Current status of Mary [Re: Cardinal Ratzinger Does Not Foresee Approval of “Co-redemptrix”]

[RnMomof7]

What do you do with Revelation that says Jesus has the Keys?

BTW I think the keys were representive of teaching authority..(the keys to the room where the scrolls were kept were a sign of authority in the temple I believe..) So that authority was meant for the building of the church and I see no scripture to indicate that Peter had any permission to pass them on

Jessie any insight into what the Jews understod aboutt the Keys?

[RnMomof7]

That ark is Christ,,,

[Matchett-PI]

IL: "yet you think tradition is foolishness though the apostles said to stand firm and hold to the traditions taught by them which is in the Bible...I was speaking of Apostolic Tradition.."

Really??? Your church isn't. Where have you been? LOL

Rome has changed the meaning of tradition from demonstrating by patristic consent that a doctrine is truly part of tradition, to the concept of living tradition—whatever I say today is truth, irrespective of the witness of history.

This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce. Only now Rome has reinterpreted viva voce, the living voice as receiving from the past by way of oral tradition, to be a creative and therefore entirely novel aspect of tradition.

It creates tradition in its present teaching without appeal to the past. To paraphrase the Gnostic line, it is viva voce-whatever we say. Another illustration of this reality relates to the teaching of the Assumption of Mary from the French Roman Catholic historian, Joussard:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought-as some theologians still do today under one form or another-to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission.

The editors of the book which references these statements from Joussard offer the following editorial comments:

A word of caution is not impertinent here. The investigation of patristic documents might well lead the historian to the conclusion: In the first seven or eight centuries no trustworthy historical tradition on Mary's corporeal Assumption is extant, especially in the West. The conclusion is legitimate; if the historian stops there, few theological nerves will be touched. The historian's mistake would come in adding: therefore no proof from tradition can be adduced. The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition.

The historical method is not the theological method, nor is historical tradition synonymous with dogmatic tradition?

Such a view is the complete antithesis of the teaching of Vincent of Lerins and the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. This is an apt illustration of the concept of living tradition. This new perspective on tradition is also well expressed by Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal, Yves Congar. In light of the lack of historical support for a number of the Roman Catholic dogmas, Congar sets forth this new approach of living tradition:

In every age the consensus of the faithful, still more the agreement of those who are commissioned to teach them, has been regarded as a guarantee of truth: not because of some mystique of universal suffrage, but because of the Gospel principle that unanimity and fellowship in Christian matters requires, and also indicates, the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

From the time when the patristic argument first began to be used in dogmatic controversies-it first appeared in the second century and gained general currency in the fourth-theologians have tried to establish agreement among qualified witnesses of the faith, and have tried to prove from this agreement that such was in fact the Church's belief…Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level.

In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare. In fact, a complete consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts.

But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.

This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its experience.

It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.

Congar affirms that unanimous consent is the classical position in Roman theology. But he honestly admits that for all practical purposes it is nonexistent. It is a claim that has been asserted for centuries but lacking in actual documentary validation.

As Congar says: 'In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare.' And he uses the fundamental passage for all of Rome's authority as an example, that being the rock passage of Matthew 16 in which he candidly admits that the present day Roman/papal interpretation of that passage contradicts that of the patristic age.

But, according to Congar, the problem is really not a problem because it can be circumvented by a different understanding of consensus.

The Fathers must be interpreted in light of present day teaching. Congar says: 'The Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life.' And by the Church and its life, he means the Church as it is today. He says: 'It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.'

In other words, what matters is what the Church teaches now. That is the criterion of truth and Tradition because the Church is living and Tradition is living. He continues:

This instance shows too that we may not, at the doctrinal as distinct from the purely historical level, take the witnesses of Tradition in a purely material sense: they are to be weighed and valued.

The plain material fact of agreement or disagreement, however extensive, does not allow us to speak of a consensus Patrum at the properly dogmatic level, for the authors studied in theology are only "Fathers" in the theological sense if they have in some way begotten the Church which follows them.

Now, it may be, that the seed which will be most fruitful in the future is not the most clearly so at present, and that the lifelines of faith may not pass through the great doctors in a given instance. Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room or a judgment made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.

Note carefully the last two sentences of that paragraph.

Congar postulates that in the future the Church could be teaching doctrines which are completely unheard of today and which will therefore not be able to be documented historically.

As he puts it: 'The lifelines of faith may not pass through the great doctors in a given instance.' Historical documentation must leave room for judgment that is not restricted to documentary evidence alone but transcends the historical record in light of the present day Church's faith.

In other words, the truth of ecclesiastical history must be viewed through the lens of whatever the faith of the Church is at the present moment.

This in effect cuts the Church off from any kind of continuity as far as real documentation is concerned or accountability.

It allows the Church to conveniently disregard the witness of history and Scripture in favor of a dynamic evolving teaching authority.

History in effect becomes irrelevant and all talk of the unanimous consent of the fathers merely a relic of history. This brings us to the place where one's faith is placed blindly in the institution of the Church.

Again, in reality Rome has abandoned the argument from history is arguing for the viva voce (living voice) of the contemporary teaching office of the Church (magisterium), which amounts to the essence of a carte blanche for whatever proves to be the current, prevailing sentiments of Rome.

Never was this more blatantly admitted and expressed than it was by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892) who was one of the leading proponents for the definition of papal rule and infallibility at Vatican I. His words are the expression of sola ecclesia with a vengeance:

But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy.

It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.

How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church?…I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity.

It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. . . . The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.

So, in effect, the new teaching of tradition in Rome is no longer that of continuity with the past but living tradition, or viva voce - whatever we say.

Instead of sola Scriptura, the unanimous principle of authority enunciated by both Scripture and the Church fathers, we now have sola Ecclesia, blind submission to an institution which is unaccountable to either Scripture or history. That blind submission is not too strong an allegation is seen from the official Roman teaching on saving faith. What Rome requires is what is technically referred to a dogmatic faith. This is faith which submits completely to whatever the Church of Rome officially defines as dogma and to refuse such submission results in anathema and the loss of salvation, for unless a Roman Catholic has dogmatic faith, he or she does not have saving faith.

Rome's view is based on the presupposition that the Church is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible. She cannot err. But the presupposition is faulty.

Historically, the Roman Church has clearly proven that she can and has erred and is therefore quite fallible. Her gospel is a repudiation of the biblical gospel.

This is where we ultimately arrive when the patristic and Reformation principle of sola Scriptura is repudiated for the concept of living tradition and an infallible magisterium—the embracing of teachings which are not only not found in Scripture or the teaching of the early Church, but which are actually contradictory to Scripture and in many cases to the teaching of the Church fathers.

[Irisshlass]

Another long post...who is the source here?

<>This goes back to the claims of Gnosticism to having received the tradition by living voice, viva voce...<>

No it doesn't...after Penecost the Apostles went out and preached orally...Acts and espistles refer to the oral preaching..not to the Bible..

example:
2) 1 Thessalonians 2:13: ". . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received {it} not {as} the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

What was Luther's theology a substitue for Catholic traditional theology?

[Matchett-PI]

"who is the source here?"

Your reply is so off-base it's hilarious! You totally blew off the POINT of the whole post. Either you didn't read it, or it's over your head.

FYI, one of the *sources* is Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal, Yves Congar. LOL

Here again, is an excerpt:

This new perspective on tradition is also well expressed by Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal, Yves Congar. In light of the lack of historical support for a number of the Roman Catholic dogmas, Congar sets forth this new approach of living tradition:

[snip] See reply #383 for what he (and other Catholics) "sets forth", since you seem to have missed it the first time.

[JesseShurun]

Yes, nice place to get a tan when visiting the parents.

[JesseShurun]

13. And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth has become full of robbery because of them, and behold I am destroying them from the earth. 14. Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with compartments, and you shall caulk it both inside and outside with pitch. 15. And this [is the size] you shall make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its breadth, and thirty cubits its height. 16. You shall make a skylight for the ark, and to a cubit you shall finish it to the top, and the entrance of the ark you shall place in its side; you shall make it with bottom [compartments], second story [compartments], and third story [compartments]. 17. And I, behold I am bringing the flood, water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which there is the spirit of life, from beneath the heavens; all that is upon the earth will perish. 18. And I will set up My covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you and your sons, and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19. And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive. 21. And you, take for yourself of every food that is eaten and gather it in to you, and it shall be for you and for them to eat." 22. And Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.

[Irisshlass]

FYI, one of the *sources* is Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal, Yves Congar. LOL

He didn't write your post you pasted...give me a link...

[Aquinasfan]

What do you do with Revelation that says Jesus has the Keys?

Jesus ultimately holds the keys. He is "the power behind the keys," just as the king of the House of David in the Old Testament was "the power behind the keys" which were given to his vice-regent. This is clear in Isaiah 22:

Isaiah 22 : New International Version (NIV)

A Prophecy About Jerusalem

15 This is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says:
"Go, say to this steward, to Shebna, who is in charge of the palace:
16 What are you doing here and who gave you permission to cut out a grave for yourself here, hewing your grave on the height and chiseling your resting place in the rock?
17 "Beware, the LORD is about to take firm hold of you and hurl you away, O you mighty man.
18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there your splendid chariots will remain- you disgrace to your master's house!
19 I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted from your position.
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah.
21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father.
24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots-all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
25 "In that day," declares the LORD Almighty, "the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down." The LORD has spoken.

Note also that he will be a "seat of honor for the house of his father" (like the seat of Moses* and chair of Peter) and that he will "be like a father" (father or "papa" or pope) to the house of Judah.

_______________________________________

*Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you.

BTW I think the keys were representive of teaching authority..(the keys to the room where the scrolls were kept were a sign of authority in the temple I believe..) So that authority was meant for the building of the church and I see no scripture to indicate that Peter had any permission to pass them on

Isaiah 22:19 above indicates that the possessor of the keys held the office of vice-regent. An office implies succession and, in fact, that is what we see here. Shebna's office is given to Eliakim.

[Aquinasfan]

The typology is not in regard to Noah's Ark. (Noah's Ark is a type of Christ's Church). The typology regards the Ark of the Covenant.

Again, the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament held Aaron's staff (signifying the priesthood), the plates of the Ten Commandments (the Mosaic Law or God's ten "words") and the manna (the bread from Heaven).

Mary, considered as the Ark of the New Covenant, held in her womb Jesus, the High Priest, the New Law/God's Word made flesh and the new Bread from Heaven.*

Moreover, if the Ark of the (old) Covenant (reserved in the Holy of Holies) was so sacred a thing that someone who looked at or touched it without authorization should die (1 Samuel 6:19, 2 Samuel 2:6-7), then shouldn't the woman who bore our Savior be holier than "the Holy of Holies"? _______________________________________________________

John 6:48 "I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

[Matchett-PI]

IL: "give me a link"

ONGOING PRACTICES CONSTANTLY BEING INVENTED AT HEART OF CATHOLIC TRADITION, SAYS AUTHOR

DAYTON, Ohio -- Is Catholic tradition like a heavy gold rock, a weighty object mined in the past that is passed unchanged from one generation to the next? Is it a folded cloak unfolded over time? Are traditions given or are they made?

A groundbreaking new book by Terrence W. Tilley, chair of the religious studies department at the University of Dayton, argues that tradition is more fully understood as a set of ongoing practices constantly being invented.

"If a tradition is not to die, it must be reinvented as the context in which it lives changes," said Tilley, author of Inventing Catholic Tradition (Orbis, November 2000, $24 paperback).

"A living tradition," Tilley said, "is a set of practices received, renewed and reinvented for another generation to receive, renew and reinvent."

The book is earning acclaim from theologians and scholars who have praised it as "the work of a master" and "some of the best Catholic (and catholic) thinking being done today."

The key insight: "Believing is a practice. If we talk about religious belief, we have to take it as one of a set of religious practices people engage in," Tilley said.

The time was ripe for such a book, Tilley pointed out.

Since the work of theologian Yves Congar, "almost nothing new and substantive has been done in 40 years -- decades in which we've seen the development of post-modern thought and the post-Vatican II church and change in the intellectual and religious climate.

It was time to rework theology and tradition."

Tilley's book was released almost simultaneously with John Thiel's Sense of Tradition (Oxford University Press).

Although the two scholars worked independently and have different approaches, "both of us are trying to initiate a new discussion about what it means to live in and live out a tradition."

Tilley's work stands in contrast to two camps: those who maintain traditions are deliberately invented and made up -- rules imposed by the elite on the non-elite; and those who maintain that traditions are simply things that are found and passed on.

Over the past 20 years, "theologians have recovered a multiplicity of standard Catholic traditions.

Philosophers and theologians of the last 25 years have shown that traditions are not fixed but fluid," Tilley said. For example, "historians of the Eucharist show us we have had multiple practices.

When Pope Pius X nearly a century ago recommended daily communion, that innovation in practice had repercussions that changed our understanding of the Eucharist and prepared the way for the dialogue mass of the 1950s and the vernacular mass of the 1960s to the present," Tilley said.

"To receive communion for us today doesn't mean quite what it did in our great-grandparents' time.

It has a different significance for us, but there is continuity in tradition because the practice is carried on with a similar goal: to live a Christian life as a Catholic for the greater glory of God. The Eucharist feeds us in that."

By contrast, the practice of weekly confession has been largely abandoned. "It may come back," he said, noting that no litmus test exists to measure continuity.

"The only way we can discern continuity is whether the practice lives in the community that carries that tradition."

One aspect of the book garnering critical attention is the chapter in which Tilley describes a "grammar" of the Catholic intellectual tradition.

The hallmarks of this grammar include an emphasis on an "analogical imagination" -- an intellectual practice that seeks to find unity and similarity among events or states of affairs that seem different; a universal hope, an inclusive community, a public church and a gracious God.

"I'm hopeful that chapter will suggest to folk the range and the depth of the Catholic intellectual tradition," Tilley said.

His book, which "is the product of lots of interaction with of the faculty of the University of Dayton may help make us more conscious about what we're talking about when we're talking about tradition.

If we can realize we are bearers and reinventors of tradition, we should realize tremendous freedom and responsibility.

We must be free in reinventing what it means to be Catholic, and we carry responsibility to keep tradition alive."

http://www.udayton.edu/news/nr/103000.html
Oct. 30, 2000

[Irisshlass]

<>"who is the source here?"
Your reply is so off-base it's hilarious! You totally blew off the POINT of the whole post. Either you didn't read it, or it's over your head.<>


Webster:

"Irenaeus and Tertullian had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. These early fathers rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine."

Since this runs along the same lines..I suppose this is your source..

Cardinal Yves Congar's... Congar Yves, "Tradition and traditions" New York:Macmillan, 1967, pp 1,2,4,5.


" 'Tradition', as it existed in Israel, is usually presented to us in three forms. (1) An original oral tradition. In what constitutes the Jewish idea of an oral tradition of the Torah, from Moses up to the 'Men of the Great Synagogue'...(2) Precision...Here tradition operates not as mere transmission, but as the reading of inspired texts, already written down and familiar, in the light of present experiences, or of events longed for by the very people involved in the expectation...(3) Interpretation...And so there came into being in Judaism schools for the interpretation of the Law. These were characterized by a principle of transmission or tradition...this accumulated wisdom of many generations, though originally completely dependent on Scripture, had a value of its own. It was held to come from God no less than Scripture itself and was treated with the same respect."

The church was against secret oral message, secret tradition of the Gnostics...not apostlic tradition...

Read what the fathers said instead of anti-catholic...misinterrupation.

[Catholicguy]

<> Calvinists have made Calvin a God. Mary is worthier. Mary is the Mother of God, Theotokos. Calvin is the Mother of egregious and hateful doctrine. Mary wins<>

<> I prefer my own words to the false words you attribute to me. <>

[Catholicguy]

is a nick name for the faith of Augustine, Luther , and Calvin.. better called the doctrines of grace..

<> Pure idiocy. Augustine is Catholic. Even Luther and Calvin disagreed about Doctrine; but, I know that makes no difference as you know what they REALLY believed. :)<>

[Catholicguy]

The problem is Scott has forgotten more than I will ever know

<> FINALLY, a statement of yours I can agree with.<>

..so the lie had to be intentional.,

<> Is there such a thing as an unintentional lie?<>

..I have read this is one of his own personal little doctrines and one that led to some mumblings among the scripitual knowledgable Presbyterians he was pastoring.<>

That was from a speech given to Catholics. Other scholars have noted this before. Hahn is just explaining what his scholarship revealed to him<>

..perhaps he has simply found a home for his pet doctrine among the Biblically illiterate

<> Calvin would be proud of you<>

Here is the link...now think about this ..The JW's only changed ONE word in the Bible and that one word strips Jesus of His divinity..words do mean things

<> Yes, they do. Hahn was likely recalling that from memory. It was the text of a speech not a Doctrinal Thesis.

Your quibble is immaterial and your disgusting judgemenatlism is quintessential Calvinism.<>

[Catholicguy]

<> I forgot to add that you are justly infamous for your Calvinistic claptrap. Anyone who disagrees with you is "unregenerate," a "liar," or "going to Hell."

Lady, you are welcome to such bathetic bile but, mark well, you will be judged the way you judge others.<>

[theAmbassador]

Unless you prefer to make God the creator of what you called "egregious and hateful doctrine" then you must have Calvin as its creator. Thus, in the context and meaning of "mother" we must default to creator as its meaning.

Therefore, I conclude that you said that Mary is the creator of God, Theotokos.

---

Of course, we Calvinists have not made Calvin a God. This is the repeated asinine declaration of delusional and rather insane reprobates who just so happen to think that they are saved. See Ecc 9:3 for starters!

A far better case can be made that Catholics have made both the Pope and Mary gods. This is just idiotic projectionism on your part. As proof, I offer up what has been called a fair summary of Catholic belief in the article at the top of this thread.

I'm afraid that a great many Catholics are nothing more than the unconverted who happen to believe that their Maryology and Popeology and Catholicology are good substitutions for saving faith. You will hate me for telling you that it is not and that the Catholic Church is one of those offensive things that will be gathered out of the Lord's kingdom upon His return. See Matthew 13 and the explaination of the parable of the Tares. A great many Catholics will be begging the voltaries of Rome to fall upon them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb.

[RnMomof7]

Instead of sola Scriptura, the unanimous principle of authority enunciated by both Scripture and the Church fathers, we now have sola Ecclesia, blind submission to an institution which is unaccountable to either Scripture or history

Excellent post MPI ....It will not make alot of people happy...but truth stands on its own...

[Catholicguy]

<> Calvinists have made Calvin a God. Mary is worthier. Mary is the Mother of God, Theotokos. Calvin is the Mother of egregious and hateful doctrine. Mary wins

You and Rnmom, and every other Calvinist, makes Calvin a God in that his personal opinons, (ERRORS) are placed in a higher authority than the Bible and the Catholic Church the Bible witnesses is the Pillar and Ground of truth. I think it your position that only God is in a position of higher authority than the Bible, correct? Ergo, for you, Calvin is God.

So, we have this madman named Jean Cauvin coming along CENTURIES after the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and he is possessed by a madness to contumeliously embrace a contumacious position vis a vis the Catholic Church Jesus established and without ANY evidence he has been chosen by God to profess a new Gospel, he chooses to OPPPOSE what has always been believed and taught by the Pillar and Ground of truth, the Catholic Church Jesus established to teach in His name.

The documentation is on this thread and every other thread Calvinists participate in.

I will provide a link in just a moment that will prove the lies of the Calvinists are but insanity repetitiously screamed through a megaphone.

You folks are DOOMED to try and claim famous Catholics are crypto-Calvinists to prove you are correct. That you do not see the insanity of that position is evidence you do worship the false God Calvin. You appeal to Catholic Saints, members of what you think an apostate Church, to source your Doctrine..clever:)<>