The Many Meanings of January 1st - A Homily

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 12-31-19 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Video

[Salvation]

Monsignor Pope Ping!

[ealgeone]

We note in the reading that Paul says that God sent forth his Son, born of a woman. Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father; He is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. Jesus is God, and since Mary gives birth to Jesus, Mary is the Mother of God, because Jesus is not two different persons.

So much error has occurred due to the Council of Ephesus' ruling on this as Rome has completely abused this decision.

Scripture never refers to Mary as the "Mother of God".

Rome has again departed from Scripture in favor of "tradition".

[Marchmain]

So what?

[ealgeone]

It has led to a whole bunch of Mariolatry in Roman Catholicism.

[Marchmain]

Mariolatry... what a laugh!

[ealgeone]

If it weren’t so false it might be funny.

[BenghaziMemoriam]

Rome has again departed from Scripture in favor of "tradition".

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

[kosciusko51]

So, we know what the traditions taught by the epistles are. But are there additional traditions that the apostles taught by word, and, if so, how do you prove the traditions not written down were actually taught by the apostles?

[ealgeone]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Rome has taken great liberty with this and the other two passages that mention tradition.

However, Rome completely ignores the context of these passages. Why? Because if they don't their "traditions" will be found very un-Scriptural.

However, the very early church considered tradition with what was found in the Scriptures.

It's not the wide open tradition that Rome has developed over the centuries.

[ealgeone]

Roman Catholicism cannot give this list.

It has been asked for numerous times.

And IF Roman Catholics are honest they will have to admit the ECFs equated tradition with what was in the Scriptures.

Not this mysterious definition of "tradition" Roman Catholics try to foster on everyone.

[BenghaziMemoriam]

So, we know what the traditions taught by the epistles are. But are there additional traditions that the apostles taught by word, and, if so, how do you prove the traditions not written down were actually taught by the apostles?

"As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same."
- Ireneus, Against Heresies 1:10:2
https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_i/anf01.ix.ii.xi.html

[kosciusko51]

Nice quote, doesn’t answer the question.

[BenghaziMemoriam]

"...if we turn our attention to the beginnings of Apostolical teaching after His ascension, we shall find ourselves unable to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased, and the rule of faith was once for all settled. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa that he was to baptize Cornelius; not at Joppa and Cæsarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last Apostle, for St. Ignatius had to establish the doctrine of Episcopacy; not then, nor for centuries after, for the Canon of the New Testament was still undetermined. Not in the Creed, which is no collection of definitions, but a summary of certain credenda, an incomplete summary, and, like the Lord's Prayer or the Decalogue, a mere sample of divine truths, especially of the more elementary. No one doctrine can be named which starts complete at first, and gains nothing afterwards from the investigations of faith and the attacks of heresy."
- John Henry Newman, Development of Christian Doctrine

"Now, as you know, it has been held from the first, and defined from an early age, that Mary is the Mother of God. She is not merely the Mother of our Lord's manhood, or of our Lord's body, but she is to be considered the Mother of the Word Himself, the Word incarnate. God, in the person of the Word, the Second Person of the All-glorious Trinity, humbled Himself to become her Son."
- John Henry Newman, Discourses to Mixed Congregations

[kosciusko51]

If your point is true that not all Christian teachings were not completed with the apostles, how could the first century believer know what was necessary for salvation? Or did they have sufficient information at that time?

And why should any current Christian be held accountable for beliefs the early Christians were not taught by the apostles?

[BenghaziMemoriam]

If your point is true that not all Christian teachings were not completed with the apostles, how could the first century believer know what was necessary for salvation? Or did they have sufficient information at that time?
And why should any current Christian be held accountable for beliefs the early Christians were not taught by the apostles?

In any age, it would seem that there are certain bare basics that are required to be taught to (and accepted by) the believer. The Apostles' Creed seems to fit that (by definition). However, there's more than just knowing and believing:

"What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone."
- Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ
https://ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation/imitation.ONE.1.html

"To whom much is given, much will be required" (Luke 12:48).

[kosciusko51]

So, what teachings necessary for our salvation and spiritual life are not taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture? And how do you prove that?

[BenghaziMemoriam]

So, what teachings necessary for our salvation and spiritual life are not taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture? And how do you prove that?

How do you prove that the collection of writings that make up Scripture (particularly the New Testament) are exactly the ones that belong there (no more and no less)? When was that decided and by whom?

[kosciusko51]

You answer my question first, and I’ll answer yours.

[BenghaziMemoriam]

You answer my question first, and I’ll answer yours.

Ok. I’ll make an honest attempt to answer to your last questions and would appreciate that you do likewise.

So, what teachings necessary for our salvation and spiritual life are not taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture? And how do you prove that?

I don’t have an exhaustive list, but I do have at least one example: the obligation of Sunday Worship and its supplanting of the Jewish Sabbath. It’s definitely not explicit in Scripture and it’s a stretch to say that it’s implicit. Of course, there are a few references to worship occurring on the Lord’s Day. However, that’s different than claiming that Scripture mandates it. If you can provide that definitive info, then you can answer the Seventh-Day Adventists who claim “You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday”. Nevertheless, for centuries (millennia?), many (most?) Christians recognize it's necessary for salvation (myself included). While not explicit in Scripture, it’s arguably consistent with it. Even so, it still needed some time to develop. The very first Christians were Jewish and probably would have continued keeping the Jewish Sabbath until instructed that it was no longer binding (whereas the Sunday obligation is). I cannot provide “proof” (certainly none that a Seventh-Day Adventist would accept) other than what has been historically observed by several Christian writers over the centuries.

Now, as a reminder, here are my questions:
How do you prove that the collection of writings that make up Scripture (particularly the New Testament) are exactly the ones that belong there (no more and no less)? When was that decided and by whom?