Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[NYer]

January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God.  To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God.  The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary. 

So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).

Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus.   Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God.  The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity.  (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3.  This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)

1.  The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:

The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”

This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day.  Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:

The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest.  The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26.  The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.

         The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch.  In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus.  Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36).  Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab.  Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25).  Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mārāh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13).  This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.

         Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus.  If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment.  And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.” 

         Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.

The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6.  The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel. 

A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name

“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14).  The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament.  By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.”  He is the only God who truly is.  Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause.  Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being.  While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ“ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him.  However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ“ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence. 

The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios.  Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament.  This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).

The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system.  The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced.  The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.”  Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles.  In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.

The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance.  The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present.  Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.

The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way. 

In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts.  There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name.  Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground.  This is recorded in Sirach:

Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name;  21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism.  So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:

And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)

Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)

We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons. 

First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us. 

Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus.  For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.”  Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation.  When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:

Phil. 2:10  At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …

It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.”  Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name.  For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources.  The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice.  For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.

2.  The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:

Brothers and sisters:

When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,

born of a woman, born under the law,

to ransom those under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as sons.

As proof that you are sons,

God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

crying out, “Abba, Father!”

So you are no longer a slave but a son,

and if a son then also an heir, through God.

This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)

This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired).  Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith.  Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God.  In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy.  In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All.  Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.

Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship.  From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children.  The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.”  So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time.  Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).  The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10).  So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.”  No longer a slave to what?  Sin, death, and the devil.  If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves.  If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God.  This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.

4.  The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,

and the infant lying in the manger.

When they saw this,

they made known the message

that had been told them about this child.

All who heard it were amazed

by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things,

reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned,

glorifying and praising God

for all they had heard and seen,

just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,

he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel

before he was conceived in the womb.

We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”  This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called.  Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts. 

Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …”  This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation.  Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus.  Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy.  It is an encounter with a person.  All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him.  In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us —  3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy.  This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.

Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision.  Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12).  Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.

The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.”  In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ.  Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.

Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father.  It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so.  Jesus is unique.  So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).  This is not arrogance.  Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children.  This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel.  In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel. 

On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17).  This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation. 

[Iscool]

“Mary, mother of JESUS.”

And JESUS is GOD.

Jesus is God, manifest in the flesh...Put's a little different perspective on it...

1Ti_3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Was Jesus justified in the flesh??? Nope...Justified in the spirit...

[rwa265]

I know that the Roman Catholic church does not look down on any of the various Catholic branches.
Absolute and utter nonsense. They very well do look down on others.

---

There are many Catholics who are unaware that the Latin Church is in full communion with several Eastern Catholic Churches. I was one of them. Many years ago, I was invited to attend a Mass and breakfast at the Cedars, which is the banquet hall at St. Raymond’s Maronite Church in St. Louis. We were advised in the invitation that attending the Maronite Mass would fulfill our obligation to attend weekly Mass. This was something that several of us did not know.

Due to this lack of knowledge among Latin Catholics, there are most likely some who do look down on our Eastern Rite brothers, which is wrong for them to do.

The Latin Church is not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is unfortunate. A major purpose for holding Vatican II was a desire to reconcile the various Christian faiths with each other.

Peace,
Rich

[Syncro]

King James Bible
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

All will call Mary blessed, but she is not a mediator between man and God.

Only Jesus.

Born a man, always God from eternity.

[Syncro]

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Guess Paul didn't have a clue. Who knew?

Take to heart his words so that you do not eat and drink damnation to yourself.

Remember that Jesus is in each and every Christian. And each and every Christian is in Jesus.

One does not have to visit the Catholic wafer to be in the presence of Jesus if one is born again.

Scripture references available upon request.

[daniel1212]

The sin of Onan was quite evident to be selfish disobedience to God.

This might be true; but where is it recorded? Did GOD tell Juda to tell him? Juda, therefore said to Onan his son... IF I live by sticking to the Scriptures.

Sticking to the Scriptures means going by what it teaches, which as in everyday life means what is communicated in the many genres and means employed,and via precept as well as the principal behind them, the use of which Scripture itself affirms and examples. In contrast, restricting teaching to only explicit statements such as you require here (sounding like a RC in opposing SS, though Westminster even affirms the light of nature and the magisterial office) is not Scriptural or reasonable, though the more explicit and unequivocal a statement is then the stronger it the case is for the validity of its understanding.

How do we know that "Adam knew his wife" means sexually so since it is not explicitly stated? Or how do we know from the OT that Cain slew his brother due to envy since it is not explicitly stated but only implied? That he did so because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous (1Jn. 3:12) is affirmed under the NT, thus further indicating it was due to envy.

Here, how do we know here that the sin of Onan was quite evident to be selfish disobedience to God? Because first the text plainly states that "Onan knew that the seed should not be his...that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother," (Genesis 38:9) thus if the seed would have been his then he would not have prevented conception, which was rather obviously due to selfishness. That it was disobedience to God is what may be contended, but in the light of the later law mandating this (Dt. 25:5-10; cf. Ruth 4:10) it infers that at least they were doing "by nature" what is in the Law, (Rm. 2:14) which has God as its author.

[daniel1212]

And how do you know that your judgment is correct that your church is the one true church and is necessary to know what is of God, but others are wrong in judging that she is not the one true church?

Pretty much, yes.

So "Pretty much" is how you know? Or are you basically arguing that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

[daniel1212]

Thanks for your incorrect analysis.

Thanks for your lack of any correct analysis.

[Syncro]

Thanks for your incorrect analysis.

The links provided show that all of the analysis is backed up by the Bible.

That "pesky" Bible, The Word.

Jesus is the Word made flesh.

That pesky Jesus?

Thank you Daniel for your intensive research work, always backed up by scripture and history in the case of all the facts of what Catholicism made the handmaid of the Lord into.

[Syncro]

The question was How do you know?

Any proof you can provide?

Crickets do not make a very good argument.

If what you believe were true, a good debater would not hesitate to show why.

If there is no proof, you are wrong.

[Syncro]

The Latin Church is not in communion with the Orthodox Church, which is unfortunate.

Catholics split with the Orthodox Church about a thousand years ago.

They were "protesting" the Orthodox not accepting their pope as supreme authority over them.

As well as many other un scriptural beliefs of Catholicism, as the Orthodox preferred to follow Christianity rather than Catholicism.

Which act by Catholics made them in essence the first Protestants.

[daniel1212]

The Scripture that didn’t exist in AD 30 is supreme because it didn’t exist in AD30? you continue to ignore, as needed, that Scripture - which did exist in 30AD - alone was manifestly the supreme authority on what is of God, the supreme standard for faith and obedience, and providing for additional conflative complimentary writings being recognized as such, as was the case in the past, and thus providing for a canon.

Where in the Old Testament is there Protestantism?

Where is Catholicism? Protestantism is basically supported in principle, while Catholicism is not. As told you, even laity could assuredly discern both men and writings as being of God, even without an infallible magisterium, and even in dissent from the historical magisterium, which is how the church began, with laity discerning that John the baptizer was a prophet indeed, and that Jesus was the Christ, contrary to the judgment of those who sat in the seat of Moses. (Mk. 11:27-3; cf. Mt. 23:2) Who were magisterially the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

But instead the common people followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And the veracity of Truth claims being dependent upon the weight of scriptural substantiation, and even in dissent from the claimed historical magisterium, is the most fundamental distinctive of the Reformation, having clear Scriptural support, while the fundamental distinctive of Rome, that of the veracity of her claims being based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. Almighty God both provided His word and preserved faith without one, and often by raising up men from without the formal magisterium (dissent from which was a capital crime: Dt. 17:8-13), and thus the church did not begin upon those who sat in the seat of Moses, as akin to Rome, but upon dissenters, "the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." (Eph. 2:20) Thanks be to God.

In addition are the multiple beliefs of Catholicism that are not of Scripture, more critically than the declension of true Protestant evangelical churches.

[metmom]

And yet, if a Baptist church split over some point of doctrine, it would be condemned by Catholics and used as an example of the fallacy and weakness of sola Scriptura.

Catholics allow for themselves what they disallow for everyone else.

It’s called *hypocrisy*.

[metmom]

And I’m STILL waiting for someone to answer whether the Church gives Scripture it’s authority or whether Scripture gives the Church its authority and which one is authoritative over the other.

[MHGinTN]

“Scripture references available upon request.” Bwahahaha, the cricket symphony will be cacophonous!

[daniel1212]

Praise the Lord. Considering how much Rome has gone beyond Scripture, and her claim to even remember" a allegedly 1st century event that was lacking in early valid testimony even as a common belief.

As Ratzinger states,

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared . This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59. Therefore Rome can claim to "remember" a fable that only is evidenced as being a later development and make what at best warranted only speculation into a binding doctrine approx. 1800 years after the event allegedly occurred.

[daniel1212]

And I’m STILL waiting for someone to answer whether the Church gives Scripture it’s authority or whether Scripture gives the Church its authority and which one is authoritative over the other.

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

As His premise is fallacious so is his conclusion. For that Scripture is wholly inspired of God is a belief that is essentially due to its Divine qualities and attestation, with many writings of Scripture having already held to be authoritative by the time of Christ, thus the frequent appeals to it as the word of God by Him and the NT church, while Rome rejects that souls can even assuredly know what Scripture consists of and means, as the church alone possesses ensured (if conditional) infallibility. And thus the basis for assurance of the belief that Rome herself is what she claims rest upon the premise of her claimed ensured infallibility.

But as ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is a novelty, unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, thus the claim that it cannot be contradicted by Scripture, and is actually the supreme law, is fallacious. Moreover, even RC theology does not hold that infallible teachings are wholly inspired of God and thus have it as their author the same way Scripture does, and which is not simply correct, but has the unique anointing of the word of God. (Heb. 4:12)

[daniel1212]

Which act by Catholics made them in essence the first Protestants. The EOs share most of the errors of Rome, though with substantial differences, while conservative RCs can be charged with with being Prots in principal as rather than giving assent to all of V2 and modern teaching, they engaging in judging whether it warrants assent based upon their understanding of historical RC teaching. The paradox is that in seeming contrast, some of the strictest class of traditional RCs (sedevacantism) even assert that all Cath. teaching, even all public papal teaching (invoking Pious 10) requires at least religious assent. But since modern popes are too liberal, than they hold that Pope Paul VI and his successors left the true Catholic Church and thus lost legitimate authority in the Church, arguing that a formal heretic cannot be the Catholic pope, with the see being vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

They also have SSPV which broke away from the traditional sect the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) over liturgical issues, and also hold that many in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church no longer adhere to the Catholic faith but instead profess a new, modernist, Conciliar religion. But SSPV priests regard the questions of the legitimacy of the present hierarchy and the possibility that the Holy See is unoccupied (sedevacantism) to be unresolved.

[ealgeone]

My question: If the pope has the keys why does he need to consult with anyone? Shouldn't he be able to say God told me _______ and there be no question about it?

Would love to hear the catholic position on this.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

You don’t have a clue.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Shouldn't he be able to say God told me _______ and there be no question about it? Would love to hear the catholic position on this.

The pope and bishops have the power to "bind and loose."

The phrase was well known by the Jews. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting." The expression "asar" (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for "magic spell"). The corresponding Aramean "shera" and Hebrew "hittir" (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible.

The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus ("B J." i, 5, § 2), "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power "to bind and to loose"; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta'an. xxii.; Ta'an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).

This Pharisaical authority is also referred to in the New Testament by Jesus, in "Moses' seat." "Do whatever they tell you."

The pope has a special charism, enjoying ultimate earthly Teaching Authority.

The office of the papacy is patterned after the office of the vice-regent of the Davidic kingdom.

We see in Isaiah 22 the office of the vice-regent or majordomo of the Davidic Kingdom. In the king's absence, the prime-minister held full authority.

The Bible tells us that Jesus is the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom -his Church. Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom" to Peter, instituting the office of the "prime minister" of Jesus' earthly kingdom.

+ + +

The Church teaches that Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

The pope does not transmit Divine Revelation, but can rule infallibly regarding Church Teaching, which is based on Divine Revelation.

In my next post I will post below the relevant passages from the Catechism regarding the authority of the bishops and pope.