The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[Alexius]

OK, we get it. It is Catholic but not Roman Catholic, and Orthodox but not Greek Orthodox. Orthodox but not Russian Orthodox. And last but not least

Orthodox but not Greco-Carpatho-Albanian-Ukrainian-Antiochian-Serbian-Romanian-Bulgarian Orthodox.

Phil P

Phil P:

Actually, to be under the Russian Metropolitan would make you Russian Orthodox; to be under the Greek Archbishop would make you Greek Orthodox. Each of these churches operates on its own and in its own jurisdiction. So, to be under the Roman Bishop makes you Roman Catholic.

BTW, I’m not Orthodox, but my theology is very close to theirs’…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[JesusforMadrid]

In the Early Church defining who Jesus was the Church’s priority. That is how the Trinitarian doctrine to explain the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit became a defined doctrine of the Church.

 

[RNRobert]

to cart out the same old tired list; there are other threads that deal with these differences.

Then compare that to a modern day (i) Evangelical author (e.g. CS Lewis) and (ii) a modern day Catholic author (e.g Scott Hahn). Which one sounds more like these 1st century authors?

I’m a great fan of C.S. Lewis, and I find him to be very Catholic at times (i.e. Eucharist, Purgatory).

 

[RNRobert]

JFM,

By your standards, then, we should throw out the doctrine of the Trinity, since that word doesn’t appear in Scripture either.

 

[PhilVaz]

Alex << So, to be under the Roman Bishop makes you Roman Catholic. >>

Ah ha you got me. OK, how about “Catholic but not Byzantine Catholic.” “Roman but not Roman Catholic.” “Roman but not Roman Polanski.”

Phil P

 

[rtconstant]

In terms of Marian doctrines I think you might want to take a closer look at ECF writings as they do find mention. They are not as refined and codified nor do they have the technical names that we give them today but one can find most of them. In terms of the Immaculate Conception what we see are ECF’s referring to the fact that to the lack of her having birth pains and that she is the New Eve. These speak towards our beliefs in her today. Her lack of birth pains suggests that she was free of the Eve’s legacy.

Also the ECF’s analogies of Mary as the new Eve speak to her being a perfact example of original woman just Christ is the perfect example of original man. We can see these things mentioned in writings such as: These things can be seen in the writings of Justin Martin in his letter to Trypho, Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Tertullian’s Flesh of Christ and Ephraim the Syrian’s Nisibene Hymns.

Happily the writings of Irenaeus on the subject also speak role of mediatrix (as The Church understands it).

It should also be noted that The Assumption is also giving evidence by Pseudo-Melito in The Passing of the Virgin

As to perpetual virginity we see that the Proto-Evanglium of James and Origen’s commentary on Matthew dealing with this subject.

Intercessory prayer was something that was in evidence in writings as early as the first century such as The Shepherd by Hermas or by Clement of Alexandria. Now in the earlier times usually mention of intercessory prayer referred more often to the angels and as time went on the saints became more prominent. This makes sense as it would appear that as more saints passed their names were taken up. In anycase by the time that Origen wrote Prayer it seems to be understood that the saints join themselves with the angels and Jesus in prayer for us.

Many of these reference can be found on CA site right here.

While it is true that our refined doctrines were not named as such in the early days it is clear that the beliefs were held. Were there some who maybe didn’t hold to all parts of the beliefs? Sure. But remember that unlike today not all teaching and information was as immediately available. What we see is that all the beliefs of the Church existed in one form or another from the very beginning. As the Church became more organized and as it met questions to the faith it codified and refined its teaching.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

JFM,By your standards, then, we should throw out the doctrine of the Trinity, since that word doesn’t appear in Scripture either.

By which standard do you refer? Sorry, I didn’t get that.

We don’t need to throw out the Trinity ever because the Trinity (i)was taught by Jesus (ii) was taught by the apostles (iii) it was internally consistent with the rest of the Bible and (iv) was taught by the Early Church authors. Even if it wasn’t established in a Creed and was later challenged by gnosticism, arianism, it was understood and taught by these 1st century Christians.

Not so modern Marian dogmas, transubstantiation, infant baptism and a number of other modern RC dogmas.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

In terms of Marian doctrines I think you might want to take a closer look at ECF writings as they do find mention. They are not as refined and codified nor do they have the technical names that we give them today but one can find most of them. In terms of the Immaculate Conception what we see are ECF’s referring to the fact that to the lack of her having birth pains and that she is the New Eve. These speak towards our beliefs in her today. Her lack of birth pains suggests that she was free of the Eve’s legacy.

Also the ECF’s analogies of Mary as the new Eve speak to her being a perfact example of original woman just Christ is the perfect example of original man. We can see these things mentioned in writings such as: These things can be seen in the writings of Justin Martin in his letter to Trypho, Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Tertullian’s Flesh of Christ and Ephraim the Syrian’s Nisibene Hymns.

I assume you mean Justin Martyr. Let’s start with the oldest history, because Evangelicals generally believe that current RC Marian beliefs were not generally present in the Early Church and have slowly evolved in the RC Church–ie the RC church at Trent was more Marian than the Ante-Nicene Church, and the modern RC church is more Marian than the RC Church at Trent.

If you take the writings of the apostles, the Didache, I Clement and other 1st century writers, there is no specific support for current Marian doctrines because there is no mention of Mary. What does St. Paul say about these modern RC Marian doctrines? Nothing, because he doesn’t even speak about Mary. And 1st Century Church documents? The same.

Unlike the concept of the Trinity, which I am frankly not even sure today that I understand and believe it is a mystery, we are not talking about complex theological arguments when discussing RC Marian doctrine. We are talking about clear historical events about the most blessed woman in history.

Did Mary sin or was she sinless?
Did Mary have relations with Joseph or did she remain a virgin?
Did Mary die or was she assumed?

If sinlessness, perpetual virginity or the assumption occurred as a historical fact to most blessed woman in history, Mary, I should think that these early Christians, who no doubt would have had an interest in that fact, would mention it. That the apostles and the 1st century Christian writers would not comment something of this importance that happened *in their lifetime *suggests, at least to me, one of two possible conclusions:

1. It didn’t happen; or
2. It did happen but it wasn’t important, in their view. And if the apostles, writing Scripture, the inspired Word of God, didn’t think it important, why should we?

And if the only support comes, tepidly in the ante-Nicene period in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, why should we accept this as being reasonable and sufficient? I can cite many ante-Nicene authors who specifically refute current Marian doctrines. So your citations are not conclusive, certainly not the sort of unanimous consent that Trent would require of Tradition to be considered true.

Why not trust those who were alive at the time? Isn’t their silence rather important? Sorry, I just don’t understant the RC position on this issue.

I know that the issue of Mary is very dear to the hearts of many faithful Roman Catholics and I pray my conversation has not offended anybody. Thanks and God Bless

 

[RNRobert]

By which standard do you refer? Sorry, I didn’t get that.

We don’t need to throw out the Trinity ever because the Trinity (i)was taught by Jesus (ii) was taught by the apostles (iii) it was internally consistent with the rest of the Bible and (iv) was taught by the Early Church authors. Even if it wasn’t established in a Creed and was later challenged by gnosticism, arianism, it was understood and taught by these 1st century Christians.

Not so modern Marian dogmas, transubstantiation, infant baptism and a number of other modern RC dogmas.

Please show me where the word Trinity is in the NT. The teaching wasn’t formalized until the Nicean council in 325. Also, certain sects (JWs, certain Pentecostals, etc.) deny that Scripture teaches the Trinity.

As for the doctrine of transubstantiation, it simply states that the bread and wine when consecrated, become the body and blood of Christ. Jesus himself said in John 6 that unless we ate his body and drank his blood, we would have no life in us (Protestants, like the Jews, find this a “hard saying.”) Also Paul tells us in first Corinthians that those who partake of ther Eucharist unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Infant baptism: the entrance into the Old Covenant was circumcision, which normally was performed when the baby was 8 days old. there was no such thing as a “believer’s circumcsion” except for adult converts. Why should entrance into the new covenant be restricted to those who are a certain age? (The Orthodox, and some Protestant denoms practice it, so its not just a catholic thing).

 

[John_Henry]

If you take the writings of the apostles, the Didache, I Clement and other 1st century writers, there is no specific support for current Marian doctrines because there is no mention of Mary. What does St. Paul say about these modern RC Marian doctrines? Nothing, because he doesn’t even speak about Mary. And 1st Century Church documents? The same.

First the apostles do speak about Mary, contrary to your claim. The gospels speak of her. Galatians speaks of her. Revelation speaks of her. I will presume then that you really intend to say that Mary is not spoken of in these documents in a way that gives any credence to the Catholic dogmas about Mary. But, this would be a situation where we are going to have to agree to disagree. St. John speaks of Mary as “Woman”. Evangelicals at this point generally tend to assume that Jesus was, in fact, not honoring his mother and insulting her. Catholics would hold that Jesus is here harkening back to Eve and to the Protoevangelium. I.e., that Mary is the New Eve (and thus sinless). In the book of Revelation we see the woman who gave birth to Jesus with a body and crowned. We have here evidence of the Assumption. The internal evidence in the Gospels, once you get over the linguistic limitations of contemporary Aramaic, is actually quite clear that Mary had no other children but Jesus. This is evidence for her perpetual virginity.

Did Mary sin or was she sinless?

She was sinless.

Did Mary have relations with Joseph or did she remain a virgin?

She remained a virgin.

Did Mary die or was she assumed?

Both (hint: it is not contrary to Catholic teaching to say that Mary died).

If sinlessness, perpetual virginity or the assumption occurred as a historical fact to most blessed woman in history, Mary, I should think that these early Christians, who no doubt would have had an interest in that fact, would mention it. That the apostles and the 1st century Christian writers would not comment something of this importance that happened *in their lifetime *suggests, at least to me, one of two possible conclusions:

1. It didn’t happen; or
2. It did happen but it wasn’t important, in their view. And if the apostles, writing Scripture, the inspired Word of God, didn’t think it important, why should we?

There are other possibilities. Let’s take her sinlessness as an example. What does sinlessness look like outwardly? Is it something that the sinful are going to easily recognize? Someone who is sinless is humble, and is not likely to be drawing attention to it. In this case, the person could very well be most interested in pointing to her Son, who redeemed her and the rest of the world.

Take the Assumption…it is possible, and indeed many people think this, that the only apostle left alive at the time of her Assumption was St. John, who was the last apostle to die. It is specifically in his writings that we find the most explicit 1st century attestation to the Assumption.

As to the perpetual virginity, what’s so spectacular about it that warrants speaking about it? Lots of people are perpetually virgins. That she gave birth while a virgin is spectacular and is spoken of at length in two of the Gospels (note that Paul doesn’t speak about this either!). And like I said, the internal evidence to the gospels is suggestive that she didn’t have any further children.

I can cite many ante-Nicene authors who specifically refute current Marian doctrines.

I would appreciate it if you would. Thanks.

So your citations are not conclusive, certainly not the sort of unanimous consent that Trent would require of Tradition to be considered true.

I am unfamiliar with that quote from Trent. Could you please provide it? Thanks.

Why not trust those who were alive at the time? Isn’t their silence rather important? Sorry, I just don’t understant the RC position on this issue.

Oh, but we do trust those who were there. That we disagree on what those who were there say is no different than all the various Christian sects arguing about what “those who were alive” said.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Please show me where the word Trinity is in the NT. The teaching wasn’t formalized until the Nicean council in 325. Also, certain sects (JWs, certain Pentecostals, etc.) deny that Scripture teaches the Trinity.

Christians believe that there is one God who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and creator of all that is.
They also believe that Jesus was the man who was Himself. Today that doesn’t seem as strange as it used to. It is most natural thing in the world that the programmer of a video game should also be a character in it.
They also believe in a Spirit, which communicates the will of God.
They also believe that Jesus was the word / thought - Greek “logos” of God, and was present at the beginning.

Theologians later explained all these teachings by the word Trinity,and their formulation was accepted by the Church. However really the term “Trinity” is a model - something that shows some of the reality but not the full richness of it, like a balls and sticks model of a molecule shows some but not all of the properties. For instance the Holy Spirit is a being, but He is also the relationship between the Father and the Son. Physicists now accept that a relationship can be an entity or “particle” as well as a force between two other entities. So the whole doctrine becomes very rich.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Please show me where the word Trinity is in the NT. The teaching wasn’t formalized until the Nicean council in 325. Also, certain sects (JWs, certain Pentecostals, etc.) deny that Scripture teaches the Trinity.

Yes, I know. But the concept is there, taught by Jesus and the apostles, internally consistent with the rest of Scripture and interpreted by the ECF as such.

Not so with many RC doctrines such as sinlessness of Mary, the assumption and others.

As for modern heretics that deny the Trinity, well yes they do. That is what divides me from them.

Blessings to you.

 

[RNRobert]

Not so with many RC doctrines such as sinlessness of Mary, the assumption and others.

Show me where they contradict the Scriptures. Also, the Orthodox also believe in the Assumption (they call it the Dormition) and while they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception (although a member on this forum has a quote from an Orthodox bishop saying that an Orthodox person would not be guilty of heresy if he believed it), but they do believe that she lived a sinless life (and they believe in her perpetual virignity as well.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

First the apostles do speak about Mary, contrary to your claim. The gospels speak of her. Galatians speaks of her. Revelation speaks of her. I will presume then that you really intend to say that Mary is not spoken of in these documents in a way that gives any credence to the Catholic dogmas about Mary. But, this would be a situation where we are going to have to agree to disagree. St. John speaks of Mary as “Woman”.

John, thanks for your thoughts.

No, the apostles do not speak about Mary. They do not mention her by name.

The RC church may believe that they speak about her alagorically. But this is hardly obvious. Moreover, the 1st century Christians didn’t interpret these texts as speaking about Mary. And they were alive at the time of her death. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

Evangelicals at this point generally tend to assume that Jesus was, in fact, not honoring his mother and insulting her. Catholics would hold that Jesus is here harkening back to Eve and to the Protoevangelium. I.e., that Mary is the New Eve (and thus sinless). In the book of Revelation we see the woman who gave birth to Jesus with a body and crowned. We have here evidence of the Assumption. The internal evidence in the Gospels, once you get over the linguistic limitations of contemporary Aramaic, is actually quite clear that Mary had no other children but Jesus. This is evidence for her perpetual virginity.

These are a lot of issues, each that should be handled with care. I think RC apologist arguments for the assumption and for the sinlessness of Mary are unconvincing, especially when they have to resort to alagory from the OT. There is nothing wrong using alagory to support an accepted Biblical truth, but when the alagory is the support of Biblical truth, that is like interpreting a Rorschach inkblot: we can have different interpretations. When Jesus rose from the dead and ascended, the Bible says so clearly. Why should the authors of the NT not speak just as clearly about something so important?

She was sinless.

She remained a virgin.

Both (hint: it is not contrary to Catholic teaching to say that Mary died).

There are other possibilities. Let’s take her sinlessness as an example. What does sinlessness look like outwardly? Is it something that the sinful are going to easily recognize? Someone who is sinless is humble, and is not likely to be drawing attention to it. In this case, the person could very well be most interested in pointing to her Son, who redeemed her and the rest of the world.

Take the Assumption…it is possible, and indeed many people think this, that the only apostle left alive at the time of her Assumption was St. John, who was the last apostle to die. It is specifically in his writings that we find the most explicit 1st century attestation to the Assumption.

As to the perpetual virginity, what’s so spectacular about it that warrants speaking about it? Lots of people are perpetually virgins. That she gave birth while a virgin is spectacular and is spoken of at length in two of the Gospels (note that Paul doesn’t speak about this either!). And like I said, the internal evidence to the gospels is suggestive that she didn’t have any further children.

I would appreciate it if you would. Thanks.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:21:10) refers to Christ being born of Mary, who was “as yet a virgin”. The obvious implication is that she wasn’t always a virgin. Irenaeus uses the same phrase in reference to Eve, who obviously wasn’t a virgin throughout her life. Tertullian, denied that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

On the sinlessnes of Mary, Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, 7), Basil (Epistle 260), John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44) are examples of Ante-Nicene fathers, although there are others,

I am unfamiliar with that quote from Trent. Could you please provide it? Thanks.

I shall look it up.

Oh, but we do trust those who were there. That we disagree on what those who were there say is no different than all the various Christian sects arguing about what “those who were alive” said.

Fair enough.

God bless.

 

[rtconstant]

J4M you are correct I meant Justin Martyr strangely I was thinking of St. Martin of Tours and I guess I just put down Martin. Sorry about that.

As to the rest. I’m going to have to disagree. As I stated before within the Apostalic age itself we find reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary not having birth pains which while that may not sound like much to you it is important. It speaks to her not possessing Original Sin because if she did indeed carry that then she would have had Eve’s curse (for lack of a better word). It is in these sorts of beliefs and references that we derive the formal beliefs that we hold today. Again, many doctrines held by the Church did not always have nice churchy names or explanations but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist.

Prepetual virginity. You know as long as I live I’ll never understand why modern evangelicals are so feverish about proving that the BVM and St. Joseph had sex. It really borders on obsession. There is nothing in the Bible that says they did, and as near as anyone can tell historically no one believed she was not ever virgin until recent times. The reformers certainly believed she was ever virgin (Calvin was deadly serious about it) even many modern Protestants believe she was ever virgin so why this tiny group of modern evangelicals that insists Joseph could not have possibly restrained himself from marital relations with a woman WHO GAVE BIRTH TO GOD??? And then expects everyone else to justify it? Tell me would you go there?

In terms of the Assumption well I doubt Paul could have written about that since he was martyred while she was yet alive.

Also in general terms the Bible reflects some of the teachings of the Church. First there was the Church then there was the Bible. Most the Apostalic writings are written with purpose not as general catechisms of the faith. So just like with the Trinity not all doctrine is explicitly described.

 

[John_Henry]

No, the apostles do not speak about Mary. They do not mention her by name.

They do not need to for it to be Mary. “God sent forth his Son, born of woman *, born under the law (Gal 4:4).” So the Apostle Paul speaks of Mary. I will grant that this doesn’t speak to the Catholic dogmas. Which is why I assumed you meant something else by your statement. But note: the Apostle Paul also does not speak about the Virgin Birth. Granted again…not a big deal as the gospels do. But he doesn’t speak about the Virgin Birth because he does not speak of Mary at all (except in the above instance). The same must be allowed for the other Catholic Marian dogmas.

As for the gospels, some written by apostles, they speak pretty explicitely about Mary (e.g., Virgin Birth, Annunciation etc).

The RC church may believe that they speak about her alagorically. But this is hardly obvious. Moreover, the 1st century Christians didn’t interpret these texts as speaking about Mary. And they were alive at the time of her death. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.

No one said it was obvious. However, the perpetual virginity has nothing allegorical to its support in the NT. It is a reading of the straightforward meaning of various texts. The Assumption is also a straightforward reading about the woman who gave birth to he who is to “rule all the nations” (granted, this text has multiple levels of meaning). The Immaculate Conception does rely on the allegorical meaning of some texts, but also on the fact that she is “Kecharitomene”.

These are a lot of issues, each that should be handled with care. I think RC apologist arguments for the assumption and for the sinlessness of Mary are unconvincing, especially when they have to resort to alagory from the OT.

1. I think you have me confused with someone who is trying to convince you of something. Rather, you asked a question and I am answering it (along with others). 2) Regarding allegory, tell that to St. Paul. “Now this is an allegory… (Gal 4:24).” Practically his whole demonstration of the necessity of the Messiah being as Christ was, was demonstrated by an allegorical or spiritual reading of Old Testament texts.

There is nothing wrong using alagory to support an accepted Biblical truth, but when the alagory is the support of Biblical truth, that is like interpreting a Rorschach inkblot: we can have different interpretations. When Jesus rose from the dead and ascended, the Bible says so clearly. Why should the authors of the NT not speak just as clearly about something so important?

This assumes that the Church uses a model of “accepted Biblical truth”. Because the same Rorschach argument could have been made to St. Paul. The Jews had certain ways of interpreting their own scriptures. And then St. Paul comes around teaching a completely different (allegorical) message from the same scriptures. They probably thought he was nuts. But he wasn’t. And to those who had ears to hear and eyes to see, to those who accepted his authority to rightly interpret the scriptures, the Messiah was revealed. It’s only a Rorschach inkblot if the person has no authority. If he/she does, then it is a genuine insight into the reality of things.

Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:21:10) refers to Christ being born of Mary, who was “as yet a virgin”. The obvious implication is that she wasn’t always a virgin. Irenaeus uses the same phrase in reference to Eve, who obviously wasn’t a virgin throughout her life. Tertullian, denied that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

So for “many”, you have two. Your interpretation of Irenaeus is by no means conclusive, but I will grant Tertullian. On the contrary the Protoevangelium of James is an early document and very concerned with defending her perpetual virginity.

On the sinlessnes of Mary, Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, 7), Basil (Epistle 260), John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44) are examples of Ante-Nicene fathers, although there are others,

I was aware of those, except Tertullian’s. Thanks.*

 

[TNT]

The First Century Church didn’t used the term “Roman Catholic” or even “catholic”. It appears nowhere in the Scriptures. …

…
So in terminology, the Early “catholic” church was absolutely NOT the “Roman Catholic” church.
In terms of practice, documents and archeology suggest that the Early Christian church (1st century) was rather different from the modern Roman Catholic Church: no infant baptism, no transubstantiation (although yes real presence, perhaps in the Lutheran or Anglican sense), no assumption, immacuate conception, perpetual virginity or sinlessness of Mary, no prayers to the dead, no incense, no images (except the fish symbol), no vestiments for clergy, no primacy of Rome (until Irenaeus in the late 2nd century) and no references to the pope (until the 3rd century).

So, Early Church=“catholic” yes, but not modern “Roman Catholic”.
I hope this helps.

You left off a few more: NO 27 NT books recognized by any “catholic” church as Scripture…until the mid 4th century.
No Altar calls, no grape juice, No sola Scriptura, no Sola Fide, No Pews, ONLY candles, no Nicene Creed, no podiums.​

Origen wrote (220ad), “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants.” When St. Augustine wrote on infant baptism, he said, **“This the Church always had, always held.” **In the third century, there was a movement to hold off on infant baptisms until the eighth day after birth. St. Cyprian tells us that in 253 the Council of Carthage rejected this practice. They saw no need to delay for 8 days. The Council of Milevis in 416 (still pre-27book NT) also said that recently born infants are to be baptized.

I hope this helps.

 

[TNT]

Marian devotion:
Early 400’s (a few yrs after the 27Book-Only NT idea):
Among ruins of African basilicas from that time:
“HOLY Mary, Help us”
Luke:
“ALL generations shall call me Blessed”
That of course would include Paul’s generation and all thereafter.
When did any Protestant last proclaim:
“Blessed Mary” or “Blessed be Mary”
In their assemblies?​

Prev post:
(417ad was actiually shortly after the 27book NT idea sprung up)

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I am unfamiliar with that quote from Trent. Could you please provide it? Thanks.

Oh, but we do trust those who were there. That we disagree on what those who were there say is no different than all the various Christian sects arguing about what “those who were alive” said.

I looked it up:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary …to the *unanimous consent *of the Fathers

 

[RNRobert]

When did any Protestant last proclaim:
“Blessed Mary” or “Blessed be Mary”

Good point. Many Protestants have a fit when we refer to Jesus’ mother as the Blessed Virgin Mary, when all we are doing is following the Bible, which they claim they are doing.