT that the sheep should decide to feed itself… case in point protestantism…

This is not entirely on topic, but in regard to the “traditions” you hold to, I would point out that I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, not just because of Church tradition, but because the teaching is very clear in scriptures. For example, I can clearly identify the Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the Baptism of Jesus. I will also point back to Post #3 and my own post #25, and restate that even Polycarp, when speaking of the traditions he learned from John and others, spoke “in harmony with the Scriptures”. Sounds to me like the traditions Polycarp passed on were already written down in the Scriptures.

 

[YourAverageJoe]

… I would point out that I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, not just because of Church tradition, but because the teaching is very clear in scriptures. .

I am with you, but here lies the problem, to many people, the Trinity is not clear…subjectivism, relevetism,
who decides???

in Christ!

 

[Karmartia]

Is it reasonable for a woman to be considered a virgin in the physical sense after she has given birth? Did God miraculously re-grow her hymen?

On the other hand:

Is it reasonable to believe that God would select a girl at random, seduce her into consenting to bear His child, then disavow any marital connection to her? Would God make his own Son a bastard?

Is it reasonable to think of Joseph as anything more than Mary’s chaste protector, given that she is already married to God. Would not God insure that His Son be raised by a man He could trust?

Personally, if I were Joseph, I would be in such awe of Mary that the very though of touching her in that way would drop me to my knees. It is a disgusting notion.

 

[Cachonga]

YourAverageJoe:

I am with you, but here lies the problem, to many people, the Trinity is not clear…subjectivism, relevetism,
who decides???

This is wandering off topic.

Karmartia:

Is it reasonable for a woman to be considered a virgin in the physical sense after she has given birth? Did God miraculously re-grow her hymen?

This is way off topic! I suggest you go back and read what came before so you can (maybe) give some (name removed by moderator)ut that is on topic.

 

[Karmartia]

(Maybe) you can wrap your mind around the concept that Polycarp and Ignatius or any number of their contemporaries had not yet recieved the wisdom to understand the true nature of the Bessed Virgin, but that as the Christian community continued to grow so did our veneration of Mary. The best I could do was find that Polycarp wrote in his letter to the Phillippians that they should remain true to the teachings of Ignatius, who in his letter to the Ephesians called the virginity of Mary a holy mystery unknown to the devil. No Immaculate Conception, no assumption in the ECF’s, but enough to infer that these blessings would naturally come later. God bless you.

 

[Cachonga]

Karmartia:

(Maybe) you can wrap your mind around the concept that Polycarp and Ignatius or any number of their contemporaries had not yet recieved the wisdom to understand the true nature of the Bessed Virgin, but that as the Christian community continued to grow so did our veneration of Mary. The best I could do was find that Polycarp wrote in his letter to the Phillippians that they should remain true to the teachings of Ignatius, who in his letter to the Ephesians called the virginity of Mary a holy mystery unknown to the devil. No Immaculate Conception, no assumption in the ECF’s, but enough to infer that these blessings would naturally come later. God bless you.

So you’re saying that Polycarp (and Ignatius, and others), who knew the Apostles, and were filled with (and led by) the Holy Spirit, didn’t have the wisdom that we have today concerning Mary and her veneration? I would suggest that if these men didn’t venerate Mary (or teach it as an Apostolic tradition), then it is (at best) a tradition of men that has crept into the Church over time, and MUST be rejected!

Having said that, I will add that I do acknowledge Mary is greatly blessed by God, and served a very special purpose in God’s plan. I do honor her as best I can, but I do not pray to her or elevate her above what the Scriptures reveal about her. This was a bit off topic, but I do not want to be accused of believing something that is not true.