The not so virgin Mary

[Robert_in_SD]

This excellent point gets at something that troubles me about some Marian claims. Mary is sometimes described as a kind of super-person – not only sinless, but incapable of sinning, feeling no pain or discomfort in pregnancy or childbirth, never doubting her mission, experiencing no anguish over the Son that was taken from her, the husband she lost too soon, or the grandchildren she didn’t have. Mary is admirable and to be revered and emulated not because she was a super-person with special power to be perfect and wonderful, but because she was a real human person who stuck with it through the pain, doubt and despair and was darn near perfect despite not having any special power to sustain her.

The super-Mary is not so inspirational to me. Peasant Mary that made it through all that with the same tools the rest of us have is pretty amazing.

I understand that this is how non-Catholics sometimes interpret the Catholic veneration of Mary. But it is a misperception.

Mary was just a poor jewish girl, probably only about 14 years old when the Holy Spirit came to her and announced the Incarnation. And she was probably incredibly humble, and a person who lived her life with a grace that shone through her humble piety and courage in the face of all the trials recorded in Scripture, and more. It is precisely her humanity that Catholics honor. She is, in a real sense, the best non-Divine example of what all Christians should aspire to in their humanity - she more than any other creature mirrored Christ’s complete submission of His will to the Father. It’s not that she was a “super-Mary.” It’s that she was a human being that was given the fullness of grace that was presumably known by our original human parents (Adam and Eve), and was able to live her life without rebelling against God’s plan of salvation, even when that plan required the death of her only Son. The fact that she was able to navigate this entire life in submission to God is pretty amazing, and it is a testament to both God’s love of her, and her giving that love always back to God.

Mary was not a super-hero. But as she stated, all generations have called her blessed because of the favor shown to her by God. And we honor her response to that grace with the humility to declare herself not a Queen, but a handmaid. We believe that for such a pious and humble life her rewards in heaven were indeed the greatest that could be given to such a creature as us - and we believe her crown surpasses any crown to be worn by any other creature.

Peace,
Robert

 

[TMC]

I understand that this is how non-Catholics sometimes interpret the Catholic veneration of Mary. But it is a misperception.

Mary was just a poor jewish girl, probably only about 14 years old when the Holy Spirit came to her and announced the Incarnation. And she was probably incredibly humble, and a person who lived her life with a grace that shone through her humble piety and courage in the face of all the trials recorded in Scripture, and more. It is precisely her humanity that Catholics honor. She is, in a real sense, the best non-Divine example of what all Christians should aspire to in their humanity - she more than any other creature mirrored Christ’s complete submission of His will to the Father. It’s not that she was a “super-Mary.” It’s that she was a human being that was given the fullness of grace that was presumably known by our original human parents (Adam and Eve), and was able to live her life without rebelling against God’s plan of salvation, even when that plan required the death of her only Son. The fact that she was able to navigate this entire life in submission to God is pretty amazing, and it is a testament to both God’s love of her, and her giving that love always back to God.

Mary was not a super-hero. But as she stated, all generations have called her blessed because of the favor shown to her by God. And we honor her response to that grace with the humility to declare herself not a Queen, but a handmaid. We believe that for such a pious and humble life her rewards in heaven were indeed the greatest that could be given to such a creature as us - and we believe her crown surpasses any crown to be worn by any other creature.

Peace,
Robert

I agree with everything you say, except that I have found that some Catholics share the misperception that Catholics regard Mary as a super person. I think that the power in Mary’s story is how her humility undergirds her great strength. But I have read descriptions of Mary on some of the Marian threads here that I do not recognize as that of a humble, poor jewish girl.

 

[dianaiad]

We know what Christ said because it was passed from the apostles down through the Church to this day in written and oral from.

3 examples off the top of my head of things not in the Bible that are known via sacred oral Tradition

-the Bible canon (i.e. the contents page)
-the definition of the most Holy Trinity
-the names of Mary’s parents

I understand.

The point I’m trying to make is this:

Oral Tradition, in order to remain ‘oral’ is not written down As soon as it IS written down, it becomes something more than oral. In fact, the act of writing it down changes the nature of it drastically; the act of writing something freezes it in time.

For the vast majority of church history, considerably over a millennium, your oral Tradition has been a written tradition; unchanged from generation to generation.

In that way it is no different from scripture. After all, 'we know what Christ said because it was passed down through the church to this day through written form."

So on one hand, EVERYTHING is oral, in that it was first said before it was written. On the other hand, NOTHING is, because everything that was said was eventually written down–and it is those writings from which you get your information.

Purely oral cultures are very careful, in their presentation of stories and Tradition, to mention that what they are about to say was handed down from father to son, mother to daughter over generations uncounted–but that it originally came from a source that the tale teller and the audience recognizes as credible, whether WE recognize it as such or not. For instance, Homer (who never wrote anything either) opened his poetry with paeans to the gods from whom he got his stories. The author of Beowulf listed the genealogies of his protagonists, along with their accomplishments; they present their credentials, in other words.when you listen to shamanistic recitals of tales and mythologies, the same pattern holds true.

Men like Joseph Smith, when they make the claims upon which their faiths are based, come right out and say 'God told me this…" and then it is up to the listener to decide whether God did, or did not, actually ‘say this.’ Whether or not He did, there is a Source to which the listener may go to establish the credentials of the tale teller.

Ok, what’s all this leading up to?

I want to know where the first tellers of the Catholic Oral Tradition in regard to Mary got the first information. As far as I can see, they don’t even attempt to establish that for us. No ‘I received a revelation,’ no 'John or Luke or Matthew told me this…" no " We know from certain records that the name of the mother of Mary is ‘Anna’." with some mention of the records involved. Even if those records no longer exist, or those witnesses never wrote anything of themselves, there is still a path to follow; a trail of evidence/corroboration that we can check for ourselves. If that source for the early writers is 'God told me in a vision," or “I had a revelation…” then that is as good or better than listing the names of the witnesses they interviewed, or whether they were speaking of their own experiences. There is nothing more sure, in religion, than the confirmation of the Holy Ghost when one asks “did You talk to this man?”

But when the writer simply makes a bald claim, and does NOT claim revelation–and even more when he claims that revelation (as to the early apostles) has actually ceased, then what? Where did he get his ideas from? Some of those ideas were so not supported by scripture that the only possible way for them to be true was through direct revelation; so…if they don’t claim it (and they don’t) what are we to do with it?

I understand that you put what you call Tradition on the same level as the biblical canon. That part isn’t a problem for me. However, we know where scripture comes from. We know how to test it. That’s not altogether true of the beginnings of some of your Oral History…especially Marian lore. It leaves me with a problem.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I agree with everything you say, except that I have found that some Catholics share the misperception that Catholics regard Mary as a super person. I think that the power in Mary’s story is how her humility undergirds her great strength. But I have read descriptions of Mary on some of the Marian threads here that I do not recognize as that of a humble, poor jewish girl.

I can’t speak to any particular portrayal, but I can suggest to you that those prayers and images that portray her as wrapped in Christ’s glory may be the prayers that honor her in her current state, rather than focusing on her humble beginnings.

We all hope to wear that particular crown of glory that Christ has prepared for each of us. In Mary’s case, the crown she received from her Son is notably the most glorious crown to be given. Catholics believe this is also part of who she is, and this fact about her is to be honored appropriately. She is not a Super-Mary in this sense either, but a promise of what we Christians all hope to share in some day.

That being said, I fully understand how you can take a look at some of the Catholic Marian devotions and, considering them together with what has been said (and misunderstood) by non-Catholics and anti-Catholics, come to the Super-Mary" conclusion. But however well intentioned and in good faith the conclusion is drawn, it is not correct.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Matthew 54-57

54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

55 Is not this the [carpenter’s son]? is not his [mother] called [Mary]? and his [brethren], [James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas]?

56 And his [sisters], are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Ok here is the problem where did the brethren come and sisters if Mary a 14 year old girl to a 30 year old adult husband at the age of marriage come from?

They had words in Greek for in-laws as opposed to other uses for family ties I’m not an expert but the translations all pretty much say the same thing. I will again defend common sense if Mary was a virgin up until Jesus birth I can see that is fine, miracle of God and all that. But thinking a healthy man and a wife would not have relations especially in that culture where large families were seen as a good thing is utterly beyond common sense. Unless you can show anywhere God demanded they never have relations or threatened them?

In fact Jesus first miracle was at a wedding its clear marriage and healthy relations of them is a good thing according to the Bible, why would God be so cruel as to not allow Mary and her husband both faithful from such acts?

Even if you exclude all of his apostles as the four men the sisters part is a problem, its clearly familial in the text as being actual sisters.

And James is refered to as the Lord’s Brother and the like in places.

So I would say we can be assured of Jesus having at least two sisters (plural is noted) and one brother, other passages could refer to more than one brother as well.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Matthew 54-57

54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

55 Is not this the [carpenter’s son]? is not his [mother] called [Mary]? and his [brethren], [James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas]?

56 And his [sisters], are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Ok here is the problem where did the brethren come and sisters if Mary a 14 year old girl to a 30 year old adult husband at the age of marriage come from?

They had words in Greek for in-laws as opposed to other uses for family ties I’m not an expert but the translations all pretty much say the same thing. I will again defend common sense if Mary was a virgin up until Jesus birth I can see that is fine, miracle of God and all that. But thinking a healthy man and a wife would not have relations especially in that culture where large families were seen as a good thing is utterly beyond common sense. Unless you can show anywhere God demanded they never have relations or threatened them?

In fact Jesus first miracle was at a wedding its clear marriage and healthy relations of them is a good thing according to the Bible, why would God be so cruel as to not allow Mary and her husband both faithful from such acts?

Even if you exclude all of his apostles as the four men the sisters part is a problem, its clearly familial in the text as being actual sisters.

And James is refered to as the Lord’s Brother and the like in places.

So I would say we can be assured of Jesus having at least two sisters (plural is noted) and one brother, other passages could refer to more than one brother as well.

These issues have all been addressed and refuted. It is only a very recent phenomenon to view the same scriptures that have been examined for the past 29 centuries and conclude that it is “obvious” Mary had “at least” two other children. A careful study (already addressed above) shows this is not the case. Mary had no children. Whether Jesus had half-brothers and sisters from Joseph’s prior marriage (a pious belief that survives from the early years of the Church as recorded in the Protoevangelium of James) is an open question. The more likely answer is that the passages you refer to do not use the term “brother” and “sister” in the strictest biological sense of the word that you impose.

And God is not cruel by giving Mary the singular honor of raising the Second Person of the Trinity. Similarly, Joseph well knew what was expected of him and accepted it when Gabriel visited him in his dream to inform him of the origins of Mary’s pending delivery.

I fail to understand (and I have been married happily for 12 years why it is that people are leaping to the conclusion that Mary and Joseph must have been miserable without sexual intercourse in their marriage - in light of all the other extraordinary graces that must have been shared with them as the parents of the Holy Family. It seems - to me - to be quite an imposition of one’s personal experience and sensibilities onto a situation that cannot possibly be fully comprehended by us.

Notwithstanding any of the above, if you want to believe in Mary’s other children, you certainly have a right to do so. But you are engaging in a belief that has about as much support as a belief in the Easter Bunny and Extraterrestrials.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Peter_J]

Yes. She would glorify God by being what God created her to be–a fruitful, intimate wife and a mother. And of course Scripture states nothing different. It’s obvious to the Christian world, just not to RC’s.

(emphasis added)

Oh really? So what about the Eastern Orthodox? Are they not part of “the Christian world”? Are you xenophobic or something?

(Note: The fifth ecumenical council, which is recognized by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and a lot of Protestants, called Mary “ever-virgin”.)

 

[Canto]

I understand.

The point I’m trying to make is this:

Oral Tradition, in order to remain ‘oral’ is not written down As soon as it IS written down, it becomes something more than oral. In fact, the act of writing it down changes the nature of it drastically; the act of writing something freezes it in time.

Oral tradition is still oral tradition even if some or parts of it are written down.

For the vast majority of church history, considerably over a millennium, your oral Tradition has been a written tradition; unchanged from generation to generation.

In that way it is no different from scripture. After all, 'we know what Christ said because it was passed down through the church to this day through written form."

and oral form

So on one hand, EVERYTHING is oral, in that it was first said before it was written. On the other hand, NOTHING is, because everything that was said was eventually written down–and it is those writings from which you get your information.

Everything was written down

Purely oral cultures are very careful, in their presentation of stories and Tradition, to mention that what they are about to say was handed down from father to son, mother to daughter over generations uncounted–but that it originally came from a source that the tale teller and the audience recognizes as credible, whether WE recognize it as such or not. For instance, Homer (who never wrote anything either) opened his poetry with paeans to the gods from whom he got his stories. The author of Beowulf listed the genealogies of his protagonists, along with their accomplishments; they present their credentials, in other words.when you listen to shamanistic recitals of tales and mythologies, the same pattern holds true.

Men like Joseph Smith, when they make the claims upon which their faiths are based, come right out and say 'God told me this…" and then it is up to the listener to decide whether God did, or did not, actually ‘say this.’ Whether or not He did, there is a Source to which the listener may go to establish the credentials of the tale teller.

Ok, what’s all this leading up to?

I want to know where the first tellers of the Catholic Oral Tradition in regard to Mary got the first information. As far as I can see, they don’t even attempt to establish that for us. No ‘I received a revelation,’ no 'John or Luke or Matthew told me this…" no " We know from certain records that the name of the mother of Mary is ‘Anna’." with some mention of the records involved. Even if those records no longer exist, or those witnesses never wrote anything of themselves, there is still a path to follow; a trail of evidence/corroboration that we can check for ourselves. If that source for the early writers is 'God told me in a vision," or “I had a revelation…” then that is as good or better than listing the names of the witnesses they interviewed, or whether they were speaking of their own experiences. There is nothing more sure, in religion, than the confirmation of the Holy Ghost when one asks “did You talk to this man?”

They got the information from God. All written and oral tradition comes from and is protected by God.

But when the writer simply makes a bald claim, and does NOT claim revelation–and even more when he claims that revelation (as to the early apostles) has actually ceased, then what? Where did he get his ideas from? Some of those ideas were so not supported by scripture that the only possible way for them to be true was through direct revelation; so…if they don’t claim it (and they don’t) what are we to do with it?.

How many of the OT and NT writers claim inspiration/revelation for their books?

I understand that you put what you call Tradition on the same level as the biblical canon. That part isn’t a problem for me. However, we know where scripture comes from. We know how to test it. That’s not altogether true of the beginnings of some of your Oral History…especially Marian lore. It leaves me with a problem.

Oral tradition comes from God just like the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

I predict that in the future the RCC will have a new and special devotion to Mary’s husband, Joseph, for his amazing self control in abstaining from sex his entire marriage.

You are about 2000 years too late in your “prediction” there, Quest. Joseph has been honored by the Church as her “most chaste spouse” from the beginning. However, His commitment to chastity is no more “amazing self control” than anyone else who espouses the life of “becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of God” as Jesus, Paul, and many of the saints have done. It is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. When people abstain from fleshly pleasures in order to serve God, He provides them with the grace to fulfill their vows.

I’m thinking Paul or the fathers would have used Joseph as an example of how to maintain sexual self control. what a great example.

Yes, and Paul also used himself.

On the other hand, he and Mary could have engaged in all kinds of sexual lovemaking as long as they didn’t have intercourse. Thus she would still be a virgin. Am I correct in this? Or would you like to say that she didn’t ‘make out’ with Joseph in any way?

No, Joseph understood what it meant for an unauthorized person to lay his hand upon the Ark of the Covenant. He was a righteous man.

 

[guanophore]

Yes. She would glorify God by being what God created her to be–a fruitful, intimate wife and a mother. And of course Scripture states nothing different. It’s obvious to the Christian world, just not to RC’s.

Let me present you with a challenge, then. Please find some non-Roman Catholics, and some Eastern Orthodox (non-Roman Catholic Christians) and convince them that Mary was a fruitful, intimate wife and mother of more children. While you are at it, get them to explain why the children noted to be Jesus’ brothers’ are said to be children of another Mary in scripture.

 

[dianaiad]

Oral tradition is still oral tradition even if some or parts of it are written down.

and oral form

Everything was written down

Precisely my point.

“Oral tradition,” in order to remain “oral,” is NOT written down. As soon as it is, it becomes written tradition; pinned to the page, unchanging. The whole point of oral tradition is that it is ORAL, and is given new meaning with new words and expressions as the speaker repeats the tales.

Calling a written thing ‘oral tradition’ is a distinction without a difference, because everything we have in writing (especially about religion) was oral before it was written.

They got the information from God. All written and oral tradition comes from and is protected by God.

Where do any of the originators of this Tradition say that? Where is a ‘thus saith the Lord?’ or a “God was talking to me one day and He said…” Or even “this came to me in a dream?”

I know some did that, not very many…and not, as far as my research (admittedly and necessarily pretty shallow) shows, in regard to Marian lore.

How many of the OT and NT writers claim inspiration/revelation for their books?

I think you will find that all of them reference God’s communication to His people in there somewhere, except for Psalms and Proverbs, which are both simply a list of , well, songs and proverbs…

Oral tradition comes from God just like the Bible.

I understand that you believe this. I need to know exactly HOW it comes “from God just like the Bible” before I can accept it, though.

 

[Canto]

Precisely my point.

“Oral tradition,” in order to remain “oral,” is NOT written down.

If I tell us a story about aunty Sue dropping the cake one Chritmas and continue to tell that story and pass it onto others in the family and younger members who weren’t there, even if someone thinks that it’d be a good story to write down, I can still tell the story and others too, and that doesn’t mean its no longer an oral tradition.

If someone were to write it down, they may not write the whole thing down or cover every nuance.

Where do any of the originators of this Tradition say that? Where is a ‘thus saith the Lord?’ or a “God was talking to me one day and He said…” Or even “this came to me in a dream?”

Who says they didn’t. Oral tradition is part of the word of God handed to the apostles and passed down throught the Church. Every time the apostles taught something did they say “now God said…” ?

I think you will find that all of them reference God’s communication to His people in there somewhere, except for Psalms and Proverbs, which are both simply a list of , well, songs and proverbs…

John’s epistles…
no mention of his name
no claim of inspiration
no thus says the Lord

How do we know his epistles should be in the Bible?
How do we even know he wrote them and not some guy?

I understand that you believe this. I need to know exactly HOW it comes “from God just like the Bible” before I can accept it, though.

How does it come from God like the Bible? The same way, but spoken instead of being written.

We know that all scripture, inspired by God, is useful for teaching, but how do we know what scripture is? How can we say “this writing comes from God” or “this is not inspired” ?

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit came up with the contents page (canon) of the Bible. She chose books that were in accord with oral Tradition? Council of Rome 382 AD.

If oral Tradition can tell us what books are inspired (canonical), can’t oral Tradition tell us that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

The word of God comes from God. It’s His word wether it comes in written or oral form.

If written Tradition can come from God - why not oral Tradition?

 

[guanophore]

Paul was celibate. Thanks for the concession. If “most of the rest” were married are you also conceding that some of the others may also have been celibate? Or do you think they were living in sin? Paul urged celibacy for all full-time ministers - in scripture. Why is this part of the passage conveniently ignored by you?

**Better check again. The requirements, as set forth by Paul, to be an elder/bishop included being the husband of one wife, having children, and ruling his house well.

1Ti 3:1 Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 The bishop therefore must be without reproach, **]the husband of one wife/****B], temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money;
1Ti 3:4 ***one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) ***

Yes, of course, if a married man were chosen as a bishop, he should demonstrate that he is faithful to his own family first. However, this is not a requirement that applied to all bishops. We have no record of Timothy or Titus being married, and the Church quickly realized that the example set by Paul and Jesus of becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom afforded a great deal more for the flock than a man divided in his interests. St. Paul writes extensively about this.

In all the Apostolic Churches, priests do not marry, and bishops are preferred from among those that have never been married.

 

[guanophore]

I’m about to ask a dumb question.

How do you know about the things that are/were ‘unwritten?’

This is not a dumb question at all. Catholics have kept the Apostolic commandment to preserve all that was delivered by the Apostles, both in person, and in writing. God is able to preserve His word both in the church, and in the scripture.

 

[dianaiad]

If I tell us a story about aunty Sue dropping the cake one Chritmas and continue to tell that story and pass it onto others in the family and younger members who weren’t there, even if someone thinks that it’d be a good story to write down, I can still tell the story and others too, and that doesn’t mean its no longer an oral tradition.

Of course not. Until it actually IS written down, it is oral.

If someone were to write it down, they may not write the whole thing down or cover every nuance.

Perhaps not, but once it is written down, everyone who hears the story will then check it against the written version, and any disparities will then be decided in favor of the written version–as the teachings of the Catholic Church have been compared to the written versions of oral history from the time something IS written down. If the oral version gets too far afield, then the speakers are, quite literally, ‘brought to book;’ shown the written version and told to conform to it.

Who says they didn’t. Oral tradition is part of the word of God handed to the apostles and passed down throught the Church. Every time the apostles taught something did they say “now God said…” ?

Pretty much, yeah. They either referred to scriptures that their listeners were familiar with and accepted, or they proclaimed that “God said.”

John’s epistles…
no mention of his name
no claim of inspiration
no thus says the Lord

How do we know his epistles should be in the Bible?
How do we even know he wrote them and not some guy?

Good question. How DO you know that?

How does it come from God like the Bible? The same way, but spoken instead of being written.

We know that all scripture, inspired by God, is useful for teaching, but how do we know what scripture is? How can we say “this writing comes from God” or “this is not inspired” ?

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit came up with the contents page (canon) of the Bible. She chose books that were in accord with oral Tradition? Council of Rome 382 AD.

If oral Tradition can tell us what books are inspired (canonical), can’t oral Tradition tell us that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Actually, YOU have to decide which books are scripture and which are not, very personally, through the power of the Holy Ghost. If Tradition tells you that Mary was a perpetual version, then you need to know who decided that and why. THEN you can go to God and ask Him for confirmation.

Well, that’s my opinion, anyway.

The word of God comes from God. It’s His word wether it comes in written or oral form.

If written Tradition can come from God - why not oral Tradition?

I’m certain it can, if there were actually such a thing as ‘oral tradition’ the way you claim. I claim that there is not–or rather that there really isn’t any difference between ‘written’ and ‘oral’ tradition; both began as a claim of oral communications from God, and both end as writing upon pages.

For ME the difference between what you term ‘oral’ and what you term ‘written’ comes at the very beginning; in that with scripture we can trace the origins, and we can’t with oral tradition.

In fact, you are claiming that Mary is a perpetual virgin because a few (perhaps less than ‘a few,’ even) men way back when…who had no special claim to divine revelation, and in fact, denied any such thing…said she was. They didn’t tell you why they thought so. they didn’t tell you where they got that idea…and They specifically deny having heard it directly from God.

So…where did they get it? Luke cited his sources.

You believe it simply because people kept repeating it.

…and it is that sort of thing, by the way, that makes me believe in an apostasy.

 

[Darian]

Yes, of course, if a married man were chosen as a bishop, he should demonstrate that he is faithful to his own family first. However, this is not a requirement that applied to all bishops. We have no record of Timothy or Titus being married, and the Church quickly realized that the example set by Paul and Jesus of becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom afforded a great deal more for the flock than a man divided in his interests. St. Paul writes extensively about this.

In all the Apostolic Churches, priests do not marry, and bishops are preferred from among those that have never been married.

Neither Paul, Timothy, nor Titus are ever refered to as Bishops. Paul was an apostle, and Timothy was told by Paul to do the work of an evangelist, which is one of the positions named in the epistle to the Ephesians.

 

[Canto]

once it is written down, everyone who hears the story will then check it against the written version, and any disparities will then be decided in favor of the written version–

Not necessarily - have you heard the phrase history is written by the victors.

They either referred to scriptures that their listeners were familiar with and accepted, or they proclaimed that “God said.”

1 Timothy 3:2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless…
Where does Paul say “Christ said a Bishop should be blameless…”
Do we still have Bishops?

Good question. How DO you know that?

I know that because of the Catholic Church instituded by Christ
How do you know?

Actually, YOU have to decide which books are scripture and which are not, very personally, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Where does the Bible say we have to decide?
Where does it say the Holy Spirit will guide us in such a decision?
There have been various canons throughout history from the early Church and in the reformation and no dobut all would claim the Holy Spirit guided them. So who is truly guided by the Spirit in their decision and who is not? How do we know?

…if there were actually such a thing as ‘oral tradition’ the way you claim.

Tradtion wether word OR epistle says St Paul
Surley if we’re meant to hold onto oral Tradtion God would protect such oral Tradition from error

For ME the difference between what you term ‘oral’ and what you term ‘written’ comes at the very beginning; in that with scripture we can trace the origins, and we can’t with oral tradition.

Scripture traces back to God, so does oral Tradition.
Who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews? Paul? How do you know who wrote it?
How does one trace Hebrews back to the begining?

In fact, you are claiming that Mary is a perpetual virgin because a few (perhaps less than ‘a few,’ even) men way back when…who had no special claim to divine revelation, and in fact, denied any such thing…said she was. They didn’t tell you why they thought so. they didn’t tell you where they got that idea…and They specifically deny having heard it directly from God.

So…where did they get it? Luke cited his sources.

You believe it simply because people kept repeating it.

Which sources specifically did Luke cite?
Why did people keep repeating it? (and no not simply because, and more than a few)
Who denied having heard of the perpetual virginity of Mary from God?
Paul says he “thinks” he has the Spirit of God c.f. 1 Cor 7:40
The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church Mattew 16:18

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold the form of **sound words **which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 4:2 Paul tells timothy to preach the word (not write).

Titus 1:3 God manifested his word in preaching

1 Peter 1:25 The word of God endures forever - preached to us.

**Examples of oral tradtion in the Bible **
Matt. 2:23 “He shall be a Nazarene” this is an oral tradition not recorded in scripture.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the OT.
Acts 20:35 - it is better to give than to receive" - this saying by Christ is not found in the Gospels
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the OT. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul quotes- “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.” this is not in the OT or NT.
Heb. 11:37 - the martyrs being sawed in two is not recorded in the OT or NT.
Jude 9 - the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over the body of Moses is not recorded in the OTment.
Jude 14-15 - Enoch’s prophecy is not recorded in the OT.

Iren****aeus (taught by Polycarpy taught by St John) said…

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 4:1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church…those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies 26:2 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

also

‘But they, safeguarding the true tradition of the blessed teaching, which comes straight from the Apostles Peter, James, John and Paul and transmitted from father to son have come down to us with the help of God to deposit in us those ancestral and apostolic seeds’ Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1,11 (c. A.D. 205).

and “The Church’s preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Origen, First Principles 1,2 (c. A.D. 230).

 

[Good_Fella]

Neither Paul, Timothy, nor Titus are ever refered to as Bishops. Paul was an apostle, and Timothy was told by Paul to do the work of an evangelist, which is one of the positions named in the epistle to the Ephesians.

St. Timothy was ordained a priest at a very young age by St. Paul. The apostle eventually consecrated him Bishop of Ephesus. I believe he replaced Barnabas. St. Titus became Bishop of Gortyn in Crete by Paul’s “laying on of hands”. The bishops of the Catholic Church are the valid successors of the apostles in their divine office and mandate to authentically preach the Gospel.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Good_Fella]

St. Timothy was ordained a priest at a very young age by St. Paul. The apostle eventually consecrated him Bishop of Ephesus. I believe he replaced Barnabas. St. Titus became Bishop of Gortyn in Crete by Paul’s “laying on of hands”. The bishops of the Catholic Church are the valid successors of the apostles in their divine office and mandate to authentically preach the Gospel.

Pax Christu :harp:

“Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you.”
Ignatius of Antioch, The Epistle to Polycarp, 6 (c.A.D. 108)

 

[Darian]

St. Timothy was ordained a priest at a very young age by St. Paul. The apostle eventually consecrated him Bishop of Ephesus. I believe he replaced Barnabas. St. Titus became Bishop of Gortyn in Crete by Paul’s “laying on of hands”. The bishops of the Catholic Church are the valid successors of the apostles in their divine office and mandate to authentically preach the Gospel.

Pax Christu :harp:

Source? Easily said, difficult to prove.