Queen of Heaven and Earth

[tstor]

How does this quote show succession is not clear? Clement is admonishing the Corinthian laity, basically for not listening to duly appointed bishops. This is exactly how the Catholic Church operated, and continues to operate now.

Well, I have found that there have been many instances of this. The most recent, to my knowledge, was in 1958. So how do you know who the rightful successor was actually supposed to be in instances like this?

 

[tstor]

Your knowledge of Church history is woefully incomplete, my friend, if this is what you believe or were taught to believe. Most Protestants learn next to nothing about early Church history (or have it filtered through their ecclesial body’s assertions). So, all they can do is make assumption such as this–all to prop up Sola Scriptura, which is not a biblical principle, but a man made one. No one had to “approach authoritative figures” since the Apostles taught directly and appointed men to speak for them when they couldn’t be physically present. All this is in the NT.

I guess the apostles were not authoritative figures?

About praying for one another? I don’t see any connection between what I wrote and your conclusions. No, I don’t mean that. I mean just what I wrote.

You very plainly stated the following:
“I believe you are being a bit too academic rather than thinking in terms of faith and spiritual values. We don’t believe merely because the facts say so, we believe because Christ has revealed himself to us in his Incarnation. He asked that we pray for one another as an act of love and mercy towards others. We all benefit from employing such love and mercy–we need all we can get in a world that is increasingly rejecting such values.”

No. This is not the correct interpretation. Not because I say so or even the Church says so (although I would and do believe how the Church interprets her own words–which is what the Scriptures are). I believe that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority and duty for forgive sins because he plainly says so. The Apostles assumed for themselves nothing more than what Christ authorized them to do.

John Gill is writing like a Pharisee or a Sadducee here, not as a Christian who believes Jesus is the Son of God who founded his Church, as Jesus very plainly stated that he did. He gave his authority to the Apostles, which he plainly does here and other places.

It doesn’t matter who interprets Scripture in any way he pleases. What matters is who has the authority to interpret Scripture. Who gave it to John Gill? No one. The Church interprets Scripture because it is her Scriptures–her writings, not John Gills, not yours or mine.

Just read Mark 2:7. John Gill is interpreting Scripture consistently.

 

[Todd977]

No, the passage in Genesis does not say “multiplied.” If it did, then we could reasonably conclude that Eve had already been experiencing pain in childbirth. It simply states that the pain in giving birth will now be severe

I regret that I do not know Hebrew and so must rely on the translations done by others. Of the 50 or so English translations at Bible Gateway, only the NIV family of translations (the NIV and the NIVUK) uses the word “severe.” The vast majority of the English translations there use the word “multiply,” “increase,” or some other synonym (“intensify,” “sharpen”).

 

[Della]

I guess the apostles were not authoritative figures?

My point is that there was no canon of the NT for hundreds of years. So, what authority did the early Christians go by? The non-existent NT? No. They went to their bishops, priests and deacons who had the authority to tell them what was sound doctrine.

You very plainly stated the following:
“I believe you are being a bit too academic rather than thinking in terms of faith and spiritual values. We don’t believe merely because the facts say so, we believe because Christ has revealed himself to us in his Incarnation. He asked that we pray for one another as an act of love and mercy towards others. We all benefit from employing such love and mercy–we need all we can get in a world that is increasingly rejecting such values.”

The operative phrase is “Christ revealed himself to us.” And part of that revelation was that we are to pray for one another.

Just read Mark 2:7. John Gill is interpreting Scripture consistently.

My very point. Read further and you will see what Jesus was saying:

[10] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" – he said to the paralytic – [11] “I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.”

What is the key word? Authority. Jesus had the authority, as the Son of Man, to forgive sins. He gave that authority to the Apostles when he breathed on them and said, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retained are retained.” Why give them the authority to retain sins if all it means if that we’re to forgive one another? Who alone has the authority to retain sins–to not grant absolution of sins in order to put one back in proper communion with the Church? Jesus said to take a member who won’t admit his wrongdoing to the Church. If he won’t listen “even to the Church” he should be considered as a tax collector and a Gentile. (Mt. 18:15-18) Who did Jesus give the authority to forgive or retain sins on earth? His Apostles–the leaders of the Church he founded.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, the literal warning is:

“I will greatly multiply/increase your sorrow and your conceptions. In pain you will bring forth children…”

“Conceptions” is reasonable, since women who are going to live thousands of years probably would find it harder to get pregnant than us. Alternately, some have seen it as an increase in the length or even of the heaviness and strain of pregnancy, which would also make sense. There are some women today who have little strain from pregnancy and can keep working up to the day of delivery, and then there are other women who can barely deal with the logistics and the strain on their health. In an unfallen world, pregnancy would have been a lot less hard on the body.

The word in Genesis 3:16 can be translated as “increase manyfold” (which is what “multiply” means literally in English) as well as just “increase” or “increase severely.” The word for “locusts” or “swarm of locusts” is derived from this same word, so you can see that it really really really means a steep increase.

It’s the same word used for the promise of what will happen to Hagar’s descendants, in Genesis 16:10: they will “multiply like the stars” or “increase in numbers like the stars,” depending on the translation. She already has one in her womb, which is Ishmael, so in that case it really does mean “increase manyfold.”

As for this word for “sorrow,” it can also mean “toil.” Genesis 3:17 has God warning Adam that because he listened and ate, the ground will be cursed and “in toil/in sorrow you shall eat all the days of your life.” Genesis 5:29 has Noah’s dad, Lamech, saying the same word in reference to “the toil of our hands.” So this kind of sorrow is hard work that’s no fun. It probably refers to the burdensome nature of having a big weight added to the front of one’s body, although it could also refer to other bodily changes, the child’s interior kicks, etc.

As for the question of whether Adam and Eve ever had sex in Eden while still unfallen, that’s always been a debateable question with no definitive answer, however much that theologians go over it. If we had needed to know, the Bible would have told us. But there has never been anything said of any kids before Cain and Abel, and there were no sorrows in Eden like miscarriages or stillbirths. So there’s no reason to think that Eve had ever experienced childbirth pain while in Eden. But since Eve previously had been granted supernatural wisdom and knowledge, she probably knew all about pregnancy already and what it would entail. It’s just that now it was going to get a lot harder for her and for all women, outside of Eden.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: the authoritativeness of tradition, isn’t Paul a good enough authority for tradition’s authority?

1 Corinthians 11:2 –

“Moreover, I commend you that you have remembered me in all things, and you are holding fast the traditions as I handed them over to you.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15 –

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold onto the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by letter from us.”

The phrase “by word or by letter” gives equal weight to the oral and the written mode of teaching, although actually most of the ancient world felt (like Papias) that written words were more confusing and less trustworthy than a living teacher or a line of teachers.

The Greek word for “traditions” is “paradoseis.” It literally means something handed over or handed down. (The “I handed them over” in the 1 Cor. quote is “paredoka.”) The Latin “traditio” also literally means “give across,” and that’s where we get our word “tradition.”

Protestant translations of the Bible usually render this word “teachings” or “ordinances” (or similar words) except when it is used in the negative sense. So you get a situation where bad paradoseis are “traditions,” but good paradoseis are “teachings.”

Some more related quotes:

1 Corinthians 11:23 -

“Indeed, I received from the Lord what I handed over also to you: that on the night He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread…”

That was oral teaching from the risen and ascended Jesus, or possibly mental infusion teaching from the risen and ascended Jesus. But nobody has suggested that Jesus handed Paul a book on the road to Damascus. (Although come to think of it, handing someone a book is technically also a “traditio.” Heh.)

1 Corinthians 15:3 -

“Indeed I handed over to you first what I also received: that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.”

(The OT Scriptures - that’s what Paul would have meant at that part of history. There was no NT for Paul to be learning all this from.)

 

[Mintaka]

Sorry to lag so far behind discussion…

Anyway, the point is that there are negative traditions (ie, “traditions of man” when they are pushed ahead of God’s Law and teaching) and there are positive traditions, which are passed down as apostolic teaching, as good disciples did for the words of their rabbi teacher; and as the prophets and students of prophets did, if they came before the custom of prophetic writing or if God didn’t command them to write things down.

Mark 7:13 -

“Making the word of God empty, by the tradition of y’all, which y’all have handed down. And y’all do many other similar things.”

“paradosei hymon” and “paredokate.” Sorry, I can’t resist putting down “y’all” for second person plural…

But Jesus does say in other places that generally the teaching of the rabbis is to be obeyed, because they sit “in the seat of Moses.” Do as they say, not as they do… but first, do as they say.

Paul has a neutral reference to Jewish traditions in the reading we heard at Mass today.

Galatians 1:14 -

“And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.”

There are a ton more refs, positive and negative and neutral. But there are plenty of huge posts in this thread already! I’m probably a bit off-topic, too.

 

[Duane1966]

Your misunderstanding comes from not reading more than one sentence. I encourage you to read the very next sentence after the one you just quoted:
“However, I have now accepted the trinity, not on the basis of Church history, but on the basis of Scripture alone.”

If you cannot read what I type in all of its entirety, then do not take the time to respond to it.

I did read what you had written in it’s entirety. Why would you write I have been, which means current, like right now. Did you mean to write * I had been,* which connotes a change?

I gather that. I am asking for specific examples. Give an example of an objection you have.

Two James White errors on the Papacy:

The “Washington-Ajo” error on St. Jerome: “…[Jerome] asserts that the bishop of Rome is of the same worth as the bishop of any smaller city or province. All the bishops, Jerome claims, are the successors of the apostles. No mention is made of Peter, no mention is made of the unity of the church depending on Rome. Surely Jerome recognized the importance of the Roman See – so did just about everyone else. But they did so for reasons that are other than those claimed by modern Romanism.” (Answers to Catholic Claims [Crowne Publications, 1990], page 121)

Demolished by John Chapman over 100 years ago. biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num53.htm

*The “Universal Bishop-Antichrist” error on Pope Gregory the Great: “Gregory likens anyone who would claim to be ‘universal bishop’ to Lucifer himself who attempted to raise his throne above the throne of God Himself (Isaiah 14). Would the modern claims of the papacy qualify for Gregory’s ridicule? This author believes that they would.” (Answers to Catholic Claims, page 122)
*
Answered by Radio Replies, This Rock, etc on Gregory biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num7.htm

*White says: “In fact, there is a good possibility that Peter did not go to Rome at all” (page 103), that “Babylon” might not be Rome (page 104). *

Refuted here: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num13.htm

I call the St. Jerome quote he used, the Pope Gregory and “universal bishop” quote, and the “Peter may not have been in Rome” blatant errors.

The immediate context is speaking about the OT, yes. However, that does not exclude what would eventually be added to Scripture. Namely, the New Testament.

In an earlier post, I showed four instances where the Apostles, or Jesus relied on oral Tradition.

I never claimed that Paul said “only.”

If Paul believed in sola scriptura, why doesn’t he just come out and say it?

Sure. Many Catholics do as well. Many Muslims do as well. Unless you are arguing that “all” rip the church father’s writings out of context, then this statement holds no real weight.

And yet the quotes you gave that Protestants use saying how the early Church believed in sola scriptura, are ripped out of context. The Protestant historian (probably the most famous of the 19th century, and no friend of Catholicism) had this to say: “There is no reason to infer,” says J.N.D. Kelly in , “that the primitive Church regarded the apostolic testimony as confined to written documents emanating from, or attributed to, the apostles.”

Not at all.

Jesus never commanded anything be written down. Why is that? He knew that even if things are written down, it can be misinterpreted. He didn’t leave us the bible. He left us the Church. If the New Testament had never been written down, the Catholic Church would still exist in all it’s glory. The Church would exist without the bible, but the bible cannot exist without the Church.

Authority is in Scripture.

The authority was given to the Apostles, who handed their authority on by the laying of hands to their successors.

No where does it say that the oral traditions are god-breathed. Show me where I can find a passage that declares this understanding. You cannot. As far as I am concerned, there are over 800 million people who do not agree with you on this very topic. So while it is clear to Catholics, it is far from clear to Protestants.

Again, no where does it say that Sacred Tradition is not God-breathed. Why tell someone to hold fast to what has been taught orally or written, if what was taught orally is not that important? Your 800 million is a little over a third, which leaves almost two-thirds who do believe in the Sacred Tradition that has been handed down orally.

What also hurts your argument that among those 800 million, while most or all say they believe in sola scriptura, they are fracturing at an alarming rate. Why has the doctrine of sola scriptura brought less, and not more unity? Because it is a man made tradition, and we know what Jesus said about those.

 

[Duane1966]

Well, I have found that there have been many instances of this. The most recent, to my knowledge, was in 1958. So how do you know who the rightful successor was actually supposed to be in instances like this?

What you believed happened in 1958 has nothing in common with what Clement wrote to the Corinthians about. I am intrigued, what do you think Clement’s letter has in common with 1958? Are you saying Clement was not the true bishop of Rome?

 

[catholic1seeks]

I would like to start by stating that I am rather new to the forum, so feel free to correct me if I am posting this inquiry in the wrong section.

I purchased a rather cheap copy of a book entitled Catechism of the Catholic Church a few months ago and I have only now got around to examining it. If it is of any relevance, my copy was printed by a company named Image (as I am not certain how many publishers distribute this book). While I was scrutinizing the table of contents, I came across a section entitled “Mary’s Motherhood with Regard to the Church.” I was always aware that Catholics held Mary in high veneration based on my observations that most Cathedrals in my area are named after her and my step family’s house has several icons depicting her. However, I was not aware of the following:
“Finally, the Immaculate Virgin …] was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things…” (pp. 274, paragraph 491)

This seems anomalous to me, as I have never encountered such a high placement of Mary in any system of theology. The book provided a citation, but it was not from the Bible. It said “LG 59,” which I assume is in reference to the Lumen Gentium? Without dwelling on it too long, I went ahead and consulted Google for further clarification. I am not terrible sure which websites are authoritative, but I found one called catholicbridge.com, which provides a relatively good discussion on the topic at hand. I can understand the interpretation of Revelation 11:18-12:17, which is that the woman clothed in the sun is Mary. However, I do not see where it tells us this woman in Revelation was “exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things…”

The website also makes reference to 1 Kings 15:13 and 2 Kings 24:12 as examples of a king’s mother being his queen, or וְאִמּ֔וֹ (queen-mother). It goes on to say that these queens could not be refused (1 Kings 2:19-20), therefore applying this understanding to Mary. They cite 2 John 1-5, but they actually meant to put John 2:1-5 as an example of Jesus bending his will to Mary. I find it to be a rather poor example, but wouldn’t this interpretation of the passage create conflict with what Jesus said in passages such as John 6:38, which is where Jesus tells us the following:
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” (NASB)

Any clarification would be abundantly appreciated.

Let me recommend a book on Mary in general that I think would be very helpful

Hail, Holy Queen by Scott Hahn
amazon.com/Hail-Holy-Queen-Mother-Word/dp/0385501692?ie=UTF8&keywords=hail%20holy%20queen%20scott%20hahn&qid=1465498826&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1

 

[JimmyDFG]

I was limited to Unitarian studies, actually. I have been a Unitarian since converting two years ago, so I had no desire to look into Catholicism or eastern Christianity. However, I have now accepted the trinity, not on the basis of Church history, but on the basis of Scripture alone. I have to disagree with you in that the Bible does very clearly state the trinity. I did not need to rely on the writings of the early Christians to define it. Had it not been clearly and completely defined in the Bible, I would still reject it. This is primarily because I reject the Catholic concept of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (as it stands).

I used to find the trinity to be a rather poorly supported doctrine, but it was primarily because many Trinitarians misrepresented it. I had debated the doctrine of the trinity with many people and none of them presented it as well as James White did in his publication The Forgotten Trinity.

Let’s continue with the example you gave, which is the doctrine of the trinity. There is not one verse that spells it out for us. There is not one verse that tells us Jehovah is triune in nature, that is, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Yet the Bible does reveal this teaching through a network of scriptures (Matthew 3:16-17, 11:27, 17:1-9, 27:46, John 1:18, 14:16-17. The Pre-existence of the Son: Colossians 1:13-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, John 1:1; Colossians 2:9, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, John 1:18; identification as Yahweh: John 6:39-41/Isaiah 6, Hebrews 1:10-12/Psalm 102:25-27, etc.). I can say the same thing regarding sola scriptura. Consider the following texts (NASB):

2 Timothy 3:16 -
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

What did Jesus and the apostles appeal to?

Matthew 4:4 -
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

Matthew 4:7 -
Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Matthew 4:10 -
Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”

Acts 17:2 -
And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 17:11, 12 -
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

Acts 18:28 -
for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:19 -
For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”

Do you recall what Jesus said to the Pharisees regarding tradition?

Matthew 15:3-6 -
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Now, let’s clearly consider what Jesus is talking about. This was not the layman, pagan, tradition that local people had. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees about their religious traditions!

[Continued on next post]

Matthew 28:18-19

18
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

In verse 19 notice the “Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.
Its very clear

 

[po18guy]

Tstor, what you must use as a baseline for thought is to realize that your beliefs were unknown in Christianity even during and after the reformation. All of the reformers had a great veneration for Mary, and rightfully venerated her to reflect how God honored/graced her with being the mother of His Son.

Sadly, it is the beliefs - taught to you by those who bear the greater responsibility (James 3) that are causing confusion. For the purposes of discussion, forget the Catholic Church and examine the Orthodox Churches. Virtually identical to Catholic, and possibly even greater veneration of Mary.

The question is: why do the beliefs (which you were taught) vary so radically from the only two Churches who trace directly to Christ via the Apostles?

What has happened to Protestantism - which is now undefinable?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I was limited to Unitarian studies, actually. I have been a Unitarian since converting two years ago, so I had no desire to look into Catholicism or eastern Christianity. However, I have now accepted the trinity, not on the basis of Church history, but on the basis of Scripture alone. I have to disagree with you in that the Bible does very clearly state the trinity. I did not need to rely on the writings of the early Christians to define it. Had it not been clearly and completely defined in the Bible, I would still reject it. This is primarily because I reject the Catholic concept of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (as it stands).

I used to find the trinity to be a rather poorly supported doctrine, but it was primarily because many Trinitarians misrepresented it. I had debated the doctrine of the trinity with many people and none of them presented it as well as James White did in his publication The Forgotten Trinity.

Let’s continue with the example you gave, which is the doctrine of the trinity. There is not one verse that spells it out for us. There is not one verse that tells us Jehovah is triune in nature, that is, consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Yet the Bible does reveal this teaching through a network of scriptures (Matthew 3:16-17, 11:27, 17:1-9, 27:46, John 1:18, 14:16-17. The Pre-existence of the Son: Colossians 1:13-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, John 1:1; Colossians 2:9, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, John 1:18; identification as Yahweh: John 6:39-41/Isaiah 6, Hebrews 1:10-12/Psalm 102:25-27, etc.). I can say the same thing regarding sola scriptura. Consider the following texts (NASB):

2 Timothy 3:16 -
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

What did Jesus and the apostles appeal to?

Matthew 4:4 -
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

Matthew 4:7 -
Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Matthew 4:10 -
Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’”

Acts 17:2 -
And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 17:11, 12 -
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.

Acts 18:28 -
for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:19 -
For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”

Do you recall what Jesus said to the Pharisees regarding tradition?

Matthew 15:3-6 -
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Now, let’s clearly consider what Jesus is talking about. This was not the layman, pagan, tradition that local people had. Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees about their religious traditions!

[Continued on next post]

tstor, I am interested in your acceptance of the trinity on the basis of scripture alone, not by an explicit verse, but indirectly by a concatenation of scriptural verses. It corresponds to what an evangelical I know who said that the trinity is taught in the bible, but not defended in the bible. I think that’s a good way to put it.

Now, I have a question maybe you can help answer. As a Unitarian, of course you had knowledge of the idea of the trinity. All of us in Christendom have, whether we accept it or not. But, suppose you had never heard of the trinity, no concept of it whatsoever, would you derive the idea of the deity of Christ and deity of the Holy Spirit (the trinity) from bible study alone?

What do you think?