Virgin

[Verbum_Caro]

BibleReader:

Oops. I meant to write, “If the pope suddenly denies that Jesus did die on the cross, must we believe him?”

BibleReader,

Let’s clarify that a bit. What do you mean by “denies”? Do you mean in his heart? Do you mean that he has an opinion? Do you you mean in an interview?

Or do you mean he proposes this as an article of faith while acting in his official capacity and in the teaching office of the Vicar of Christ on earth?

It would make a difference, I think.

 

[deb1]

'scuse me, but by “virginity” are we talking about the existence of the hymen?

Does it really matter if the hymen ruptured or not?

Doesn’t “virgin” mean “never had sexual intercourse”?

I think that this is an interesting point. By virginity are we talking about simply never having sexual intercourse or the existence of a hymen?

 

[Jerusha]

the existence of a hymen

is taken as proof that

never having sexual intercourse

Without a hymen a woman cannot prove that she is a virgin, with one, she can. Given Jesus’ Nature and the circumstances of His birth, this is very important.

 

[Cathoholic]

When we talk about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary we are talking about 3 related items.

1. A Virgin (The Blessed Virgin Mary) conceives a Son (Jesus). (Miraculous)
2. A Virgin bears a Son. (Miraculous)
3. This Virgin remains a Virgin for the rest of time. (Not necessarily miraculous but may be in certain instances).

In this thread we are focusing on number 2 above but all three are inter-related here. I just wanted to clear this up for any readers who may have just joined this thread.

We saw in Matthew (and Isaiah) how “a virgin will conceive AND bear a son.” This is related to Number 1 and 2 above.

JustCatholic: In regards to your statement “I was asked to post some evidence that not all the church fathers held to the belief that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Here is that evidence” in post # 26:

As far as early Church Fathers denying the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Jerome obviously didn’t think any early Church Fathers denied the Perpetual Virginity of Mary otherwise he wouldn’t have called Helvidius’ teaching “novel” (from the Latin for “new”). – see post # 6.

JustCatholic, not one of these citations you gave, had me thinking the Church Fathers denied this doctrine. As far as what Basil, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian said there were no contextual quotes whatsoever. Let’s look at these items in more detail though.

Just because you quoted JND Kelly saying Basil acknowledged disbelief among society regarding this doctrine doesn’t mean HE (Basil) disbelieved in the Perpetual Virginity doctrine. That is a non-sequitor. Many in society were non-Christians (Pagans, Arians, etc.) All of these groups likely would have denied the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother. Many in society denied the Divinity of Christ too and Kelly acknowledges that. He knows about Arians for example.

Here is an actual quote from St. Basil (regarding this doctrine): . . . “The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God EVER ceased to be a virgin.” (Hom. In S. Christi generationem n. 5). All caps mine.

Concluding Hegesippus “APPARENTLY” didn’t believe in the Perpetual Virginity doesn’t get us anywhere either. Jude and Jesus in a Jewish sense were brothers. So were Uncle Abraham and Nephew Lot “brothers” in a Jewish sense. But quoting Eusebius’ analysis of this situation and Eusebius using different Greek words when referring to Jude vrs. Symeon (Simon) 300 years later is a far stretch from asserting the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children. Just as it would be to say if Eusebius were to call Abraham “Uncle-Abraham” and Lot “Nephew-Lot”, it wouldn’t allow you to conclude that is how it was used during the Biblical time referred to. You would need more information one-way or the other. The Catholic Encyclopedia says about Hegesippus: “He (this brother of Jesus that Hegesippus refers to) is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, WHO, ACCORDING TO HEGESIPPUS, WAS A SON OF CLOPAS, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem.” (Parenthesis and all caps mine). Thus we see quite a different scenario than Hegesippus denying the Blessed Mother Her Perpetual Virginity.

Just because Irenaeus says the Blessed Virgin was “as yet a virgin” when she “gave birth to Jesus” doesn’t show that he denied the Blessed Virgin’s Perpetual Virginity. It actually shows that HE AFFIRMED IT! How many women that are giving birth to babies that you can say are “as yet a virgin” about? Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma refers to Irenaeus as a defender of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (on p. 206). In all honesty I couldn’t find the quote. Ott cites “Against Heresies” Epistle 54. This is apparently a different numbering system than my resources so if anyone can clarify I’d be interested to hear St. Irenaeus’ quote on this.

I found NO early Church Fathers that taught this. I found early Church heretics such as Helvidius ( newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm )and Jovinianus (newadvent.org/cathen/08530a.htm ). St. Jerome wrote against both of these. The early Church called local synods to condemn Jovinianus – and specifically reaffirm the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Ott. pp. 203-207). This is yet more patristic evidence of this doctrine (why would the Church condemn dissenting doctrines if it didn’t already hold to this doctrine?).

Continued in next post . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

. . .Continued from last post . . .

Tertullian was also a heretic. He fell away from Catholicism and into Montanism eventually leaving that sect to start his own tradition (sometimes called by historians, “Tertullianism”). He was condemned by the early Church (this is not to say that there is no historical value in his writings) for heresy.

Incidentally, if you read Tertullian’s letter on the prophet Simeon’s sign that should be contradicted (Chapter 23 is the chapter in your example likely), Tertullian himself although wrongly calling into **question ** (not denying) the physical virginity of the Blessed Virgin remaining after the miraculous delivery of Jesus, called people who denied the blessed Mother’s Virginal conception “heretics” in the very same chapter of this writing. (See Harmony Media’s Early Church Fathers CD).

Show us ONE ancient Church FATHER (not heretic) who said that said Mary had other children, not that Jesus had “brothers”.
There may one, but I don’t know of ANY.

BibleReader. As far as your comments about “rubber band arguments” and “beamer-downer” you yourself stated . . .”I am frequently criticized for using abusive colloquialisms . . to describe the in partu virginity folks . . (etc.) . . . However, I do it because I love Mary, and resent . . .”

Actually most people I know, DON’T use abusive colloquialisms because they love The Blessed Virgin Mary and Our Lord Jesus.

 

[cardenio]

If you want to know how Mary got pregnant but was still a virgin, ask a child who hasn’t had the talk yet.

My sister asked my mom how babies were made. My mom didn’t want to tell her yet (she was young) and my mom said “What do you think?” My sister replied “I think God puts a hole in your back, puts the baby in, and closes it up.”

The child is the son of the mother and the father. But Jesus did not have a human father.

I know this sounds weird, but think of it as God having sex with Mary in a less human and more divine and perfect way. That way God is the father of the child.

 

[BibleReader]

Jerusha:

Or, the first miracle Jesus performed was healing His mother from the effects of childbirth. That’s better than either “beamerdowner” or “rubberband”

The “beamer-downers” carefully deny this – that would be a violation of Mary’s “perpetual” virginity. That few moments of a breaking of tissues means that her “virginity” – the way they define “virginity” – is NON-perpetual.

 

[BibleReader]

Verbum Caro:

BibleReader,

Let’s clarify that a bit. What do you mean by “denies”? Do you mean in his heart? Do you mean that he has an opinion? Do you you mean in an interview?

Or do you mean he proposes this as an article of faith while acting in his official capacity and in the teaching office of the Vicar of Christ on earth?

It would make a difference, I think.

My hypothetical entails the latter supposition.

My point is this – the Church CAN’T assert that the Church can interpret the Bible to the radical extent of squarely disagreeing with it. If it does, it fundamentally destroys the philosophical basis for its own authority, thus pulling the rug out from under itself.

 

[BibleReader]

Cathoholic:

BibleReader. As far as your comments about “rubber band arguments” and “beamer-downer” you yourself stated . . .”I am frequently criticized for using abusive colloquialisms . . to describe the in partu virginity folks . . (etc.) . . . However, I do it because I love Mary, and resent . . .”

Actually most people I know, DON’T use abusive colloquialisms because they love The Blessed Virgin Mary and Our Lord Jesus.

You’re right, my friend. They should merely be excommunicated.

Do you get my point? I’m trying to get it through their thick skulls that they should stop accusing Mary’s personal region of bizarre activity.

By the way, if you want to see abusive language by a Church Father, read Irenaeus’ Against Heresy. He’s nasty.

 

[BibleReader]

Cathoholic:

BibleReader, The “Original Greek” argument in post #16 didn’t seem persuasive to me. None of the ancient native Greek-speaking Fathers thought of this. And they didn’t have to go to Seminary to learn Greek. It seems to me if that argument were so strong, they would have been the first to present it.

For example the Greek speaking St. Epiphanius had this to say . . “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy EVER-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). (All caps mine for emphasis).

The Greek speaking St. Athanasius said this . . . “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the EVER-virgin Mary.” (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]). (All caps mine for emphasis).%between%

In discussing the earlierst Fathers, one has to be careful about what was in their heads.

To the best of my knowledge, it is not clearly known if Athanasius, when he used the term “in partu,” meant “while Mary was pregnant” or “at the moment she was giving birth.”

In other words, to the best of my knowledge it is not clearly known if by “virgin” Athanasius simply meant, “She didn’t engage in sexual conduct with anyone.”

For example, Jerome was also an “in-partu-ite” – *but he also insisted that Mary’s afterbirth was delivered! * That would violate today’s definition of “perpetual virginity” among the beamer-downers.

I am satisfied, after years of Bible study, that the Scriptures were written with extraordinary attention to each word. You are wrong about your judgment of the implication of the words of Scripture.

 

[BibleReader]

Lazerlike42:

If the Bible says Jesus liked steak, and 500 Church Fathers and the Magesterium says Jesus hated steak, well then yes, the Bible wins. However, there never has been a situation where 500 Church Fathers said something contrary to the Bible, or the Magesterium, there never will be (as far as the Magesiterium), and that is the key.

Numerous Magisterial pronouncements rather solemnly declare Mary to be a virgin in partu. These pronouncements frequently cite the Fathers for support.

If one reads the Bible carefully, the Bible seems to squarely contradict any assertion that Jesus’ birth wasn’t perfectly normal.

 

[BibleReader]

There is an argument #6 which I forgot about…

BIBLE ARGUMENT #6
Here’s the problem: If Jesus “beamed-down” out of Mary’s womb, was He ever “born”? The reason why this is critical is that a bundle of prophecies in the Old Testament, directly and indirectly referred to in the New Testament, require Jesus’ death because Jesus was a “first born male who opened the womb” Who was also unredeemed.

The word “born” is the problem in those prophecies – not the words “opened the womb.” “Opening” the womb in those prophecies doesn’t refer to tissue-ripping, but rather to being the first baby, male or female, out of the womb under consideration.

Here are the prophecies themselves…

Exodus 13:2: 1 The LORD spoke to Moses and said, 2 “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me.”

Exodus 13:11-13: 11 “When the LORD, your God, has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, which he swore to you and your fathers he would give you, 12 you shall dedicate to the LORD every son that opens the womb; and all the male firstlings of your animals shall belong to the LORD. 13 Every first-born of an a s s you shall redeem with a sheep. If you do not redeem it, you shall break its neck. Every first-born son you must redeem.”

Exodus 22:28-29: 28 “You shall give me the first-born of your sons. 29 You must do the same with your oxen and your sheep; for seven days the firstling may stay with its mother, but on the eighth day you must give it to me.”

Exodus 34:19-20: 19 “To me belongs every first-born male that opens the womb among all your livestock, whether in the herd or in the flock. 20 The firstling of an a s s you shall redeem with one of the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. The first-born among your sons you shall redeem.”

Numbers 18:15-16: 15 “Every living thing that opens the womb, whether of man or of beast, such as are to be offered to the LORD, shall be yours; but you must let the first-born of man, as well as of unclean animals, be redeemed. 16 The ransom for a boy is to be paid when he is a month old; it is fixed at five silver shekels according to the sanctuary standard, twenty gerahs to the shekel.”

Verse directly connecting these prophecies to Jesus: Luke 2:22-23: 22 When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, 23 just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,…”

Note well, however, that the verse does NOT say that Mary and Joseph paid the five silver shekels redeeming Jesus BACK from God, as specified by Numbers 18:16!

I.e., Jesus was suddenly like the “unredeemed firstling of an a s s” in Exodus 13:13 and Exodus 34:20: As an unredeemed first born male who opens the womb, Jesus must “have his neck broken” – He must die!

That is why on His Messianic entry into Jerusalem, Jesus is portrayed as riding an “a s s” or “the colt of an a s s” – we are being told that this Jesus is like the Exodus 13 and Exodus 34 unredeemed a s s which must be destroyed! That a s s He is riding foreshadows His death!

That a s s Balaam beats with a stick in Numbers 22 is also a picture of Christ. The beating foreshadows Christ’s scourging.

Finally, in the story of Jacob’s Deception in Genesis 27, when Rebekah puts the slaughtered kid skin on Jacob’s neck to mimic Esau’s hairy neck, that is also a reference to the Exodus 13:13 a s s which had to have its “neck” broken: Jacob wearing choice slaughtered kid skin gloves and choice slaughtered kid skin on his neck, serving choice slaughtered kid meat to his father, is a picture of “Mr. Slaughtered Blemishless Lamb,” Jesus, Himself unredeemed so that He is like the a s s that must have its neck broken, offering up His Own slaughtered flesh to His Father in Heaven.

Now, there’s no doubt about it – if Jesus had “beamed down” out of Mary’s womb, then IT WOULD VERY QUICKLY HAVE OCCURRED TO PEOPLE IN JESUS’ TIME AND EARLY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PERIOD THAT TECHNICALLY JESUS WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN “BORN” AND SO DID NOT FIT THE PROPHECIES CONDEMNING THE UNREDEEMED FIRST BORN MALE TO DEATH.

And then there’s raw doubt generated by a miraculous entrance into the world from Mary’s womb – if, technically, Jesus wasn’t “born,” DID JESUS EVER “DIE”?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

BibleReader,

Your in depth analysis of scripture is wonderful, and I am always amazed by the connections that you find.

(On a side note: you mentioned that you “learned” typology. Would you care to share with us how you did that? Were there any particular books that you can recommend?)

However (you knew this was coming, right?), I am still concerned about your statements:

BibleReader:

The truth is that if the Bible is on one side of the scales, and 500 Church Fathers and the CCC are on the other side of the scale, the Bible should win.

BibleReader:

I also consider the Catholic Bible to be a more authoritative expression of the Magisterium than the CCC or the Church Fathers.

I asked you:
Verbum Caro:

Could you please explain how the bible will “win”? Who is doing the interpreting of the bible in your scenario???

But you wanted me to answer this first:

“If the pope suddenly denies that Jesus did die on the cross, must we believe him?”

And you later answered it yourself:

BibleReader:

My point is this – the Church CAN’T assert that the Church can interpret the Bible to the radical extent of squarely disagreeing with it. If it does, it fundamentally destroys the philosophical basis for its own authority, thus pulling the rug out from under itself.

Well, now that we know the answer – that the Church CANNOT INCORRECTLY INTERPRET SCRIPTURE – let’s go back to my orginal question: how in the world can the Bible “win” over the Church?

WHO is doing the interp of the Bible in your scenario? The church? Or you? Or me?

If you mean that the church’s interpretation of scripture cannot contridict the church’s interpretation of scripture – well, that makes sense.

Or if you wish to further protect the Divinely Inspired nature of scripture in even stronger terms you could say that the Church’s teaching can never and will never contradict THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION of scripture.

But what is the correct interpretation? Surely not just your interpretation? You must see that you ARE interpreting scripture here, right? I mean Revelation 12 and the passages from Luke do admit of different interpretations, don’t they??

So let’s look to the Church:
Lateran Council of 649–

“If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.”

Which leads to Lumen Gentium 57, which leads to the CCC:

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.

Now, I understand that the particulars of how Mary’s physical integrity was not diminished is something that Church has not defined. Discussion about pain in childbirth, etc is theological speculation (and NOT a slam dunk from scripture!).

We certainly are dealing with one of the most profound mysteries of the incarnation, and so we should be duly circumspect.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Here’s the problem. People are forgetting one thing: GOD!

Everybody is trying to figure out and discuss Mary’s virginity in medical and physiological terms, but nobody is getting the MIRACULOUS aspects of it.

If we try to talk about Jesus’ conception in medical terms, we’ll get nowhere because medically, it’s simply impossible. But “through God all things are possible.” That is how Mary got pregnant. He didn’t have to make a hole in her back, or do this or do that, He just had to say she was pregnant and bam! She was.

Finally, if God wants to have Mary give birth in the normal human way, but have her body keep all the traits of virginity, from her hymen remaining intact to her canal remaining perfectly firm, snug, and unstretched, then God can have no problem doing it.

I hate to say it but honestly it comes down to the fact that anyone insisting that this can only be discussed in medical terms is really denying the omnipotence of God.

 

[BibleReader]

Lazerlike42:

Here’s the problem. People are forgetting one thing: GOD!

Everybody is trying to figure out and discuss Mary’s virginity in medical and physiological terms, but nobody is getting the MIRACULOUS aspects of it.

If we try to talk about Jesus’ conception in medical terms, we’ll get nowhere because medically, it’s simply impossible. But “through God all things are possible.” That is how Mary got pregnant. He didn’t have to make a hole in her back, or do this or do that, He just had to say she was pregnant and bam! She was.

Finally, if God wants to have Mary give birth in the normal human way, but have her body keep all the traits of virginity, from her hymen remaining intact to her canal remaining perfectly firm, snug, and unstretched, then God can have no problem doing it.

I hate to say it but honestly it comes down to the fact that anyone insisting that this can only be discussed in medical terms is really denying the omnipotence of God.

Well, God is omnipotent, BUT GOD WON’T VIOLATE LOGIC BECAUSE LOGIC IS “IN AND OF” GOD. Logic partakes of “God-ness.”

So, one group where I mentored Bible study argued that in some incomprehensible way Jesus was born BOTH (1) non-miraculously, and (2) miraculously as to the same aspects of the birth, in a way that defies logic and comprehensibility.

My answer was, “Sorry, that’s a ‘square circle.’ God won’t do it.”

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, Verbum Caro. One comment/objection at a time…

**Your in depth analysis of scripture is wonderful, and I am always amazed by the connections that you find.

**The connections are the product of the fundamental assumptions of typology, which are “self-verifying” because they are “inherently functional” – they work, again, and again, and again, and again, in other words.

**(On a side note: you mentioned that you “learned” typology. Would you care to share with us how you did that? Were there any particular books that you can recommend?)
**
The books on typology are rare and pretty bad. Because our Protestant brothers and sisters have spent more time studying Scripture, they are better at typology than Catholic commentators, by and large. However, in their zeal to dramatize the error of Catholicism, Protestant Bible commentators clearly sabotage their own objectivity when they bump into “Catholic typology.” n “It can’t mean THAT!,” they seem to think, “That’s CATHOLIC.” And so, to avoid ending-up with Catholic interps, they impose false interps on much of Bible typology, which really is distinctly Catholic.

The Nativity, for instance, is a “hard core” Real Presence Doctrine word picture. There you have a picture of Jersus wrapped in swaddling clothes, like a cadaver, and lying in a “manger,” a feeding trough – a kind of “serving plate” for yoked animals.

So, it’s a picture of the actual body of dead Jesus being served as food.

Anti-Catholic Protestant Bible commentator Raul Reese, faced with this interpretation, said, “Well, a ‘manger’ can be either a feeding trough or the stable where you find one. I pick the latter.” But he didn’t give a reason for his choice.

What he overlooked was the corroborating evidence of the Real Presence interp: “Bethlehem.” When a Jew in Jesus’ time heard “Bethlehem,” they heard “House of Bread” – a bakery. So what do we see being served in the House of Bread? Bread on a platter? No! What we see is the actual cadaver of Jesus being served on a platter!

There are many Real Presence pictures in Scripture, in fact.

In any event, I spent 30 years extrapolating the principles of typology set forth in *Dei Verbum *(and, later, in the Catechism – see Paras 128, 129, 130 and others!) into daily Bible reading, and the results were phenomenal!

**Could you please explain how the bible will “win”? Who is doing the interpreting of the bible in your scenario???
**
The Bible wins by default. The Bible is an expression of the Magisterium which is also “God’s word.” I.e., unlike the assurances of the Magisterium, GOD “SAID” THE BIBLE BEFORE THE MAGISTERIUM RATIFIED IT BY CANONIZING IT.

Additionally, the Bible ALREADY establishes the divine authority of the Church itself. If the Church were to “interprtet” the Bible by solemnly declaring, “Let him be anathema who says that ‘yes’ is the opposite of ‘no’ in the Bible,” the Church, in this radical hypo, simply kills the Bible’s assurances of the Church’s own authority. “You are Peter and upon this rock I wilol build my Church” becomes, “You aren’t Peter and upon this rock I won’t build my Church.”

Every incorrect misinterp – every interp that decisively violates the laws of logic, such as the principle of negation, and every interp which decisively attacks the customs of language – probably attacks the authority of the Church to a greater or lesser extent. (Note that Protestant misinterps led to a universal; denial of Church authority in their congregations – the proof is in the pudding!)

Bottom line: NOT being bound by the Bible – i.e., NOT arriving at the same conclusions as the Bible = self-annihilation by the Church.

Functionally, the Bible “wins” because functionally the Church can’t logically get away with not surrendering to its teaching.

Note that in the story of Peter and Malchus, Jesus (1) fixes Malchus’ ear; and Jesus (2) regulates Peter’s use of the “sword.”

But Jesus doesn’t do anything to the “sword.”

In typology, “sword” = “the word of God.” See Ephesians 6:17.

 

[BibleReader]

**WHO is doing the interp of the Bible in your scenario? The church? Or you? Or me?
**
Suppose, to be “safe,” I answer, “Oh, I’m a good little Catholic! So, the CHURCH does MY interpreting!”

The problem with such seemingly stable, loyal assurances is that they create logic problems – well, the Biblical canon IS an expression of the Magisterium. The Bible is not “crippled” in some way so that it requires interpreting while the other Magisterial teachings do not.

Therefore, if I must always look to the Church for “interpreting” Scripture, it appears that I must always look to the Church for all interpretations of everything it says. How do I ever “learn” anything the Church says, if all expressions of the Magisterium can only be interpreted by the Magisterium, and I can’t reliably do so?

If the Church is the ONLY reliable comprehender, teaching is a vain act!

If you answer, “Aw, that’s STUPID,” that’s because you aren’t comprehending your own questions.

So, the Church itself has to be careful about what it means when it teaches that it is the ultimate interpreter of Scripture. That teaching is sorely hemmed-in, by things like history, and the customary meanings of words when the words were written – and all words are really just customs, the authors’ intent, which is independent of Church teaching, and so on.

All that may be left of the principle that the Church is the “interpreter” is a mystical meaning we can’t quite put our hands on.

This is how “infernal” the problem is: One of the most exciting moments in Church history was when Pope Liberius waffled on his approval of Arian theology. People said, “The world went to bed Christian, the world woke up Arian!” Liberius’ waffling left Athanasius with his anti-Arian teaching significantly out in the cold. Of all the bishops in the world, he rejected Liberius’ teaching. So, people in that era also adopted the saying, “Athanasius against the world!”

Athanasius won. The Pope later condemned his own prior ambiguous teaching on Arianism, and adopted Athanasius’ formula.

Do you understand the implication of that incident? * If this can happen* – and I think that most Catholic theologians would agree that that is a fair description of the incident – then while the Church may be the “chief” interpreter, it may not be a “somatically reliable” interpreter.

In answer to…

**So let’s look to the Church:
Lateran Council of 649-- **
Quote:

**“If anyone does not in accord with the Holy Fathers acknowledge the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary was really and truly the Mother of God, inasmuch as she, in the fullness of time, and without seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God in the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father, and without loss of integrity brought Him forth, and after His birth preserved her virginity inviolate, let him be condemned.”
**

**Which leads to Lumen Gentium 57, which leads to the CCC:
**
Quote:
**The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.
**

…I cite the Magisterium’s own teaching at Matthew 21:4-5, which assures us that Jesus is a “king,” for Scriptural purposes, and the Magisterium’s own teaching at Wisdom 7:5-6 that “no king has any different…birth, but one way is the entry into life for all!” – both completely reliable, unimpeachable infallible expressions of religious truth.

Tell me – which of those teachings should I reject – the Magisterial pronouncements YOU cited, or the Magisterial pronouncements I cited???

And how about the other five Scriptural arguments I make?

Should I ignore Scripture?

Your arguments makes divinely inspired Scripture seem completely worthless, doesn’t it?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

BibleReader:

Hi, Verbum Caro.

Could you please explain how the bible will “win”? Who is doing the interpreting of the bible in your scenario???

The Bible wins by default. The Bible is an expression of the Magisterium which is also “God’s word.” I.e., unlike the assurances of the Magisterium, GOD “SAID” THE BIBLE BEFORE THE MAGISTERIUM RATIFIED IT BY CANONIZING IT.

(. . .)

Bottom line: NOT being bound by the Bible – i.e., NOT arriving at the same conclusions as the Bible = self-annihilation by the Church.

Functionally, the Bible “wins” because functionally the Church can’t logically get away with not surrendering to its teaching.

BibleReader,
Again, I have to ask this: How can one arrive at the same conclusions as the Bible?

What conclusions? How does the Bible itself without a reader, arrive at any conclusions?

I can only take your above statement to mean: NOT being bound by the Bible – i.e. NOT arriving at the same conclusions (that some one draws from the text)= self annihilation by the Church.

Do you see my problem here? Don’t you have to posit some person “concluding?” My question is who is that person (s)?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Verbum Caro:

BibleReader,
Again, I have to ask this: How can one arrive at the same conclusions as the Bible?

What conclusions? How does the Bible itself without a reader, arrive at any conclusions?

I can only take your above statement to mean: NOT being bound by the Bible – i.e. NOT arriving at the same conclusions (that some one draws from the text)= self annihilation by the Church.

Do you see my problem here? Don’t you have to posit some person “concluding?” My question is who is that person (s)?

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 3:16 He speaks about these things in all his letters, in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.

Who is to interpret? Who is to teach? Only the Church has the ability to do this without error.

 

[BibleReader]

Verbum Caro:

BibleReader,
Again, I have to ask this: How can one arrive at the same conclusions as the Bible?

What conclusions? How does the Bible itself without a reader, arrive at any conclusions?

I can only take your above statement to mean: NOT being bound by the Bible – i.e. NOT arriving at the same conclusions (that some one draws from the text)= self annihilation by the Church.

Do you see my problem here? Don’t you have to posit some person “concluding?” My question is who is that person (s)?

Oh, my Heavens. You’re worse than me. I didn’t think that was possible.

Does the Bible teach things?

What things?

The answers to “What things?” are what I am referring to when I refer to “conclusions.”