|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 28, 2005 15:25:50 GMT -5
Is the Bible the sole authority in determining belief, tradition, and other things?
To me, it has to be. I will expand later on if I can.
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 28, 2005 17:36:40 GMT -5
This is really a difficult question to answer for several reasons. Certainly the Bible is unique within the special revelation of God, being, in its original documents, the very word of God in written form. It is arguable, however, that the Bible is not necessarily the only corpus of authoritative information that we as Christians possess. Most traditions, although this may surprise many evangelical protestants, do believe that scripture is the ultimate authority and speaks with finality on all that which it addresses. The question, of course, is does it address "all"? Clearly, the church functioned for some time after the first Pentecost with only the Tanakh, or LXX, as its "canon". Although there were documents that ultimately were accepted as canonical in circulation among the churches early, it was the 4th c. A.D. before the canon of scripture (comprised of the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments) was recognized with general unanimity. One should also recognize that the "canon" of scripture at this time contained the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, although it is generally agreed upon that these do not possess the same authoritative status as the rest of the scripture. Nevertheless, they were considered of benefit to the reader, if not the ipsissimi verbi of God. Controversies concerning several books of the New Testament, such as Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, were still apparent at the time of the Reformation, although they were later accepted among Protestants. But prior to the "finalization" of the canon, how and with what authority were decisions made? We see the exercise of Apostolic authority both in the decision to select Matthias to replace Judas among the Apostles, and the decision of the Jerusalem Council (as noted in Acts and Paul's epistle to the Galatians) to recognize Paul's ministry and determine the manner in which believiing Gentiles would be incorporated into the then largely Jewish church. Of special interest was the leadership of James at the council (who appeared to be viewed in a position that might be referred to as "bishop", having watch-care over Jerusalem), and its authoritative declaration stating "...it seemed good to us, having become of one mind..." (Acts 15:25), and "...it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28). Was this ability to make authoritative decisions only given to the Twelve and Paul? That would seem unlikely, since the preceding context had said, "...it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church..." (Acts 15:22). This seems to be the pattern follows by subsequent Ecumenical Councils, in which such commonly accepted authoritative teachings as the Trinity, the nature of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man, "in two natures, without mixture and without change, without separation and without division." This would seem consistent with the promise of Jesus Christ to the Apostles that when He was resurrected, He would send the Holy Spirit to "guide [them] into all truth." Holy Scripture was produced by the agency of the people of God as guided by the Holy Spirit. The canon of the New Testament was established by the church largely by common practice and by authoritative declaration when the heretic Marcion atttempted to develop his own "canon" of Scripture, which was decidedly edited, having only one gospel (Luke) and several Paulline epistles. Even at this time, however, there was disagreement concerning the canon. To say that the church simply "recognized" the inspired word of God does not do justice to the historical evidence. In addition, there have been areas of faith and practice generally accepted by the church that are not fully addressed or finally defined in Holy Scripture. For example, the church followed a pattern of worship which was never fully elucidated in the Holy Scriptures, but was a part of tradition, often referred to by the ancient churches as Holy Tradition. Protestants often come from a more severe viewpoint, that of the "regulative principle", as it is referred to among Reformed Theologians, which assumes that anything not proscribed by the Bible as a pattern for worship should not be utilized. But it must be admitted that the New Testament is sketchy at best concerning a "pattern" of worship. I would argue, in fact, that the New Testament was never intended to be a manual of worship, simply because it was unnecessary. There had already been a pattern of worship followed among God's people, which, with some changes, was largely adopted by the church. But how, then, are we to approach the pattern of worship (often referred to as liturgy)? Are we truly limited to only those things which are hinted at in the New Testament (many of whose instructions were written to correct abuses, not establish a new pattern), or do we have freedom in all areas that the Bible does not appear to proscribe? "Sola Scriptura" essentially says that Holy Scripture (those writing identified as the very word, i.e. the ipsissimi verbi, of God) are the only, finally authoritative guide of faith and practice. No Christian tradition disputes the finality of this authority. But Paul himself spoke in his first letter to the church at Thessalonica, of a paradosis, or "tradition" handed down to him. He spoke to Timothy of "guarding the deposit" that had been given him. Undoubtedly, the liturgical practice of the church could be considered part of that "deposit". The history of the church, even that included within the pages of the New Testament, indicates a church functioning with authority prior to the finalization of the canon. And traditionally, we have looked to the church for authoritative guidance concerning the interpretation of Holy Scripture. So seeing Holy Scripture as a final authority to which we may all turn is unarguable. But the church was also built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the cornerstone, and Jesus Christ promised that He would be with the church "even to the end of the age." So it would seem at best inconsistent to argue that the canon, which came through the agency of God's people, was recognized authoritatively by the church, and whose foundational doctrines were defined by the church, is the ONLY authority. God bless and keep you all, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 28, 2005 19:50:21 GMT -5
You bring up many good points. I especially like the final paragraph. In recent months during some of time thinking I wondered how the early Church functioned without the Bible, yet we rely so heavily on it. I think this is why worship back then was so organic, and why they, the apostles, could feel the presence of the Lord much more than we can.
Besides that I agree, and disagree. I think that tradition is good to a point. The point at which tradition become rituals and you only do it to do it is where I think the cut off point it. Though, I think tradition and remembrance is a very important thing, and I think that is where Protestants have lost touch with what God has done for us in the past.
It is agreeable that many things related to worship are sketchy in the NT. I do not only consider songs or music worship, but any acts unto God. I also do not classify music into Praise or Worship. I am not sure if anyone here does that, but I just wanted to state that I do not do that.
I am not sure how to explain my problem. I will try later to put it into words.
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Mar 29, 2005 23:15:15 GMT -5
Matthew, Thank you so much for that wonderful depiction of the early church! There is so much about the history of the Bible and Biblical times that I don't know; I always enjoy learning more. Alejandro, Something one of my pastors said to me once was that not only do we need to look at "the letter of the law" or exactly what the Bible says; we also need to look at "the spirit of the law" or what would be consistent with what the Bible says. I guess our modern way of looking at the spirit of the law can be found in the slogan, "What would Jesus do?" For example, I don't believe that the Bible deals directly with child molestation, however, we know, by His words and actions concerning children, that Jesus would not have tolerated such a thing. So is the Bible the final authority on dealing with child molestation or not? I agree to a point with you on this one. If one were to only perform a ritual for the sake of doing it, without thought or reason, isn't a good thing. However, I find comfort in ritual, for example praying at night before going to bed. (But I am very much a creature of habit. LOL) I get the feeling that some of the rituals you had in mind were things like praying the rosary, or possibly liturgical statements and responses such as, "This is the Word of the Lord." "Thanks be to God." I'm a Methodist and while we aren't as ritualistic as the Roman Catholic church, we do have a fair amount of ritual in our services. I can honestly say that responding with, "Thanks be to God," is pretty much an automatic thing, but it's also something that I say to show that I have not simply heard words, but the Word of God. Kind of like ending a prayer with Amen or a phone call with good-bye. But this is ritual that I find comforting. As for the rosary, I'm sure there are some who could pray it simply out of habit, but I would also guess that if someone felt so ambivilent toward praying the rosary, they most likely wouldn't even bother to pray it in the first place. Either that, or they are in a time so stressful that they are praying the rosary for comfort and to take their mind away from the cause of the stress. I think I can say without fully knowing that my best friend, who is Catholic, places a lot of importance on every word she says in prayer and that when she prays the rosary, it's more than simply repeating familiar words. I guess what I'm trying to say is that some people need ritual and some don't. I remember when I was "saved" someone telling me that from that point forward I should start my prayers by saying, "Dear Heavenly Father..." and end them with "in Jesus name, amen." Thirty-five years later, I'm still saying those words, or a slight variation of them, every time I pray. I suppose this could be called habit or ritual, I call it comfort. Melinda
|
|
|
Post by Alejandro on Mar 30, 2005 19:59:14 GMT -5
I am not one to judge you or your method of prayer. That said, I believe that there has to be heart in what you are communicating to God.
WWJD...*sigh*. Though this slogan has become somewhat of a cliche to me, I think that it is very important to act as Jesus would. If we are to call Jesus Love, then he should act accordingly. Though I am not sure where, if at all, child molestation is explored in the Bible, I can be assured (hopefully you too) that child molestation is not something that comes out of Love, but out of lust.
I am not sure how I stand on the Bible. On the one hand, I think it is a very useful tool, and is something that a Christian should know, that is, if it going to be our Sword of Truth. And on the other hand, we need to recognise that in this text, that not everything can be covered. But, just because something is not covered in the Bible, I could hardly follow someone else's tradition.
God bless you, Alejandro
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Mar 30, 2005 23:52:28 GMT -5
I am not one to judge you or your method of prayer. That said, I believe that there has to be heart in what you are communicating to God. I couldn't agree more! Melinda
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 27, 2005 18:44:46 GMT -5
In recent months during some of time thinking I wondered how the early Church functioned without the Bible, yet we rely so heavily on it. They did have the Bible. They had what is now called the old testament. This is what the Bereans searched as they came to the truth that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah to come. They also rapidly copied and disseminated the writings of the apostles and those close to them (like the synoptic gospels, James, Jude, etc). There were also other early epistles that had wide readership in the church like the didache and 1st Clement. Still excellent reading to this day. Peter had at least some of Paul's writings and referred to them as scripture. Paul also carried many manuscripts with him. What I wouldn't give to see what he kept with him! Anyhow, their writings were quickly copied and translated which is one of the things that helps biblical textual criticism so much today. Always the case as we begin to look at issues that are very long and complex as this one is. Have you read the other sections on Sola Scriptura on this board? It's vital to understand what it is and what it isn't. Protestants have not abandoned tradition, they just don't see it as infallible. But it's a long discussion... Yours in Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 27, 2005 19:50:04 GMT -5
"Sola Scriptura" essentially says that Holy Scripture (those writing identified as the very word, i.e. the ipsissimi verbi, of God) are the only, finally authoritative guide of faith and practice. No Christian tradition disputes the finality of this authority. Debatable. Please document one tradition that the apostles handed down that is held only in tradition and not in writing. Your "undoubtedly" has an army of unproven presuppositions standing behind it. Where is a single epistle that documents the methodology behind a service and states what apostle prescribed that liturgy? Especially one prescribing the current liturgies of Rome or Orthodoxy. Where is one epistle documenting that the apostles prescribed an episcopal system that was not described in the Bible? Scripture alone does provide us with an apostolically prescribed ecclesiology, but it provides little to no prescription on how a service is to be conducted. I have seen no early document that tries to document apostolic prescriptions for the liturgy. I contest that Episcopal ecclesiology developed due to historical circumstances and the liturgy developed as well. Neither reflect what was going on during the book of Acts. And who denies this? What presuppositions are you bringing into the term church? I have to presume currently you are imposing current Orthodox doctrine on the term here? If so please demonstrate Orthodox ecclesiology from the text, or please document the apostolic prescription that Orthodox ecclesiology is the mandated one. Historic confessional Protestants do this as well. Sad to say we have far too many lone guns around nowadays, but that's not that much differen from the early church. The early church fathers were all over the place. They looked to "official" teachings from synods for guidence on particularly thorny issues, but on lesser controversies they were all over the ball park. They should be commended, however, on not establishing a "new" church constantly like we do. The current state of things is both regrettable, but also good in that we can worship as our conscience before God dictates without having to break a genuine Christian bond. That's fine, but declaring these early synods as being infallible authorities needs to be demonstrated. For example, I do not venerate images. I fall under the anathema of the 7th Ecumenical Council. Am I infallibaly eternally condemned? " Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images." www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/7nice2/session1.htmI read the other night that there is one Sunday out of the year where the Orthodox celebrate this by anathematizing all who disagree. Again, now that you are serious about Orthodoxy what do you mean by "the church". No, it's not inconsistent. The canon preceded the church in the form of the OT because the Jews were the "keepers of the Oracles of God". The church was never without scripture. The writings of the apostles and the others eventually included in the canon preceded all formal ecclesiologies that later developed. They were not recognized "authoritatively" until the Council of Trent for Rome and later for Orthodoxy. The local synods such as Augustine's disagreed with the lists of many such as Jerome and Athenasius by listing certain apocrypha and those synods were never binding on the rest of the church that I know of. As they came together they did indeed seek to "recognize" documents that held apostolic authority and met a series of criteria. By surveying and debating what was in use across the Christian world they were indeed "recognizing" certain texts that predated the church according to very logical criterias. This was because certain herertics were creating their own Bibles and excluding well established epistles and books because they didn't like the content. Doctrine was not defined by the church, it was exegeted from scripture. Many in the early church were well practiced exegetes. The doctrines that were authoritatively defined later were important, but were all established on the basis of the authority of scripture AND what was believed to be the proper traditional teaching on the controversies involved. Those bodies had and still have no authority regarding the state of a persons soul. That's between that person and God. No group of people or person has or has had any authority to condemn anyone to hell [ever]. I will hold you accountable to every infallibal anathema of the Orthodox church just as I hold RCC's accountable. This is the heart and soul of the matter. Do councils of men hundreds and even thousands of years after the crucifiction of Christ have the authority to eternally condemn another soul for all eternity? Or are all such anathemas, as I contend, blatant additions to the gospel because now John 3:16 doesn't save. Only John 3:16 + not-running-aground-of-all-of-the-infallibal-pronouncements-of-men saves. Proper understanding of what Sola Scriptura says and doesn't say balances the absolute, infallable authority of scripture with the extraordinary importance of giving the traditions of the church their proper hearing. Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Apr 28, 2005 8:13:45 GMT -5
"Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images."... ...The doctrines that were authoritatively defined later were important, but were all established on the basis of the authority of scripture AND what was believed to be the proper traditional teaching on the controversies involved. Those bodies had and still have no authority regarding the state of a persons soul. That's between that person and God. No group of people or person has or has had any authority to condemn anyone to hell [ever]. Are curses, such as this, created by man or by God? Personally, I believe that only God can condemn a person. I also think it's rather presumptuous of any church, whether through it's doctrine or the beliefs of it's congregation, to condemn others who disagree with them. The only place I believe there is no room for disagreement is in the core belief of Christianity. (i.e. The triune nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit; Jesus was God on Earth; Jesus died for our sins; there is one way to the Father, through the Son, etc.) I also really don't think that any single denomination/tradition has the inside track on God, otherwise, Heaven would be a very empty place. So Ron, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or simply supporting your belief on this one, but I don't believe you are condemned. As for the rest, most of it's over my head, so I have no opinion on it and will be interested in reading the responses. Yours in Christ, Melinda
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 28, 2005 10:20:43 GMT -5
So Ron, I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or simply supporting your belief on this one, but I don't believe you are condemned. Thank you Melinda. I don't think you're anathema either if you happen to be uncomfortable with veneration of icons as well. As far as how complicated the issue is, it is and it isn't. A lot of complicated language can be thrown around, but if you can't agree with this statement from the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672) that was made a requirement for communion with Orthodox churches in 1721. catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.htmlDecree II ... " Wherefore, the witness also of the Catholic Church is, we believe, not of inferior authority to that of the Divine Scriptures. For one and the same Holy Spirit being the author of both, it is quite the same to be taught by the Scriptures and by the Catholic Church. Moreover, when any man speaketh from himself he is liable to err, and to deceive, and be deceived; but the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God — who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich — it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority." Yours In Christ, Ron P.S. - Did you happen to see my answer to your question on the use of "Rock" by Jesus? I wrote that well before I answered this question, but I believe what I wrote is an example of the proper use of refering to early church fathers with scripture as the final authority. soulfyremac.proboards27.com/index.cgi?board=controversies&action=display&thread=1114120432
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Apr 28, 2005 10:32:56 GMT -5
Thanks Ron!
So for the record:
If veneration is simply
I don't have any problem with veneration of icons. I suppose it could be said that I venerate a lot of religious art based on the above understanding.
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 28, 2005 11:11:10 GMT -5
It isn't quite confined to the dictionary term. The definitive definition that I am aware of is contained in the 7th Ecumenical Council: www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/7nice2/session1.htm" Theodosius, the humble Christian, to the holy and Ecumenical Synod: I confess and I agree to (<greek>suntiqemai</greek>) and I receive and I salute and I venerate in the first place the spotless image of our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, and the holy image of her who bore him without seed, the holy Mother of God, and her help and protection and intercessions each day and night as a sinner to my aid I call for, since she has confidence with Christ our God, as he was born of her. Likewise also I receive and venerate the images of the holy and most laudable Apostles, prophets, and martyrs and the fathers and cultivators of the desert. Not indeed as gods (God forbid!) do I ask all these with my whole heart to pray for me to God, that he may grant me through their intercessions to find mercy at his hands at the day of judgment, for in this I am but showing forth more clearly the affection and love of my soul which I have borne them from the first. Likewise also I venerate and honour and salute the reliques of the Saints as of those who fought for Christ and who have received grace from him for the healing of diseases and the curing of sicknesses and the casting out of devils, as the Christian Church has received from the holy Apostles and Fathers even down to us to-day.So included in veneration is also praying for the dead to pray for you and intercede directly to God on your behalf for mercy on judgement day. This also means that you belileve that the dead can hear the prayers of the saints on earth. Notice that Mary is prayed to daily for intercession because of her special relationship with Christ. This council eventually led to the RCC teaching that all graces come to us through Mary's mediation (hence her popular label of co-redemptrix). I amended my post before this one to include the co-equal claim of authority by the church for the church. It is not subordinated in their official dogmas to scripture which is why I said debatable to Matthew's post on the relationship between tradition and scripture. Both are co-equally infallible Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Apr 28, 2005 12:42:42 GMT -5
So included in veneration is also praying for the dead to pray for you and intercede directly to God on your behalf for mercy on judgement day. This also means that you belileve that the dead can hear the prayers of the saints on earth. Notice that Mary is prayed to daily for intercession because of her special relationship with Christ. This council eventually led to the RCC teaching that all graces come to us through Mary's mediation (hence her popular label of co-redemptrix). This might be what the RCC teaches, but I don't think it's always understood that way. The way my friend put it to me is that praying for Mary to pray for you is pretty much the same asking a friend to pray for you. Since I wasn't totally sure of how to word what I wrote above, I emailed my friend, who is also my closest faith partner, Julie, who was born and raised Catholic. Here is what she had to say about grace, the saints and Mary: I have another email out to another RCC friend and will add that response when I get it. Yours in Christ, Melinda
|
|
|
Post by rgrove on Apr 28, 2005 13:58:58 GMT -5
This is not the teaching of the RCC I'm afraid. It is a common misunderstanding, but it's simply not true. Catholic teaching is that all graces to mankind are mediated by Mary. Direct citations are: Papal Encyclical Iucunda Semper by Pope Leo XIII on the Rosary: www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13ro5.htm"... when He [the Father] has been invoked with excellent prayers, our humble voice turns to Mary; in accordance with no other law than that law of conciliation and petition which was expressed as follows by St. Bernardine of Siena : 'Every grace that is communicated to this world has a threefold course. For by excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us.'" He issued another Papal Encyclical as well called Adiutricum. Here is an extremely relevent excerpt from it: www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm8. The power thus put into her hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help as though impelled by an instinct of nature, confidently sharing with her their future hopes and past achievements, their sorrows and joys, commending themselves like children to the care of a bountiful mother. How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as "our Lady, our Mediatrix," "the Reparatrix of the whole world," "the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts."
9. Since faith is the foundation, the source, of the gifts of God by which man is raised above the order of nature and is endowed with the dispositions requisite for life eternal, we are in justice bound to recognize the hidden influence of Mary in obtaining the gift of faith and its salutary cultivation-of Mary who brought the "author of faith" into this world and who, because of her own great faith, was called "blessed.""O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee."The Papal Encyclical by Pope Pius X "Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum" on the Immaculate Conception: www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10imcon.htm12. Moreover it was not only the prerogative of the Most Holy Mother to have furnished the material of His flesh to the Only Son of God, Who was to be born with human members (S. Bede Ven. L. Iv. in Luc. xl.), of which material should be prepared the Victim for the salvation of men; but hers was also the office of tending and nourishing that Victim, and at the appointed time presenting Him for the sacrifice. Hence that uninterrupted community of life and labors of the Son and the Mother, so that of both might have been uttered the words of the Psalmist"My life is consumed in sorrow and my years in groans" (Ps xxx., 11). When the supreme hour of the Son came, beside the Cross of Jesus there stood Mary His Mother, not merely occupied in contemplating the cruel spectacle, but rejoicing that her Only Son was offered for the salvation of mankind, and so entirely participating in His Passion, that if it had been possible she would have gladly borne all the torments that her Son bore (S. Bonav. 1. Sent d. 48, ad Litt. dub. 4). And from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world (Eadmeri Mon. De Excellentia Virg. Mariae, c. 9) and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by His Death and by His Blood.
13. It cannot, of course, be denied that the dispensation of these treasures is the particular and peculiar right of Jesus Christ, for they are the exclusive fruit of His Death, who by His nature is the mediator between God and man. Nevertheless, by this companionship in sorrow and suffering already mentioned between the Mother and the Son, it has been allowed to the august Virgin to be the most powerful mediatrix and advocate of the whole world with her Divine Son (Pius IX. Ineffabilis). The source, then, is Jesus Christ "of whose fullness we have all received" (John i., 16), "from whom the whole body, being compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in charity" (Ephesians iv., 16). But Mary, as St. Bernard justly remarks, is the channel (Serm. de temp on the Nativ. B. V. De Aquaeductu n. 4); or, if you will, the connecting portion the function of which is to join the body to the head and to transmit to the body the influences and volitions of the head -- We mean the neck. Yes, says St. Bernardine of Sienna, "she is the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all spiritual gifts" (Quadrag. de Evangel. aetern. Serm. x., a. 3, c. iii.).
14. We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace -- a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us "de congruo," in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us "de condigno," and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son -- a refuge so secure and a help so trusty against all dangers that we have nothing to fear or to despair of under her guidance, her patronage, her protection. (Pius IX. in Bull Ineffabilis). Or perhaps Pius XI in his Papal Encyclical "Miserentissimus Redemptor" where he prays: www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11miser.Htm" And now lastly may the most benign Virgin Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these desires of ours; for since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him, and offered Him as a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress. Trusting in her intercession with Christ, who whereas He is the "one mediator of God and men" (1 Timothy ii, 5), chose to make His Mother the advocate of sinners, and the minister and mediatress of grace, as an earnest of heavenly gifts and as a token of Our paternal affection we most lovingly impart the Apostolic Blessing to you, Venerable Brethren, and to all the flock committed to your care." Is that clear enough? Or do I need more citations? They are endless really. See "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott. pp 212-215 give countless references to Papal Encyclicals and other official statements that affirm in Ott's words " 1) Mary gave the redeemer, she source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. 2) Since Mary's Assumption into heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation." Curren Catholic Answers' Karl Keating has many quotes affirming that Mary is the mediator of all graces. I usually go to his book "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" to p. 278 and following. He makes an abbreviated argument that follows Ott very closely, but doesn't make all of the references Ott does so that it is more readable for most people. The teaching of these men are in perfect keeping with the dogmatic teaching of the RCC. Unfortunately most Catholics never read the documents of the church that address these things. Yours In Christ, Ron
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Apr 29, 2005 2:45:51 GMT -5
You've done some excellent research, made some important points, and asked some specific questions which should be answered. I hate to beg for some time to do this, for I do not want to misrepresent Orthodoxy (or, contrariwise, to defend what is indefensible). Concerning "sola scriptura", I believe there is, in fact, early evidence of worship patterns accepted within the Christian Church, which I will address. Also, recalling some of the history surrounding "veneration of icons", I have concluded that it does not, in fact, mean what we with our roots in Western Christianity generally take it to mean. The "anathema", therefore, is not simply against someone who doesn't cross him- or herself before Byzantine iconograpy. This was, in fact, one of my primary objections to Orthodoxy. I shall attempt to answer your points very soon, so that you may correct my reasoning and we can discuss this further. Thank you, as usual, for being willing to clearly state and defend your positions so that I may not only seek to answer them adequately, but so that my conclusions may be challenged by a Christian Brother (incidentally, Eric also speaks to me regularly), to assist me in not stumbling. In Christ, Matthew (soulfyre) P.S. I quote from Ludwig Ott as well in my discussions concerning Roman Catholicism. It is an excellent (and authoritative) resource.
|
|