Mary Was Just A Woman

[apothanein kerdos]

Assissi, again, I'm waiting. Why did the fathers appeal solely to scripture and not to tradition if the two are equal? You did not answer that in your rambling.

Maybe you forget that the idea of "apostolistic tradition" comes from the gnostics, and this was countered by scripture with the early apologists. 

It takes an understanding of the original languages, history, context, and the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture...not the RCC. The RCC has been wrong many times and continues to hold doctrines that contradict scripture. Yes, tradition and scripture can be equally important, however when the two conflict we must inherently turn to scripture as the early church fathers did. One can say, "Yes, this is a doctrine of the apostles" yet if it does not match up with the Bible then that person is a liar. At least, that's how the early church treated the issue. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please do not skip over what i have provided here. The protestant Historical Scholars were correct when they say that the church tradition determines the canon,and furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 60

And

If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of .Early Christian Doctrines page 47-4

The Fathers applied Tradition as a rule to interpret Scripture. The only ancient teachers who interpreted Scripture apart from Tradition were the early heretics.

Marcion was a Gnostic appealed exclusively to the Scripture and rejected tradition. Eusebius preserves this citation which describes the behavior of those who follow Theodotus,

"They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of the ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it."

Gnostic relied on Scripture alone and rejected the tradition of the Church. Tertullian of Carthage discovered the futility of interpreting Scripture outside of the framework of the Church and her Tradition. Tertullian writes:

"Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: 'With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions."

Prescription Against the Heretics, 19

Church History, V:28:13

St. Athanasius makes the same claim regarding the Arians. According to St. Athanasius the Arians read Scripture according to their own private lights and rejected the traditions of the Church. This is a recurring theme in the writings of the Church Fathers. According to Athanasius, the Arians' rejection of the Church tradition resulted in their divisions and heresy:

"The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, 'ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you' (1 Cor. xi. 2); but they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: 'We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you, when you hold not their traditions.' And let them go on to accuse their own unfortunate birth, and say, 'We are sprung not of religious men but of heretics.' For such language, as I said before, is consistent in those who barter their Fathers' fame and their own salvation for Arianism, and fear not the words of the divine proverb, 'There is a generation that curseth their father' (Prov. xxx. 11; Ex. xxi. 17), and the threat lying in the Law against such. They then, from zeal for the heresy, are of this obstinate temper; you, however, be not troubled at it, nor take their audacity for truth. For they dissent from each other, and, whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant changes."

De Synodis,14

St. Basil of Ceasarea observes the same fatal flaw in those who rejected the deity of the Holy Spirit - the Pneumatomachianiststhe Spirit fighters. St. Basil writes:

"It is against us, they say, that they are preparing their engines and their snares; against us that they are shouting to one another, according to each one's strength or cunning, to come on. But the object of attack is faith. The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of 'sound doctrine' is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors,--of course bona fide debtors.--they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers."

Holy Spirit,10:25

This is as clear as you can get contrasting the rule of faith between Catholics and heretics. The Pneumatomachianists, like the Arians and Gnostics, appealed to the Scriptures alone and rejected the tradition of the Church!

Here is a good example for Protestants to read since they continue to defend Scriptue alone.

St. Augustine finds the wayward principle in the Pelagians and Arians. Pelagius expresses himself as follows: "What we read, therefore, let us believe; and what we do not read, let us deem it wicked to add; and let it suffice to have said this of all cases."

Nature and Grace,46[39]

In other words, Pelagius would only admit what is read within the pages of Holy Writ; hence, like the heretics before him rejected tradition. In the latter part of St. Augustine's life, St. Augustine was involved in an oral debate with an Arian bishop - Maximinus. Maximinus proclaims at the very start of the exchange:

"I did not come to this city in order to stage a debate with Your Holiness. Rather, I am here, sent by Count Segisvult with a view to peace ... If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstances accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts (Mt 15:9)"Debate with Maximinus,1

In other words, Maximinus rejected all traditional monuments such as Nicea and would only accept what was found in Scripture. Coincidentally, Maximinus appealed to 1 Tim 3:16 in defense of his Bible-only mentality:

"All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). For that reason, not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away (Mt 24:35)."

Debate with Maximinus,15:16

Elsewhere, Maximinus continues to denigrate the authority of tradition and the deity of Christ:

"Even if one produces from testimonies from the divine scriptures all day long, it will not be truly counted against one as wordiness. But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle and superfluous."

Debate with Maximinus,13

Time and time again, Maximinus criticizes the traditional monuments such as Trinity and homoousios! Later, Maximinus challenges St. Augustine to defend the deity of the Holy Spirit's on the basis of the Scriptures-alone:

"The truth is not obtained by argumentation, but is proved by certain [scriptural] testimonies. For this reason you ought to produce [scriptural] testimonies that the Holy Spirit is God."

Debate with Maximinus,15:21

This is about as obvious as it can get

The heretic appeal to scripture and the Catholics tradition to correct the false interpretation of thes heretics.

The arch-heretic Eutyches affirmed after the Incarnation that Christ possessed only one nature not two - the divine and human nature. The Council of Chalcedon writes:

"He[Eutyches] said that he was ready to receive the decrees of the holy fathers assembled in the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, and promises to subscribe to their definitions. But if in their declarations anything by chance should be found either unsound or false, he says that he will neither reject or approve of it: but search the scripture alone as being more solid than all the decrees of the fathers."

Council of Chalcedon, Act 1

Here we find Luther all over again! What could be more different than Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Arianism, Eutychianism and Pneumatomachianism? Yet, we find the formal principle of sola scriptura applied across these early heresies. The early testimony is clear - if one fails to interpret Scripture within the milieu of Tradition and replace it with a private reading of Scripture than one can come up with about anything.

Rufinus,Church History, 2:9 gives us The Antidote

"Putting aside all Greek literature, they[st. Basil and St. Gregory] are said to have passed thirteen years together in studying the Scriptures alone, and followed out their sense, not from their private opinions, but by the writings and authority of the Fathers."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before you plagarize someone (this is the 5th time now) maybe you should take a moment to understand what they, and the people they are quoting, are saying.

First off, yes, certain Greeks did appeal to scripture (though it was much later, more around the 2nd and 3rd century) to back up heretical beliefs. However, most of the time the "scriptures" they appealed to were Gnostic gospels. When they did actually appeal to scripture they went against "Traditional interpretation". Now, what does this mean? Is this the tradition you speak of as well as the Roman Catholic Church? Not at all. The tradition in interpretation was looking at the scripture within context and understanding what it meant. While there were certain discrepensies and certain things that Bishops would disagree on, the basic foundation of scripture was agreed on as a whole (as it is today). The Gnostics, however, went against the basic beliefs of the Bible, the "tradition" of what was believed to be acceptable by the masses (again, as it is today). The early fathers were not talking about the tradition that the RCC has twisted but instead tradition based upon scripture. Ultimately all tradition is based upon the Holy Scriptures. YOu can say that tradition created the New Testament, but did you know the number one test to see if a book was supposed to be in the New Testament was if it matched up or at least did not contradict the Old TEstament? Scripture was justified by other scripture.

Now again, you failed to answer the question. Why did the apologist of the first and second century appeal solely to scripture? You attempt to use Tertullian as justification that the early church fathers didn't use scripture in the defense of the faith. Bad move on your part. The reason for this is that Tertullian later joined the cult of Montanism In this they believed in special revelations. In fact, when Ireneaus ran across this cult, he believed it was the final straw, and began to write Adversus Haereses in which he appealed solely to scripture to defend the Catholic position.

So, again, why did the early church fathers (at least the ones that didn't run off and join cults) appeal solely to scripture?

The fact is, when tradition and scripture conflict each other, which one do you go with? The answer, according to the early church fathers, is scripture. The RCC's traditions violate scripture.

[apothanein kerdos]

Marcion did rely on certain scriptures...that he actually helped write himself. THe Gospel of Luke (the only Gospel he used) he also added versea and took away verses, while changing others to fit his gnostic belief. He did the exact same with the Pauline Epistles. The reason for this is that he believed it was proper tradition.

You cannot get around thef act that early gnostics relied on tradition and tradition alone. It was, ironiically enough, the Church that used sola scriptura in the defense of these claims.

[Fiosh]

"IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF EVERY CHRISTIAN TO PRAY AGAINST ANTICHRIST, AND AS TO WHAT ANTICHRIST IS, NO SANE MAN OUGHT TO RAISE A QUESTION.

[Assisi]

Marcion did rely on certain scriptures...that he actually helped write himself. THe Gospel of Luke (the only Gospel he used) he also added versea and took away verses, while changing others to fit his gnostic belief. He did the exact same with the Pauline Epistles. The reason for this is that he believed it was proper tradition.

You cannot get around thef act that early gnostics relied on tradition and tradition alone. It was, ironiically enough, the Church that used sola scriptura in the defense of these claims.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need To understand Apostolic tradition before i can reason any further with you. It is now 30 AD. Jesus is beginning His ministry and choosing His disciples. The Jewish people in Palestine have the Torah, or the Law of Moses, the collected works of the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, or the remaining books of the Old Testament. This collection includes the Deuterocanonical books of the Greek Septuagint, including Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, etc. Also circulating are Jewish apocrypha such as the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch, which, while not considered Scripture, are familiar to Jews and are looked upon as didactic texts which are okay to read for informational purposes.

Jesus condemns the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders for neglecting the Jewish Scriptures and the Law in favor of thier own man-made traditions, because in doing so, they are neglecting the spirit of the Law and why it was written in the first place: love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Instead of doing this, the Pharisees think you can dislike whomever you want, and so long as you keep your animal sacrifices going and drop some more money in the pot, you're good to go.

This is corrupt Pharisaic tradition, which Jesus rightly condemns. He is not condemning all tradition, however; and He is certainly not condemning Christian tradition, because Christian tradition is still in the process of being formed.

Jesus travels around with His disciples for three years, teaching them everything that He has to say. All this stuff is stored up in their minds. Finally, the day comes that He has to leave, but He promises that when He does, the Holy Spirit will come and remind them of everything He has told them.

Now it's 33 AD. Jesus ascends to Heaven, and the Holy Spirit descends at Pentecost. The Apostles are enabled to remember everything that Jesus has taught them. This collective rememberance of His teachings constitutes Apostolic Tradition, and is the main body of the Deposit of the Christian Faith. There is no Christian Bible. It has not been written yet. There are no epistles, there are no Gospels, there are no Christian writings of any kind. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. The Apostles spread Jesus teachings by word of mouth. People remember what the Apostles have taught them and repeat it orally, much like the oral bardic systems in northern Europe.

Within forty years, people have asked for written accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, and the four evangelists have complied, writing the four Gospels. When disputes have arisen in the various churches begun by the Apostles, the Apostles have written letters to them to explain and teach, thus creating the epistles. These Christian Scriptures are addressed to people who already know the fullness of the Christian Faith, not to those who need to be converted.

As time goes on, these Apostolic writings are copied and passed around to various churches. Already knowing the oral teachings which they received first (Apostolic Tradition), the people in these churches naturally enough understand these writings in light of that primary oral source. Some churches have copies of some Christian books, but not others. It takes about three hundred years for the full collection to be gathered and sorted out---some books, such as the Gosple of Peter and the Acts of Pontius Pilate are rejected, while other books, such as the Gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles are retained.

Why?

It's because all these books are examined by the bishops of the Church in light of the original, oral Tradition which came from the Apostles. If a book is in agreement with what the Apostles passed down by world of mouth, it is kept; if a book does not agree, it is rejected. And thus, a conformity of the Christian Scriptures is reached, and by the end of the fourth century, we have the collected 27 books of the New Testament. Put together with the collected books of the Jewish Scriptures, you have "The Bible".

But the oral Tradition came first; the Scriptures are simply that part of Tradition which managed to get written down. Put together, they form the Deposit of the Faith, which the Catholic Church is based upon.

Thus you can see that the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church is not the same thing as "man-made tradition"; Apostolic Tradition is made up of the words of Jesus Himself, His teachings which He told the Apostles first-hand. They in turn passed those teachings on to their followers, and eventually some of them got written down. But not all of them. Even John himself said that not everything Jesus said was written down. Many of the collected teachings of the Apostles remain, even to this day, in an oral form that is passed down from generation to generation, although naturally enough, over the last 2,000 years most of it has been written down in various documents of the Church; but it can be traced back to those original oral teachings. Many teachings of the Church can be found alluded to in the Patristic writings of the Church Fathers, who say things like "This is the Tradition that came from the Apostles, which we received and have preserved and passed on."

This is why Protestant Scholars Philip Schaff, and

J.N.D. Kelly tell us If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

This is logical if a heritic misinterprets something in the Bible the Church falls back on tradition to those original oral teachings. Hopefully after reading the above you will understand. You cannot go to scripture if they conflict because the Church was given the original deposit of faith and has the key to true interpretation as Protestant historical scholars tell us.

[Assisi]

Assissi,

Apostolic tradition. doctrines, dogmas...you have a wonderful grasp on all that(or maybe the apologist you quote).

Now, tell me about Jesus. You have said the pope is head of the church,the priest hears the confession, Mary intercedes for grace...what position is left for the Lord Jesus Christ?

Can you tell me the role of Jesus in your life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus gives me Knowledge so I can see through the futility of passing things and keep my eyes on the invisible reality. To feed my soul with His word, He gives me Understanding so I may pray without ceasing and trust without doubt. And then, as if to seal all these gifts so they are not lost, He gives me Wisdom, that ever growing awareness of His Presence within me and around me. To be a Christian is to have a special vocation. Paul told the first Christians, "Lead a life worthy of your vocation. Bear with one another charitably, in complete selflessness, gentleness and patience. Do all you can to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together." (Eph. 4:1-4) My thoughts, opinions, goals and desires should radiate the Spirit of Jesus. I must be vigilant over my senses and ever keep His Will before me that I may "grow strong in the Lord with the strength of His power." (Eph. 6:10)

[halifaxchristian]

"IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF EVERY CHRISTIAN TO PRAY AGAINST ANTICHRIST, AND AS TO WHAT ANTICHRIST IS, NO SANE MAN OUGHT TO RAISE A QUESTION.

[Assisi]

Well Assisi, I would defend my tradition in the same way, particularly from those kind of baseless accusations. However, Buddhism and Hinduism have been around as long as the Roman Catholic Church, longevity is not an argument for Christian truth.

I think the phobia over differences is what causes some of these problems, and also a cultural history, which we now parrot and don't even recognize where these arguments come from. I certainly don't agree with the Catholic Church on some relatively large issues, but I also recognize that the New Testament itself was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church, and if the Holy Spirit guided the Church to decide which books were to be part of the New Testament and which were not, then it cannot be of Satan.

I think the current Pope, views the Catholic Church as the

[Guest Gladiator4God]

read it in context... does it say she she brings salvation?

967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will,

[JohnS]

Assissi,

Apostolic tradition. doctrines, dogmas...you have a wonderful grasp on all that(or maybe the apologist you quote).

Now, tell me about Jesus. You have said the pope is head of the church,the priest hears the confession, Mary intercedes for grace...what position is left for the Lord Jesus Christ?

Can you tell me the role of Jesus in your life?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus gives me Knowledge so I can see through the futility of passing things and keep my eyes on the invisible reality. To feed my soul with His word, He gives me Understanding so I may pray without ceasing and trust without doubt. And then, as if to seal all these gifts so they are not lost, He gives me Wisdom, that ever growing awareness of His Presence within me and around me. To be a Christian is to have a special vocation. Paul told the first Christians, "Lead a life worthy of your vocation. Bear with one another charitably, in complete selflessness, gentleness and patience. Do all you can to preserve the unity of the Spirit by the peace that binds you together." (Eph. 4:1-4) My thoughts, opinions, goals and desires should radiate the Spirit of Jesus. I must be vigilant over my senses and ever keep His Will before me that I may "grow strong in the Lord with the strength of His power." (Eph. 6:10)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you, Mother M. Angelica

Are there any words in your posts on this forum that you haven't cut and pasted?

[halifaxchristian]

From Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, vol. iv. p.90, still taught in Catholic Seminaries:

"Though heretics, Protestants must not be tolerated because they deserve it, we MUST BEAR WITH THEM till, by the second admonition, they may be brought back to the faith of the Church (of Rome). But those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate to their error's, must not only be excommunicated, but they must be DELIVERED TO THE SECULAR POWER TO BE EXTERMINATED."

A quote from Charles Chinquay in 1888, former Catholic priest:

"Modern Protestants have not only FORGOTTEN WHAT ROME WAS, what she IS, and what she WILL FOREVER BE: the most irreconcilable and powerful ENEMY OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST; but they consider her almost as a branch of the Church whose cornerstone is Christ."

From the Book of Revelations, Authorised King James Version of 1611:

"And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the Woman drunken with the blood of the saints...and when I saw her, I WONDERED WITH GREAT ADMIRATION. And the angel said unto me, WHEREFORE DIDST THOU MARVEL? I will tell thee the MYSTERY OF THE WOMAN...Here is the mind which hath WISDOM. The seven heads are SEVEN MOUNTAINS ON WHICH THE WOMAN SITTETH."

Edited July 28, 2005 by halifaxchristian