Do a virgin birth and perfect knowledge make Jesus less human? Or Mary less a mother? [Ecumenical]

New Theological Movement ^ | 1/1/2012 | Father Ryan Erlenbush

[markomalley]

Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” (CCC 499; Lumen Gentium [Vatican II], 57)

The knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis 75)

The Church teaches that Christ was miraculously born of a Virgin without causing his Mother any of the pains associated with labor. Further, the Catholic Church believes that our Savior knew all created things from the first moment of his Incarnation such that he even knew (for example) how to speak every language that had or ever would exist.

When some people hear of these doctrines, they have a tendency to respond: “But then Jesus wouldn’t be truly human! And Mary wouldn’t be a real mother!” Let us consider the foolishness of such a reaction.

Mary was a virgin during birth

There can be no doubt that the Church teaches that Jesus was miraculously born of Mary, her virginal integrity remaining wholly intact and unharmed. Mary was not merely a virgin before and after birth, but even “in birth” she remained a virgin – hence, “virginity” refers not merely to refraining from sexual pleasures but also to the physical and biological enclosure of Mary’s sealed womb. Christ came forth from Mary after the manner by which he walked through the walls of the sealed upper room after his Resurrection – he comes forth from his Mother as thought from intellect and as light through glass.

For a fuller explanation of this dogma, see our earlier article wherein many references are given [here].

Christ knew all created truths from the first moment of his conception

The Lord Jesus knew all things (that is, all that man can possibly know) both through the beatific vision (the union he had with the Father) and through infused knowledge (given by the working of the Holy Spirit). Our Savior was never ignorant, nor did he ever make a mistake in judgment. And, although he did gain knowledge through sense experience, we affirm that he already knew everything from the moment of his conception by virtue of the beatific vision – thus, he knew all things in his humanity (i.e. in his human intellect), though not necessarily from his humanity (i.e. through sense experience).

For a fuller explanation of this dogma, see our earlier article complete with many citations and references [here].

Jesus Christ is true God and true man

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis. (CCC 467, Council of Chalcedon [DS 302])

At the Incarnation, humanity was not absorbed into divinity, but was personally united to the divine nature. Thus, both natures (human and divine) remain unmixed and unconfused. However, neither are they separate or divided – for they are truly united.

Jesus was not “just a man”, nor was he “just God” – rather, he is both man and God. Neither is there a part of Jesus which is man and a part which is God; but he is fully man and fully God. Whenever we speak of Jesus, we speak of the God-man and of the single divine Persons who is God the Son. The Eternal Word is the sole subject of both natures, there is not a human person but only one divine Person – hence, whatever we predicate of Jesus is predicated of the Eternal Son of the Father.

Is a painful birth required in order to be truly human?

Some will say that (if Jesus was born miraculously of Mary, without causing her any pain, but coming forth from her womb as light through glass and as thought from intellect) then Jesus wouldn’t be truly human. Some will say, “I  feel separated from Christ if he didn’t share in the painful (and bloody) birth which is common to the human race. Then he wouldn't be truly human.”

The response to this is simple: Is a child only human after birth? Shall we say that babies aren’t human when they are in the womb, but only when they are given a natural and ordinary birth?

And what about children delivered through c-section? Are they any less human for having been “born” in a way different from the ordinary mode? Further, we can mention children formed in test-tubes – are they not truly human because they do not share in the ordinary process of gestation and birth which is common to the human race?

Finally, consider the creation account – while many may not accept the historicity of this portion of Genesis (and this is not our concern here, so we set the question aside), I have never met any who claim that Adam and Eve wouldn’t truly be human for not having been born in the normal way!

Indeed, if Christ can be conceived of a virgin, he can most certainly be born of a virgin in a miraculous way. The mode of our birth has no effect whatsoever on whether or not we are truly human. Like all of us, Jesus is true man because he possessed a human nature.

Is an ordinary delivery necessary to be a true mother?

Others will say that (if Jesus came forth from Mary as thought from intellect and light through glass) the Blessed Virgin would not be a true mother. “If she didn’t go through the pains of labor,” say such persons, “then she wasn’t truly Jesus’ mother.”

We reply: Is a woman only a mother when she gives birth? Is she not a mother at the moment of conception? And what (again) of the case of a c-section – shall we say that women who go through this abnormal means of delivery are not true mothers? Further, shall we say that a test-tube baby has no mother? Of course not!

All that is required of motherhood is to provide the material necessary for generation (i.e. the egg). This is why, from the very moment of conception, Mary was the true and natural Mother of Jesus.

A miraculous birth does not negatively affect Mary’s Motherhood any more than does the miraculous and virginal conception of the Child.

Does more knowledge make a man less human?

“If Christ knew everything, then he wouldn’t be truly human”, some will say. In one, very restricted sense, there is truth to this – for, in his human intellect, it is impossible that Jesus should know and comprehend the totality of the divine Essence (i.e. the Trinity is still a mystery to Jesus in his humanity, though in his divinity he fully comprehends) and also to know all the possible worlds that God could have created.

However, when the Church teaches that Jesus was perfected in wisdom and knowledge, she means to say that our Savior knew all things past, present and future – i.e. he knew all created truths. Jesus knew you and I and all that we would ever do, and he loved us with his Sacred and human Heart.

“But,” they say, “if Jesus knew every language, he wouldn’t really be human!” How foolish this is! Does a man become less human when he learns to read Latin? Is a man less human when he gains knowledge? Of course not!

If knowledge does not make us mere men to be less human, why should it diminish the humanity of Jesus? Indeed, we may well say that knowledge perfects our humanity – insofar as, the more we know, the more elevated is our human intellect. Therefore, for Christ to be a perfect man (as he surely is), his intellect must be perfected with all the knowledge of which man is capable. If he is truly the perfect man, then Jesus must have known all things which a man can know!

Finally, regarding the knowledge of all languages, we must admit that the Apostles did not lose their humanity when filled with the Holy Spirit and given the gift of speaking in all languages – why then should we suppose that the Christ, who is perfectly filled with the Spirit, would not know all languages? Surely, if infused knowledge did dissolve the humanity of the Apostles, neither did it diminish the humanity of our Savior.

Did Jesus leave his divinity with the Father, and empty himself of the divine nature?

What is really at the heart of the modern objections to the virgin birth and the perfect knowledge of Christ is this silly idea that Jesus “left his divinity with the Father” and “emptied himself of the divine nature” when he became man. These persons try to present a merely human Jesus. This is pure heresy.

Christ our Savior is both God and man – he was not simply man on earth, just as he is not now only God in heaven. Everything that Christ did during his time on earth was the action of the God-man, the activity of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity.

If Jesus had left his divinity with the Father, then he would not truly be Emmanuel, God-with-us. We must be on our guard against this most pernicious heresy, this perfidious blasphemy.

[Burkean]

I find the very old argument about the status so Mary’s hymen to be man’s attempt to put spiritual happenings into a concrete, human, physiological and physical frame of reference. When the virginity of Mary becomes important spiritually, one naturally wonders how that equates to virginity as we know it and experience it. Is it the experiential status of not having had sexual relations? Or is it the physiological status of having an intact hymen?

In some regard I see it as an equivalent pondering to the Mormon argument about the conception of Jesus. Was it an incomprehensible act that can’t be understood? Or was it a physical act similar to more ordinary conceptions? If not, what was the actual biological process? If it was a type of mitosis, where did the y chromosome come from?

Both make interesting areas of speculation, and believers from both sides have at one time or another voiced an opinion, while others have said it doesn’t matter, or can’t be known.

But either way, I think we will always be in a position of wondering how we can make eternal spiritual truths fit into our actual real world experience.

[aruanan]

I wonder about the “perfect knowledge” part. I think the description by Paul of Jesus setting aside his prerogatives as God and humbling himself by being born as a human necessarily implied limitations, willingly accepted, but nonetheless real.

[spunkets]

"A lot of folks at the point of death have a despairing moment when they feel alone, abandoned."

Forsaken does not refer to any abandonment here. Forsaken refers to His part that He would play in the program, which He pondered and prayed about in the garden prior to His arrest. Men are not and can not be born with knowledge, nor can they ever attain it as the direct result of consuming a fruit, or any combination of fruits and vegetables. In order for God to be a man and have the image be a real image, and the person Jesus be a real man, then He could not be born with, or aquire knowledge and understanding in a way that is different, or that is unavailable to any other man.

[smvoice]

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15.

[mdmathis6]

Spunkets....I don’t think Christ was born an empty slate....you are on very dangerous ground here. Scripture records that the “Spirit was upon him as he grew in stature” and it records Jesus at age 12 astounding the temple priests with his knowledge. When scolded by his mother, he replied...”Don’t you know I must be about My Father’s business?”

Jesus knew what he was about when he chose to give up the Glory of his Father’s presence so that mankind could be saved. He scandalized the pharisees by annnouncing...”Before Abraham was, I AM”; even as infant he was “I AM”. John Chapter 1 says Christ was the Logos made flesh....he was never born a “blank slate”! He was the Trinity’s thumbprint pressed into our matter universe!

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“A failure to be clear after failing to grasp the subject matter does not indicate low reading comprehension in those folks you’re addressing.”

Poor reading comprehension among Protestants is common here. It just is.

“No, neither question that He spoke and I provided was rhetorical. In the instance you gave, there was never any abandonment, just a lack of knowledge and communication between the 2 persons of the Trinity. The subject matter at hand is the same as that pondered in the garden before His betrayal.”

No. Jesus knew He was not abandoned for He knew what would happen to Him as He Himself said. Thus, His question was rhetorical. It’s just that simple.

“What you and Tradition are claiming is that Jesus was different than all other men, in that He was born a man with knowledge.”

First, you are misrepresenting what I and Tradition for that matter actually say. That is another common thing among Protestants. Second, in some ways Jesus would be different than other men simply because He was also God. That fact simply cannot be avoided. Jesus had no human biological father. All other men He met did. Jesus was sinless. How many would claim that they were sinless?

“No man is born with knowledge, they are an empty slate.”

False. All men are born with the instinctual knowledge of how to suckle - or else we would all die. Thus, we are not clean slates completely. Also, the tabula rasa is not a Christian belief. It is a humanist belief and nothing else.

“Men are images of God w/o any exceptions whatsoever, notwithstanding the claims of the Council of Orange, which both the Roman Catholics and Protestants adhere to, even though they are in direct contradiction with the declarations in Ezekiel 18.”

And it was Mossad that brought town the towers, right?

[vladimir998]

Gee, can’t you guys just use sola scriptura and solve your disputes?

[Salvation]

I would suggest that you read the Daily Readings that are posted every day to find quotes for Catholics from the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch.

In fact Cronos has posted discussion threads on some of these books.

[mdmathis6]

Forsaken in this scriptural context refers to abandonment, having been left alone to face a dire fate. Please don’t parse the language and insult the readers’ collective intelligence!

[spunkets]

"Forsaken in this scriptural context refers to abandonment, having been left alone to face a dire fate."

No. God is one. One can not abandon themselves. They can write the program, but can not abandon themselves in that program.

" Please don’t parse the language and insult the readers’ collective intelligence!

Perhaps you can show how one can abandon themselves w/o presenting any contradiction(s).

[narses]

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. 
And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen



Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

[narses]

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the “brethren of the Lord.” As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

“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]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“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]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

[vladimir998]

But...but...but can’t you guys use sola scriptura to solve this wee dispute you guys are having?

To paraphrase Rodney King, can’t you sola scripturists just get along? Or is it that you only unite when you’re attacking the Catholic faith.

[mdmathis6]

Again I didn’t say these books were never used, what I said that the vast amount of Catholic teaching output especially for larger public consumption, is derived from the non disputed works, at least some 80 or 90 per cent of the time...

I’ve seen an articles from these apocryphal works in catholic publications, then the next 10 readings would be from Psalms,John, 2nd Peter and so on. Now I’m not counting the “thru the Bible, 1 chapter a day sort of publications that both Catholics and Protestants provide. I’m talking about the Catholic sermons, homilies, small missals,ect, that are derived primarily from the 66 books we all agree on!

Make a general survey yourself, if you don’t believe me. Catholics may boast of a “completed” Bible, but in general, and in practise, the apopcrypha aren’t used by them often as opposed to the other 66....they take the “same kicks” out of the same “66” as do the protestants!

[mdmathis6]

No, mathy baby I don’t hate that.

Actually My name is Mike...so I guess you’ll now call me Mikey! And I do understand the need for some to use pseudonyms...even Nicodemus came to Jesus by night!

[spunkets]

"Gee, can’t you guys just use sola scriptura and solve your disputes?"

Reality is more than what can be contained in one book. It's also not defined by any councils, or authority(s).

[narses]

Reality is more than what can be contained in one book.

So the Bible, the Book, is not sufficient?

It's also not defined by any councils, or authority(s).

Then what is "it" defined by? Your own personal interpretation of scripture?

[Tax-chick]

Very interesting points. I wasn’t thinking about Gnosticism, but those are beliefs that keep coming back ... perhaps partly because it’s true that natural human life, starting with birth, is very messy!

[RobbyS]

The Bible says nothing about the impregnation either. Exactly what you do mean then by “the Virgin Birth,” except the negative that he had no human father?

[spunkets]

Re: "Reality is more than what can be contained in one book."

"So the Bible, the Book, is not sufficient?"

That's correct.

Re: "It's also not defined by any councils, or authority(s)."

"Then what is "it" defined by? Your own personal interpretation of scripture?"

It refers to reality. Contrary to what many folks think and wish, reality can not be defined. It must be known through the evidence it presents and through rational consderations. Note that reality is the same for all observers and never needs to be interpreted. The same goes for scripture, it is not to be interpreted, other than for the purpose of changing languages.