Posted on 08/20/2009 9:14:42 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
No!I think excessive time spent on discussion boards takes away from LIVING a Christian life.I have made this mistake at times.
You dis MrRogers because he posts to Free Republic on things relating to Religion?
I'm not dissing Mr Rogers,I just don't see what good understanding the history of the Bible does if you can't reconcile it with historical consistent teachings of the early Christians on things like the Sacraments. Thus, I see people who reject the Sacraments as dissing the Saints,many who were brutally martyred for the Christian faith
This place is a blessing. I’m sorry some people can’t see it that way.
It CAN be a blessing ,dear friend,but it can also be a golden calf if being on free republic becomes an obsession and if we start to see ourselves as doing God's work while neglecting our spiritual obligations and living out a Christian life.
I wish you a Blessed day!
“Early Jewish and Christian Scriptural Artifacts: Continuities, Discontinuities, and Social Significance” by Robert A. Kraft
The trinitarian dogma was fully developed in 4c, so naturally St. Ignatius relies on the Gospel texts alone, which, regarding His divinity, can be read in a variety of ways. This is not a disagreement -- unless you are prepared to say that the Gospels are in disagreement with 1st Nicea. Is is undeveloped doctrine, and continuity of doctirnal development.
authenticity
I will not participate in discussions of authenticity based on which copes of what survived. This approach is waste of time.
called Mary advocata
Mary is sometimes called Advocate today, so again there is no discontinuity in that. I also had to hire a lawyer not long ago, and were I speaking to him in any of many languages other than English, I'd call him advocate, because that is what "advocate" means.
Not just the Gospels, the Epistles and the early Church Fathers as well. The Son is always portrayed as subordinate to the Father.
Mary is sometimes called Advocate today...
The meaning of the term, as used by Irenaeus (i.e. Second Eve advocating for Eve), was that of the Paraclete in Greek. The concept of Mary being the Second Eve is unbiblical; it is an invention of Justin Martyr's.
How do you know that Christ's divinity is not an invention?
When did you start believing the Bible is the single source of the Christian faith?
I don't.
When did you start believing the Bible is the single source of the Christian faith?
Did I say it is?
Biblical is that which is found in the Bible. We can safely say that New Eve is not Biblical. It was first mentioned by Justin Martyr. Do you have a problem with these facts?
As for the saints, I have no clue what they followed. Early Christianity was distinctly heterodox and so were the Christian books they read in different churches.
Yes, that is a good example of dogmatic development that would not automatically proceed from the Scripture.
The concept of Mary being the Second Eve is unbiblical; it is an invention of Justin Martyr's.
One can argue, with a fellow believer in the inerrancy of the Scripture, whether a comparison of Genesis 3 and Luke 1 would provide in itself a sufficient basis for Mary being a second Eve, but even if it does not, that would then be another example of dogmatic development that does not automatically proceed from the Scripture.
I disagree because the typology of Mary is evidence enough for me that Mary is the New Eve.
examples...
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = type is- The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = type is- Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
From what I understand even the Orthodox Church accepts Mary is the New Eve
From the Orthodox Research Institute...
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/fasts_feasts/hierotheos_vlachos_annunciation.htm
“The good announcement, the gospel, the Annunciation, is a correction of the events, which occurred at the beginning of man's creation, in the sensorial Paradise of Eden. There, from a woman the Fall and its results began; here, from a woman all good things began. Thus, the Virgin Mary is the new Eve. There was the sensorial Paradise; here, the Church. There, Adam; here, Christ. There, Eve; here Maria. There, the snake; here, Gabriel. There, the whispering of the dragon-snake to Eve; here the greeting of the angel to Mary (Joseph Vryenios). In this manner the transgression of Adam and Eve was corrected.””
Correct.
Kosta: The concept of Mary being the Second Eve is unbiblical; it is an invention of Justin Martyr's.
Alex: One can argue, with a fellow believer in the inerrancy of the Scripture, whether a comparison of Genesis 3 and Luke 1 would provide in itself a sufficient basis for Mary being a second Eve, but even if it does not, that would then be another example of dogmatic development that does not automatically proceed from the Scripture
One can argue that it is far more likely that man could receive infallible truth of God, albeit imperfectly, and that he transmits that truth and believes and worships it imperfectly, then to argue about the inerrency of the scriptures.
Mariology is definitely a dogmatic development. Therewas a tremendous heterodxy as far as mary is ocncerned withing the Church as late as the end of the 3rd century, insidctaing that it s not biblical.
We also know regarding the Origial Sin that the East maintianed a different attitude towards Mary and that eastern Mriology differeed and still differs significantly fro the Latin.
We also know that she is never compared to the Queen of heaven in the East, or to a Co-redemptrix, both of which are pretyt much bordeirng on heresy in the Orthodox mindset. Yet the East had a Feast of Dormition of the Theotokos almost form the beginning, which remained utterly unknwon to theWest, and the Catholic Church had not tot his day declared whether Matry died or not. The East has almost 2,000 years ago!
All this points to an uneven doctirnal development based on extrabiblical sources, some of which are rejected by the east and some by the West. My point was that the source of marioloy is not the Bible.
Ah, yes, the Church-of-me.
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = type is- The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
Come on, SFA. John 20:27 says simply "Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" We don't even know who the disciple he loved the most was, do we? the Bible doesn't say it was John.
And Gen 3:20 says "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living." What all the living? There were two people alive on earth and Eve was not Adam's mother! And if Eve is the proverbial mother of all the living Mary is a literal mother of Jesus alone. We don't call her Pantokos but Theotokos.
All you are doing is reading into it.
From the Orthodox Research Institute...“The good announcement, the gospel, the Annunciation, is a correction of the events, which occurred at the beginning of man's creation, in the sensorial Paradise of Eden.
I am laughing, SFA! "Correction of the events...of man's creation?" Did these events occur outside of God's will? Did God create something less than perfect that needed correction? Or did the perfect world somehow aslide into corruption with God's knowledge and permission?
"There, from a woman the Fall and its results began; here, from a woman all good things began. Thus, the Virgin Mary is the new Eve."
The sin is Adam's. He was his wife's keeper, remember? It happened on his watch. from the antiquity the blame was on Adam's. Eve was just a gullible female who didn't know any better. +Paul doens't say it was Eve's fault, but that sin enetered the world through a man, not a woman! I realize that some Orthodox "scholars" (if there is such a thing because it's contrary to official Orthodox Palamite doctrine) would like to place thge blem on Eve (as it should be) but the Church never regarde dit as her fault.
"There, the snake; here, Gabriel. There, the whispering of the dragon-snake to Eve; here the greeting of the angel to Mary (Joseph Vryenios). In this manner the transgression of Adam and Eve was corrected.”
It took God 4,000 years to correct the transgression? Why did he allow it to beging with? What was thre purpose of it? Obviousy, the whole thing is scripturally choregraphed to make it look like a "correction" after the fact. Ooops, I made a mistake! type of correction. That's not very conbvincing.
God's first inclination at correction (whioch sjhouldn't have happened unless he truly willed it!) was to drown the whole wreched lot (cf Genesis 6:6) because God was truly grieved [sic] a what turned out of his perfect creation. And it still doesn't mean Mary is the advocata of Eve, the queen of heaven, the co-redemptrix...if anything Mary is another Eve, this time done wright. Hardly a perfect reation. And if Grabriel instead of a serpent was there the second time around, whose decision was that?! I bet it was the same guy who made the decision the fitrst time...
This is so naïve, I can't even say what I truly think about it. You know, some things are just best not talked about. Just believe what you want. I can't believe in a book where God, no less, believes diseases are caused by demons, and suggestes we "cure" poeple by driving'them pesky demons out, if you know what I mean. I just can't do it, because that's not what God would have taught us!
If you want to believe Mary is the second Eve, please do. Just don't claim someone said so in the Bible. Last time I checked, +Justin Martyr's wiritngs are nbot considered inspired, and he is the one who spearheaded the idea about mary being the Second Eve no doubt based on some apocryphal books.
“”Ah, yes, the Church-of-me.””
No,Dear Brother,it’s Church teaching that Mary is the New Eve,not the church of me. I believe the Holy Spirit works through the Church
The rest of your post leaves me wondering that something is not right with you.I will say a rosary for you and attend Adoration this week to pray for you.
Here is a wonderful article on Our Lady by the late Blessed Bishop Fulton Sheen.
Part #1
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mary-sword1.htm
Part #2
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/mary-sword2.htm
Excerpt.....
No one looked more closely at the Cross than the Blessed Mother. Our Lord drove one edge of the sword into His Own heart, for no one took away His life —”I lay it down of Myself.” He was upright as a Priest, prostrate as a Victim. He delivered Himself up to the iniquitous will of man so that man might do his worst. The worst thing man can do is kill God. By permitting man to summon forth his strongest armaments and then defeating him by resurrection from the dead, Our Lord showed that evil would never be victorious again.
The other edge of the Sword went into Mary’s soul, inasmuch as she had been preparing the Priest to be a Victim. Her cooperation was so real and active that she stood at the foot of the Cross. In every representation of the Crucifixion, Magdalen is prostrate; she is almost always at the feet of Our Lord. But Mary is standing; John was there, and it amazed him so much that she was erect during these three hours that he wrote the fact down in his Gospel.
Eden was now being reversed. Three things cooperated in our fall: a disobedient man, Adam; a proud woman, Eve; and a tree. God takes the three elements that led to the defeat of man and uses them as the instruments of victory: the obedient new Adam, Christ; the humble new Eve, Mary; and the tree of the Cross.
The peculiarity of this dolor is that the seven words Our Lord spoke from the Cross were like seven notes in the funeral dirge. Our Blessed Mother is recorded as speaking only seven times in Sacred Scripture. This does not mean that she spoke only that number of times, but that only seven of her utterances are recorded. Our Lord also spoke seven times from the Cross. As He spoke each word, her heart goes back to each of the words she herself had spoken, making the sorrow more intense as she saw the mystery of the “sign being contradicted.”
The first word of Our Lord from the Cross was “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” It is not worldly wisdom that saves; it is ignorance. If the executioners had known the terrible thing they were doing when they rejected the Son of Man; if they had known that He was the Son of God and still gone on, deliberately putting Him to death, then there would have been no hope of salvation. It was only their ignorance of the blasphemy they were doing that brought them within the hearing of the word of forgiveness and the pale of pardon.
The first word reminded Mary of her first word. It, too, was about ignorance. When the angel announced to her that she was to be the Mother of the Son of God, she asked: “How can this be, seeing I know not man?” Ignorance here meant innocence, virtue, virginity. The ignorance extolled is not ignorance of truth but ignorance of evil. Our Lord would forgive sinners because they were ignorant and not like the angels who in rebellion knew what they were doing and therefore went beyond redemption. Our Blessed Mother was “blessed” because she was ignorant of man through the consecration of her virginity.
Here the two words fuse into one grief: a sorrow on the part of Jesus, and a sorrow on the part of Mary, that men were not wise with that wisdom which is given only to children and the little ones, namely, knowing that Christ alone saves us from our sins.
The second word of Our Lord was to the good thief. At first he blasphemed Our Lord, but then, hearing the word of forgiveness and seeing the loveliness of His Mother, he responded to grace and envisaged his punishment as the “just reward of our crimes.” The sight of the Man on the central Cross obeying the Father’s will inspired him to accept his cross as God’s will, and with it came a cry for pardon. Our Lord answered: “This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise.”
That beautiful acceptance of his sufferings in expiation for sin reminded Mary of her word to the Angel. When she was told that she was to become the Mother of Him Whom the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah described as the “one struck by God and afflicted,” she pronounced her second word: Fiat. “Be it done unto me according to thy word.” Nothing matters in all the universe except the doing of God’s will, even though it brings a cross to a thief and a dolor to her at the foot of the Cross. Mary’s Fiat was one of the great Fiats of the universe: one made light, another accepted the Fathers will in the Garden, and hers accepted a life of selfless fellowship with the Cross.
The Heart of Jesus and the Heart of Mary were made one on Calvary in this obedience to the Father’s will. Everyone in the world has a cross, but no two crosses are identical. Our Lord’s was the Cross of redemption for the sins of the world; Our Lady’s was lifelong union with that Cross; and the thief’s was the patience on a cross as the prelude to the crown. Our will is the only thing that is absolutely our own; hence it is the perfect offering we can make to God.
Our Lord’s first word was to executioners, His second to sinners, and His third to His Mother and St. John. It is a word of salutation, and yet one that completely altered all human relations. He calls His Own Mother “Woman,” and John her “son”: “Woman, behold thy son. Son, behold thy Mother.” It was the command to all humanity who would follow Him to see His Mother as their own Mother. He had given up everything else; now He would give her up, as well, but of course He would find her again, mothering His Mystical Body.
Mary’s third word, too, was a salutation. We do not know exactly what she said except that she saluted and greeted her cousin Elizabeth. In this scene too, there was another John — John the Baptist — and even he proclaimed Mary as his mother. With John leaping with joy within her body, Elizabeth spoke for him and addressed Mary as the “Mother of God.” Two unborn children established a relationship before either was born. As Jesus on the Cross pronounced His Word, Mary was thinking of hers. In the Visitation she was bringing Christ’s influence before He was born, because she was destined at the Cross to be the mother of all who would be born. His birth cost her no sorrow, but this birth of John and the millions of us at the foot of the Cross brought her such agony as to merit her the title “Queen of Martyrs.” It cost Jesus His Mother to make her our mother; it cost Mary her Divine Son to make us her sons. It was a poor exchange, but she believes it worth it.
The fourth word of Mary was her Magnificat, and the fourth word of Our Lord was taken from Psalm Twenty-One, which begins with sadness — “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” — but ends with somewhat the same note as the Song of Mary — “The poor shall eat and be filled; all the ends of the earth shall remember and adore in His sight.” Both songs were spoken before there was assurance of victory. How hopeless from a human point of view for a woman to look down the corridors of time and prophesy that “all generations would call me blessed.” How hopeless, from a human point of view, was the prospect of Our Lord, now crying out to His Father in darkness, of ever exercising dominion over the earth that now rejected Him. To both Jesus and Mary, there are treasures in darkness — one in the darkness of a woman, the other in the darkness of a hill. Only those who walk in darkness ever see the stars.
The fifth word of Mary was pronounced at the end of a quest: “My Son! Why hast thou treated us so? Think what anguish of mind Thy father and I have endured searching for Thee.” Mary’s fifth word was that of creatures in the quest of God. Our Lord’s fifth word was that of the Creator in the quest of man: “I thirst.” This was not a thirst for earthly waters but a thirst for souls. Mary’s word sums up the aspiration of every soul toward Christ, and His words sum up her Divine Son’s affection toward every soul. There is only one thing in the world that can prevent each finding the other, and that is the human will. We must will to find God; otherwise He will always seem to be the Hidden God.
Mary’s sixth word was a simple prayer: “They have no wine” — words that prompted Our Lord to work His first miracle and begin His royal road to the Cross. After Our Lord on the Cross had tasted the wine given to Him by the soldier, He said: “It is finished.” That “hour” which Mary began at Cana when He changed water into wine is now finished as the wine of His life is changed into the blood of sacrifice. At Cana, Mary sent her Son to the Cross; on Calvary, her Son now declares He has finished His work of redemption. Mary’s Immaculate Heart was the living altar stone on which the Sacred Heart is offered; Mary knew that the sons of men could never be saved without offering the Son of God!
Mary’s last recorded word in Scripture is abandonment to the will of God: “Do whatever He tells you” (Jn 2:5). At the Transfiguration the Heavenly Father spoke, saying: “This is My beloved Son — Hear ye Him.” Now Mary speaks His valedictory, “Do His will.” The last word of Jesus on the Cross was the free surrender of His life to His Father’s will: “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit.” Mary surrenders to Jesus, and Jesus to His Father. To do God’s will until death, that is the inner heart of all holiness. And here Jesus teaches us how to die, for if He would have His Mother with Him in the hour of His great surrender, then how shall we dare to miss saying daily: “Pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death. Amen”?
Catholic Mariology is compatible with the Bible, -- Rev. 12 for example, is easier to understand with the doctrine of Assumption than without it. However, the Church does not derive doctrines from the Bible anyway: she derives the doctrines from the Sacred Deposit of faith given the Church beginning with the apostles. Both the scripture and magisterial teaching proceed from that source.
I spent part of today reading the Pope’s statement creating a feast day for Mary.
based on that example, the “Sacred Deposit of faith” seems to consist of all the writings of all the ‘saints’, which are then cherry-picked to support what you want to do.
I do not doubt the Catholic Church doesn’t derive doctrine from scripture...instead, it decides which doctrine it wants, and then twists scripture interpretation to support it.
For example, I just recently learned that in 325 AD, it was determined when Easter would be celebrated, and made a matter of the faith. And the decision wasn’t at Passover (when the resurrection occurred), but on the ridiculous formula used today.
That may be the Sacred Deposit of the Faith (hard to say, since no one has ever published what is or is not in that deposit), but it is foolishness - doctrine made up by men for political purposes. Rome then foisted it upon the world.
By 325 AD, the “Church” was paying attention to all wrong things for the wrong reasons. That is why scripture is so important.
While it is possible for texts to be distorted, the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.
That is a far more trustworthy source than a Pope in 1950 citing art examples, and various statements from men who obviously didn’t care a whit about what the Apostles said.
I completely agree but our Orthodox bothers and sisters do not view the book of revelations as useful
Again, you are right Alex. However, there is no evidence of any awareness of such Deposit from the writings of the early Church. It seems that it took centuries before the Church "figured out" what she believed in. And if doctrine is not derived from the scripture, that flies in the face of what the scripture says about scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16), and especially when Catholics use scripture to justify doctrine/dogma (i.e. papal supremacy with Matthew 16, etc).
Unfortunately, that's pretty much how it comes across. But that's no different than the Bible. It's very authority is presupposed and then cherry-picked to support whatever form of Christianity you wish to follow. Traditional heresies all used the Bible as their source.
I do not doubt the Catholic Church doesn’t derive doctrine from scripture...instead, it decides which doctrine it wants, and then twists scripture interpretation to support it.
But so do the Protestants.
For example, I just recently learned that in 325 AD, it was determined when Easter would be celebrated, and made a matter of the faith. And the decision wasn’t at Passover (when the resurrection occurred), but on the ridiculous formula used today.
It was decided that the day will be the day of Resurrection, Sunday. According to the Greek understanding of the Greek scriptures back then, Christ resurrected Sunday morning (even if it was Saturday evening, the next day begins at sunset, not at sunrise).
This was also done to differentiate the Judaizers who followed the Jewish calendar and also to have uniformity of worship. It was not made a "matter of faith" but a matter of Church canon and liturgy, since many if not most orthodox Christians celebrated Sunday as the day of resurrection, the Lord's Day, the Christian "Sabbath.". And, the decision was considered sacred because the Council of AD 325 was an ecumenical council whose decisions are believed to be are guided by the Holy Spirit.
Heave you ever heard that reason or excuse (depends how you look at it) before? I have—every time I ask a Protestant how does he or she know that what is in the Bible is true! It seems a little disingenuous for someone who uses the same "authority" in his private interpretation of the Bible, or even to justify the authority of the Bible by it, while mocking the Church for using the same.
But I would agree that any such arrogated authority by anyone can appear as ridiculous.
That may be the Sacred Deposit of the Faith (hard to say, since no one has ever published what is or is not in that deposit), but it is foolishness - doctrine made up by men for political purposes. Rome then foisted it upon the world.
Then why not the scriptures? Are they not something men collected as their choice and then claimed it was God's own word, but other books weren't? The Protestant foist their own doctrines derived from a book they consider and call holy or sacred, and claim the same dubious authority for their righteousness.
While it is possible for texts to be distorted, the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.
Nothing could be farther form the truth. I suggest you diversify your research and consult other scholars, such as Robert M. Grant, for example. besides, your statement is only partial truth because the oldest texts also contained other texts. Another consideration is the use of oral rather than written tradition up until and including Irenaeus (end of 2d, beginning 3rd century), or the observation by scholars that even apostolic fathers such as Ignatius make a better case for Montanism than orthodoxy.
That's only part of it, but you are right, of course. The Orthodox also do not see the original sin as you see it (in Augustinian terms) and that has a lot do to with divergent Catholic and Orthodox Mariology. To the Orthodox, she is a saint above saints (Panagia) but not a Queen of Heaven or Co-Redemptrix.
With regard to the Bible, I know my answer won’t satisfy you, but it satisfies me...Jesus said his sheep would know his voice. When I read the scriptures, I have confidence it is the Word of God. I’ve read the Apocrypha, and some of the NT Apocryphal books - I don’t have any confidence in them.
I realize that is a matter of faith, not logic. Most of my beliefs cannot be proven by logic, and that doesn’t bother me. I think we can only know God by revelation. If my mind was great enough to logic itself to an understanding, I would assume that understanding was wrong - I know my limitations, and I’m not 0.001% big enough to comprehend God.
I don’t think my faith is UNreasonable, but that is quite different from believing it can be proven.
And while I am glad to discuss what I believe with you, I don’t expect or try to prove it to you - we’ve discussed this long enough for you to know that by now. I am responsible for how I live my life, and you are responsible for kosta50.
Of course, someone can do that with the “Sacred Deposit of Faith” too, but I don’t even see where anyone has ever said what was IN that deposit.
As for Protestants twisting scripture - of course we do. All I can claim is that I’m willing to be untwisted, if shown where wrong. And I have done that often in my life.
It is very hard to come to any writing or tradition and not rewrite it in one’s mind based on one’s own experiences. When studying, that is the goal one shoots for, and often misses. Protestants view the study of scripture, not as ‘I’ve got the truth’, but as ‘I’m heading towards the truth’. Scriptures lead us to God, but they are not God Himself.
If Catholics would say, “We’ll believe what we wish, regardless of scripture”, I’d disagree - but at least that would be consistent. It is the claim that their traditions - some dating back a hundred years - match scripture perfectly that drives me nuts.
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.