?
You seem to be reading something that is not there. I guess that is something to do with the precise words involved and a specific undestanding that I am not aware of, but without the speific citation I am running blind.
Richard
I am glad that you are pretty honest. A devout Catholic who knows. Kudo to you 
I think this is a very weak argument. Just because it does not contradict the Bible does not mean the Bible supported it. The Church could invent many strange dogma as long as the Bible does not contradict it. Scientifically, how did the blessed Mother Mary retain her virginity when Jesus Christ was born? Was the baby Jesus born without going thru a normal birthing process? Or C-Sec operation was involved in the process somehow? I am curious to know that answer to that. All these aside, I fully respect and adore the blessed Mother Mary as she was the chosen one and her name is known in the history as the blessed Mother of Jesus. However, she was still a human being like you and me. Is it appropriate to exalt another human being to an almost Godlike status as a sinless being?
1 Like
Your understanding of it is weak. My statement is tautological. “Not being explicitly taught in scripture is not the same as contradicting scripture” is a truism. I also never claimed ‘not contradicting’ is the ONLY requirement for a doctrine to be true. Hence, your ‘strange dogma’ concerns borders on caricature. Not contradicting scripture is a necessary condition to believing something, not a sufficient one. I have already said the Bible does not explicitly teach it but is consistent with it and I believe it is quite plausible when scripture is understood in a first century Jewish context.
Disdain for Catholicism really makes some Christians resort to skepticism they would never apply to their own views. Asking for the ‘scientific mechanism’ of a miracle is an oxymoron. Do you ask for the chemical composition of a metaphor? When you give me the scientific explanation of how Mary became pregnant as a virgin, or how Jesus walked on water, multiplied loaves of bread or seemingly walked/appeared through doors (very relevant here), then I will give you the scientific evidence for this. Which is to say never.
St. Augustine of Hippo (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 121.4): “The shutting of doors presented no obstacle to the matter of that body, wherein the Godhead resided. He indeed could enter without their being opened, by whose birth the virginity of his mother remained inviolate”.
St. Ambrose of Milan (De Institutione Virginis, 8.52): “What is this gate, if not Mary? … This gate is closed because virginity has not been violated. The gate shall remain closed, he says, and no one shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel has passed through it.”
He was appealing to:
Ezekiel 44:2***The Lord said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it.
The fathers used images of sunlight passing through glass as an analogy (later ones anyway) but many pointed to Jesus passing through doors in the upper room as a comparison. You really misunderstand what a miracle is and what science is if you want a scientific explanation of a miracle.
As we all should. And she is known as the mother of God, a title Luther also defended and is Christologically accurate.
Is it appropriate to caricature beliefs and attack straw man versions of them? We venerate Mary (not treat her in a Godlike fashion) just as the angel did in Luke 1. Mary was sinless because of God’s grace. Her purity does not rival God’s glory, it is a direct manifestation of it. The angel declared her already full of grace and in favor of the Lord in Luke 1. But look up the word Latria. It is a heresy in the Church to do what you accuse it of. We tend to think Mary was saved by the Grace of Christ like everyone else. Hers was just given preventively (more like a vaccine than cure for an existing disease).
Vinnie
1 Like
why do you have to be so harsh for discussion? Can you discuss calmly without attacking others? I understand the miracle of Jesus’ conception because that is what the Bible says. The Bible never mentioned about the miraculous birth or perpetual virginity of Mary. But of course you can claim any miracles you want as long as it was connected with Jesus. We could even claim perpetual virginity of Mary Magdalene because Jesus healed her and forgave her sin and made her sinless. Sure, we could do that. That is why I said we can make all kind of strange claims or alll kinds of miracles without any support biblically. It is beginning to sound like a runaway train of rampart false prophecy from false prophets nowadays. Then all these claims beg a question. How do we know what event is truly miracle or what not?
Mary being sinless after conceiving Jesus?
Mary conceived Jesus without knowing a man?
Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?
Mary being sinless all her life?
The ascension of Mary?
The position of Mary in the heaven?
What else … I mean, we could just add much more without being subjected to scrutiny but claim miracles.
1 Like
I have read a couple of descriptions and the interpretations about what happened did not sound credible.
I support the view that we should bring our thanks and needs directly to God, rather than try to use indirect contacts to persuade God. From that viewpoint, I do not think that praying to/through the dead Saints or Mary is a recommendable phenomenon. I realize that such habits are so deep in the history of the Catholic churches that it would be useless to criticize it more. ‘Theotokos’ seems to be a sufficient justification for those who have differing opinions.
I agree that Mary was a blessed girl/woman, although the blessing had also painful consequences. That does not mean that Mary had to be anything more than a pious Jewish girl/woman - obedient to God but otherwise, an ordinary human.
I have got the impression that the apparent need to explain Mary as a sinless person is a consequence of the doctrine of original sin. As I do not support these interpretations, declaring Mary as something more than an ordinary human sounds unnecessary.
When someone starts to speak about the role of Mary like she was part of a heavenly family, a mother goddess, that is where I think that the talk slides to the heritage of pagan worship of goddesses. If I have understood correctly (and hope), even the RCC condemns such overreactions.
Those who have studied the history of pagan beliefs in Egypt and later within the Mediterranean areas have pointed that the worship of goddesses was popular. In Rome, there were Juno, Minerva, Vesta and Venus. The worship of Isis spread originally from Egypt and was especially popular in Italy. The worship of Isis and her child Horus (Harpocrates) continued in Rome/Italy until it was banned by the strengthening Church. Those following Isis transferred into the Church and, like the other pagans, brought their pagan beliefs with them. That must have caused challenges for the clergy of the Church during those centuries. The praying to the Madonna-like Mary (with her child) may have offered an alternative route to continue ancient traditions, like what happens in South America even now. Pictures of traditional goddesses are carried in parades, the names of those goddesses have just been switched to ‘Maria’.
1 Like
Reminds me when at the Vatican I was touched by the beauty and grief shown in Michelangelo’s Pieta.
Sorry for the side excursion, but I was flabbergasted when at lunch Sunday, the wife of one of my friends, who is definitely on the literalist interpretation of the Bible side, stated that God was male, as otherwise how could he have impregnated Mary. It really makes you wonder what people are reading and listening to out there.
1 Like
Well, if you want to see an informed defense, Ethan Muse does a good job and debates them. I realize that video is obnoxious long and better suited for the unemployed but it’s worth starting and seeing how goes. It’s not a challenge to refute. Just information. I think Fatima would need a new discussion and I would defend my claim that the evidence is very strong.
Catholics support that idea too. There is nothing wrong with bringing prayers and thanks directly to God. But that says nothing of also not being able to use what you call indirect contacts. Praying to Mary is asking Mary to pray for us. So you never ask people for prayers for yourself or others and you think that is improper or just not the best way (we should bring our personal needs directly to God?). I doubt you object to communal prayer (“indirect contacts”)? Scripture (including the red letters) is pretty clear about praying for others (James 5:16, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Ephesians 6:18, Matthew 5:44). You can ask your pastor to pray for you or a friend or a prayer team at Church. Catholics also believe we can ask Mary. Mary is an intercessor who prays to the mediator. Who better to ask for prayer than Mary, who is already perfected in heaven and uniquely close to Christ? I’m reminded of the events at Cana.
I’m sure the language of mediator trips up non-Catholics but we would see Mary only as a secondary distributor of Grace (more a conduit) that is solely reliant on Jesus-- the one Mediator between God and man --1 Tim 2:5. Mary cooperated with Christ’s redemptive work when she said Yes and gave her consent to the Angel in Luke 1:38. Catholics believe all intercessory prayer is to participate in the distribution of graces in some small fashion. How great is our God that he allows us to participate in Christ’s sacrifice (Eucharist) and serve as His instruments and conduits of His grace.
You can argue the saints or Mary can’t hear or help us, but to seemingly argue against asking them to pray for us or intercede on our behalf since we can go directly to God, also undercuts the entire Christian practice of praying for others and asking others to pray for us. I was semi-grilled by three Protestants one day (friends) and they more or less asked, why would you pray to Mary and not God directly and my response was, don’t you ask other to pray for you and those in need?
I can’t say those arguments were not used but they go back to the very early Church. The RCC now doe not say Mary needed to be sinless, only that it was fitting. Jesus was born of a virgin for this reason. The immaculate conception is deemed as fitting because having the vessel that carried our Lord and Savior be free of sin is fitting. Mary is also portrayed at the new Eve and the new Ark. But it was not necessary. Only that Jesus be born in a state of grace (original sin is privation).
Where is the attack? And from my perspective, you didn’t insult but you took the kids gloves off and came out swinging and ended the same way. From the “weak argument” to the veiled insinuation of Mary worship which serve as book-ends to your reply. The first thing the shows up and the last thing it has. You wrote:
I think this is a very weak argument.
I don’t have a problem with that language. My thinking when someone says that is “Let’s see what they got.” There are certainly ways the niceness police could ask us to dance on eggshells:
“I do not find this argument very persuasive” vs “I think this is a very weak argument.”
Maybe I am wrong but I also didn’t take this question in super good faith:
Is it appropriate to exalt another human being to an almost Godlike status as a sinless being?
It looks pretty rhetorical to me and you could replace loaded words like “exalt” and “Godlike” more tone neutral ones. As an example:
What are we to make of viewing other human beings as sinless? Was Mary not saved by Christ? Isn’t sinlessness only an attribute ascribae to God?
Your entire framing seems to come from an anti-Marian perspective to me. Again, I’m not remotely offended by the language. I don’t see it as an insult and I am more than happy to refute it and flip the tables on you which is what my post did. I think it is the sting of truth which makes it appear harsh.
You don’t understand it. You believe it. You may have meant “I understand accepting the miracle” but when you ask me for scientific proof of perpetual virginity, I’m going with the former. We don’t understand how miracles occur. So you seem to be moving to epistemology and how we verify or know certain miracles occur.
We agree. The Catholic Church, as I quoted them, says that directly and quite honestly. Its scholarship is extremely good at the highest levels --but getting people to read it as opposed to reacting to what they think they know about is the problem.
I would use a reductio ad absurdum argument against your view. The books of scripture don’t mention the phrase sola scripture, the word trinity, or have a list of the canon inside or mention a lot of things we Christians believe–or put together via scripture and tradition in tandem. It doesn’t mention orange juice or pencils either. As I have repeatedly said, your view of sola scriptura is too rigid and self-defeating for me.
You could actually read some Church history and more easily, the New Advent encyclopedia entry I shared to see why Catholics believe this fitting doctrine. Instead you assume it’s just a belief made up from thin air because again, that is how you seemingly define any belief not explicitly stated in scripture (at least per your interpretation of it).
They don’t beg the question for me. I have a Magisterium established by Jesus. This is the exact question Catholics ask Protestants. How do we know what the correct interpretation of scripture is and what is not? See how your same reasoning used against the perpetual virginity of Mary attacks all miracles even those you believe like the resurrection. You did more than just ask how we know it’s true. You asked for a scientific explanation of it whereby you were insinuating it was an illogical view at odds with reality. Now you questioning what miracles are real can be turned on your own interpretation of scripture. How do we know it’s real? How do we know who is right? The simple answer is you cannot know which interpretation of scripture is true because you think God—in His great wisdom—did not leave an arbiter behind to safeguard and interpret apostolic tradition.
It is very important that when a Catholic critiques Protestant thinking or vice versa, we think about how those same critiques would apply to what we believe.
It is what the Magisterium teaches and they give their reasons. You do not have to agree with them anymore than you have to agree with God’s reasoning in scripture. We have to accept God’s ways insofar as we can accurately interpret them. It’s the same with the Magisterium for Catholics. The Magisterium knows it is not God and gives reasons, however.
But even outside the Magisterium, a Protestant can healthily look at the views of virtually the entire Church—whom Jesus left the Holy Spirit— and see what they universally believed about Mary, the Real Presence, etc. for 1000 or 1500 years. As I noted multiple times, you will find more unity on some things about Mary a the Real Presence than the trinity or what books constitute scripture. That should be a very sobering thought.
Vinnie
That is a good point. I probably am guilty of assuming people know more than they do when discussing with them online. I have a funny example from school. We had a student here just this week who had to bring contact information home for the parents to fill out and sign (address, emergency numbers and all that). The parent never signed the signature portion of the paper and the office called her down and told her “the form is missing your parent’s signature.” This is a ninth grader btw, and her response was, “I don’t know how to write my mom’s signature.”
2 Likes
Only if you believe in Original and persistent sin. As Sin cannot be inherited or passed from one person to another there is no need for a sinless Mary. Sin has no presence, no substance, nor physical attribute and as such cannot be treated like a virus or disease.
Even if Mary had sinned, it would not be passed through the womb. There is no mechanism for it to do so. As it is, Mary could be considered to be an innocent who as a minor would be protected against impregnation by modern law. (Not by Jewish Law) An innocent, by definition, cannot sin. If you are not careful we open Christianity up to the accusation that she was “raped” by God being unable to comprehend fully what she was entering into. (Don’t go there!)
Richard
But that doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter what the early Church fathers (going as far back as 107 AD for the real presence) believed, what matters is that it apparently is not supported by the Bible (which is not even true because John changed from soma to sarx for a reason). Then many Protestant churches allow multiple remarriages, gay marriages and even abortion (!) basing those allowances on soundly and undeniable biblical support.
What can I say…
PERFECT.
1 Like
Self-defeating is truly the right word.
2 Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
The Scriptures themselves, if taken at face value, refute Sola Scriptura.
It’s interesting because we have a cumulative pattern: Christ gives authority to a Church, the apostles transmit doctrine both orally and in writing, and that authority is deliberately handed on to successors.
And the claim that oral apostolic tradition was only for the first generation is dismantled by Scripture itself, in 2 Timothy 2:2: “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”
Notice the chain: Paul → Timothy → faithful men → others
That is already four generations of transmission.
And crucially, Paul does not say: “what you have read in my letters, preserve.”
He specifically says: “what you have heard from me.”
So the Protestant escape route “oral apostolic teaching had authority only while the apostles were alive” is on very shaky ground here. Paul explicitly commands Timothy to transmit what he heard to men who will themselves teach another generation.
Then we have the already mentioned Thessalonians 2:15, which says that oral and written tradition are both binding: “Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”
Paul places: spoken word and written letter side by side.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the passage says that the spoken component will later lose its authority.
A Protestant therefore has to introduce an additional proposition not stated in the text (and definitely not believed in the early Church, but here we are only considering Scriptures so the Church fathers shouldn’t be considered now) namely: “After the apostles died, only the written part remained binding.”
But where does Scripture itself teach that transition?
Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. That is the problem.
And 2 Timothy 2:2 actually points in the opposite direction, because Paul, as noticed, orders the oral teaching to be transmitted beyond Timothy.
Then we have 1 Corinthians 11:2, where Paul praises Christians for maintaining “traditions”
Paul tells the Corinthians that he praises them because they: “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.”
Again, Christian doctrine is conceived as something delivered and received, not simply something extracted individually from a written canon (which didn’t even exist).
Compare that with 2 Thessalonians 3:6, where Paul commands Christians to avoid those who reject the tradition received from the apostles.
2 Timothy 1:13–14, here Timothy must guard a “deposit”
Paul tells Timothy: “follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me…”
and then: “Guard the good deposit entrusted to you.”
Again: heard from me.
The faith is conceived as a deposit entrusted to a minister, not merely as a future collection of writings handed to individual Christians.
And Timothy is supposed to guard it “by the Holy Spirit.”
Then in the very next chapter: 2 Tim 1:13–14: guard what you heard. 2 Tim 2:2: entrust it to faithful men. Those men: teach still others.
That is incredibly difficult to reconcile with the claim that authoritative oral transmission was intended to disappear immediately after the apostolic generation.
Titus 1:5, here we see that the apostles appoint successors with governing authority
Paul tells Titus: “This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town…”
Notice what is happening.
-
Paul has authority.
-
Paul delegates authority to Titus.
-
Titus then appoints elders/bishops.
And what qualification must these successors possess?
Titus 1:9: “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction…”
Again, there is a received body of teaching preserved through appointed ministers.
The structure is not: Paul → Bible → individual Christian
It is: Christ → apostles → appointed ministers → further ministers → Church, with Scripture operating inside, not above, that ecclesial structure.
1 Timothy 3:15 is also very uncomfortable for sola Scriptura
Paul calls: “the church of the living God” the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
He does NOT call Scripture “the pillar and foundation of the truth” here.
Of course Catholics believe Scripture is divinely inspired but the point is different: Paul assigns an extraordinary truth-preserving role to the Church itself.
If Christ intended the epistemological structure of Christianity to be: “The Bible alone is the sole infallible rule, while the visible Church remains entirely fallible” then 1 Timothy 3:15 is a very strange way, to put it mildly, of describing that arrangement.
Then we have Acts 15 showing how the early Church actually resolves doctrinal disputes
A massive theological controversy erupts: “must gentile Christians be circumcised and obey the Mosaic Law?”
What happens?
Not: “Everyone read the Old Testament and decide for yourself.”
Instead Acts 15:6: “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.”
There is debate; Peter speaks; Paul and Barnabas testify; James gives judgment; then the Church sends a binding decision.
And Acts 15:28 uses astonishing language: “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
Then Acts 16:4 tells us that Paul and Timothy traveled from city to city delivering “the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders” for the churches to observe.
That looks remarkably like a Church council exercising doctrinal authority.
And the decision is binding even on Christians who were not personally present at Jerusalem.
Then in Luke 10:16 Christ identifies apostolic teaching authority with himself
Jesus tells his representatives: “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me.”
That is a huge claim of delegated authority; and the important question then becomes: did this teaching authority die with the last apostle?
Now return to 2 Timothy 2:2, where Paul tells Timothy to transmit his teaching to men capable of transmitting it again.
And Titus 1:5, where Titus appoints elders.
And in Acts 1:20–26 Judas’s apostolic office is filled by another man.
Acts 1 is very important for apostolic succession, because after Judas dies, Peter quotes: “Let another take his office.”
Matthias is then chosen to replace Judas.
The apostles apparently did not think: “there were twelve apostles originally; Judas is dead, so now there are eleven.”
They understood Judas as possessing an office that another person could occupy.
Combine that with Paul’s commands to Timothy and Titus, and the succession argument becomes very hard to deny.
Then we have 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6: authority is transmitted by laying on of hands
Paul tells Timothy not to neglect the gift given to him: “when the council of elders laid their hands on you.”
And later: “ I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.”
This again gives us something more concrete than “Timothy studied Paul’s writings and became a pastor” because there is an ordination-like transmission of ministerial authority through laying on of hands. Alla of this fits naturally with apostolic succession.
Hebrews 13:17: Christians are commanded to obey ecclesiastical leaders: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls…”
This is written to ordinary Christians.
Christian authority therefore isn’t merely: “read Scripture and decide whether your pastor got it right.”
No. There exists genuine ecclesial authority demanding obedience.
Naturally that authority is not unlimited, even Catholic theology does not teach that Bishops or even the Pope are infallible in everything they say and they certainly cannot come up with a novel Gospel, but it undermines the idea of Christianity as fundamentally Bible + autonomous individual interpreter or Bible + ecclesial communities teaching wildly different things on fundamental matters because the interpretation is decentralized.
Matthew 28:19–20 is especially important against the idea of “only the apostles”
Jesus commissions the apostles to make disciples and teach “all that I have commanded you.”
Then he says: “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
There is an obvious problem if someone says Jesus’ promise of teaching authority applies exclusively to those specific men, because those specific men obviously did not live until the end of the age.
Yet Christ connects the teaching mission with his presence: until the end of the age.
The natural interpretation is therefore that the apostolic mission continues, even though the individual apostles die.
And once again, the Pastoral Epistles show how: apostles → Timothy/Titus → appointed ministers → subsequent Christians.
John 14:16 gives another very strong continuity argument
Jesus promises: “ I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever.”
Not: “until the apostles die.”
The OPPOSITE: “FOREVER”.
Then John 16:13 says: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” Which is obviously incoherent with the idea that there can be a decentralized interpretation, which naturally leads to some churches being ultra conservative because they interpret the Scripture in a conservative way while other Churches are as “liberal” as the actual Church of Satan (even going as far as approving friggin’ abortion).
Finally we have one of the most important questions: where does Scripture teach that oral Tradition will cease?
Let’s put these passages together:
Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Hold to what we taught you orally and by letter. Then 2 Timothy 1:13: “Preserve what you heard from me“. Then 2 Timothy 2:2 “Give what you heard to faithful men”, then those men will “teach other also”.
So if someone claims: “Yes, oral Tradition was authoritative, but only during the apostolic generation” the question becomes: “then why does Paul explicitly command his orally transmitted teaching to be passed through multiple generations?
And finally we have the deadliest problem for sola Scriptura: “where does the Bible itself provide the inspired table of contents of the Bible?”
To practice sola Scriptura, you first have to know which writings count as Scripture, but Scripture Scripture itself does not contain an inspired list identifying its own complete canon.
That produces an epistemological problem, that is: “how can Scripture be the sole infallible rule if identifying Scripture itself requires something outside Scripture?”
A Protestant has answers to that, such as the internal witness of the Spirit, apostolic origin, reception by the Church, etc, but the paradox here is that you have already had to appeal to historical apostolic tradition and the Church’s reception * in order to identify the book that supposedly functions independently of an infallible Tradition.
*Speaking of which Christology and Trinity - #349 by 1Cor15.54
Tl;dr: self-defeating really gets the point across.
1 Like
- I am reminded of a story that my mother told several of us kids when we were in our 20s nearly 50+/- years ago. It went something like this:
An old man had a cat that was incredibly lazy. It spent all day lying on the porch, barely moving a muscle. One afternoon, the man was out in his garage working on his lawnmower. He had left a small bowl of gasoline sitting on the workbench.
The cat wandered into the garage, sniffed the bowl, and for some bizarre reason, lapped up the gasoline until the bowl was empty.
Suddenly, the cat’s eyes popped open wide. It let out a piercing screech and began sprinting in wild circles. It dashed out of the garage, zoomed across the yard, climbed up a tree at lightning speed, scrambled back down, and flew right through the open living room window. Inside, it zipped up the curtains, did three laps around the ceiling fan, and raced back out to the front porch. Then, just as abruptly as it started, the cat froze mid-stride and collapsed flat on its back, completely motionless.
The old man’s neighbor had watched the entire chaotic spectacle in absolute shock. He ran over to the porch, gasped, and looked at the old man. “My goodness! What happened to your cat? Is it dead?!”
The old man looked down at the cat, calmly shook his head, and said:
“Oh, he’s fine. He just ran out of gas.”
Start in Genesis 18 where God is one of three “men” who visit Abraham.
- When my mother told us that story, she made it sound like something she had witnessed personally, somebody’s cat being lazy, a garage or workshop, and some gas in a bowl, cat drinks some then goes crazy, running all over the place, then falls to the floor. Mother’s long pause moved me to ask: “Did the cat die?” which, of course, was her cue to give the punchline.
- The punchline surprised me, until I realized: Mom had told a joke. Which made the whole experience pretty funny.
- The funny thing about that story is that not every body thinks it’s funny.
- By coincidence, a week or so after Mom told her story to us kids, I attended a church pot-luck in which most of the people there were Deaf, with a capital “D”. I don’t mean, hard of hearing, I mean American Sign Language signing Deaf.
- And I made the silly mistake of trying tell a version of my Mom’s story.
- I shouldn’t have. None of the Deaf thought it was funny. In fact they thought it was remarkably strange that anybody would leave gas out in a bowl and that a cat would be goofy enough to actually drink any of it.
Which makes God a monster!
And it cheapens her value. If Mary was sinless, she is no example to me at all. But if she was like the Temple, made of ordinary materials no different from say a fortress, then thee Annunciation becomes a direct proclamation of the Gospel because it shows that an ordinary sinner can receive Christ. If she was sinless, she cannot be an example for anyone.
That rests on the idea that Jesus could have been polluted by being in the womb of a sinner. It reduces His glory thereby.
Only if an Apostle was still alive.
But that statement actually leans towards sola scriptura: it assumes that what was taught by letter is the same as what was taught in person. The conclusion is that anything that can’t be sourced from the written record is suspect at best.
It presumes that all met and all were in accord. The first hasn’t happened since Chalcedon, and the second failed there due to political pressure.
1 Like
I think that is a good discussion for sola scripture proponents to gestate on. This is why the view of the creeds in here by some surprises me. At least they could fall back on creedal Christianity but when you reject tradition and the creeds in favor of sola scripture there are problems. Of course, they could always just adopt Wayne Grudem’s approach on his systematic theology text where his views on the Bible are unashamedly circular.
4. The Words of Scripture Are Self-Attesting. Thus, the words of Scripture are “self-attesting.” They cannot be “proved” to be God’s words by appeal to any higher authority. For if an appeal to some higher authority (say, historical accuracy or logical consistency) were used to prove that the Bible is God’s Word, then the Bible itself would not be our highest or absolute authority: it would be subordinate in authority to the thing to which we appealed to prove it to be God’s Word. If we ultimately appeal to human reason, or to logic, or to historical accuracy, or to scientific truth, as the authority by which Scripture is shown to be God’s words, then we have assumed the thing to which we appealed to be a higher authority than God’s words and one that is more true or more reliable.
5. Objection: This Is a Circular Argument.
Someone may object that to say Scripture proves itself to be God’s words is to use a circular argument: we believe that Scripture is God’s Word because it claims to be that. And we believe its claims because Scripture is God’s Word. And we believe that it is God’s Word because it claims to be that, and so forth.It should be admitted that this is a kind of circular argument. However, that does not make its use invalid, for all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for proof: otherwise the authority would not be an absolute or highest authority. This problem is not unique to the Christian who is arguing for the authority of the Bible. Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.
Although these circular arguments are not always made explicit and are sometimes hidden beneath lengthy discussions or are simply assumed without proof, arguments for an ultimate authority in their most basic form take on a similar circular appeal to that authority itself, as some of the following examples show:
- “My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so.”
- “Logical consistency is my ultimate authority because it is logical to make it so.”
- “The findings of human sensory experiences are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not, because our human senses have never discovered anything else: thus, human sense experience tells me that my principle is true.”
*“I know there can be no ultimate authority because I do not know of any such ultimate authority.”In all of these arguments for an ultimate standard of truth, an absolute authority for what to believe, there is an element of circularity involved.
Of course, a Christian could just say I start with the axiom this is Gods word and inspired by Him and leave it at that. I think we have a few in this thread that do that. I would not say there is no truth to God’s words being self attesting but going too far is like plugging a surge protector into itself.
We have had this discussion before. Some Christians may believe in the version of original sin you critique but that is not the Catholic position I have defended numerous times. Why would you critique my statement with a view of original sin I do not accept and one I have repeatedly denounced? Why not critique the actual view of original sin the Church teaches?
Original sin is transmitted solely via generation in that Adam lost the special grace and original justice God had given him and Eve. When a parent squanders their wealth, their children are born without what otherwise would have otherwise been theirs. It is a privation. The language is entirely analogical and the idea of original sin being a stain is a metaphor.
Mary gave her consent. How old she was we do not know but probably young by today’s standards.
Original sin is a privation of the original grace or holiness bestowed to Adam. It’s doesn’t really make sense to me to imagine Jesus born outside Eden with concupiscence—or lacking the original justice.
You can keep asserting it but I feel I have adequately addressed this. The image of God who is a moral agent under theistic personalism is absolutely cruel and virtually unsalvageable. Bone cancer in children makes that obvious enough. If God is a moral agent like us, God is certainly very cruel. That is a problem for those outside classical theism.
You have the same problem Richard does in regards to original sin. You don’t understand the Catholic position on it or what evil is as a privation of good.
Original sin is a stain only in an analogical sense. It doesn’t exist as a positive substance anymore than a hole in a donut does.
CCC 404: Original sin is termed “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act.
CCC 405: “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it…”
The point of the virgin birth is that Jesus is not born deprived of original holiness and justice through generation under the federal (or covenantal) male headship of Adam. Jesus took on a second nature… a purely human one. Obviously this human nature was born on a state of original justice and the virgin birth is how God chose to work that out. He didn’t inherit this privation because he came about through different means of generation (virgin birth).
Do you extend that thinking to Jesus? He can’t be an example to anyone because he was sinless? That is news to me. Jesus is my moral exemplar. This seems to be another view of the many in here as of late that are immediately reversible to the person articulating them. 
Mary and the Ark:
Here is also something to think about in regard to Mary being the new Ark which was holy because of what it carried.
What was in the Ark vs Mary’s Womb
The word of God in stone (Ten Commandments)
The Word of God in flesh (Jesus )
|
Bread from Heaven (Manna)
True Bread from Heaven (The Eucharist / Jesus) |
Symbol of the priesthood (Aaron’s rod)
True High Priest (Jesus )
Parallels between 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1 are significant:
David travels to the hill country of Judah to retrieve the Ark (2 Sam 6:2). Mary travels to the same place to visit Elizabeth (Luke 1:39).
David leaps and dances before the Ark (2 Sam 6:14) and when Mary approaches, John the Baptist leaps in his mother’s (Luke 1:41).
David: “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9). Elizabeth: “And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)
The Ark stays in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam 6:11) and Mary stays in Elizabeth’s home for three months (Luke 1:56).
What did God command the original Ark to be built of?
The purest, uncorrupted gold (Exodus 25:11).
What happened when Huzzah grabbed the Ark when oxen stumbled?
He was struck dead. Something so impure could not touch something so holy without death (Numbers 4:15, 2 Samuel 6:7)
Vinnie
1 Like
Fair enough. I am always a direct person. However I always focus on the argument, not on the person who said it.
Sure, then we can discuss whether even sola scripture is a dogma. it is not. It is just a conviction that is definitely supported by the bible itself.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (2 Tim 3:16)
It was definitely not a belief made up from thin air. It was more a belief made with an agenda. To be so blunt, I say that RCC need a woman saint that every woman in the church can look up to and perhaps create a movement with this powerful force. I might be wrong, but from what I read, that might be a plausible cause why such a late dogma with no scripture support and perhaps needed a much digging into the saying of early church fathers to find even a remote saying connected to Mary.
this is an interesting and important question of course and the foundation of any biblical interpretation. It is a whole different subject that might need another post. However, the miraculous birth of Jesus (with Mary still being a virgin after Jesus birth) was not even in the Bible. What is there to interpret?
I don’t expect any less. My pursuit is the truth, not that I need to defend my position at all cost. If a person comes to me and point out the weakness in my argument or worldview, It is time to explore even further and perhaps discard my previous commitments.
you are attacking opposite view by pointing out the rampage sin done in many protestant churches. It is of course shameful situation that we are in. But that sinful behavior is not what the belief of the scripture, but a deviation of it. I might be able to point out many sinful behaviour of RCC priests, but that is not how we discuss things.
not sure where you got thing idea from. From your gay friend perhaps.
interestingly, if you really study Paul’s passage here, was he referring to two different teachings that might be different “by word of mouth” or “by letter”. I think you agree that that point to exactly the same teaching.
The context is important here. Paul and Timothy were living in the time where they had only OT. No NT was available. The teaching and the life of Jesus was transmitted orally from the apostles to the disciples at large. Therefore, all of the teaching of Jesus was taught by “word of mouth”. Paul’s teaching was available thru his epistle’s letter.
I am pretty sure that Paul himself had nothing against the traditions of the Church. However, as the Gospels were written and became available to the Church, those traditions which transmitted orally must be scrutinised in light of the written Gospels. We all know how easily oral tradition can distort truth thru time. Even the copies of written Gospel had deviated from the original. A little at a time may be, but even one iota of that difference might make a difference in meaning.
that because you want to believe that priori and therefore interpret the passage as such
1 Like
The point of my story about my mom’s story is that meaning, like humor, requires a shared lens. Without the right context, a message can sound completely nonsensical.
This same principle applies to how we approach the Eucharist. The debate over whether it is a mere memorial or the literal body and blood often misses the deeper cultural and historical framework that gives it life. For me, the meaning of the sacrament is unlocked through the Old Testament narrative of manna in the desert.
Manna was a direct, daily gift from God to sustain the Israelites in their wandering. It couldn’t be hoarded or locked away as a static relic; it was dynamic, requiring active trust each morning, and it was entirely useless unless it was actually consumed. When we view the Eucharist through this Exodus lens, it ceases to be an abstract theological debate. It becomes our daily sustenance—a gift from God meant to be taken in and lived out, day by day, as we navigate our own wilderness.
1 Like