Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: RnMomof7; don-o
Catholics reject the 16th century doctrine of Sola Scriptura because we know from the Gospel of John (14:26, 16:12-13, 21:25) that there was much more that was not written in the Gospels, and that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. I know this is not news to you. I say this not to start a whole side-discussion on the unbiblical nature of "Sola Scriptura," but just to remind you that Catholic exposition of doctrine is not confined to proof-texting.

But: all doctrines are related in some way to Scripture, either:

  1. an explicit Scriptural statement, or
  2. a strictly logical corollary from Scripture, or
  3. a reasonable inference from converging lines of thought founded in Scripture, or
  4. a proposition strongly attested by Sacred Tradition and not ruled out by Scripture.

An example of #2, above, would be the following:

As to Mary being "ever-Virgin," it would be an example of #3 and #4, above. It derives from converging lines of Scriptural thought, and it is an ancient belief embraced in all the ancient churches, and not ruled out by Scripture.

Re: the “types” and/or foreshadowings of Mary found in the OT., Mary is untouchable and inviolate for even stronger reasons than the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies would be untouchable. For instance, the Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.

If only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, certainly no man could enter Mary: the idea here is inviolability.

In the NT, Mary herself bears witness to her commitment to virginity. When the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive and bear a son, she seems astonished --- revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.

Imagine this: You are at a bridal shower for a friend and somebody remarks to the bride, “You are going to have such adorable kids!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back in astonishment and says, “But...but...how shall this be? I know not man.” **Huh?** For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from,—or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.

Why else would Mary be astonished? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.

Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise astonish Mary, a young woman who also plans to marry—unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?

Lastly, the “ever-virgin” argument boils down to, “The Church believes this because the Church has always believed this.” All the ancient churches –Coptic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Arabic-speaking, as well as Latin --- which existed from Apostolic times --- refer to Christ’s mother as "Our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary," Aeiparthenos in Greek, or the equivalent in Syrian or Coptic or whatever. Our martyrs killed by Nero and Diocletian believed this. You can find an inscription in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome: “Beata Maria Semper Virgine”, "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin.”

This same truth was firmly held by Luther, Zwingli, and other Christians until well into the Reformation --- even Calvin rejected arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity based on the mention in Scripture of “brothers of Jesus,” whom Calvin understood to be other close kin, e.g. half-brothers and cousins. The Anglicans in the 16th, 17th, even the 18th century, (John Wesley) hailed Mary as ever-virgin.

So you can either think that the ancient churches and the devout and learned Christians for 20 centuries were right; or you can think they were all wrong. I, myself, would think it rash to presume that most Christians have been wrong about most things, most of the time.

The older I get, the more I realize how dependent I am on the protection and guidance which, millennium after millennium, Christ has provided, as promised, to those who look to Him in every age.

168 posted on 12/12/2012 6:50:13 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("He Whom the whole world cannot contain, was enclosed within thy womb, O Virgin, and became Man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o; RnMomof7

For shortness of time, I hurried my last comment, so here is somewhat more:

**Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.**

Mary symbolizing the ark...Far excelling?? For your review again:

The ark was made of wood, covered with out and within with gold. The wood was dead (no life in it), but kept from decay by the gold. The body of Jesus was kept from decay: “Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thine holy one see corruption........ David.....therefore being a prophet.....seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.”

The manna, Aaron’s rod, and the stone tablets were hidden IN the ark. “IN him was life; and the life was the light of men”. John 1:4
“IN whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Col. 2:3
“For IN him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily.” Col. 2:9

**but just to remind you that Catholic exposition of doctrine is not confined to proof-texting.**

That reminds me of going to a birthday party while in 5th grade (5 decades ago). We played games that we all thought we knew the rules to, but he added to them when it seemed that they would help him win.

Anything revealed by the Holy Ghost is in complete agreement with the teaching of the Word. That’s why Paul could say to Timothy that all scripture was given inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in righteousness: The the man of God may be PERFECT, THROUGHLY furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 16,17

**1. an explicit Scriptural statement**
...which must be in context or agreement with other scriptural statements.

**2. a strictly logical corollary from Scripture**
...which can be yopios (even if constructed 1900 yrs ago. Didn’t take long. Approx 15 yrs after Pentecost, where there were Jews from many nations present, Paul ran into some in Cyprus that perverted the right way of the Lord. He, John, Peter, and Jude warned in their epistles of such present in their time).

**3. a reasonable inference from converging lines of thought founded in Scripture**
...which can be yopios.

**4. a proposition strongly attested by Sacred Tradition and not ruled out by Scripture**
...which can be yopios.

**Jesus Christ is God**
Jesus Christ was both human and divine. Mary was used to bring forth the human part, God inserted the divine part (himself).

**Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ.**
True, but did not make the soul, and did not fill him with the Spirit; God did those things.

**Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. (Logical corollary, defined by Church**
Their definition is crediting Mary with creating MORE of the infinite God. Not possible.

**As to Mary being “ever-Virgin,” it would be an example of #3 and #4, above. It derives from converging lines of Scriptural thought, and it is an ancient belief embraced in all the ancient churches, and not ruled out by Scripture.**

Converging lines of thought.....kinda like ‘Judas hung himself’...’do as you see me do’? There simply isn’t any scripture to even hint that Mary continued as a virgin, while several that point to possiblity of her having a normal marriage and giving birth to more children.

Scripture must harmonize with scripture:

Good example....
is the glorified Christ speaking as God, referring to the man Jesus Christ in the second person: “And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”.....”but tarry ye in Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high”. Luke 24:47,49
So, beginning at Jerusalem we find..”Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remmission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. Acts 2:38

Bad example:
Using the OT/NT prophecies/passages of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, choosing to include Rev. 12:1-5, but EXCLUDING verse 6, where it says (AFTER the child was born AND caught up unto God in verse 5)”..that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three score days.” That passage is clearly about the nation of Israel when compared with OT prophecies.


172 posted on 12/13/2012 9:54:51 PM PST by Zuriel (Acts 2:38,39....nearly 2,000 years and still working today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson