Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

[chevyontheriver]

"Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103."

Now let's see if everyone here recognizes that as a "reference".
I am patient - I can wait.

Yes, you did provide it. Would have been easier to see if not for all of the underlining and red and bold and italic text. My bad. If you need to chide me and make points against me, which you have already done, cool. Have at it. Knock yourself out.

 

[Jipsah]

Going after "me" does not change that fact of life.

Denying the extrabiblical origin of trademark SDA doctrines doesn't change the fact that they originate with your staff prophet, with kinda-sorta Biblical references tacked on later to give it air of legitimacy.

For my part, I don't really care. I think Holy Tradition is an altogether legitimate basis for doctrine, as did the Catholic scholar you have quoted at wearisome length, apparently waiting for us to recoil in horror. Your problem is that you lot claim to be militantly Sola Scriptura, when in fact you are no such thing. You accept the Canon of Scripture, that's based entirely on Holy Tradition, after trimming such writings from it as might impact your dogmas. You claim to have independent Scriptural basis for compiling an almost identical canon of your own, although how one can have a 1st Century/Scriptural basis for a New Testament canon is an interesting question. You accept the revelations of Ellen White by attaching ex post facto Biblical references to maintain the pretense that they're derived from Scripture, when even a cursory reading of those doctrines themselves belies the notion.

reThe net effect of all that is that you're trying to play the "them bad Catholics..." hand in such a sanctimonious manner has blown up in your face, and your efforts to salvage it have simply served to make you look, shall we say in the interests of charity. somewhat lacking in objectivity.

How is this even a little bit confusing for you?

It isn't in the least. You attacked a Roman Catholic dogma, which is accepted as true by most of the world's Christians, as though it was a vile heresy, and found, to your amazement, that almost no one shared your notions on the subject. In what seems to have been the belief that no one understood what you were railing about, you repeated what you obviously belived was this "bombshell" again and again, never seeming to grasp that to most Christians, you might as well have been inveighing against the procession of the equinoxes.

Net effect, you blew it. But rather than realizing it and cutting your losses, you just kept digging faster. How well that strategy has worked I'll leave for you to decide.

I have given them to you three times. Consider reading the posts.

I think it's more than that, but that's OK. I both read them and reponded to them. Try to keep up.

Consider this thread - as per your request --

I didn't request a new thread, and in fact didn't know one existed until last night, when I was too tired and uninterested to give it a look. I'd rather sort that out right here in the context of this thread. I have already responded to the link between Investigative Judgement" and Daniel 7, but as you may have missed it, the summary is "Yes, Daniel 7 mentions both judgement, and the opening of books." But in case you've forgotten, here's what your own sect says of "Investigative Judgement":

"There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle that the Lord set up and not humans. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. At His ascension, He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and, began His intercessory ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom.

There, that should obviate the need for your second thread.

Anyway, I think your exercise in Catholic thumping has gone solidly aground, but far be it from me to persuade you to abandon it. I mean, that's a Pillar of Adventism as well, isn't it?

 

[Jipsah]

But not all of us fall for that.

You've fallen for something else altogether. (This is a snark tournament, innit?)

Many will agree.

And at least 1.3 billion Christians will disagree. Hey, even we Anglicans outvote you five to one. Vox populi, vox Dei, huh?

 

[chevyontheriver]

And at least 1.3 billion Christians will disagree. Hey, even we Anglicans outvote you five to one. Vox populi, vox Dei, huh?

Here's where they cue the line about the majority always being wrong. Not long after they cued the line about being the fastest growing on the way to being the new majority.

 

[concretecamper]

Forgive me, but clearly you did intentionally truncate this sentence of mine:



As we see here:



The problem is that this intentional truncation had the effect of a misquotation, because it changed the semantics of my sentence.

My claim was that what you call Sola Scriptura is not what Martin Luther called Sola Scriptura; I expressed this using less succinct language, and you truncated my sentence in such a way so that it would appear, to someone who had read your reply but not the original comment, which would include a great many people, that I had said “the radical version of Nuda Scriptura you advocate clashes with Sola Scriptura.”

And you also truncated several other sentences of mine, and then replied inconsistently based on an incorrect assumption as to what was said.

So I will of course accept your explanation that you did not intentionally misquote me, as I don’t believe you would do that, but it does seem that in each instance where you have implied that I said something that I did not, by virtue of the content of your reply, it appears to have been connected to you truncating a sentence. Therefore I really must reiterate my requirement that you not truncate my posts when replying to them. Please don’t do it. Otherwise it would be impossible for us to continue to enjoy our debates and fellowship on CF.com, and I have valued our friendship we have cultivated since 2019, and have been looking forward to seeing you when I travel to Georgia (I am hoping to visit the Delta Airlines Museum in Atlanta and dining at the rotating restaurant during the course of doing some business in an adjacent state this autumn.

On another note, you made an interesting claim:



@chevyontheriver @Michie @Valletta @concretecamper @Reader Antonius

To your knowledge, is that correct? Because the general consensus seems to be that the two uses of the infallible statement were the ex cathedral promulgations of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Leo IX and of the Assumption (which already was dogma in the Orthodox churches and the Assyrian church, and which did have a feast in the Catholic church, I think, so perhaps you might clarify that for us) by Pope Pius XII

Also my Catholic friends, I hope you have a blessed Pentecost Sunday! I am hoping to visit a Tridentine mass this morning, as I am not well enough to travel out in the desert to one of my own parishes.

Both the Pope and the Bishop as a whole have the Authority to pronounce infallible doctrine. Remember, Christ promised infallibility to both Peter and the Bishops.

Speaking of the Immaculate Conception, the Cathedral in Washington DC was named after Mary under the Title of Immaculate Conception 1846 before the excathra proclamation 1847. So to all those who claim the Pope himself decided this, go read up on history.

 

[chevyontheriver]

And of course - dismissing a source that we do have (as you have done) by imagining a negating context for it - that you do not have -- works for some low-information-readers , no doubt.

But not all of us fall for that. Many will agree.

I have not imagined any 'negating context' but merely wanted to check your quote for accuracy and for context. You have not replied yet that you were aware of ANY context, other than some vague imagined 'negating context'. Being the one who posted the initial post, you should have been eager enough to supply the context. You did read it in context, didn't you?

 

[Jipsah]

I see a source that actually exists -- a Catholic source I am strongly affirming and some key details that you find "inconvenient" apparently. A source making a statement that I then dedicate an entire thread to discussing. A Catholic you apparently strongly differ with even though this is a well established Catholic source speaking honestly about his own church --

You keep repeating that as though you actually believe that someone, somewhere, will be persuaded that "them bad Catholics" are very bad indeed. So far it doesn't seem to be working very well, but maybe a few dozen more repetitions will persuade all of us to join the SDA en masse. That ain't the way to bet, though.

And now you "wish" to make the case that affirming such a Catholic source is "bad catholic posturing".

Yep, "them bad Catholics believe stuff that ain't in Scripture." And all the Catholics, and most traditionalists, said, "well yeah, if you'd asked we'd have told you that."

The truly hilarious part is that your outfit is enthusiastically guilty of the same "crime" that you accuse the Catholics of comitting, however many times you try in vain to deny it. We believe in tradition, and admit it. You believe in your traditions, and deny it. One of those positions is dishonest. Hmmmm... which one could it be?

I find a certain paucity in logic in your position at that point.

Perhaps the fumes from the paint you used to force yourself into that corner is affecting your logical abilities.

 

[Jipsah]

One cannot always trust what a Seventh Day Adventist says about the Catholic Church.

I'd replace "cannot always" with "seldom"

 

[Jipsah]

You did read it in context, didn't you?

Quote mining don't need no steenkin' context. We don't really believe that Bob just happened to be reading a book by Father Brown, do we?

 

[BobRyan]

You keep repeating that as though you actually believe that someone, somewhere, will be persuaded that "them bad Catholics" are very bad indeed.

You keep repeating your little phrases as if anything you come up with -- should be "imagined" as having been said by me instead of found in your own post.

Not sure how this idea is so attractive for you - but from here it lacks a necessary degree of logic.

So far it doesn't seem to be working very well

Yep, "them bad Catholics believe stuff that ain't in Scripture."

I assume that your own paraphrase of Raymond Brown's own statement in the OP

To each his/her own.

The truly hilarious part is that your outfit is enthusiastically guilty of the same "crime" that you accuse the Catholics of comitting, however many times you try in vain to deny it. We believe in tradition, and admit it. You believe in your traditions, and deny it.

you asked for you thread on that topic of the Investigative Judgment - so you could make your case rather than just post factless accusation -- so far you show no interest in supporting your own accusations.

In in the mean time I don't mind affirming Raymond Brown's statements about his own denomination - as we see them in the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

"Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103."

Now let's see if everyone here recognizes that as a "reference".
I am patient - I can wait.

Yes, you did provide it. Would have been easier to see if not for all of the underlining

Underlining the salient points in a paragraph - is very confusing to a very small group of readers I suppose.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote mining don't need no steenkin' context. We don't really believe that Bob just happened to be reading a book by Father Brown, do we?

That's the classic "hmm you have a fact there.. well how evil of you to notice that fact".

If that is the best you have -- I can understand why you would post in such a fashion.

But I doubt that everyone will struggle to read the OP as it is.

 

[BobRyan]

Both the Pope and the Bishop as a whole have the Authority to pronounce infallible doctrine.

But it must "ex cathedra" to be defended as "infallible".

Speaking of the Immaculate Conception, the Cathedral in Washington DC was named after Mary under the Title of Immaculate Conception 1846 before the excathra proclamation 1847. So to all those who claim the Pope himself decided this, go read up on history.

So then it could not have been promoted under a process unknown until 1847 and you also seem to argue against the idea that it was a single Pope that declared the doctrine (a claim I did no make).

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, on further thought, given the quote mining methodology of the SDA generally, and the way you selectively quoted the Liturgist, I won't accept your 'quotation' without finding it for myself in context from totally non-SDA sources.

I took it from a non-SDA source.

And of course - dismissing a source that we do have (as you have done) by imagining a negating context for it - that you do not have -- works for some low-information-readers , no doubt.

But not all of us fall for that. Many will agree.

And at least 1.3 billion Christians will disagree.

The idea that all Catholics differ with Raymond Brown's statement about his own denomination as quoted in the OP - is interesting speculation on your part.

How are the rest of us supposed to be lead to go along with that speculation??

 

[BobRyan]

You do know that UTS is not a Catholic institution, but a Protestant one? So his being a professor there says zero about his particular Catholic creds.

"Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York (shortened to UTS or Union) is a private ecumenical liberal Christian seminary[4] in Morningside Heights, Manhattan, affiliated with Columbia University. Columbia University lists UTS among its affiliate schools, alongside with Barnard College and Teachers College. Since 1928, the seminary has served as Columbia's constituent faculty of theology.[5] In 1964, UTS also established an affiliation with the neighboring Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Despite its affiliation with Columbia University, UTS is an independent institution with its own administration and Board of Trustees. UTS confers the following degrees: Master of Divinity (MDiv), Master of Divinity & Social Work dual degree (MDSW), Master of Arts in religion (MAR), Master of Arts in Social Justice (MASJ), Master of Sacred Theology (STM), Doctor of Ministry (DMin), and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD).​

​

"UTS is the oldest independent seminary in the United States.​

Catholic scholars are found at a number of Universities and colleges.

"He was the first Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.["


"Brown was appointed in 1972 to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and again in 1996.


And the "reference" for Brown's statement is in fact a Catholic source

Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

==============
"In 1881 the Paulists established The Columbus Press in New York City. In 1913 The Columbus Press became the Paulist Press. It published books which explained the teachings of the Catholic faith"

================

Now what is "odd" is that we have posts on this thread defending Brown to their last breath and the idea that tradition, not scripture and not historicity in first century sources - is the real key to belief just as Brown states for the doctrines about Mary.

And then a flip flop by some of the same posters arguing that affirming Brown is an attack on Catholic teaching.

And then your latest efforts to unlink Brown altogether from the Catholic church.

You cite Raymond E. Brown as if we should all fall down on our knees and worship him or something. Few Catholics ever did. I had a brief moment of temptation in that regard until I heard him speak in the early 1980's. Since then I have been able to see him as a rebel, a smart one, stepping ever so close to the lines in pushing for higher criticism.

That is a lot of having-it-both-ways squirming ... I did not expect that.

I state point blank in the OP that Brown is a Catholic scholar (not a non-Catholic one) as even you seem to begrudgingly admit, and that I agree with his statement about the lack of scripture support , and the lack of reliable first century historicity for certain marian doctrines which he identifies in his statement.

It is presented for the fact of the statement and as an example where I agree with some of the statements that Catholic scholars such as Brown make.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Quote mining don't need no steenkin' context. We don't really believe that Bob just happened to be reading a book by Father Brown, do we?

Considering it's way out of print, not unless he has an exceptionally well provisioned personal library or access to a seminary library. I've got most of his books.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Underlining the salient points in a paragraph - is very confusing to a very small group of readers I suppose.

Your snide comment is noted. Thank you!

 

[concretecamper]

and you also seem to argue against the idea that it was a single Pope that declared the doctrine

I'm not arguing anything. All I'm saying that it was a widely held doctrine prior to 1847.

 

[concretecamper]

But it must "ex cathedra" to be defended as "infallible".

From the Pope, yes.

 

[Jipsah]

It is presented for the fact of the statement and as an example where I agree with some of the statements that Catholic scholars such as Brown make.​

Same song, 187th verse. You ought to put it on macro key just to save all that typing.