Posted on 11/09/2010 4:31:20 PM PST by Gamecock
>>Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict.<<
That comment by Irenaeus was correct AT THAT TIME. They had not strayed from the teachings written in scripture. I would, however, challenge you to find in the written scriptures the concept of the ascension of Mary that today’s Church leadership claims.
Don’t try to confuse the fact that what Irenaeus wrote about the Church at that time is the same as the Church leadership of today.
Irenaeus, and others, said that if a teaching cannot be proven from written scripture it was not to be trusted.
Do you kneel in Church?? What Church?
When a person kneels before a statue of anything be it a saint or a king , that person is practicing a form of adoration. In my post I said that the kind of veneration the Catholic church accords to Mary, the mother of Jesus, is AKIN to worship which means that it is like worship. However, that being said, you cannot tell me that thousands of old Italian ladies as well as my Greek grandmother did not worship her. They did!I'm curious. Did any of the thousands of old Italian ladies as well as your Greek grandmother tell you personally they were worshiping Mary?
presently no screen name wrote:Luther repudiated that heretical, false view in many places.
“You can’t be Mary, she had other children.
No, the Gnostics claimed and still claim "secret" knowledge, not "oral tradition". You must be confusing St. Paul with the Gnostics, don't do that.
You missed my whole point.
Mary = Jewish girl who became the mother of Jesus.
Apparitions <> Mary. They only claim to be Mary.
No I did not, you missed mine. Tghe poster made a claim against Mary that was false, I showed how even the founder of the Lutheran heresy saw that poster’s view as false and heretical. Since the poster was trying to claim that false view proved the apparition in question was false, my refutation of her error had two purposes. You simply appear to want to misunderstand simple English.
“Moreover, they possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them...Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures...” (Irenaeus)
Nothing “secret” in that quote. It simply states that the Gnostics uses sources not contained in the Scriptures.
The Catholic position is this: “We assert that the whole necessary doctrine either concerning faith or manners is not contained explicitly in the Scriptures; and that consequently beyond the written word of God is required also the unwritten word of God, that is, the divine and apostolical traditions...” (Robert Bellarmine after the council of Trent)
Then here is what Irenaeus said on the subject.
“Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.” (Irenaeus)
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (Irenaeus)
It couldn’t be any clearer. If it isn’t in the scripture we should not trust it. So stop with the “oral tradition” which early Church fathers clearly stated were then written down in the scriptures. It plainly states that what they had orally “proclaimed in public” was written down in scripture.
So you used a heretic to prove another heretic. Seems how catholicism works around here, and explains where the doctrine 'came' from.
>>the Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain.<<
You just said that Mary herself was conceived by Immaculate Conception. Then you said this:
>>Mary was saved by her Savior, her son, Jesus Christ, our Lord and our GOD<<
If Mary was “without original sin or its stain” why would she need to be saved? From what did she need to be saved? The scriptures never mention or infer that Mary was “conceived by Immaculate Conception”, in fact, if Jesus was “wholly man” she would have to have been with sin and pass that to Jesus to carry our sin. It was Jesus who was conceived by Immaculate Conception, not Mary. Jesus was both wholly man and wholly God thus His God nature could overpower His man nature.
In your previous post you said this:
>>Everything does not have to be in scripture, yet all we believe in must agree with scripture. And that holds true for what we believe about the Mother of God.<<
If that is true then please quote the scripture that proves the ascension of Mary.
Last but not least, you said this:
>>the concept of the Trinity as we know it is not completely explicit from scripture<<
What does this excerpt mean to you? “"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).
However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).
As you can see the only thing kecharitomene differs from echaritosen is that the grace was bestowed permenantly. Mary was given grace by God permanently not just for a short period. It does not say she was born without sin. If she had been born without sin why would she need to be given grace from God?
Here is a quote from Pope Pis IX. "And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds."(Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus)
Now, if Mary had already been “completely free from all taint of original sin” then Jesus was not the first but was the second to “be without sin” since Adam. Nowhere in scripture is that written. Surely such a claim would have been documented and celebrated by the apostles.
The word gymnastics used to try to justify a point of view is foolish. Just as taking quotes out of context gives false information so does word gymnastics. I still claim that Irenaeus and others would have declared that to be a Gnostic teaching and “not to be trusted”.
I don’t think it’s prudent to base the totality of your knowledge on Gnosticism on a few paragraphs attributed to Ireneaus. Also, as great as he may be, he is not the sum total of thought regarding Sacred Tradition, the Church and the early church Fathers.
“Because scripture contains the revelation and is part of tradition, it has of course absolute authority...And therefore, if a doctrine or precept is written in the Bible, it cannot be but true, and if a dogma needs to be proved true, it is entirely sufficient to show that it is written. And even more important, scripture is not only sufficient evidence, but strictly necessary evidence for proving the truth of a dogma.” (Tertullian ~ A.D. 193)
“We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it. It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do. (Tertullian ~ A.D. 193)
“I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. (Tertullian ~ A.D. 193)
“Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground.” (Tertullian ~ A.D. 193)
Along with Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, Origen recognized no other source of doctrine than Scripture:
“But that we may not appear to build our assertions on subjects of such importance and difficulty on the ground of inference alone, or to require the assent of our hearers to what is only conjectural, let us see whether we can obtain any declarations from holy Scripture, by the authority of which these positions may be more credibly maintained.” (Origen)
Since Scripture is the sole source of doctrine there can be no apostolic teaching that is purely oral in nature:
“But let this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works.” (Origen)
Cyril was bishop of Jerusalem from 348 A.D. to 386 A.D. His treatise, The Catechetical Lectures
“Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril)
I could go on and on but virtually every one of them assert the same in that ALL of what is to be taught is contained already in the Scripture.
“I’m curious. Did any of the thousands of old Italian ladies as well as your Greek grandmother tell you personally they were worshiping Mary?”
Actually, my grandmother along with many others I have met in my walk in life have told me that they worship not only Mary but a multitude of “saints” to whom they appeal when they want intercession. Kneeling, kissing statues, praying, pleading, and making the sign of the cross repeatedly indictes to me that the person is in the act of worship. I am not sure what constitutes worship to Roman Catholics since they all seem to deny that “ venerate” is about as close a synonym as you are going to get for the word, “worship.” Anyhow, there is no reason to go on with this discussion as there is no coming to terms with Protestants and Catholics when it comes to the mother of Jesus, Mary.
Actually, my grandmother along with many others I have met in my walk in life have told me that they worship not only Mary but a multitude of “saints” to whom they appeal when they want intercession.If your grandmother and many others you have met have actually used the word "worship" in conjunction with Mary and the Saints, they are heretics, not true believers of Catholicism. We do not worship Mary or the Saints. It's very cut and dried; there is no wiggle room whatsoever in this regard.
2 Tim. 2:15 confirms scripture is inspired and without error. No doctrine should ever contradict scripture. Agreed. Nothing the Catholic church teaches contradicts scripture.
Name one thing the Catholic Church teaches that doesn’t contradict scripture.
If you read his blogs you know he is firmly pro-life and supports traditional marriage.
He is against torture and was against the war in Iraq. A lot of conservatives agree with him. So what?
Regardless, all other issues of politics and economics are prudential questions. I don’t agree with him on all areas of politics but his books on theology are based on excellent scholarship and logic.
If you want to read from a excellent book about Mary from a very conservative Republican (and a former Protestant minister), read Scott Hahn’s book “Hail Holy Queen”.
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.