Scriptural View of Mary

Catholic Pages ^ | Dr. Scott Hahn

[DallasMike]

All these people you cite are father-come-latelies.

That's true. However, we cannot forget that there were severe heresies in Paul's time. Some (read the book of Galatians) persist today in both RC and Protestant settings. Heaven knows that the Baptist churches of my childhood were chock full of legalism. That's changing, but not fast enough.

My point is that even if some of these doctrines could be dated to the first century, they would still be heresy. Old heresy is still heresy, just as old dog poop is still dog poop.

[fortheDeclaration]

You just know there are men sitting around a table in a dark room somewhere saying, "If they believe this, they'll believe anything."

If they believe in Transubstantiation, they will believe in anything!

[NYer]

Mary was a sinner.

The Church says otherwise. See my post #393.

[DungeonMaster]

I do give you credit for stating that scripture really doesn't matter when it comes to RC doctrine. You'll probably deny it and give us the 3-legged stool story, but when push comes to shove, it's the scriptures that get shoved aside. Period. The end. Finis.

This is why Mary is the ultimate divider. It is on this doctrine that the spiritual sins of the RCC show the most clearly.

[OLD REGGIE]

Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. Hence, the angel's greeting: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28).

Isn't it customary to give credit to the source, in this instance Catholic Answers, when quoting?

Catholic Answers - IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND ASSUMPTION

[OLD REGGIE]

Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. Hence, the angel's greeting: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28).

Isn't it customary to give credit to the source, in this instance Catholic Answers, when quoting?

Catholic Answers - IMMACULATE CONCEPTION AND ASSUMPTION

[OLD REGGIE]

Rule #1 of posting quotation comments to a thread, is to post the link.

Since you are aware of Rule #1 I can only assume that Catholic Answers lifted quotes from your reply #359. How else to explain the exact wording?

[OLD REGGIE]

To understand Scripture, one must go back to the original languages.

Are you, or anyone/organization, in possession of the "original language" documents?

[OLD REGGIE]

"No one will argue that certitude regarding the Assumption of Mary is not to be found in the patristic evidence..."

It's a mean world. Another site which apparently uses quotes from you withought giving credit.

Quotes without attribution.

[Athena1]

The bible says she was.

See the Bible

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOLOL.

[wmfights]

Since Scripture is not the final authority, the Church wins.

It's rare on these threads to see someone so honest. In my Christian faith Scripture will always win.

[NYer]

In my Christian faith Scripture will always win.

You have both made a valiant attempt to disprove the Immaculate Conception based on Scripture. Several posts back, I raised the question:

"Where does the Bible teach that doctrine is only to come from the Bible?"

There was no response. Why? Because any verse of Scripture that you claim is teaching that the Bible is the only source of doctrine (i.e., Sola Scriptura; and we are assuming inerrant doctrinal teaching), means that that verse was teaching Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians who were alive at the time the supposed verse was written. It would also be teaching Sola Scriptura to Christians of today, since the same interpretion given to the first century Christians must be the same interpretation for Christians today, being that one cannot have opposite interpretations of the same verse. It is an accepted fact, among both Catholics and Protestants, that the apostles and prophets gave oral instruction to the first century Christians, in addition to written instruction contained in the Bible. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that this oral revelation to the people was to be considered the very words of God himself. This is also why in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul told these same Thessalonians to preserve the oral instruction, along with the written.

How can the Bible be teaching the first century Christians that only the Bible is their inerrant source of authority, if at the same time, oral revelation was still being given to them?? You can't claim that there is only one source of authority (the Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (the Bible and oral revelation). Logically, the Bible cannot teach Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians. If it did, it would be contradicting itself, as well as the oral revelation that was still being given. This is the trap of Sola Scriptura, and it is an inescapable trap.

According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself?  No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20).  Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews?  Again, "NO" (Acts 8:29-35).  The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false.  Even Martin Luther, the author of 'Sola Scriptura', realized that. Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible?  No.  The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament.  However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture.  Therefore, there can only be one Truth. That is why there are so many christian churches, in disagreement with each yet all claiming to proclaim the truth.

Hence, my comment: Since Scripture is not the final authority, the Church wins.. The Church, according to Scripture, is the pillar of truth.

[wmfights]

WM:In my Christian faith Scripture will always win.

NY:"Where does the Bible teach that doctrine is only to come from the Bible?"

NY:There was no response. Why?

It was answered. Maybe you missed it with you being the only RC trying to respond.

In summary, what other Inerrant Word of GOD exists. If you place oral "tradition" as an equal you are subjecting yourself to whatever the political, social and religious pressures of the day are. The written word is much harder to manipulate especially if it is widespread.

ICor.4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false.

How do you know anything your church teaches is true?

Hence, my comment: Since Scripture is not the final authority, the Church wins.. The Church, according to Scripture, is the pillar of truth.

I am thankful that your Pope has killed ecumenism. It is beyond me why Christians would want to trust an institution of man more than the Word of GOD

[NYer]

How do you know anything your church teaches is true?

Because Scripture says so :-)

Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority - Matthew 18:17. Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).

Scripture clearly establishes the Church as organized and structured, with offices and a hierarchy among Christians. The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7 ). The Church is to be visible, or Christ would not direct us to the Church for disputes if it were not here on Earth (Matthew 18:17).

Is there to be only one Church or many? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body.

Scripture is quite clear about the role of the Church in our salvation.

[NYer]

If you place oral "tradition" as an equal you are subjecting yourself to whatever the political, social and religious pressures of the day are. The written word is much harder to manipulate especially if it is widespread.

Scripture says otherwise. 2 Thess 2:15: "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us." And again in 1 Corinth 11:2: "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the Traditions, just as I handed them on to you." As well as in other passages from Scripture.

The Early Church Fathers provide the same insight.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (c. 180 AD):

"So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER SOURCE since it would be simple to get it from THE CHURCH ....On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the TRADITION OF TRUTH ..For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writing? Would it be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of Tradition which they handed down to those whom they committed the Churches?" (Against the Heresies 3:4:1)

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 200):

"For this reason we should not appeal merely to the Scriptures nor fight our battle on ground where victory is either impossible or uncertain or improbable. For a resort to the Scriptures would but result in placing both parties on an equal footing, whereas the natural order of procedure requires one question to be asked first, which is the only one now that should be discussed. 'Who are the guardians of the real faith? To whom do the Scriptures belong? By whom and through whom and when and to whom was the committed the doctrine that makes us Christians? For wherever the truth of Christian doctrine and faith clearly abide, there will be also the true Scriptures and the true interpretations and all the true Christian traditions." (On Prescription Against the Heretics 36)

And on and on. In reading Irenaeus or Polycarp or Augustine, you gain tremendous insight into how the first christians lived, practiced and passed on the faith. One book I highly recommend is

FOUR WITNESSES - by Rod Bennett

Available through Amazon.com. Read some of the reviews at the link. The book is captivating from the first page.