Queens of Heaven. Mary and Kuantan Yin

Well, in that case you will have to discount the entire Bible- wouldn’t you?

That's something of a non sequitur, while also deflecting the burden upon my own self for things which you have just established that you yourself have no actual 'authority'.

In regards to formation of NT canon, you say such things as;

Some tracts like the Gnostic Gospels etc were thrown out and others were included.

while seeming to make things out to be that this was established by this "Petrine authority" which you keep returning to make mention of.

Yet the canon of the NT was not established through the singular office of the bishop of Rome --- which it would have had to have been -- if this "Petrine authoirty" concept which you hold (and just how you and many other Catholics "hold" it to be) were to have any validity in this area.

Actually your historical understanding of Petrine authority and the role of the early Church fathers is misplaced. I say this respectfully. The short answer is that is through Petrine authority that both the books in the Bible and interpretation of key scriptural passages were understood.

One of the earliest Christian documents is the Didache, known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which probably dates from the 1st century. Sections 9 and 10 deal with the Eucharist [Gk.Eucharistias] and prayers of thanks that allude to the Mass.

Here are examples of early Church fathers. St. Clement of Rome was the third successor of Peter the Apostle as bishop of Rome, our fourth Pope. St. Irenaeus (Book III, iii) tells us that Clement “saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles. “ Similarly Epiphanius tells us that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. There is a tradition that he was ordained by St. Peter and acted as a kind of auxiliary bishop to Linus and Anacletus, his predecessors in the papal chair. His letter to the Corinthians was written between 70-96 A.D.

For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch was a pagan by birth and a Syrian. He became the third bishop of Antioch and may be considered an apostolic Father in the sense that he heard the Apostle John preach. About 110 A.D. he was sentenced to a martyr’s death in the arena by the Emperor Trajan, who also put Pope Clement to death.

He makes an unforgettable reference when he urges Christians to assemble in common and obey the bishop, “breaking one bread that is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against dying that offers life for all in Jesus Christ.” These beautiful words sum up Jesus’ own teaching in John 6 and St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Notice also that he refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice as did the authors of the Didache. Eucharistic theology seems almost complete in St. Ignatius.

Take the case of St. Irenaeus. He heard the preaching of Bishop Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, writing a famous tract Against Heresies between 180 and 190 A.D. is the first to provide explicit mention of the change that takes place in the bread and wine when they become the Eucharist. The earthly creation (bread and wine) are raised to a heavenly dignity after they “receive the word of God” [at the epiclesis of the Mass or the invocation to the Holy Spirit] and become the food and drink of Christians. So how then can we doubt that, “Our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection to eternal life.”

What all this means is that we cannot simply open the pages of the Bible and read it like a newspaper and therefore we must rely on authoritative interpretations.

Actually your historical understanding of Petrine authority and the role of the early Church fathers is misplaced.

No. it is not. And I can honestly say after yourself having made that accusation towards myself, that each and every thing which you from there on out delved into -- I am well acquainted with, yet for the time being simply must set aside other than to remark that those things do not accomplish that which you have laid them out as establishing -- namely -- this "Petrine authority" as I perceive that to be understood by Roman Catholics, to belong only to the bishopric of Rome.

Yet also you moved the goal posts so to speak, moving away from how the NT canon itself was established from fairly early on.

Rather than the NT having been established singularly through the bishopric of Rome, one could say --- at the time of reception of those writings among the various ekklesia, coming to themselves from the Apostles and those most closely associated with them, --- the writings and letters were then cherished as being inerrant, fundamental truths of the Gospel (good news).

Interpretation of those same writings is yet again something of a separate issue.

By your own words it has been well enough established(?) you yourself lack authority in this area (of interpretation) so must rely upon others, who then yet again evaluate or pass judgment upon yet more issues, with most all of those (if they pertain to the Gospel itself -- which is what the Apostles were commissioned to preach) must ultimately rely upon the Scriptures themselves, or else they lack the authority (and power of God's own Word, as it is written).

Being that by your own admission -- you yourself lack actual authority, again I ask -- how is it that you could determine if anyone was properly (enough) understanding the Scriptures --- without yourself having to rely upon some one else to make the determination?

And then --- after having entirely surrendered your own judgements to be simply an adoption of the judgements of others ---- by what measure can you assure yourself that you have made the proper determinations in this surrender?

For it does appear to myself that a central-most theological tenet of the RCC is for all to surrender all --- to themselves, and to their claims made as for their own singular authority --- which you just established that you yourself personally have none of.

Send me those whom have this alleged authority, so we may be settled and done with this dispute, once and for all.

First, if we all claim to interpret “Scripture” then we descend into chaos which each of us “authoritatively” claiming to interpret scripture. In fact this is evident by the exchange of posts on this thread.

You must admit that Christ taught one truth. This is another way of saying, one interpretation. Precisely, for this reason, we have the scriptural support for one Church extended exclusively to Peter and his successors. Well, the NT canon was established by the early Church fathers.

Now of course there are volumes of books on this subject enough to fill shelves of university libraries. But simply referring you to them would be not be enough.

Every theologian will agree that the compilation of the New Testament was an inspired and highly complex process.

It can, however, by summarized relatively simply as follows.

Various Christians wrote books explaining the history of the Christian Church (including Gospels about the life of Christ and more general histories such as the Acts of the Apostles) and letters addressed to specific communities and persons (such as the letters of Saint Paul) and also what are best considered to be “open letters” (such as Hebrews). There were hundreds of different documents circulating around, all of them purporting to the authentic Christian teaching and accurate history and doctrine.

However, many of these documents were not what they claimed to be – they were forgeries not written by the people whose names they bore, or were heretical documents advancing novel notions about Christ. Some of these documents have survived today – examples are the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas. Neither of these documents were written by their alleged authors – they are late forgeries designed to cash in on the success and popularity of Christianity.

Out of all these hundreds of documents – many of them forgeries – the current 27 book New Testament appeared. This process took a long time – roughly 300 years went by from the writing of the last book of the New Testament (Revelation) until the list was finalized.

The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Initially, local canons were assembled by individual bishops. These canons were lists of books which could be read aloud in Churches at Mass. Despite the fact that these canons were independently assembled they bore a great deal of similarity to each other – because the Catholic bishops were all using the same criteria to determine which books should be included.

They looked to see if the books were written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle. They checked to see how much the book was being used by other bishops and priests in their Masses, and also looked at how often the book was quoted by the Church Fathers in their writings. Only those books which “scored” favorably on all three of these criteria made it into their canons.

In the early fourth century Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and it became possible for the bishops to meet without being imprisoned or killed by the pagan authorities. Beginning in the late fourth century and continuing until the very early fifth century the Catholic Church met at a number of councils where the canon of the Bible was debated. These councils produced canons which were identical to the current 73 book Roman Catholic canon.

As can clearly be seen the canon of the Bible was produced by the Catholic Church. The Church also existed long before the Bible – it was the early fifth century before the Bible existed as we might recognize it today, and none of the books of the Bible were even written until around 50 AD. But the Catholic Church began 20 years earlier, at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.

The Christians who wrote the New Testament were Catholic – they were Catholic for two reasons. One, they believed everything which the current Catholic Church (and only the Catholic Church) teaches (as is shown by the writings of the Church Fathers). And they were Catholic because there was no other church at the time. Myths such as the “Trail of Blood” simply do not hold water – the Catholic Church was, quite literally, the only game in town.

Accordingly, the Bible can be considered to be two things – it is younger than the Catholic Church and it is the product of the Catholic Church. This means that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith for Christians, but rather “the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth” as it says in I Timothy 3:15.

So when you say “inerrant” fundamental truths it take us nowhere because what you and your friends call “inerrant” is an interpretation that others may differ. This becomes a circular reasoning trap.

Thus the same Petrine authority responsible for assembling the NT canons did not have an expiry date in AD 300, or AD 500.

Matthew 28:20:

“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

It is this teaching authority, that predated the compilation of the Bible, to assemble the NT that carries on to this day and has been the source of eternal life through the Mass and Eucharist (see earlier post) for Catholics: saints, martyrs and sinners.

I can however refer you to Tim Staples. He is a convert to Catholicism from Jimmy Swaggart’s Bible College, a former Assemblies of God Pentecostalist –preacher who truly sought to disprove Catholic doctrine especially Marian theology and indeed made it his explicit mission to show it was dead wrong. This was a 20-year effort of his. He not only converted at the end his mission, he wrote a best seller called “Mary, Mother of God” defending all of Church Marian doctrine. It is an eye-opener!

Here’s him being interviewed on EWTN Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWe10ypkvw

Good night!

First, if we all claim to interpret “Scripture” then we descend into chaos which each of us “authoritatively” claiming to interpret scripture.

That's all rather besides the point(s), and this "chaos" which you invoked could be compared to the chaos on this nation's freeways.

Some individuals do run themselves off the road and into the ditches, or else smash-up against some immovable object, when not more simply, upon occasion colliding with one another. For reason that some do, does not equate with all will do so --- like --- whenever it is they take the wheel in their own hands. Not everyone in the USA eventually dies in automobile accidents, due to their own negligence, though this comparison is the way in which Romanists would make it out to be, for any and all whom utilize Scripture in refutation of certain and particular aspects of Roman Catholic theology.

Again I will remind you that you yourself have disqualified yourself from being a capable judge of comparable theologies ---- having also apparently just recently missed some slight, but significant in it's implication, brief touching upon comparable Eucharistic theologies, which agree with one another as for Spirit (rather than 'carnal flesh' viewpoint) leaving Roman Catholicism somewhat out in the cold, for those whom take an earthly, corporeal flesh type of approach to "Real Presence" as the Reformers spoke of, and the invitation of the Spirit to be the bread ---- as I provided link for an Orthodox view towards. I do suggest that if you think you are qualified to evaluate such things, to go to the link which I provided for that, and read carefully to see if you can see just what it is I'm talking about, rather than myself having to drag it all out ---- and explain to you each and every aspect which should be fairly enough taken into consideration.

If yourself not personally qualified to interpret Scripture --- how then could you interpret the theology of others, other than only on the most shallow levels wherein reliance must be placed not upon comparison of what conceptualizations are being spoken of -- but rather what is being said more woodenly, as in word-for-word comparison, engaged in while ignoring (willfully? I do wonder) what it is which is being conceptual conveyed by the words themselves...

In fact this is evident by the exchange of posts on this thread.

Additionally, as I have previously noted, there is more widespread agreement among many, even here on FR -- than serious disagreements from a few, this thread also serving as evident of what levels of agreement which there are -- which is significant regardless of anyone's denial of such, and as yourself having done, declared the opposite.

For there is not the "chaos" of individual interpretations running around -- all of them in entire disagreement with one another, as you seem to be claiming that there is, even as there is also differing levels of understanding also --- even among Roman Catholic individuals --- including theologians whom align themselves with the RCC.

You must admit that Christ taught one truth.

Yes, but then you must also admit that in the early patristic witness, those individuals didn't not always agree on each and every thing, and in fact there is much which can be seen to have "developed" during later centuries, rather than to have been taught clearly as this "one truth" which you speak of. What could be important would be to sift through what it is which they did indeed most widely agree upon, which itself is also best supported by the Scripture itself also.

Have I not been over that with yourself -- perhaps even numerous times?

I see that you went to some effort to outline how the NT canon came to be. Though I perhaps would not agree with each assertion, in each and every sentence, I will say that you do much exaggerate the process, in the sense that what it is that is being ignored by yourself (even as you are also explaining it, curiously enough) is that that the Apostles imposed upon the Church, the very writings which came to be known as the NT, and these were widely enough known for the vastly greater measure, from quite early on.

In fact, it was this very widespread acceptance itself which ultimately was the truest measure of what was Apostolic --and what was not. But as seeming usual, you do seem to go to great lengths to turn things around rather backwards, I suppose in order to better make way for later Church Council's discussion of the issue to then be projected to have been reliant upon the bishop of Rome. Look -- I know the drill. I know it backwards and forwards. But it's made up of far too much (unprintable on this forum) mixed in with the actual underlying truths of the matter(s).

As for the texts themselves, albeit there were indeed many pretenders, and spurious writings of various sort, what was eventually settled upon was nothing more (and nothing less) than what had come to the various and widespread ekklesia from actual Apostolic sources.

If there was something less ----- which did indeed come from these same authors from whom the contents of the NT came, then show what those writings are. Guess what? There are none that are known of, or of which there can be found trace mention of (that is not mention of some *other* spurious pseudo-graph), or else the Christian world would have likely known of them, all along. Even one writing (not recognized as NT by anyone) which is attributed to Peter himself arguing with some interlocutor, has been well enough established to not be the writings of the Apostle Peter, but are among early pseudographical writings. Or--- feel free to show me some known-to-be actual Apostolic writing which didn't make the cut.

It was much more a matter of these various ekklesia -- none of them in the least being unilaterally under the authority of the Bishop of Rome (other than the Church of Rome itself), whom together were able to establish, and yet again re-establish what it truly was which came from Apostolic source, and what did not. None of this process was funneled singularly through the bishopric of Rome -- which means that your prior assertions concerning this issue were nothing but a bunch of hot air.

Thus the same Petrine authority responsible for assembling the NT canons did not have an expiry date in AD 300, or AD 500.

The alleged Petrine authority, particularly applied to that belonging singularly and alone to the bishopric of Rome for having established NT canon, simply does not exist, or else there would not be as you said " there are volumes of books on this subject enough to fill shelves of university libraries."

I do find your masses of collective assertion, all of them seeming to lead squarely back to your own mistaken & distorted views of this alleged "Petrine authority" which is alluded to belong singularly to 'Rome' as it were, to be entirely tedious.

No matter how many times and ways it can be demonstrated that such concepts as Supremacy for the bishop of Rome absolutely did not exist in the forms which after later "development" within the Church of Rome alone became distorted and inflated into becoming, all the ceaseless rhetoric in the world cannot make truth out of collections of distortion and outright untruth.

“Both women godesses with the sun at their heads.”

Nope.

“The pagan ‘Mary’ even has her hands in Lotus array.”

Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not a pagan, however.

.
The “Mary” of the posted graphic was most certainly a pagan icon.

Mary, the mother of my savior, is no pagan, is not the “Mother of God,” is not the demon that answers the prayers of the lost pagans that pray to “Mary.”

.

Jesus is God. Mary is His mother.

Let’s summarize.

First, you try to get away from the one truth by comparing it to traffic n the highway. If this is the case why engage on this inquiry? This is not simply a debate or about avoiding accidents. It’s about the truth of eternal life.

Second, having first asked for relevance of oral tradition, when inundated with such proof of what the early Church writers wrote, you reply simplistically that one cannot evaluate the arguments of theologians because if one is not “personally qualified to interpret Scripture -— how then could you interpret the theology of others, other than only on the most shallow levels.” This argument self-destructs. So if one cannot read the early Greek texts and be a theologian himself, he cannot accept the theological scholarship of others. In short only theologians are qualified to comment on theology. But you miss the point here. Just as you trust your auto mechanic to tell you what’s wrong with your car, we can place confidence in the theologians of yesteryear and today. This trust of course could be a blind trust or it could also be based on the references you receive on the mechanic for his/her experience, expertise, and acceptance by those who have examined his work.

Third, when presented with the works of Catholic scholars whose thinking is the stuff of major colleges and universities and whose books are standard offerings in theological departments, the simplistically naive answer is that because there are libraries of such books this contradicts Petrine authority. Never mind the books present different angles and types of scholarship of Petrine proof which is what theologians do. But apparently, Bible-Christians look for one piece of paper. In short, less scholarship is proof of Petrine authority, more disproves it.

Fourth, it does not seem to matter that preeminent Anglican, Protestant, Lutheran, and Episcopalians who having spent a lifetime of theological study study have converted to Catholicism. No problem you say since this is part of the “chaos” of the nation’s freeways. But this is exactly the kind of chaos these theologians want to avoid and find the one true path to eternal life.

Fifth, when asked to agree that Christ taught one truth, the absurd answer is a “yes, but” response with nonsensical references to disagreement among “early patristic witness, those individuals didn’t not always agree on each and every thing.” Duh! Even the Gospel writers provide different accounts of various aspects of the Life of Christ. The disagreements are indeed essential. since it helps to distill not only what is true and what is untrue but also how the faith must be communicated as one truth.

Sixth, you haven’t provided a single refutation, not one to the empirical date offered in the posts about Petrine authority. Instead, you cavalierly dismiss the works of scores of theologians breezily asserting “as for the texts themselves, albeit there were indeed many pretenders, and spurious writings of various sort, what was eventually settled upon was nothing more (and nothing less) than what had come to the various and widespread ekklesia from actual Apostolic sources.” I must suspect this is a careless piece of cut and paste since its not sourced at all but simply a conclusory statement.

Seventh, it appears that historical proof and belief is something foreign to Bible Christians. You find “Petrine authority” which is alluded to belong singularly to ‘Rome’ as it were, to be entirely tedious.

“Entirely tedious”? Go tell this to St. Iranaeus:

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Yes, there is no expiry date on Petrine authority.

With this post I must reluctantly conclude that rational exchange in surveying the truth by reference to deep theological waters is not possible. Oh, and by the way why persist in supplying you with a response when one is not a theologian!!! That would be a sheer waste of time and ink, wouldn’t it?

Truth? Myself trying to get away from that?

No, it's more like I was busting your assertions which you sadly enough mistake for "truth" .

As for the rest which you just wrote... I didn't bother to read it.

There would be no point in doing so, for being as it begins with multi-layered accusation & error, it's doubtful it will get any better.

Meanwhile, it has been yourself who has been all along (for the most part) evasive, while I myself am wearied of correcting your own compound errors -- as I have been doing all along...while you keep repeating the same things over and over, at times in slightly altered forms, but not returning to the same claims which had just been shot full of holes until after throwing up a wall of blather, seemingly is response to how the claims had just been challenged, before as I noted, yourself simply returning to the same 'ol same 'ol (which had just been shown to not be nearly as far-reachingly true enough, as that that would need to be, in order for your grab-bags of assertions to have much of any validity in the way which you need them to).

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-irenaeus-may-be-dismissed-as-early.html

I prefer Irenaeus in his own words, not what curbside bloggers and internet cut-and-paste technicians think. Can’t have time to be drawn into this sophomoric stuff of Bible-folks who have never bothered to read Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict who by the way are not bloggers but whose works are studied in yes, major universities. Oh, I know their scholarship don’t matter. We are all in a fog of chaos stranded on interstate highways. (sarc.)

.
Mary was the mother of the mortal boy.

All of Yehova’s elect know he has no mother, nor is there any female presence in the realm of Yehova, nor ever will be.

.

"I prefer Irenaeus in his own words..."

Then all you have are a few Greek language fragments.

Can you show that which is oft cited from Irenaeus (such as you did), is in those fragments?

If not, then one cannot be assured that there had not been some tampering, later on -- for it has been well enough established that many such writings have suffered such adjustments.

I just went over an obscure incidence of that being established to have occurred, on the thread entitled Pagan Saints for an example of a quite brief insertion which held within itself significant theological implication, which helped set the stage for yet further development. It can be by way of the slightest changes that either departure from, or addition to that which was more originally "handed down from the Apostles" change did occur, and can be traceable.

See if you can understand what it was I was pointing out, on that other thread, and then you may be better able to appreciate what I mean when I use the word "development" as that is applied to theology, and be better able to understand my own intended meanings when I use the term.

As for the quote from Irenaeus, if we were to accept those as authentic (in wording) there is far too much being read into them in order to find what you persist in calling 'Petrine authority', which authority (for the Gospel of Christ) even in that writing, is shared with Paul.

Further, we just went through this very thing (over this very quote allegedly from Irenaeus) just about a week ago, on another thread (#260), and there too in another comment of my own (#263) I had produced solid rebuttal as for a few claims which you had brought in regards to Supremacy for the bishopric of Rome, yet received no reply from yourself for either effort. It seems as if you 'ran away'.

But now I'm supposed to go over it all over again?

That is much what I meant when I previously remarked in regards to the tedious nature this particular discussion of "Petrine authority" has been with yourself, for you simply refuse to engage in the substance of arguments.

There truly is another way to look at things, where history, Scripture, and theology all brought together at once produce decidedly different image (in comparison to Romish notions of "Petrine authority" being always in Rome, and thus a thing which is reliant upon being partially geographical in nature -- and entirely inheritable too ---- but only for whoever ascends to that one particular office).

I see it plain as day, and see it more clearly each time that I dig yet further into early patristics.

A week ago now, I showed you there, in further citation which is attributed to Irenaeus, himself not supporting the concept of singular papacy (as that later evolved from within Rome, alone, to becoming) but instead speaking quite plainly that the authority which the church was given was shared equally and generally among the Apostles.

If you --- as you said --- prefer Irenaeus in his own words, then investigate those more fully, rather than a cherry-pick here, and a cherry pick there. The fuller context serves to rebut use of 3.2.2 in the way which RC apologist after apologist do tend to woodenly repeat that small portion, while themselves also reading into it that which is not truly there.

And yet you dare speak to ME of "internet cut-and-paste technicians", when likely as not borrowing from amateur RC apologists, yourself?

FOr the record, one of the witnesses which Trialblogue brought to bear was J.N.D. Kelly, an historian who Ratzinger himself quotes from.

You ended your note with crude polemic and virtually empty name dropping. Spare me. I can read, and I do.

But if polemic is what you desire, then here's a bit of that, but which is not as low level "sophomoric" as is typically your own, but instead goes further into things much neglected --- like some of those pesky facts of history, which no matter how many times those have been polished and polished (by RC apologists), the results remind me of the ring-around-the-collar old soap commercials, for they try "scrubbing them out and scrubbing them out" but no matter what, once the garment is examined, the result is visible --- "those dirty rings" are still there.

The Spice Woman and the Symmachan Forgeries

I don’t read your stuff anymore. These are very neophyte and sophomoric exercises of yours in internet theology. First try reading the “greats” like Augustine Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict XVI rather than referring to street bloggers on the works of St. Irenaeus. If this goes over your head, at last make a half decent attempt to read up on the pre-eminent Lutheran and Episcopalian converts to Catholicism who have devoted a lifetime to the study and teaching of Christology and have since debunked and decamped from the nonsense you still keep repeating.

First you say;

I don’t read your stuff anymore.

Then this;

These are very neophyte and sophomoric exercises of yours in internet theology.

which are logically self exclusionary, for if you have not read what I provided link to you for, even that which one week ago you seemed to have run away from --- then how could you ever determine that those were "very sophomoric exercises...of internet theology"?

And this after by your words you have excluded yourself from having authority to interpret Scripture...

Then again, what we were discussing for the most part, was not precisely Scripture, but particular patristic writings instead.

It's too bad that the writers do not establish what it is that you sought, and instead, as I have shown need be more widely studied (in the instance of Irenaeus) for greater context --- which sadly, as for your own assertions, that context itself, the words of the very writer which you said you preferred (in comparison to my own words) refutes your central-most contentions, and in doing so can be seen to support my own objections to those same contentions.

In the other instance, that of Cyril's litugy, I was able to point towards how theological developments (in that instance, theological addition) can come about.

That is only one of the ways theological addition has at places in the literature been entree for later consequent adoption of subtly different additional theological considerations.

As such it is example for how development takes place.

In the list of those whom you "name-drop" as suggested reading for myself, I can tell you that I am acquainted with them all, but not too deeply as for Newman, yet enough to know the man to be a misrepresenting liar who used dubious means and logic to showcase marginal materials, employing inductive reasoning (specific incidence to all encompassing claim for generality) to then himself proclaim that "all Protestants are liars" when it comes to their own objections as towards specific aspects of Romanism.

That said, when I have been speaking of development, I have been all along touching upon something which Newman himself (and those closely contemporary to himself) wrote towards, or about --- namely theological development.

Paraphrasing here, those men would say such as "From the acorn grows the mighty oak, although acorns appear outwardly nothing as the tree it grows into being..." etc., in attempts towards justification for what developments have admittedly (admittedly, by those in the RCC, when they are not otherwise flatly proclaiming "unchanged, as passed down from the Apostles") transpired over the centuries.

I have read some of Ratizinger, and believe I understand him well enough, for this is not rocket surgery which is being discussed...all though many do make it much more difficult than it needs to be...

I myself have more than mere, brief, passing & shallowest acquaintance with the Spirit of the Lord also...which is a humongous assistance to one such as myself, and without which I am certain I would not have interest in this subject matter.

If this goes over your head,

Here again it does appear to me that you again have things turned around near entirely backwards.

There is not one single thing which you have touched upon which "goes over my head". If you assume such for reason that I have not replied to each and every of your own assertions, explaining to yourself what those actually meant, then I would say that in this are you are likely operating under an erroneous set of assumptions...

at last make a half decent attempt to read up on the pre-eminent Lutheran and Episcopalian converts to Catholicism who have devoted a lifetime to the study and teaching of Christology and have since debunked and decamped from the nonsense you still keep repeating.

After having multiple opportunities to do so, you have in no way whatsoever established that anything much which I have said is "nonsense", for most all of my own contentions you've done nothing in reply to those but to repeat ad nauseam your own assertions, doing so (most often) while ignoring what it is that I provided to you in reply which refutes those assertions.

Again, that is what makes attempt to have conversation with yourself be tedious...

Pre-eminent converts you say?

What makes you think I have not read quite a bit from some of those?

In the articles which have been brought here for the last dozen years, at least, and a great deal of those written by these "pre-eminent converts" which you mention, I've seen nothing all that much which was not covered long ago by the Oxford Movement, Newman & Co.

The arguments brought forth have generally have the same inherent weaknesses, and some outright problems, most of which were identified long ago by men such as Philip Schaff & Henry Wace.

Yet why the mention of "Christology"? Was that to help bring "Mary" more into the picture? It was, wasn't it?

Now -- quit talking to me as if I am stupid.

Perhaps admit to yourself that the things which I write about are often over your own, for you have demonstrated to me a general lack of being able to follow, and then keep up with discussion.

Send to myself those whom have this 'authority', which you lack.

“Mary was the mother of the mortal boy.”

Women give birth to persons. Jesus was a divine Person who had taken on humanity. Mary did not give birth to merely Jesus’ humanity. She gave birth to a Person.

.
Your reply counters scripture drastically.

Absolutely nothing in scripture calls Mary the mother of God.

Scripture makes plain that there never has been, nor ever shall be, any female presence in the realm of Yehova.

Only biologically generated mortal beings can have a mother.

All those raised at the resurrection unto life will be individually created “Sons of God” without mothers, brothers, nor sisters.

.

“Your reply counters scripture drastically.”

Nothing I said counters scripture.

“Absolutely nothing in scripture calls Mary the mother of God.”

1) Scripture doesn’t have to say it for it to be true.

2) It does say it: Luke 1:43. The word Lord, used there, is recognized even by Protestants - except perhaps the most anti-Catholic - as referring to Jesus’ divinity. http://biblehub.com/luke/1-43.htm

“Scripture makes plain that there never has been, nor ever shall be, any female presence in the realm of Yehova.”

Straw man. No one is claiming “any female presence in the realm of Yehova.”

“Only biologically generated mortal beings can have a mother.”

So Jesus didn’t have a Father either right? After all if only biological generated creatures (and how does Jesus having humanity deny His divinity anyway?) have mothers then only they can have fathers as well.

“All those raised at the resurrection unto life will be individually created “Sons of God” without mothers, brothers, nor sisters.”

No, we have the Church as our family.

.
Wow!

Linking multiple strawmen in one post!

We have breakthrough.

what next?

.

“Wow! Linking multiple strawmen in one post!”

You’re the one who posted this straw man:

“Scripture makes plain that there never has been, nor ever shall be, any female presence in the realm of Yehova.”

No one here is claiming “any female presence in the realm of Yehova.”