Posted on 05/26/2017 6:13:24 AM PDT by ebb tide
You remind me of the so-called “moderate” moslems. They don’t like to reveal Muhammed’s more wicked statements as you do with Luther’s.
I would agree generally with the [above] italicized statement.
Yet when prelates of the RCC make public utterances, what you call "immaterial" is often published world-wide, and presented as voice of moral authority.
Another problem is that from among those same speeches, letters, articles, hints from “high places,”, if repeated enough, portions can find their way to being acknowledged within solemn definitions of popes and councils, thus afterwards be ranked equally, if not in actual practice ranked over Scripture itself.
Being as men --- even the highest ranking within Roman Catholicism, below "pope"-- cannot be relied upon to find and select suitable, rightful, godly leader from among themselves, how in the world could these same be entrusted to produce, through committee, "solemn definitions" and decrees in "council" with ending results be reliably on par with inspired Scripture?
Something must give way. Must it be authority of Scripture ---if but incrementally? One may attempt to argue here that the extraordinary, ordinary "teaching magesteriums" of the RCC have never gone against Scripture -- but for the moment, please do not do so with me, lest in counter I argue back vociferously.
I will say that has already occurred at times in the past. For example; such as office of singular papacy itself as has long been commonly known of and regarded from within Roman Catholicism, itself.
The point of mentioning papacy, is; here we are, today, with Bergoglio the talking Bergoglio. Among other things the man is supporter of corrupt communists.
Though not as outwardly, recognizably wicked in the same ways that some of the Borgia 'popes' inarguably were, Francis's type of sliding toward socialism ---as cure for all ills(?)-- coupled with, and providing support for generalized resentments of Western world prosperity, are insidious.
They're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Who will stop them? You?
This is a fig newton of your imagination. It has never happened. Not one single, solitary time in 2,000 years.
One word:
Marionism.
Huh?
Are you trying to say “Marcionism”?
As I had said;
It takes effort, but to understand the Luther's theological premises, rather than rely upon books written from perspective of having already decided he was wrong (in everything) and then, focusing upon impugning the man's character (while cherry-picking, and showcasing isolated quotes-- some of which were not even his own words, but instead, occasionally, were attributed to him by others) in effort to prove him wrong (and thus "prove" the Protestant Reformation entirely wrong) one would need read Luther in more entirety of his own words to provide fuller context.
When that context is more fully realized, and then held up against Scripture itself, and then too compared with precepts touched upon within writings of earliest centuries church note-worthies, then it can be seen that Luther was not inventing much of anything, although in places he did, as I had said;
Who's in your saddle?
Did you not say that to me? #27 Did you not say that about Luther -- that someone, or some thing was ---there alleging that it was not God who was? You did so in comment #28.
If a pair of Luther's comments you'd highlighted (#12 #40) had been ill-advised, "something new", or some kind of heresy, then your own attempt to use those very same ideas against Luther would be to follow the thinking of one you have branded an 'arch-heretic'.
Obviously enough(?) I should not need "defend" Luther as for what was cited in comments #12, and #27 either (which allegedly were from Luther -- you've still failed to proved a single direct link to where you'd been copy/pasting from) since those were similar to what you've adopted as reasonable for yourself to use, and apply.
A book that you not only recommended, but directed another freeper to read prior to himself ever commenting again upon Luther (at all) is among a genre of hate-fest Luther-bash Romanist butthurt bleatings of the worst sort.
Interestingly enough, what you had cited from there in comment #9 and #14 were much like the others I've linked to in this post, and which you had sought to use against Luther, saying it was not God (so must have been the devil?) while putting the question to me too.
Explain how those concepts could be so utterly mistaken, to be example of heresy -- yet, you yourself seek to apply the concepts to Luther, and to myself?
There is no such word as “Marionism.”
If you mean the Church’s “Marian” dogmas, they are found in the Scriptures—Old and New Testaments. They are not derived from assorted casual communications, press releases, articles, etc.
You will find the Scriptural basis for the Church’s Marian dogmas discussed here:
Not at all.
Ah, c'mom man. You knew what I was talking about, didn't you?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marianism
Even among official papal encyclical the term 'cult of Mary' has been used, although in neutral sense, and while that cult within Roman Catholicism was being provided acknowledgement/allowance/justification for, at the same time. Must I go dig that out for proof? There is even one entitled "Marialis Cultus" (which could be translated 'Marian devotion'). Will you recall that on your own -- or be willing to take my word for it? In another encyclical, I forget which one precisely, in English translation at Vatican web pages for it, the term "cult of Mary" is used quite directly.
Ah..so you did know what I was talking about. You offered me this;
Which is Tim Staples book.
No thanks, much of that's already been well enough refuted, portions of it, even on this forum. If there was anything much new, or else not commonly enough argued here on these pages, and yet elsewhere too-- could you single that out, and bring that precise aspect for discussion?
If you desire to make an argument one way or another, then make one. Don't send me to Amazon.com unless you'd be willing to go there yourself to purchase what I may send you to go purchase. Fair enough?
Yet the real point I was making, is that among Roman Catholic scholars on the highest levels, it has been frequently admitted that most all of the Mariology serving as basis for Marionism did not come from Scripture directly, and was for the most part unknown/not mentioned within the earliest centuries (the first few) of the Christian church.
Instead, it arose, and in it's earliest times of doctrinal development found support from an array of Speeches, letters, articles, hints from “high places,” which you'd gone on to say and such like are immaterial.
Staples's book is along lines of after-the-fact imposition upon the texts things which the earliest church did not see -- for they never wrote about them, well, not until the pseudographical Protoevangelium of James (and a couple of other lesser, even worse non-apostolic NT apocryphal writings) according to Origen, first introduced the idea of perpetual virginity of Mary.
Prior to that time Mary would be referred to as the Virgin, no doubt, but never as the Ever Virgin. That marks the beginnings of various aspects of Marionism (which encompasses considerations far beyond Mary alleged to be "ever", perpetual virgin) which grew in popular support until portion such as the alleged Ascension, and then later the doctrine of Immaculate Conception was finally officially acquiesced to, while stating it was the "sense of the Church" rather than having been able to point to any truly apostolic source or even traceable to apostolic source, as in so-and-so said this and that regarding her that was not in realms of Speeches, letters, articles, hints from “high places,” coming from those among the church only in later centuries, most particularly from middling late in the 4th century -- and then in increasing frequency, from that time on.
Surely you knew about such things?
For sake of anyone else possibly reading this, an easier link (than previously supplied) for info about the Protoevangelium of James (also known as Infancy Gospel of James, and more simply; Gospel of James, not to be confused with the NT epistle James.
Informed, critical discussion of Tim Staples book by Jason Engwer; Tim Staples' Book About Mary
Another, again from Engwer regarding similar RC Marionist apologetics; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/perpetual-virginity-of-mary.html and More Early Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.
In light of readily available information concerning stages of doctrinal development of Marionology (and history of Marionism) as could be easily enough grasped even for those considering themselves sure enough regarding PVM, when it comes to yet further Marian dogma the story-line is yet more problematic, being as the additional elements are that much yet further removed from original Apostolic sources by multiple centuries' time.
Not found in casual communications, press releases, articles, etc., you say? That's a bit of moving the goalposts I would say.
Of the more ancient sort, along lines of what you'd previously described as speeches, letters, articles, hints from “high places", they most certainly are, and are in fact the sources for Marion doctrines. It matters not one whit that 'church councils' in later centuries took up the notions ---other than they did, and the notions were for the greater extent, not Apostolically/Scripturally sourced.
Here, read and consider this (including the comments and discussion following);
It's not that long of an article, and one need not go to Jeff Bezos' Amazon.com in order to access it. From that article, second paragraph;
There are, of course, dangers in finding Mary in everything, and in seeing everywhere a prefiguration of her. One of those dangers is the possibility that the reader, in finding yet another prefiguration, misses what the text is actually saying. When the Scriptures plainly identify a figure and its meaning, figures really can be revelatory. But when we determine that something, someone, or some place is a figure—yet the Scripture is silent to its meaning—we are left guessing at the intent of the figure and dangerously vulnerable to the meaning assigned by the expositor. A verse about an ant and a sluggard may in fact be about an ant and a sluggard, rather than about a key event in Jesus’ or Mary’s life. We miss this if we must find a figure in every verse of the Bible.
One can overdo allegorical methodology. If searching for any thing and everything that could conceivably be construed to be connected to "Mary" (which is not unfair characterization of Tim Staples's approach) there's no telling what could, through specious eisegesis be found. The sky's the limit? "Queen of Heaven", eh? Even though that terminology when addressed to Mary was condemned by Epiphanius.
Let no one eat of the error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account. Even though ‘The tree is lovely’ it is not for food; and even though Mary is all fair, and is holy and held in honor, she is not to be worshiped. . . . They must not say, ‘We honor the queen of heaven.’ Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 79. Against Collyridians, 7,7; 8,2 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 627.
Feel free to rummage through it, and if finding anything NOT there which Tim Staples addresses, daniel1212 (I'm fairly sure) and I, would both like to see them.
Your circular logic is most amusing.
All you do is cut and paste globs of text telling me that various Protestants reject the Church’s Marian dogmas.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
That's not quite accurate.
I take that back --- your opinion is not even close to the truth. It's more like a mirage...
In return to most anything I've posted to you, I'm offered argument by way of mere assertion, and spitwads aimed at sources (and persons) at links provided --after myself having been sent off on a goosecha$e to Amazon.com in order to find proof of one of your own assertions.
Within the discussions I had linked to were a variety of specific items. That's not only "various Protestants rejecting Marian dogmas" (argument by assertion, such as you lazily indulge yourself in) but instead, within those discussion of considerations towards how those doctrines and dogma arose, are portions addressing in detail the how's and why's involved with various problems that are associated with the overall theological position and doctrinal development.
You were trying to convince ME of the rightness of your own theological positions -- were you not?
It is only fair that in reply tell you that so far, your method of discourse is simply not been getting us anywhere.
Need I drag all of what I linked to into this forum ---onto these pages more directly, and step-by-painful step spoon-feed it to you?
That could take weeks. I would expect to be fought all the way, if only with the usual spitwad/pee-shooter sniping return commentary, while you of course, regarding your own theological positions, would be desiring I take your each and every uttered assertion as if it were near-Gospel on strength of your own say-so.
The contest now has become regarding your own negative --"it...never happened" assertion that was aimed at what I'd pointed out had transpired regarding Marionist doctrine and dogma. It did come about chiefly through the means (as source materials) which you had labeled ""immaterial".
The info at the provided links goes far enough along the road to proving that contention, I need go not much further.
Ancillary 1.1 fact that later councils approved Marion doctrines proves nothing much other than they did eventually --officially-- not only approve, but also demand everyone ACCEPT doctrines which arose first among commentary & opinions, including from poetical expression.
If there be hidden within your own positions presupposition that the Latin Church cannot err in doctrinal teachings--- that renders it be not myself, but you who has a;
when that presupposition becomes unstated central basis when it comes to an assertion you had made;
I just showed you a bit of how it happened in regard to Marionist doctrines & dogma, and have explained it here, for what -- the third time now?
It sprang up and unfolded, not in one instant, but spread over many centuries time of "development". Having figments of imaginings that such commentary, opinion, and 'poetical expressions' regarding "Mary" were not the main driving forces behind the doctrines and dogmas would be to retain those presuppositional "fig newtons" regarding RC magesterium infallibility, with yet more giant-sized "fig newtons" set to either side of one's own head serving as blinders (such as are put upon draft & carriage horses) and maybe a couple of figs stuffed in the ears (the better to sleep with? -- nice and "quiet" eh?) and is not a counter-argument at all.
It's more like "shut out the message" by way of labeling, then summarily rejecting the messengers in order to reassure oneself the information that is there, is not there.
You sent me to go buy a book, yet appear to me not willing to read a few dozen pages that were supplied to you, free of charge.
If Staples's book has something special about it, something those of us who are well acquainted with apologetic would not be familiar with ---perhaps you could wake from you're nap-time long enough to show us clearly what that is? I asked you once before.
Lacking anything of the sort specific in reply from yourself, I'll need assume you've got nothin', leaving Staples book to generally fail in it's "mission" ---unless that mission was to be preaching to an already woefully mislead choir.
Meanwhile, speaking of buying books, perhaps you should take opportunity to buy one yourself?
Here; Svendsen's book Who Is My Mother?: The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus presently available for $20 used.
Link to a pdf file containing a couple of pages of Table of Contents, 3 pages of textual discussion, and a couple of pages of notes/source citations; http://www.studio-e-books.com/portfolio/mother.pdf. Think of it as a preview?
It's not my logic that is circular here, but instead it was the way you went about trying to leverage certain quotes allegedly from Luther that ending up circling around and [figuratively speaking] biting you.
What I do not find amusing is; the apparent lack of realization on your own part of what had taken place, and the utter backwardness of your here latest reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.