No, ja4, Sacred Tradition is a world view (way of looking at things) and does not lend itself to “lists”. Perhaps you need a refresher of your conclusions the last time we discussed Sacred Tradition?
I doubt your conclusions, or the motivation for asking the question has changed…
If you don’t see this, then you don’t understand what “Tradition” means in the context of the Gospel.It was the fact that they were eyewitnesses that enabled them to formulate the teaching. This was then “handed down” (paradosis) to faithful men, who were able to teach others also. What they preached, which is what they witnessed, is the content of the tradition. It was received in that form by those of us who were not present.
Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus made statements of implicit faith in the Immaculate Conception by drawing the Eve and Mary (New Eve) parallel. Justyn Martyr was the first to make this parallelism, and Irenaeus was influenced by him.
You were the one who equated the early Catholic Church with the Roman Empire…when you said God used the Roman Empire as His vehicle for putting the Bible together. That was a stereotypical anti-Catholic argument with no Scriptural or historical basis whatsoever. Such a comment exposes how little you really know about Christian history and your latent anti-Catholic upbringing.
LOL. Are you kidding me with this type of argumentation? Polycarp is now your final authority on this matter? I guess when your’e anti-Catholic with limited education, anything goes.
But you have come to CAF with old, anti-Catholic stereotypes. That is not the best way to "simply discuss theology with other Christians mostly to learn but also to share." You should respect Catholics on this site by being well versed in Catholic theology and history. The onus is on you as the guest. Equating the Catholic Church with the Roman Empire exposes your ignorance and questions your sincerity to “**simply discuss theology with other Christians mostly to learn but also to share.” **
No, I don’t. I think many non-Catholics are that way because they read the Bible with tinted glasses.
If you really loved Jesus and had great faith in Him, would you ever curse His name?
:banghead: :whacky:
:nope: 
I simply say nothing happens without the will of God concerned, including the reformation.
Actually I didn’t speculate about a single thing. My anti-Catholic sentiment is in your “ill-centered” mind – just like this debate which you’ve designed.
I wasn’t – again another manifestation of your mind.
You’re a funny guy.
Here you go again. You invent a straw man argument and make me its proxy. My only mistake was responding to your nonsense in the first place.
I’m pretty well versed but don’t know it all.
no – it just means I must have hit a nerve with you to go off on such a rant?
This is only because you think all non-Catholics are anti-Catholic. As if most of us enjoy snipping away at other denominations – this seems to be your sport.
The delusion continues; I guess I shouldn’t expect anything more?
You invented this argument – so you’re debating with yourself. Enjoy
Origen simply disagreed that she was born sinless – in all other respects I assume he agreed with RCC doctrine (as it existed at that time – which I don’t think included the assumption, which as far as I know manifested in around the fourth century).Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus made statements of implicit faith in the Immaculate Conception by drawing the Eve and Mary (New Eve) parallel. Justyn Martyr was the first to make this parallelism, and Irenaeus was influenced by him.
“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to your word.’ And by her He has been born…and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men (offspring) who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon him.”
Justin Martyr, ‘Dialogue with Trypho, 100’ [A.D.155]
“By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…”
Irenaeus, ‘Against Heresies, 3:22’ [c.A.D. 180]
In accord with Sacred Tradition, Origen draws the same parallel between Eve and Mary, the New Eve, by focussing on the purity of the Blessed Virgin.
“And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus (the New Adam) was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists of chastity, and Mary (the New Eve) among women; for if it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.”
Origen, ‘Commentary on Matthew, 10:17’ [A.D. 244]
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”
Origen, ‘Homily 1’ [A.D. 244]
Origen believed that Mary was a holy virgin who had to overcome personal faults such as vanity (Homily on Luke 17, 6-7).
Please elaborate on how Irenaeus and Origen had major disagreements with regard to the Virgin Mary. What documents can you provide to support your claim? Still keep in mind that the teachings of individual Church Fathers do not constitute official Church doctrines. Individual theological speculation on the part of individuals, including the Pope outside his Office, at a given instant is fallible in nature. Aquinas was wrong when he rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but he was free to piously dissent, since this teaching was not yet declared dogma in his life time.
The fall of man was brought about by Adam and Eve’s intent to reject the will of God. It was no accident. But God did not intend that they should sin. If he did, then our first parents would have had to be pre-programmed to sin, and so they could not have been morally responsible for their disobedient act. It was not necessary that Adam and Eve should sin, but their fall from grace made it necessary for us to be saved. It was not necessary that Mary should sin, but God’s grace was sufficient for her to fully co-operate with God’s will by her free consent. She had the power to reject God’s helping grace, but instead she refused to be mastered by the devil and succumb to the slavery of sin. Mary was at complete enmity with the serpent and his offspring together with Jesus who had a human nature just like hers.
PAX
Good Fella
Did the will of God use the Roman Empire as His vehicle for compiling the Bible? Or did He use the Catholic Church?
You SAID you didn’t know for sure whether or not Ignatius or Clement would have capitulated to the Romans…In essence, you left open the possibility that Clement or Ignatius might have cursed Jesus’ name or changed His teachings in the face of Roman persecution.
The biggest nonsense was YOU equating the early Catholic Church with the Roman Empire. There is no historical basis for this. If you think there is, please provide documentation; do not just say it and expect that comment to pass without a retort.
I expect non-Catholics who join CAF to leave behind their stereotypical beliefs about Catholicism at the door and freshen up on Catholic theology and history. **It is a matter of respect. **Know **where **you are and who you are conversing with. Call it hitting a nerve and ranting, blah, blah, blah…BUT you are not permitted to denigrate the Catholic Church without documentation. You will be called to task on it.
This is not true. I absolutley do not think all non-Catholics are anti-Catholic.
Seems like I was the one who hit a nerve when I challenged your comments. If you can’t stand the heat … … …
Let’s see, you ask me a question from left field – do I think the Catholic Church was influenced by the Roman empire? I said – as anyone with any sense would say – who the heck knows.
In your view obviously disagreement with you equals denigrating the RCC. There’s nothing I can do about how you view things.
If I get booted off this site then so be it. What I frankly see is an inability to challenge my theological positions with logic and reason has turned into bitter frustration on your part.
Since I’ve said none of these things, ever, not even once then whose the one engaging in hateful ad hom attacks? Hint – it’s not me. I understand infallibility does not equal impeccability, and that the RCC does not view veneration as worship. I can assure you I did not have an anti-Catholic upbringing. If you knew me you would know how ridiculous that statement is.
Of course I have not come to any conclusions, this is a manifestation of your mind.
What challenge? I’ve had great and fruitful discussions with many posters here who actually know their theology, you’re certainly not one of them. I suspect you rather enjoy bashing non-Catholics. Sad!
You really do not see how that is an affront to Catholics, do you?
I’m glad you feel that the Roman Empire did not influence the Catholic Church. That is simple enough for me.
You did express uncertainity if the Roman Empire corrupted the Catholic Church. I was arguing against that comment because of its implications for Catholicism.
What were your theological positions?
I know you never said Catholics worship Mary or the Pope is perfect. I was just bringing up some of my favorite whoppers. But I did think you said there existed the possibility of corruption within the Catholic Church by the Roman Empire. You probably did not know what you were actually saying or did not mean for it to be literally expressed in the way it was. But I had no way of knowing.
But you left open the possibility of reaching that conclusion. You did not rule it out.
I asked you for documentation why you think there existed the possibility of corruption within the Catholic Church by the Roman Empire. That was the challenge.
Do you think that pagans who converted to Christianity in the Roman empire brought in some of their pagan ideas into the church?
John of Damascene (d. A.D.755) relates a tradition where, at the time of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), the emperor Marcian and his wife asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem if they could receive the remains of Mary for veneration. Their hopes were dashed when he told them that her tomb was empty. Bishop Juvenal added that it was traditionally held in the Christian community in Palestine that the apostles discovered the empty tomb shortly after they had laid Mary there themselves and concluded that her body was taken into Heaven. Mary’s tomb near Jerusalem wasn’t discovered empty in the fourth century.
I do. I think a true convert brings all that one is, and all that one has been, or ever can be to Christ, and thus, to the Church. Once we are brought into Christ (into His Body, the Church) transformation begins, and all that is not of Him is cleansed from us.
This is so true. When the pagan tribes or clans of Europe, Africa, and Asia were converted by the missionaries, none of their pagan customs infiltrated the Church and affected her official teachings and approved orthodox devotions. Individual converts may have privately incorporated such pagan practices as voodoo, but the black arts were not espoused by the Church as a whole body. These individuals, like the Macumba of Brazil, were frowned upon, ostracized, or even ex-communicated by the Church.
Not doctrinally. Do you?