M
Mannyfit75
Guest
if you want to see Catholic intrepretation of Mary’s in the Bible… I’ll give you those to, JFM.
I feel honoured that you have taken time to respond, not only with evidence from the Fathers but also some really interesting Scriptural justifications for Marian beliefs that frankly I have never even dreamed of.X. Misunderstandings about Jesus “rebuking” Mary
Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - when Jesus asks, “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus’ comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.
Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - Jesus’ question about “who are my mother, and sisters and brothers” was also made in reference to Psalm 69:8-9. Jesus the Prophet was answering the psalmist’s prophecy that those closest to Him would betray Him at His passion. Jesus is emphasizing the spiritual family’s importance over the biological family, and the importance of being faithful to Him. While many were unfaithful to Jesus, Mary remained faithful to Him, even to the point of standing at the foot of the Cross.
Matt. 12:48; Mark 3:33; Luke 8:21 - finally, to argue that Jesus rebuked Mary is to argue that Jesus violated the Torah, here, the 4th commandment. This argument is blasphemous because it essentially says that God committed sin by dishonoring His Mother.
Luke 11:28 - when Jesus says, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it,” some Protestants also call this a rebuke of Mary. Again, to the contrary, Jesus is exalting Mary by emphasizing her obedience to God’s word as being more critical than her biological role of mother. This affirms Luke 1:48.
Luke 11:28 - also, the Greek word for “rather” is “menounge.” Menounge really means “Yes, but in addition,” or “Further.” Thus, Jesus is saying, yes my mother is blessed indeed, but further blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Jesus is encouraging others to follow Mary’s example in order to build up His kingdom.
Luke 11:27-28 - finally, Jesus is the one being complimented, not Mary. Therefore, Jesus is refocusing the attention from Him to others who obey the word of God. If He is refocusing the attention away from Him to others, His comment cannot be a rebuke of Mary His mother.
John 2:4 - this is another example that Protestants use to diminish Mary’s significance. Jesus’ question to Mary, “what have you to do with me?” does no such thing. To the contrary, Jesus’ question illustrates the importance of Mary’s role in the kingdom. Jesus’ question is in reality an invitation to His mother to intercede on behalf of all believers and begin His ministry, and His Mother understands this. Mary thus immediately intercedes, Jesus obeys her, and performs the miracle which commenced His ministry of redemption.
Luke 8:28 - the demons tell Jesus the same thing, “what have you to do with us.” The demons are not rebuking Jesus, for God would not allow it. Instead, the demons are acknowledging the power of Jesus by their question to Him.
John 2:4; 19:26 - when Jesus uses the title “woman” (gnyai), it is a title of dignity and respect. It is the equivalent of Lady or Madam. Jesus honored His Mother as God requires us to do.
**That about covers most of it. Read all of it and try to understand why we Catholics believed that the Catholic Church have taught all this dogmas about Mary for 2,000 yrs, and the Catholic Church defined them in the light of the teachings of the Apostles, who themselves learn it from Jesus, and then handed down to their sucessors.
You must also understand that Mary lived during the Apostolic Age, and the question of her virginity was never in question, her assumption is mention in Revelation 12, her immaculate conception in Luke, and her her virginity in the varies verses I showed you. No new doctrine or dogma was created in the CC.
Only disciplines change. Doctrine and dogma are part of the deposit of faith which cannot change.**
It is my own personal belief, even if I was not Catholic. Like I said in the previous posts, I have look at the Protestant arguments and I find them lacking, and illogical. Sola Scriptura was not practiced by the Apostles, or their successors.I feel honoured that you have taken time to respond, not only with evidence from the Fathers but also some really interesting Scriptural justifications for Marian beliefs that frankly I have never even dreamed of.
On these Scriptural beliefs, are these your personal beliefs or all Magisterial? Remarkable indeed.
Well, actually I only wanted to know about the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers. Are you sure that on all these Marian beliefs that there is “unanimous consent”.
Irenaeus,Tertullian, Basil, John Chrysostom are considered Fathers, aren’t they? Are they all in conformity with these above beliefs?
No problem.
Jesusformadrid asked this…
So, I continue my quest: Can you or anybody show me unanimous consent of the Fathers on the Marian dogma?
Mannyfit responded…
No problem.
I say, I can post 50-75 ecf statements that prove that they in fact were not even close to unanimous consent…
Below are just 2, Ambrose and Justin Martyr…in response to sinlessness.
Emanuell, It almost comes across as decietful that you so boldly say “No problem”… For you to respond that way would incline
us to believe you’ve read and studied each and every one and because your able to post an endless supply of 5th 6th 7th century
that it was a unanimous thing…
Sinlessness
Ambrose:
“He was man in the flesh, according to His human nature, that He might be recognized, but in power was above man, that He might not be recognized,
so He has our flesh, but has not the failings of this flesh. For He was not begotten, as is every man, by intercourse between male and female,
but born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only no sins polluted,
but which neither the generation nor the conception had been stained by any admixture of defilement.
For we men are all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the words of David:
‘For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and in sin did my mother bring me forth.’” (On Repentance, 1:3:12-13)
“For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption,
by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty.” (cited in Augustine, On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, 2:47)
Justin Martyr challenges trypho to find one other than our Saviour whom was sinless, are you willing to do this?
See…
“Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove;
even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race,
which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression…
For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses,
'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.
’ And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined.
But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements,
how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes?
If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead,
He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed,
and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family,
yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 88, 95)
This is a great point.Tradition is knowledge of a truth, declaring the doctrine is confirming the Truth when it is challenged or when others are distorting it (e.g the dual nature of Christ)
JesusforMadrid;181405Now said:I[/B]
Jesusformadrid asked this…
So, I continue my quest: Can you or anybody show me unanimous consent of the Fathers on the Marian dogma?
Mannyfit responded…
No problem.
I say, I can post 50-75 ecf statements that prove that they in fact were not even close to unanimous consent…
Below are just 2, Ambrose and Justin Martyr…in response to sinlessness.
I did provided the quote from the ECF. I did cite the verse noted Are you blind to see what I wrote?Emanuell, It almost comes across as decietful that you so boldly say “No problem”… For you to respond that way would incline
Touche! I have no witty response to this. At least you are honest about it.If I assumed otherwise we would not be having this discussion.![]()
To which I would respond that I disagree. For starters, Rome’s following happens to be a bit more than 1/5 of the early Church. While you may claim that the other partriarchs disagreed with Rome’s primacy, that does not mean 4/5 of the early Church disagreed. Regardless, I understand what you’re saying.Actually I am simply assuming the position of four-fifths of the early Church when I say that Rome erred in claiming universal jurisdiction. From the very moment it was realized by the other four ancient patriarchates that Rome intended to try to wrest this level of authority for herself they began attempting to correct her. But she was having none of it. An unbiased look at history bears this out. I will reiterate:
Of the five ancient patriarchates only one has ever believed, taught or claimed universal jurisdiction. This is completely contrary to the collegiality demonstrated in the early centuries of the Church, both in her writings and her actions.
Actually that is an opinion. Of course, the Roman Catholic claim is that the Primacy of Peter was established by Christ in Mt 16. So, I guess we will just have to disagree here. I hestitate to get into another one of these discussions, because the Church Fathers are so vast and they wrote so many things that can be confusing if taken in isolation. However, I will state for the record that my study of the ECF’s (and I have the 38 volume set of Schaff’s and Donaldson’s ECF’s) has led me to my belief that the Primacy of Rome had been exercised long before the Schism.Ah, but it is in fact the “new claim” of universal jurisdiction that must be defended. Rome’s claims did not begin until about the eighth or ninth century.
That’s not exactly true. The authority of “binding and loosing” that Jesus gave to the other Apostles in Mt 18, shows me that the unity of all Sees is essential. Yet, Mt 16 shows me that Jesus gave Peter the tiebreaker in times of disagreement. I see this played out in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. Peter stands up, settles the debate, and then allows the local bishop (James) to work out the logistics.I fully understand and believe in the development of doctrine. It is curious that the claims of universal jurisdiction also happens to remove the hinderance of ecumenical agreement. Thus, Rome can claim universal jurisdiction and by extension need not seek approval from her peers, for she no longer has any.
That begs the question for me. That is the very thing we disagree on. Thus, I guess one of us will have to step forward and prove this. Do you mind going first?Not so, I agree with the early church and all since, who tried to explain to Rome that she erred.
You say an “un-biased” look will give one a certain opinion. I simply disagree. I was not a Catholic when I started my study. Thus, I believe I was unbiased. Yet, I ended up Catholic.Anyone who thinks this needs to go back and re-study the history, context, circumstances, locations and participants of the ecumenical councils. An un-biased look at these things will readily demonstrate that Rome was only cursorily involved with defeating the heretics you mention. She certainly did not lead the charge and no Popes even attended those councils.
Yet, that is simply not the case. There are over a billion Catholics in the world today. There are about 250 million Eastern Orthodox. The majority of the Body agrees with the Roman Catholic position, unless you are counting churches with no Apostolic Succession. And since they do not possess this succession, their opinions of true Apostolic Tradition are a bit irrelevant.In the true spirit of the Body of Christ, my personal position is only as important as in how it affects the Body as a whole. While I am stating these things as my opinion, it is only in agreement with the opinion that the majority of the Body has held.
Peter did not hold an errant position Nate. Peter is the one that originally declared this doctrine in the first place. Paul confronted Peter for not practicing what he preached. This is whole-heartedly different than holding to an errant position. Rome preaches infallibility, not impeccability. Surely you know that.There is no lasting shame in abandoning an errant position. Just ask Peter about the time Paul confronted him to his face about the Judiazers.
I wasn’t completely sure about that percentage either, you pick one and we’ll compromise.
Fair enough. It is what we are doing. It is just how we do it that I was questioning. I was simply making the point that if you make a claim, it is not enough to state it as if you are the authority. In other words, we must back it up. I am sure you agree with that.I thought that’s what we were doing now
Peace,
+Nathan