I do not see any rebuke in Mary's remark to Jesus. I didn't see a rebuke before I was a Catholic, and I don't see one now. So while that text under a certain understanding MIGHT BE construed to contradict the Integrated Circuit, uh, I mean Immaculate Conception, it does not necessarily do so.
And ignorance is not intrinsically sinful. One could be really dumb and sinless. In fact, I think I own a cat like that.
So we have PROBABLE or POSSIBLE readings but they're only dispositive if their interpretation is certain.
Personally, while I think Paul comes as close to real theology in Romans as he does anywhere, I still think it's forcing things to suggest that he meant something like a proposition expressible in Boolean logic. ALL elements of the set MEN where the set excludes MEN who are also GOD, have sinned.
He's quoting Psalms for crying out loud. They are a kind of poetry.
It would seem that Catholicism would be forced to claim there is an override from extra-Biblical Tradition, but not from scripture.
Well I wouldn't say "override" exactly.
This is going to upset folks, especiaally those whose Church history imagines that canon of "the Bible" was very rapidly closed and the scrolls or codices were distributed around and about by the end of the first century, I just don't think it went down like that.
I think from the beginning written tradition has made part of a dynamic system with verbal tradition (which became extra-canonical tradition.) I just don't think the Church ever looked to Scripture alone to determine doctrine.
So, it looks like your default pattern is, FIRST draw the best conclusion we can from Scripture alone. THEN, if other paradosis contradicts what we got first, toss it out.
But I'd say all along the Scripture has been the Queen of Tradition, but it has not been read outside of tradition.
And, as a reminder to the peanut gallery, the Dogma as defined is very clear that Mary needed Jesus as her savior. As we have said in these threads easily a dozen times the person who falls into the bog is saved by being pulled out. But a person can be saved by being caught before she falls in. In both cases there is a Savior.
And, since the Magnificat is part of evening prayers or "vespers" nearly every day of the year, it it a little difficult to imagine that the theologians considering the IC would be ignorant of Mary's reference to "God my savior."
Dawg,
It is really not an issue of “tradition”...ALL churches have some tradition. The question is one the reformation asked in its cry “sola scripture” is the tradition one that can be upheld by scripture? (like baptism, or singing in a service or reading the word)
Sola scripture does not mean no theological study or tradition or the use of books to enrich your spiritual life . It means the final standard to which all practices and intellectual spiritual pursuits is the scriptures..
The problem we see in religions that the mainstream see as cults, like the JWs or mormons or some 7th day adventists is they have added.
to the bible extra biblical beliefs, practices and books.
To a protestant Romans is the theological book of the bible, there he summarizes mans fallen condition , how God sees them and the remedy in Christ. Most of his other writings are teachings directed at particular problems...
BTW I also see no rebuke in Jesus words to his mother.. I think there is a place where he rebuked her, but not this one.
What I know is that this miracle was not a surprise..God had ordained it..especially in light of the fact, as a friend just pointed out on another thread... the miracle points to Christ’s cleansing of the sin of man.
Yes, I fully agree.
... I still think it's forcing things to suggest that he meant something like a proposition expressible in Boolean logic. ALL elements of the set MEN where the set excludes MEN who are also GOD, have sinned.
OK, I guess I would think it is forcing things to include Christ in the group given the context of the sentence:
I would think no listener or reader would suppose that Christ needed justifying or redeeming. Plus, He is named separately here and I would think it reasonable that this means He was not intended to be included in the set of men.
FK: It would seem that Catholicism would be forced to claim there is an override from extra-Biblical Tradition, but not from scripture.
Well I wouldn't say "override" exactly.
I just meant it in the sense of a greater weight of authority saying that the plainest meaning is not the correct one. In that sense we use theological "overrides" all the time. :)
So, it looks like your default pattern is, FIRST draw the best conclusion we can from Scripture alone. THEN, if other paradosis contradicts what we got first, toss it out.
Well, yes, I suppose that's right. :) I would figure that inspired writing is always and forever superior to uninspired writing in cases of contradiction. But of course in many cases extra-scriptural Tradition does not contradict scripture. The teaching simply isn't mentioned one way or another. I do not immediately throw those out. No need. :)
But I'd say all along the Scripture has been the Queen of Tradition, but it has not been read outside of tradition.
Right, and so begins the debate about which is considered the greater weight of authority. I would say that scripture read in light of Tradition is completely different from Tradition being read in light of scripture.