Immaculate conception of Mary?

[Standing Up]

Why? The doctrine of the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God doesn't depend on the PoJ.

Okay, show EV from Paul's time.

 

[patricius79]

Okay, show EV from Paul's time.

Because you didn't answer my question--again--it seems that you don't agree with the Word of God, which says to hold fast to the traditions as they were handed on, whether given orally or by letter.

There is no explicit documentation of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in Paul's time that I know of. The same can be said of the N.T. Canon and the doctrines of the Trinity, which likewise derive from the Word of God (Catholic Tradition)

The Immaculate Mother of said to the angel, "how can this be since I do not know man?". This makes no sense if she were planning on having relations with St. Joseph.

 

[Standing Up]

Because you didn't answer my question--again--it seems that you don't agree with the Word of God, which says to hold fast to the traditions as they were handed on, whether given orally or by letter.

There is no explicit documentation of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary in Paul's time that I know of. The same can be said of the N.T. Canon and the doctrines of the Trinity, which likewise derive from the Word of God (Catholic Tradition)

The Immaculate Mother of said to the angel, "how can this be since I do not know man?". This makes no sense if she were planning on having relations with St. Joseph.

I've answered many times. Yes, observe the traditions taught in Paul's time. Do you agree? If so, I'll let you know when Pascha is coming up so you may ignore your Easter tradition that arose centuries later. If you don't, well, c/u around.

 

[patricius79]

I've answered many times. Yes, observe the traditions taught in Paul's time. Do you agree? If so, I'll let you know when Pascha is coming up so you may ignore your Easter tradition that arose centuries later. If you don't, well, c/u around.

So you agree that we should observe the traditions that were handed on in Paul's time, whether they were given orally or by letter?

"Traditions" does not merely refer to dates and customs, but to doctrines as well.

How do you determine what was passed on orally by Paul, so as to follow Scripture's teaching?

The Apostles passed on the truth about the Immaculate Mother of God.

 

[Standing Up]

How do you determine what was passed on orally by Paul, so as to follow Scripture's teaching?

That's the question isn't it. The only way to know with certainty is scripture (it is written). The rest is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you'll get.

 

[patricius79]

That's the question isn't it. The only way to know with certainty is scripture (it is written). .

I think that that is a human tradition which nullifies the Word of God, and simply leads to a lot of modern oral traditions, division, and conflicting Biblical interpretations.

We don't have the right to reject what Paul says simply because of a prejudice against oral communication.

I have to follow what Scripture says about the oral Word. That's why I'm Catholic, and believe in God through the Mother of God.

 

[justinangel]

You're confusing birth and labor. Even if there were no labor pains, it doesn't mean the baby was born from Mary's side as the PoJ implies.

A woman goes into labour before she gives birth to a child. Since Mary gave birth to Jesus before going into labour, as Isaiah prophesies, our Lord's birth was miraculous. Mary did not give birth to Jesus as women naturally do. Further, the PoJ does not imply in the least that Jesus came forth from Mary's side.

And the midwife said unto him: Is this the truth? And Joseph said unto her: Come hither and see. And the midwife went with him.

And they stood in the place of the cave: and behold a bright cloud overshadowing the cave. And the midwife said: My soul is magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen marvellous things: for salvation is born unto Israel. And immediately the cloud withdrew itself out of the cave, and a great light appeared in the cave so that our eyes could not endure it. And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared: and it went and took the breast of its mother Mary.

And the midwife cried aloud and said: Great unto me to-day is this day, in that ! have seen this new sight. And the midwife went forth of the cave and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, a new sight have I to tell thee. A virgin hath brought forth, which her nature alloweth not. And Salome said: As the Lord my God liveth, if I make not trial and prove her nature I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth.

Infancy Gospel of James, 19:1-3

The 2nd century Church Father Irenaeus cites Isaiah 66:7 in his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching and affirms the early Christian tradition of Christ's miraculous birth. This is connected with the early Church's perception of Mary as the New Eve. 'To Eve it was said: “In pain you shall bring forth children”' (Gen. 3:16). Since Mary was exempt from this law (Genesis 3:15), her virginal integrity remained inviolate when she gave birth to Jesus. She didn't experience pain because she gave birth to her Son before going into labour. The mystery of Mary’s virginity in giving birth to our Lord and Saviour was preached and taught consistently by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church: Aristides of Athens, St. Hippolytus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Proclus of Constantinople,Theodotus of Ancyra, St. Peter Chrysologus, Pope St. Leo the Great, Severus of Antioch, St. Romanos the Melodist, St. Venantius Fortunatus, and Pope St. Gregory the Great. This doctrine wasn't seriously challenged in Christendom until the 18th century in Protestantism.

 

[justinangel]

PoJ was rejected precisely because it was heretical. It contradicted scripture. PoJ has a midwife helping. Scripture has no midwife.

V. The remaining writings [including PoJ] which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:
http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

The PoJ is not classified with the ancient Gnostic writings which were produced by heretics, who claimed to have received secret knowledge from Jesus himself ("compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church"). Since the gospel wasn't actually written by James the Younger, and so isn't the inspired word of God, it is historically errant. The Church in the West didn't believe the "brothers of Jesus" to be step-siblings of his from Joseph's previous marriage. Eastern schismatic clerics did, but they weren't regarded as schismatic for this reason. The Decretum Gelasianum has been attributed to Pope Gelasius (492-496 A.D.), but not without dispute. Still, if the pope had actually issued this decree, he wouldn't have regarded the account of the miraculous birth of Jesus as being heretical. The Church Fathers and Doctors, who include two early popes, consistently taught and upheld this orthodox Christian belief.

Finally, Luke doesn't mention a midwife (another historical contradiction found in the PoJ) because Mary didn't need one. She gave birth to Jesus miraculously. I'm afraid many legends did arise through the course of the oral tradition in various communities, but the virginitas in partu belongs to sacred Tradition. The presence of a mid-wife might be legendary (she could have been there, though not mentioned by Luke), but the miraculous birth of Christ is a divinely revealed truth that belongs to the deposit of faith. This doctrine would contradict Scripture only if Luke mentioned that Mary went into labour and experienced the pangs of giving birth. But he's silent on that score as well. All it contravenes is what you choose to believe.

 

[justinangel]

Okay, show EV from Paul's time.

 

[justinangel]

The EV is handed down from Paul's time (Luke 1:34). He didn't write down everything that was preached.

 

[justinangel]

We've been over this. You got nothing from Paul's time to follow that you know of. The one thing you do know is to observe a floating "easter". But you can't. Free yourself to follow what you teach.

The Christians in Paul's time did not celebrate Easter. Nor was Easter Sunday observed by the second century Christians in Asia Minor. They observed Passover.

The traditions Paul is referring to are the ones passed down from the Lord and through the Apostles, such as the meaning and importance of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23-34; cf. John 6). The celebration of the Pasch falls under the category of ecclesial traditions which have to do with varying regional practices, not universal doctrines on faith and morals.

Moreover, Paul also writes: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it..." (2 Tim. 3:14). Notice that Paul does not write, "knowing from which Scriptural passage you learned it", but rather "knowing from whom you learned it." He actually exhorts his readers to follow the Apostolic Tradition as it has been faithfully handed down by our Lord's appointed ministers: "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2). St. Paul couldn't have taught the all sufficiency of Scripture, since there was no NT at his time. The Quadiform Gospels were written after Paul had written most of his epistles. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament if Paul believed in the all sufficiency of Scripture. But even the Jewish canon was still in flux in his time. The Church is the Rule of Faith - not the Bible as we now have it.

 

[Standing Up]

The EV is handed down from Paul's time (Luke 1:34). He didn't write down everything that was preached.

So you still got nothing to show EV.

 

[Standing Up]

V. The remaining writings [including PoJ] which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics:
http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

The PoJ is not classified with the ancient Gnostic writings which were produced by heretics, who claimed to have received secret knowledge from Jesus himself ("compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church").

You like to argue for arguing sake. Take it up with your Pope.

 

[Standing Up]

The Christians in Paul's time did not celebrate Easter.

Perfect. They didn't, but RC does. Now quit the hypocrisy of saying abide the Pauline traditions when you don't.

 

[Standing Up]

A woman goes into labour before she gives birth to a child. Since Mary gave birth to Jesus before going into labour, as Isaiah prophesies, our Lord's birth was miraculous.

Again, call it a "miracle" birth, but be clear it was through the normal human way of the birth canal complete with umbilical cord, placenta, water and blood.

 

[patricius79]

Again, call it a "miracle" birth, but be clear it was through the normal human way of the birth canal complete with umbilical cord, placenta, water and blood.

Since it was a miracle birth, it wouldn't have involved the loss of Our Immaculate Lady's Virginal Integrity.

 

[patricius79]

Perfect. They didn't, but RC does. Now quit the hypocrisy of saying abide the Pauline traditions when you don't.

One of the traditions Paul passed on was the authority of the Church to bind and loose. Of course the N.T. Canon likewise--which is not in Scripture--was not defined in the Apostolic age, yet was handed on more mysteriously.

 

[justinangel]

Again, call it a "miracle" birth, but be clear it was through the normal human way of the birth canal complete with umbilical cord, placenta, water and blood.

None of the Gospels record Jesus as having been born in a normal way. So what you prefer to believe isn't as clear as you think. Jesus passed through the birth canal, but without opening any doors. The gate remained shut, as Ezekiel prophesies, and not even the Prince shall enter or leave by it. Both the conception and birth of Jesus were miraculous: "The virgin shall conceive and give birth to a son" (Isa.7:14). Virgins neither conceive nor give birth to offspring, unless by Divine intervention. This is the 'sign' that Jesus truly is the Divine Messiah. Our Lord's miraculous birth confirms his miraculous conception. Inversely, since Mary did not conceive Jesus in the normal way, by having conjugal relations with Joseph, she gave birth to him in an unnatural way. Both his conception and birth were effected by the power of the Holy Spirit.

"And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth, says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself and not from conjunction."
Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata

 

[justinangel]

Perfect. They didn't, but RC does. Now quit the hypocrisy of saying abide the Pauline traditions when you don't.

But Paul couldn't have taught a fixed Easter when this feast hadn't been distinctly celebrated yet in his time. The Apostles and the first Christians must have commemmorated the death and resurrection of the Lord together during the Jewish Passover, beginning on 14 Nisan. But that's because they were Jews. Yet this is beside the point. Paul isn't referring to ecclesial traditions and practices, which aren't necessarily immutable and may vary according to time and place unless the universal Church rules othewise (Nicaea l). To "hold the traditions which you have been taught" (2 Thess. 2:15) has to do with Church doctrine, not ecclesial practice. What the Church teaches concerns doctrine. You're comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Standing Up]

But Paul couldn't have taught a fixed Easter when this feast hadn't been distinctly celebrated yet in his time.

Do you realize what you've just admitted? If you want me to delete this quote of yours, I will for your sake.