A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[fhansen]

This prompts another question. What do the ECFs teach that's so different from what the apostles teach?

They often confirm and support right understanding of what the apostles taught

 

[concretecamper]

What I've put together is starting in the 4th century there was Arianism and Nestorianism and whatever else, offering variations of Christ being human and God. And for whatever reason to combat this great emphasis was placed upon Mary. The queen of heaven, perpetual virgin, immaculate conception etc, is all supposed to confirm the hypostatic union of Christ being 100% human and 100% God.

Not exactly, but you explained it better than most on this forum.

The reason the title Mother of God was given to Mary is because of her Son's divinity. She is Mother of God by virtue of her Son's divinity, not by virtue of herself.

The title Queen of Heaven is given to her by virtue of her Son's Kingship. She is not Queen by her own merits.

Her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception are not new idea. The ECF certainly believed in these 2 ideas and were accepted by most up to and after the Protestant heresy.

Remember, the same Church that declared Matthew's gospel inspired text declared Mary immaculately conceived.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus and the Apostles did not teach that Mary was Queen of heaven, nor a perpetual virgin.

I think that they did, and that is why the gospels, Revelation, and the letters all point to Blessed Mary as the Queen mother of the Lond Jesus Christ. Holy Tradition teaches this.

 

[Strong in Him]

Was that supposed to somehow have something to do with my post?

No, because I didn't quote your post.

Is there some alternative to God when it comes to revealed, truths of the Christian faith?

No.
That's the point; Jesus, who is God, did not teach the doctrines associated with Mary.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus, who is God, did not teach the doctrines associated with Mary.

Yes he did.

 

[ozso]

Not exactly, but you explained it better than most on this forum.

The reason the title Mother of God was given to Mary is because of her Son's divinity. She is Mother of God by virtue of her Son's divinity, not by virtue of herself.

The title Queen of Heaven is given to her by virtue of her Son's Kingship. She is not Queen by her own merits.

King or Queen of ________ means ruling authority and power. That's where the misunderstanding is. That's why when Elizabeth II became the monarch, her mother's title became Queen Mother.

Her perpetual virginity and immaculate conception are not new idea. The ECF certainly believed in these 2 ideas and were accepted by most up to and after the Protestant heresy.

ECF can be misleading. Some were church leaders in the 4th-5th century. When considering the US is 247 years old, the 4th-5th century of the US is pretty far away.

Remember, the same Church that declared Matthew's gospel inspired text declared Mary immaculately conceived.

Needless to say just because people in the church were correct about legitimate manuscripts being legitimate, doesn't automatically mean people in the church were correct about everything else. Also I don't see Matthew declaring that Mary was immaculately conceived, but I do see where he clearly declares that Joseph consummated his marriage to Mary after Jesus was born (Matt 1:25).

 

[ozso]

I think that they did, and that is why the gospels, Revelation, and the letters all point to Blessed Mary as the Queen mother of the Lond Jesus Christ. Holy Tradition teaches this.

If that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.

 

[ozso]

Yes he did.

Again, if that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.

 

[ozso]

It seems the extreme adulation over Mary ended up taking place in the church because in a roundabout way it lends towards Christology.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.

That statement is erroneous; the debate takes place because of mistaken interpretations from some Protestants.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.

That statement is erroneous; the debate takes place because of mistaken interpretations from some Protestants.

Again, if that was the case this debate wouldn't be taking place.

That statement is erroneous; the debate takes place because of mistaken interpretations from some Protestants.

 

[concretecamper]

King or Queen of ________ means ruling authority

You are thinking of contemporary ideas. In the Davidic Kingdom the Queen was the Mother. She had no authority except what was given by the King.

ECF can be misleading

It points to the fact that the rejection of the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception are recent novel ideas that stay from Church teaching.

Needless to say just because people in the church were correct about legitimate manuscripts being legitimate, doesn't automatically mean people in the church were correct about everything else

Ah, typical protestant thinking. I'll believe only what I think is correct. How does it feel to be infallible?

Also I don't see Matthew declaring that Mary was immaculately conceived

Um, the gospels are about Jesus.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes he did.

Really?
Can you show me the verses where he said, "my mother is a virgin, and always will be"? When the crowd said to him, " your mother and brothers are outside", where did he say, "step brothers. Don't you understand about my mother's virginity?"
When the woman was caught in the act of adultery where did Jesus say, "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone -not you, mother"?
When Mary and John were standing by the cross, when did Jesus say, "John, this is the queen of heaven; mother, here is one of your subjects"?
When the group were praying in the upper room before Pentecost, where did anyone say "let's ask the queen of heaven to have a word with her Son about sending his Spirit"?

As I've said before, I am certain that Mary was so humble that if anyone had tried to elevate her or give her a position equal to her Son, she would have refused and set them straight.
It's clear that no Catholic is going to contradict that, because you would doubtless all agree that Mary was humble. So why give her a position that she never claimed for herself, and not even her son bestowed upon her?

 

[fhansen]

No, because I didn't quote your post.

Um, yes you did.

No.
That's the point; Jesus, who is God, did not teach the doctrines associated with Mary.

And you know that how? You were there when the unwritten teachings/traditions were handed down? (2 Thess 2:15)

 

[ozso]

You are thinking of contemporary ideas. In the Davidic Kingdom the Queen was the Mother. She had no authority except what was given by the King.

I see references to the queen mother, but not the Queen of Israel.

It points to the fact that the rejection of the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception are recent novel ideas that stay from Church teaching.

That's because Christians decided to go back to what the original church taught.

Ah, typical protestant thinking. I'll believe only what I think is correct. How does it feel to be infallible?
Um, the gospels are about Jesus.

"but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus." Matthew 1:25 RSV Catholic Edition

 

[concretecamper]

I see references to the queen mother, but not the Queen of Israel.

She is Queen of whatever He is King of by virtue of being His mother. Stop thinking in modern day terms of king and queen. The Queen in Biblical times is the Mother of the King.

That's because Christians decided to go back to what the original church taught.

Then you would believe in Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception.

"but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus." Matthew 1:25 RSV Catholic Edition

This reminds me of Maxwell Smart. The old gun in the hat trick. The until argument has been defeated so many times on this forum. You can believe novel ideas or follow the ECF.

Let's see what St Jerome says

Jerome, cont. Hevlid. 8: Lastly, I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel’s words, “That which is born in her, &c.” He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?

Jerome: From the words, “her first-born Son,” some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother.

 

[ozso]

She is Queen of whatever He is King of by virtue of being His mother. Stop thinking in modern day terms of king and queen. The Queen in Biblical times is the Mother of the King.

I looked through the old testament. The mother of the king is referred to as the "queen mother" in Chronicles and Kings etc. The only "queen of" is the queen of Sheba.

Then you would believe in Mary's perpetual virginity and immaculate conception.

I've yet to see any evidence that Jesus, the Apostles or Apostolic Fathers taught that.

This reminds me of Maxwell Smart. The old gun in the hat trick. The until argument has been defeated so many times on this forum. You can believe novel ideas or follow the ECF.

Let's see what St Jerome says

Jerome, cont. Hevlid. 8: Lastly, I would ask, Why then did Joseph abstain at all up to the day of birth? He will surely answer, Because of the Angel’s words, “That which is born in her, &c.” He then who gave so much heed to a vision as not to dare to touch his wife, would he, after he had heard the shepherds, seen the Magi, and known so many miracles, dare to approach the temple of God, the seat of the Holy Ghost, the Mother of his Lord?

Jerome: From the words, “her first-born Son,” some most erroneously suspect that Mary had other sons, saying that first-born can only be said of one that has brethren. But this is the manner of Scripture, to call the first-born not only one who is followed by brethren, but the first-birth of the mother.

I'm just going by what Matthew the Apostle clearly wrote. That Joseph consummated his marriage to his wife Mary after Jesus was born. Matthew 1:25

 

[Strong in Him]

Um, yes you did.

My apologies - I was thinking of another post which I quoted.

And you know that how? You were there when the unwritten teachings/traditions were handed down? (2 Thess 2:15)

Obviously I wasn't there - so I've read the Gospels, like everybody else.

My understanding is that when the NT was compiled only the documents that were faithful to the Apostles' teaching were included.
As there is nothing to say that Jesus regarded his mother as the queen of heaven and a perpetual virgin, nor that the early church taught this, we can conclude that it wasn't a doctrine.

 

[fhansen]

My apologies - I was thinking of another post which I quoted.

Obviously I wasn't there - so I've read the Gospels, like everybody else.

My understanding is that when the NT was compiled only the documents that were faithful to the Apostles' teaching were included.
As there is nothing to say that Jesus regarded his mother as the queen of heaven and a perpetual virgin, nor that the early church taught this, we can conclude that it wasn't a doctrine.

Alright. My understanding is that the writings were compiled based on whether or not they were considered inspired, correct, orthodox, etc, but not that they necessarily exhaustive in their teachings.

 

[Strong in Him]

Alright. My understanding is that the writings were compiled based on whether or not they were considered inspired, correct, orthodox, etc, but not that they necessarily exhaustive in their teachings.

But there aren't any teachings on Mary in the Gospels or NT.
And I'm sure there would be if Jesus had taught it and it was important.