Do you agree with this statement?

[justinangel]

John 19:26-27 is in no way appointing Mary as "Mother of the Church". Jesus is simply commanding John to take care of Mary. Joseph was dead at this time, so with the death of Jesus, Mary would have had nothing, since women were not allowed to own property at that time, and she had no husband. It was not establishing Mary as Mother of the Church.

All the words Jesus spoke that John recorded have to do with our salvation. And all that Jesus said had nothing to do with practical matters, such as making final living arrangements for his mother. Indeed, Joseph was deceased at the time, but don’t you believe that Jesus had half-siblings on Joseph’s side? Couldn’t any of Mary’s other children have taken care of her? This was the Jewish custom. Or could it be that Mary remained a virgin after she had given birth to Jesus?

When Jesus addressed his mother from the cross, he called her “Woman”. Jewish men of his time honourably called their mothers “Em” (Mother), especially in public. However, Jesus referred to his mother as a mother when he said to John, “Behold your mother.” Jesus wasn’t thinking of Mary as his mother at all. Rather, he was thinking of her as being the mother of all his disciples. Jesus called his mother “Woman” in allusion to Genesis 3:15. He thought of her as the free Woman of Promise foretold by God to the serpent. It was until the fall that Adam referred to his wife as woman. She was called Eve, which means “mother of all the living”, after her fall from grace. Mary never fell from grace, and so she became the spiritual mother of all the living. She has nourished us with the true manna come down from Heaven and the Bread of Life. And she has nourished us with the living Word of God and the blood by which He has made atonement for our sins and intercedes for us before God as our eternal High Priest. And Mary continues to nourish and strengthen us with the graces we receive through her maternal patronage to help us grow in the image of her divine Son.

Jesus says to John, “Behold you mother.” By the word mother, Jesus has its biblical sense in mind. His act of entrusting John with Mary rests on the status and importance of motherhood in Israelite and Jewish history. According to R.J. Meade, the role of mother was “one of the most important roles a woman could fulfil in ancient Israelite society.” Motherhood was a “social construction,” not a biological necessity, and as such is “constrained and redefined by time and place.” Ruth acted on the instructions of her mother-in law Naomi to lay at the foot of the bed of her lord Boaz. Boaz was a relative of Ruth's dead husband and under the law of Moses when a man died childless, a close relative should marry the widow (Deu_25:5-10) This was to perpetuate the family name and keep the land in the family. It was especially important that when a man died without a son, someone should marry his widow so that a son would be born and the name carried on. Until then Ruth was childless. She and Boaz had a son who fathered Jesse, King David’s father. Biblically, it is unimportant that Obed was Ruth’s firstborn son. Biological ties are of no importance. Ruth’s motherhood is redefined in terms of a broader social scope that concerns Israel as a whole. By giving birth to Obed, she did in a sense give birth to Jesse in view of the establishment of the Davidic kingdom.

L Bronner has introduced a biblical concept which she coins the “Metaphorical Mother”. This term refers to a woman who metaphorically gives birth and nurtures a population of children who belong to her symbolically, though biological ties are not precluded. This mother socially contributes to the birth and growth of a flowering nation (Israel) and the progress of her people (Israelites). She essentially serves God’ plan as His administrator and acts as a protector of His chosen people. On momentous occasions in Israel’s history, she is called to give much needed wise counsel. Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, and Esther are models of this kind of mother.

These traditions find their culmination and fulfilment in Mary through the words of Jesus at a momentous point in salvation history. In ancient Hebrew and Greek literature, the written word reflects the importance of the spoken word and the effect it holds. J. Lauterbach informs us that in ancient time, unlike today, the spoken word was given a great deal of authority and credibility. Whatever was spoken by a person of great importance or in an extenuating circumstance, such as dying, should come true and actually happen. It would be reckless of someone to ignore or dismiss what was said. The spoken word must be treated as if it were a fact. In Hebrew, the term for word is dabar (דבר). It connotes a “thing” or “event”. J.L. Mackenzie tells us that there is a dynamic quality to the dabar, and that the reality and force of the word is rooted in the personality of the speaker. Thus, when we read the Gospel of John, Jesus’ words must be heard in light of who he is (the Messiah) and the event (the Crucifixion). They aren’t simply the words of any ordinary dying man.

The relationship Jesus forms between his mother and his disciple is connected with his messiahship and what he has accomplished for us on the Cross. His words point towards his resurrection and ascension into Heaven, and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The couplet “Woman, behold your son. Son, behold your mother” bears prophetic significance. Every prophetic utterance in the Bible has to do with the reality of our salvation, not practical concerns. The ancient beliefs surrounding the spoken word and the cultural setting give this couplet a special power. The words of Jesus are recorded because of their eschatological significance. John has something far more important in mind than the fact that Jesus was a faithful and loving son to his mother. We can assume this without having to be told, not that it has any direct or indirect bearing on our salvation.

In any event, the metaphorical mothers of the OT find their culmination and fulfilment in Mary through the words of Jesus and beyond the crucifixion scene. By speaking his words, our Lord is in fact conferring a special maternal role that transcends physical ties of kinship. They are uttered at the time of his crucifixion, which is only the beginning of what shall come by his death on the Cross, that is his bodily resurrection and glorification in Heaven. Mary’s motherhood is redefined as a thing that transcends physical temporal reality. It moves beyond earthly time as something spiritual. Her becoming the mother of the disciple is a saving action of God reminiscent of His intervention through the mothers of the OT. It marks a new era of faith and a new Covenant with God in a way similar to how God renewed his covenant with His people through the matriarchs of ancient Israel.

Mary is the bridge between the Old and the New Covenants. Sarah gave birth to Isaac. But her motherhood is redefined by the birth of Isaac’s son Jacob (Israel). Mary gave birth to Jesus, but her motherhood is redefined by becoming the mother of the Disciple (the Church). The beloved disciple represents all those who keep the commandments and bear witness to Jesus (Rev. 12:17). Jacob represents all the true servants of Israel in the spirit.

In collaboration with her Son, as our spiritual mother, Mary is foundational to our new Covenant of faith and vital to its growth. It all began at the Annunciation and continues with her maternal prerogatives in the kingdom of Heaven. But Mary’s motherhood of all Christ’s disciples isn’t merely symbolic, though rooted in the maternal figures of the OT. Rather it is something real and personally intimate. Mary does not have a distant and impersonal relationship with a corporate entity. She relates to each individual disciple in a personal and intimate way just as she did with John. Personally Mary is a mother who watches over us and provides us with her patronage. She is someone who we can actually invoke for guidance and protection by our petitions and supplications. In Heaven, she personally attends to our spiritual needs, being solicitous towards each and every one of us. Mary is much more than a symbolic representation. She is actually a mother we can communicate with – not just a metaphor – and who is personal and loving.

To be continued. Bear with me.

 

[justinangel]

John 19:26-27 is in no way appointing Mary as "Mother of the Church". Jesus is simply commanding John to take care of Mary. Joseph was dead at this time, so with the death of Jesus, Mary would have had nothing, since women were not allowed to own property at that time, and she had no husband. It was not establishing Mary as Mother of the Church.

If I may continue, when reading John 19: 25-27, we must take OT imagery and prophecy into account. The words of Jesus from the cross to Mary and the Beloved Disciple culminate many Old Testament traditions. J. McHugh argues that the passage, part of the larger account of John 19:17-42, is “composed of details which show the fulfilment of prophecy.” He makes the following parallels: vv. 17-18 and Isaiah 53:12; vv. 19-22 and Zechariah 10:9; vv. 23-24 and Psalm 22:9; vv. 28-30 and Psalm 69:22; vv. 31-37 and Exodus 12:36, Numbers 9:12, Psalm 34:21, Zechariah 12:10; vv. 38-42 and Isaiah 53:9. Chapter 19 of John’s Gospel is a compilation of the fulfilment of OT Messianic prophecies. With regard to vv. 25-27, the evangelist apparently draws a parallel between Christ’s victory over sin through the Cross and the victory over the serpent in Eden (Gen. 3:15). We understand that the first Messianic prophecy is saying that the woman’s offspring shall be victorious over the serpent, namely Satan. Still this woman, too, is at war or at enmity with the serpent and will share in the victory of her offspring over the serpent. Thus Mary’s physical presence at the foot of the Cross shall associate her forever with the triumph of Jesus over sin and death. (Rev. 12:17). The first word (dabar) Jesus says when he sees his mother and disciple standing there is “Woman” as he addresses her first. Mary is presented as the woman who God promises shall crush the head of the serpent together with her Son.

According to John McHugh, the evangelist gives a “new and deeper sense to the words of the Old Testament.” through the presence of Mary and the words of Jesus. This new sense is often called sensus plenior by Biblical interpreters. Hence, John is portraying Mary as the new Eve, which can only mean that she is the new mother of all the living. As Eve is our biological mother, so Mary is our spiritual mother. She is associated with Jesus at the Cross by her faith in the word of God spoken to her by the angel Gabriel and her obedience to God’s will for the sake of His love and goodness. By her fiat at the Annunciation, Mary has had a role in crushing the serpent’s head, since it was because of her faith working through love that our Lord and Saviour came into the world. Unlike Eve, who was expelled from the Garden of Eden and kept from the Tree of Life, Mary is prominent at the place of victory – the Cross of Jesus – where the first Messianic prophecy has its culmination and fulfilment. Mary’s motherhood is redefined by Jesus from the Cross and point of victory and glory. Her motherhood is entwined with our Lord’s victory and his glory. It is when Jesus redefines Mary’s motherhood by saying “Woman, behold your son” that he says to his disciple, “Son, behold your mother.” It is as the Woman of promise that Mary becomes a mother to the disciple.

While the image of Eve, the mother of all the living, provides a powerful background for the redefinition of Mary’s motherhood, John also utilizes OT imagery of Mother Zion. John draws our attention not only to Mary, but also to the disciple with no name. The fact that his presence is noted at the Cross together with Jesus and Mary indicates that he has an important role to play, but it something of far greater importance than acting as Mary’s caretaker. If this is what Jesus had meant in this passage, he could have simply asked the disciple to take care of her without even having to say anything to his mother and without speaking in such powerfully verbal fashion. The word (dabor) of a dying man was normally understood by ancient peoples as having prophetic significance and containing something real that should have an effect in the future. The more likely explanation of the Beloved Disciple’s presence is that he represents the entire community of believers. Such a depiction rests on a biblical mind-set which scholars call “corporate personality” originating from Wheeler Robinson in 1907. The Beloved Disciple is a corporate representation of all believers in the Church, just as Jacob is the corporate representative of all the people of Israel.

The sorrowful scene at the foot of the cross is no less OT imagery and related to prophecy. Isaiah 49:21, 54:1-3, and 66:7-11 contain the common theme of Mother Zion in the midst of sorrow over the loss of her children, but suddenly has been given a new and large family which marks an occasion of rejoicing. In the words of R.E. Brown: “The sorrowful scene at the foot of the Cross represents the birth pangs by which the Spirit of Salvation is brought forth (Isaiah 26:17-18) and handed over (John 29:30). In becoming the mother of the Beloved Disciple (the Christian) Mary is symbolically evocative of Lady Zion who, after birth pangs, brings forth a new people in joy.” According to P. Hanson, Zion is not destined to grieve because of the loss which she has endured. Instead, she will be able to compare her former desolation with the “bustling activity of returnees filling her towns and cities.” In astonishment, she proclaims her questions (Isaiah 40-66). The three-fold references to the children represent the repopulated Zion. The returnees from exile foreshadow Christian believers who have been freed from the bondage of sin and death by Christ’s suffering and death on the Cross.

Meanwhile, this scene also finds culmination in Mary, who because of her Son’s suffering also suffered interiorly as she gazed upon him hanging on the Cross. Mary certainly felt the intense motherly sorrow of losing her Son as any mother would in her humanity; although she still knew that her Son was the Messiah and in faith understood all the good that would result from his death. Yet, despite all her heart-felt sorrow, the words of Jesus (“Woman, behold your son.”) entrusts her with a new family: the new Zion and Jerusalem come down from Heaven. Her sorrow shall be replaced with rejoicing and glory, and Mary will have to make room “in her tent” and heart for the community of believers (cf. Rev. 12: 3-5; 17).

Let’s look at the couplet in John 19:26-27: “Woman, behold your son; Behold, your mother.” The phrase has an absoluteness about it. And it is uttered in such an abrupt way. It doesn’t appear that Jesus is asking the disciple to do him one final favour before he dies. Rather, Jesus is declaring a statement of fact: Mary is the mother of the Beloved Disciple, and he is her son from this point on – nothing more. Again, the first word (dabar) Jesus says is “Woman” which thrusts the focus of the scene on Mary. The word defines who she is. The circumstance Mary might find herself in is not the prime object of Jesus’ words when he addresses her. What is significant is her title, which is connected with the disciple being her son. He doesn’t become her son after Jesus is gone, but he is her son as they stand at the foot of the Cross together, and this has to do with her association with him in his redemptive work.

According to C. Weber, “Behold” (hinnēh : (הנה)) is sometimes used as “predicator of existence,” something that looks to a new state of being (the redefinition of Mary’s motherhood). The hinnēh clauses emphasize the immediacy and “here-and-now-ness” of the situation (the crucifixion). The term may be used to point things out, but more frequently it is used to point out people: And she said, “Behold my maid Bilhah. Go in unto her, and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her.” (Genesis 30:3). Significantly, most hinnēh clauses occur in direct speech. They introduce a fact upon which a following statement or command is based. I doubt John merely intends to say that Mary will have nobody to look after her once Jesus has departed. Often, the term was used as an introduction to the prophetic announcement of judgment indicating God’s intervention and frequently stood in the immediate context of the messenger formula (Jeremiah 6:21, 9:6, 10:18). Eschatologically, by using this term, what Jesus is saying is “Look, this is how it is and shall be.” In the order of grace, Mary is the mother of the new community of believers.

Shall conclude.

 

[justinangel]

John 19:26-27 is in no way appointing Mary as "Mother of the Church". Jesus is simply commanding John to take care of Mary. Joseph was dead at this time, so with the death of Jesus, Mary would have had nothing, since women were not allowed to own property at that time, and she had no husband. It was not establishing Mary as Mother of the Church.

To conclude, the key to understanding the significance of this couplet is in the term, “behold.” The term connotes more than Jesus simply instructing Mary and the Disciple to look upon one another as he unites his mother and disciple as family. The construction of this couplet is built on the term “behold” and connotes something more like a divine ordinance. Moreover, the function it serves, linguistically, adds to the motherhood of Mary as defined by Jesus from the Cross with the use of the appellation “Woman” which refers back to Eve in the Garden of Eden. In Greek, “Behold” idŏu (ιδου) is a demonstrative particle, with no exact English equivalent. Like hinnēh, the term idŏu often serves to enliven a narrative by introducing something new or extraordinary. The term is often used to emphasize the importance of something. There is nothing extraordinary about a dying a man who is concerned about the well-being of his mother once he’s gone. The personality of Jesus isn’t unique or remarkable in this regard.

Hence, the connotations of the word “behold” presuppose a new role for Mary rather than a change of circumstance in her life because of the loss of her Son. But this new role is tied to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This sudden change that is reflected in the abruptness and starkness of Jesus’ words, and which redefines Mary’s role as mother at the time of the event, is in perfect harmony with the images of Mother Zion in the Old Testament which prefigure the Church. Both the Zion imagery and the term “behold” point to this dramatic change which is effected by the force of Jesus’ words.

Jesus redefines Mary’s motherhood from the Cross. He does not renounce his own filial bond with her, but creates a new dimension for her role as mother. This should explain why he chose not to place his mother’s care with the Disciple until this crucial moment. Mary’s motherhood had to be redefined at the Cross, because it is grounded on her association with him in his work of redemption (Lk. 2:35). It seems no names are mentioned, save the appellation “Woman”, to emphasize the significance of the pair’s respective roles. The Beloved Disciple represents all of Christ’s disciples who shall belong to his Church, and Mary is their mother in the order of grace. Like Mother Zion, she must now enlarge her “tent” or spread her mantle (as she does in her apparitions) because of the sudden influx of returnees from exile and slavery. Jesus made Mary our mother when he said to the Disciple: “Behold your mother.”

And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. [v.27] (DRB)

And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. (NRSVCE)

And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. (KJV)

The Greek word for “took” is lambanō (λαμβάνω). This term connotes “take in the hand,” “take hold of, grasp.” It also encompasses the meaning to take away, take up, receive, or remove, without the use of force. The term also has mental or spiritual aspects when it is translated “make one’s own,” “apprehend,” or “comprehend” as Jerome translated it in the Latin Vulgate. McHugh builds upon the spiritual connotation of the word. He argues that the Disciple accepted Mary as his mother, and as part of the “spiritual legacy bequeathed to him by his Lord.” The use of the term lambanō indicates something important that moves beyond the death scene being played out on the Cross but is connected to it. This spiritual or cognitive connotation implies that there is a tacit understanding that occurs between Jesus, Mary, and the Disciple. The latter two understood that this event marked a beginning - the start of something new that shall continue until the end of this age when her Jesus shall return in glory.

Finally, Mary’s spiritual motherhood is also foreshadowed in the Gospels.

And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Mark 3:32 [KJV]

Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Matthew 12:47 [KJV]

The phrase “Behold, your mother,” occurs in Mark 3:32 and Matthew 12:47. Their theological content is very similar to the passage in John’s Gospel. Both are part of larger texts which deal with the “brethren” of Jesus. The point of these passages is that the ties of common obedience to God take precedence over those of blood kinship. While Jesus does not deny his natural kinship, he radically subordinates it to a higher bond of brotherhood. The Kingdom of God makes demands on the personal commitment of a disciple, which must often supersede all natural bonds of family or ethnic grouping. We should note that the family of Jesus are standing outside, while the crowd of listeners are sitting around him forming in a sense a new family circle. This image of a new family takes on an eschatological aspect. Jesus is presented as having come to establish a family of faith, and these people who follow him make up this family. In establishing this family of faith, Jesus begins to redefine Israel, or Mother Zion. No longer will Israel be defined by national boundaries or birth right. The new Zion will be defined by faith, as is proper for the people of God. Thus no longer shall Mary be defined by blood ties and natural kinship, but by faith in the word of God (Lk. 11:27-28).

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family.
Romans 8, 29 [NRSVCE]

Proof from the Apostolic Tradition

"But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother--pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore, she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:6 (A.D.202)

PAX

 

[justinangel]

"By the way, sola Scriptura isn't in the Bible."

Actually, it is.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

All Paul is telling Timothy is that Scripture is profitable. The Greek word for profitable is ophelimos, which connotes usefulness. Something useful isn't necessarily exclusive or even mandatory. Further, by "Scripture" Paul means the Old Testament. The New Testament hadn't been compiled yet. Paul wrote most of his Epistles before the Gospels were written. It wasn't until the late fourth century that the Church compiled what became the canon of Scripture. Until then. the Church had served as the rule of faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And it has continued to. On a final note, these inspired OT Books which Paul refers to include the Deuterocanonical Books, which the so-called Protestant reformers removed from the canon 1500 years later with absolutely no authority.

Scripture isn't exclusively profitable for us. Good works can also be profitable. 'This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men' (Titus 3:8). Steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing" (James 1:4). In Timothy 3:17, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios", and it refers to the clergy as having to be"suitable" or "fit" for the Divine Office. Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, but rather the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue that the Scriptures are all we need to be complete in the faith. Finally, in 2 Tim. 3:16, the phrase "all Scripture" reads "pasa graphe" which actually means every passage of Scripture. Thus every passage of Scripture in the OT is useful for the clergyman. Timothy was ordained a bishop. So the Scriptures would be certainly useful for him in his vocation.

By the way, Paul appeals to the Apostolic Tradition of the Church in verse 14: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it."

But don't misunderstand this passage. This is not saying that there is no place for Church authority. But Church authority is secondary and must come under submission, to the word of God, since the church is made up of fallible men.

The Church is the rule of faith. Christ gave His disciples no command to write anything, but only to teach: (Mat. 23: 19-20). "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (Jn 20:21), Christ is in the Church, and is its Head; and he promised that the Holy Spirit should be with it and abide in it. "He will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (Jn 14:26; 16:12-13). Hence St. Paul calls the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim.3:15; cf. Mark 16:16; Rom. 10:17; Acts 15:28). The Church is infallible, since the Holy Spirit protects the magisterial teaching office from teaching error. The Bible cannot be the final teaching authority, since it is inanimate, no less than Tradition is.

"Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living."
Hugh Pope

PAX

 

[Rick Otto]

Faith is not supernatural assent to divine truth upon divine authority.
Never heard so much religious gobbledygook.

 

[patricius79]

Faith is not supernatural assent to divine truth upon divine authority..

You say: "Faith is not supernatural assent to divine truth upon divine authority".

Why is that?

 

[justinangel]

Faith is not supernatural assent to divine truth upon divine authority.
Never heard so much religious gobbledygook.

I suppose you think that faith is a supernatural assent to the divine truth upon the authority of your own private judgment when you read the Bible. So what Mr. Pope means to say is that no fallible individual has the final authority to interpret the Bible for himself and determine with absolute certainty that what he believes is the divine truth. Such an assumption is unbiblical.

We are of God. He that knows God, hears us. He that is not of God, hears us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
1 John 4, 6

By "us " John means the apostles and the able men who have succeeded the them in the episcopacy through the authority invested in them by Christ. Timothy and Titus were bishops who Paul appointed to faithfully serve as his successor. One can discern the divine truth only by listening to the teachings of the ministers of the word who can trace their divine teaching office back to the apostles. Those who rely solely on reading the Bible for themselves can never hope to discern the divine truth (Acts 8:26-40) and too often are deceived by the spirit of error (1 Timothy 4:1). Christians who reject the great things God has done for Mary, as taught and defined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, have fallen prey to the false doctrines of demons. The charism of infallibility isn't conferred on individual laity or even clerics. Without the guaranty of the Holy Spirit, self-complacent souls have no protection against the fallen angels of light.

Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander,whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
1 Timothy 1, 18-20

Proof from the Apostolic Tradition

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”
Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about”....

“It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth ...

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3: 3.1; 4: 26.2, 33.8 [inter A.D. 180-189]

“The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way”
Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 69 [75] :3 [A.D. 253]

“Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”
So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I suppose you think that faith is a supernatural assent to the divine truth upon the authority of your own private judgment when you read the Bible. So what Mr. Pope means to say is that no fallible individual has the final authority to interpret the Bible for himself and determine with absolute certainty that what he believes is the divine truth. Such an assumption is unbiblical.

We are of God. He that knows God, hears us. He that is not of God, hears us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
1 John 4, 6

By "us " John means the apostles and the able men who have succeeded the them in the episcopacy through the authority invested in them by Christ. Timothy and Titus were bishops who Paul appointed to faithfully serve as his successor. One can discern the divine truth only by listening to the teachings of the ministers of the word who can trace their divine teaching office back to the apostles. Those who rely solely on reading the Bible for themselves can never hope to discern the divine truth (Acts 8:26-40) and too often are deceived by the spirit of error (1 Timothy 4:1). Christians who reject the great things God has done for Mary, as taught and defined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, have fallen prey to the false doctrines of demons. The charism of infallibility isn't conferred on individual laity or even clerics. Without the guaranty of the Holy Spirit, self-complacent souls have no protection against the fallen angels of light.

Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander,whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
1 Timothy 1, 18-20

Proof from the Apostolic Tradition

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”
Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about”....

“It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth ...

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3: 3.1; 4: 26.2, 33.8 [inter A.D. 180-189]

“The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way”
Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 69 [75] :3 [A.D. 253]

“Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”
So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Here you go again, plucking verses out of context and misinterpreting them for us.

Here is I John 4:1-6. Please observe that at no time does he define "us" in the manner which you assert. Rather, the us refers to the ones he is writing to - believers. He calls them "beloved" and "little children" and includes them with himself as "us".

4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

 

[patricius79]

Here you go again, plucking verses out of context and misinterpreting them for us.

Here is I John 4:1-6. Please observe that at no time does he define "us" in the manner which you assert. Rather, the us refers to the ones he is writing to - believers. He calls them "beloved" and "little children" and includes them with himself as "us".

4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

What do you think of 1 John 1:3? Who does the "us" refer to there?

As to the topic of this thread, we depend on the historic Church and her ministers, and we depend on the Blessed Virgin, through whom Christ came to us.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I miss Lion King I wonder where he has been, I hope he comes back and says hi (he probably has a real life).

Its probably best to stay upon God the Father by Christ Jesus the Lord (through whom) we come unto God the Father than to miss the ferry boat and stay upon a young woman's virgin loins made under the law (through whom) we cannot (even though by whom He did come into the same). Whose body (a clay vessel) God caused to conceive (for the short time she did carry as any woman would) in order to bring a child into this world, and the same is true of God, and bringing His Son into this world.

I believe Christ in you (after, even according to the Spirit) is where the focus and the hope of glory is not so much the lesser focus upon Christ (after, even according to the flesh) as He was brought forth from a womans womb (in the past ) where the stink seems more centered around her, but that is just how it comes off to me.

Everyone has something they focus upon.

 

[patricius79]

I miss Lion King I wonder where he has been, I hope he comes back and says hi (he probably has a real life).

Its probably best to stay upon God the Father by Christ Jesus the Lord (through whom) we come unto God the Father than to miss the ferry boat and stay upon a young woman's virgin loins made under the law (through whom) we cannot (even though by whom He did come into the same). Whose body (a clay vessel) God caused to conceive (for the short time she did carry as any woman would) in order to bring a child into this world, and the same is true of God, and bringing His Son into this world.

I believe Christ in you (after, even according to the Spirit) is where the focus and the hope of glory is not so much the lesser focus upon Christ (after, even according to the flesh) as He was brought forth from a womans womb (in the past ) where the stink seems more centered around her, but that is just how it comes off to me.

Everyone has something they focus upon.

I don't think we want to reduce a person--the Mother of God--to a sort of object that God used for a while.

Rather, God chose to give His Son to the world through the free consent of this Immaculate Virgin, our Mother.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I don't think we want to reduce a person--the Mother of God--to a sort of object that God used for a while.

Rather, God chose to give His Son to the world through the free consent of this Immaculate Virgin, our Mother.

Mary didnt create God, you might think so I am not sure, but I believe Jesus Christ created her not her Him.

She was a temporary earthen vessel to be used for that specific purpose even as scripture said a virgin shall conceive and a virgin did. She is just flesh like the rest of us.

I always say, Jesus is my ever virgin

 

[patricius79]

Mary didnt create God, you might think so I am not sure, but I believe Jesus Christ created her not her Him.

She was a temporary earthen vessel to be used for that specific purpose even as scripture said a virgin shall conceive and a virgin did. She is just flesh like the rest of us.

I always say, Jesus is my ever virgin

Mary didn't create God but she is the Mother of God, since Jesus is God. We can never understand the holiness and goodness of being God's Mother, because we can never understand the holiness and goodness of Jesus, our God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Mary didn't create God but she is the Mother of God, since Jesus is God. We can never understand the holiness and goodness of being God's Mother, because we can never understand the holiness and goodness of Jesus, our God.

She is called the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, lots of people deny the acknowledgement of the Son without whom (more specificaly so) they have not the Father, even as Elizabeth acknowledges Christ as Lord even as David said, "The LORD said to MY Lord" is He who is the Son of God. Mary was a mere vessel of clay (no more then that). He is the Potter and we are the clay. And just as any mother who can carry a child in her womb by any earthly father so could she even by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus Christ created her. Mommy is just a title for one who has a womb (as a woman) that has brought forth to become one. But He was always before her. We all have parents according to the flesh (Jesus Christ even) as all flesh was created by Christ, He existed before Mary who was mere flesh) and became mother of our Lord in title being one who brought him forth from the womb.

I acknowledge God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, not just chirp on Mary.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What do you think of 1 John 1:3? Who does the "us" refer to there?

As to the topic of this thread, we depend on the historic Church and her ministers, and we depend on the Blessed Virgin, through whom Christ came to us.

Do you think that the "us" in I John 1:3 is the same as the "us" in I John 4? If so, then you can rightly conclude that they are the "beloved" of I John 4 and the "little children" of I John 4.

In your last sentence, is the "we" in reference to the same "beloved" and "little children" as in I John 4 or is it possible that you might have another group in mind? You have not made yourself clear as to who it is that depends on the historic Church and her ministers, nor, for that matter, what exactly constitutes the historic Church and who those ministers might be. I can assure you that my Church and its ministers do not depend on the Blessed Virgin.

 

[patricius79]

She is called the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, lots of people deny the acknowledgement of the Son without whom (more specificaly so) they have not the Father, even as Elizabeth acknowledges Christ as Lord even as David said, "The LORD said to MY Lord" is He who is the Son of God. Mary was a mere vessel of clay (no more then that). He is the Potter and we are the clay. And just as any mother who can carry a child in her womb by any earthly father so could she even by the Holy Ghost.
.

I think that whenever God creates someone for a purpose, he gives them the graces and dignity that suit them for that purpose. Mary was given immense grace for her role as God's Mother. That is why the angel says, "Hail, Full of Grace"

 

[Fireinfolding]

I think that whenever God creates someone for a purpose, he gives them the graces and dignity that suit them for that purpose. Mary was given immense grace for her role as God's Mother. That is why the angel says, "Hail, Full of Grace"

I recall someone saying something to the effect of yah I hear ya, must have been a real tough job raising God huh? LOL

 

[patricius79]

I recall someone saying something to the effect of yah I hear ya, must have been a real tough job raising God huh? LOL

It's certainly a great mystery that a creature birthed and raised a child who is fully human and fully God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I dont think its much of a mystery at all, thats an easy thing for God to do. Even as he said to Sarah who laughed being beyond child bearing years, "Is anything too hard for the LORD"?

 

[patricius79]

I dont think its much of a mystery at all, thats an easy thing for God to do. Even as he said to Sarah who laughed being beyond child bearing years, "Is anything too hard for the LORD"?

I think it's a mystery that God chose to do it--to save us--through Mary.