Posted on 12/27/2005 8:38:08 AM PST by Teófilo
Be that as it may, Luke 1 verses 27 through about 50 say what they say.
You just trying to get the last word? Or is it really going to make a diff if I mind? :-)
No. I am just saying that the Rule of Faith is a bigger reality than the Bible, which is but one part of it.
I have access to a Rule of Faith, Apostolic in origin, and binding on a Christian's conscience, that you either lack or reject. To argue with you and provide "a biblical argument" would mean that I buy the classical Reformed tenet that the Bible is a container of propositional truths to be extracted by dilligent individual interpreters and to be believed by all, and that all matters of Christian belief must have positive support from some biblical proposition, while ignoring the "problem of the interpreter!" Those are the kinds of arguments that would convince you, but those are the kinds of arguments that I am not going to give.
But that is precisely what I don't buy, and that sola scriptura tenet is what I find self-defeating, for it itself lacks scriptural support, and that's why it should be of concern to you, since you buy into a self-defeating hermeneutical principle, and I don't.
To understand what I am trying to say you must learn to set aside the sola scriptura bias for a moment, and then test that bias against the experience of the Church and her self-understanding throughout the ages, down to the Reformation. Now, you might be unable, or unwilling to do that, and I can respect that, fine, follow your conscience. But that's the only way you might be able to appreciate the consistency of the Catholic Christian Tradition.
Sure, you might demand of me reciprocity, and I would reply that I have given it. For I am a Catholic Revert, and I left the Church once through a Reformed Protestant door, only to return to the Church after a 4-year sojourn in the Eastern Orthodox Church. In a very real sense, I returned to the Church while in Eastern Orthodoxy but that, is another story.
The Reformation, particularly Calvin's version of it, may pride itself--inaccurately--of having rescued Christian belief from a morass of Medieval superstition and corruptions, but what it really achieved was to desacralize a culture that was suffused with a Christocentric worldview and effectively consigned the Incarnation to a problem to be studied in biblical commentaries, tracts, and academic papers. We see its logical outcome today in the rampant subjectivism and moral relativism that we see. Reformed Protestantism, and not Catholicism, brought us to today's cultural quandary and the Age of Unbelief.
Now, coming full circle: the truths about the Blessed Virgin Mary, theotokos, Dei Genitrix, "God-Bearer," and Mother of the Incarnate Word, are not inconsistent with that part of the Rule of Faith that got written in what we now call the Bible, nor her veneration, and the veneration of images, etc. Yet, these truths were passed down orally, in sacrament, liturgy, and art, and were well known in the first centuries. They do belong to the larger, more encompassing Rule of Faith, a Rule of Faith that in their enthusiasm to purify the Church from real and imagined excesses, the Reformers tossed through the window.
I am a bad Catholic apologist, at least, bad in true form. A good Catholic apologist would condescend to meet you where you are, playing in your sola scriptura field and that's fine, and good and holy and probably the correct way to do it. But that's not me. The Catholic Church possesses the full Rule of Faith and I am disinclined to deny part of it, even for the sake of argument. And there I stand.
Thank you for your comments. May the Lord richly bless you.
-Theo
ps. This is being crossposted to Vivificat!
Put up or shut up, and please do not ping me back to this thread unless you are prepared to put up.
:-)
Okay. So rule of faith is more than what's in the Bible, but since sola scriptura ISN'T in the Bible, you reject it. Do you see no conflict here?
no_turnipseed,
I would like to publicly thank you for the private discussion we had today. (Not from this thread.)
Take care.
Leapfrog
Now, if you could just get them to see their idolatry in their christmas traditions, as well.
John 2:3-5 Mary complains: And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
Jesus tries to correct her: Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
Mary doesn't get it, and intrudes where she ought not: His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do [it].
Sounds kinda like my ma...
It's you who didn't get it.
'splain it to me, then...
Teófilo can aswer for himself, but no, there is no conflict. The Church is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching anything self-contradictory, because the "gates of Hell shall not prevail against her". Since the Church teaches, among other things, the Holy Scripture, she cannot teach anything against the Holy Scripture. Hence, a community that teaches sola scriptura, which is not scriptural, cannot be the True Church, but a community that teaches the entirety of what it received from the apostles through the sacramets of the Holy Orders is.
Please give the steadfast rules for when one spiritualizes scripture and when one doesn't.
Actually, I wasn't objecting to the proselytization of protestants. I was simply acknowledging that this thread is of that variety.
I view some of the catholic threads as "in house" discussion of doctrine, interests, church policies, etc. I am not an insider on those kinds of threads, so I tend to bypass them out of courtesy, or, if I do comment, I'm careful not to be confrontive.
This thread, on the other hand, was overtly of a proselytizing nature, so I didn't mind registering an alternative viewpoint.
I have no problem with any church/sect/group proselytizing. After all, we are free, we are instructed, and this is America.
How to win friends and influence people.
Net & anna, answer this one question and you will understand where marlowe & I come from.
Did the eternal God exist before the birth of Mary?
Please understand, I am not debating my beliefs.
Others here are experts and I am not.
My debate is with cold hearted people who come onto a religion thread and feel that they can insult the beliefs of others.
My jump into this thread came with a statement of idolotry. Tons of examples are given where it "seems" that Catholics are into Idolotry because of statues. No one knows what goes on in my head nor my heart. Some Catholics go too far with veneration of Mary, I conceed that, but to paint Catholics with the same broad brush that Conservatives are painted is unfair.
In the same vein, this article has stated clearly that it is for Protestants who are searching. If you are not searching, it is not for you. I was involved with different Protestant churches for long time. I have no problem with your right to your beliefs. I have a problem with anyone namecalling for mine.
That is where I am at.
I got nothing done in my house yesterday because of posting on this thread, so if I don't answer you in a timely fashion, please don't think I am avoiding you or being rude. I'm thinking of you while I'm doing laundry!
God Bless You!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.