Immaculate conception of Mary?

[patricius79]

Since there is nothing in that verse which has anything to do with those doctrines, you are choosing to believe whatever you find appealing to believe in. How can that be a correct way of deciding doctrine? And if it is, how could anyone who believes something else about these doctrines be faulted? Their judgment couldn't possibly be wrong if "I'll believe whatever I choose to believe" is your own guide.

In no sense. They weren't believed in "from the beginning."

As you said, YOU believe in them simply because you find them to be personally appealing.

Where did you or anyone say that? Could you explain your claim that Leo or his immediate predecessor "started" the Catholic Church?

Although the Bible says to hold fast to the oral traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Timothy 2:2) I can't accept the Protestant oral traditions about the Immaculate Conception because they conflict with the Word of God.

 

[Standing Up]

I asked you if you agreed with 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and then I didn't get an answer. Is there a reason for that?

We know of one tradition extant in Paul's time which we don't follow. Easter floated from year to year to any day of the week. It was fixed to Sunday at Nicea. So, it's a rather hollow agreement to believe we abide as Paul said.

When did I deny that the N.T. Canon--like the doctrines of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception-- existed implicitly within the mystery of the oral Tradition of the Church?

Like I said, you're simply guessing about those things. You backtracked. First you were asked what traditions were extant in Paul's time. You answered the NT canon. You want to believe that, go ahead.

 

[patricius79]

We know of one tradition extant in Paul's time which we don't follow. Easter floated from year to year to any day of the week. It was fixed to Sunday at Nicea. So, it's a rather hollow agreement to believe we abide as Paul said.

Like I said, you're simply guessing about those things. You backtracked. First you were asked what traditions were extant in Paul's time. You answered the NT canon. You want to believe that, go ahead.

I think my position is simple: the Bible says to hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

So I accept the Word of God regarding the N.T. Canon, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Standing Up]

I think my position is simple: the Bible says to hold fast to the traditions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

So I accept the Word of God regarding the N.T. Canon, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Immaculate Conception.

No problem. If you want to think the NT Canon was complete and the IC was a verbal dogma binding on all Christians in Paul's time and you understand Paul to say abide with those traditions, then nothing will change your mind.

 

[patricius79]

No problem. If you want to think the NT Canon was complete and the IC was a verbal dogma binding on all Christians in Paul's time and you understand Paul to say abide with those traditions, then nothing will change your mind.

From 2 Thessalonians 2:15, I don't think we know precisely what had been handed on orally or in writing at the time Paul wrote that. Or at least not how explicit these traditions were. I think what the verse clearly does tell us is that the early Church did not subscribe to the oral tradition of Sola Scriptura, which is an idea not preached by our Lord, or by Paul, or any of the Biblical authors. Of course, the Jews and the early Christians did not have copies of the Bible and many were illiterate. They relied primarily on the oral word.

What 2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us is that Tradition is the Word of God.

So I believe that Catholic Tradition is the Word of God, and that this Tradition is the source of the N.T. Canon and the doctrine of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Standing Up]

From 2 Thessalonians 2:15, I don't think we know precisely what had been handed on orally or in writing at the time Paul wrote that.

Me either, except for a floating Pascha tradition.

 

[patricius79]

Me either, except for a floating Pascha tradition.

It's interesting how we want to apply some verses to ourselves and others relegate as applying only to that time period. Protestants like the passage about the Bereans, and apply the verse to a modern context. But 2 Thessalonians seems to be treated as if it's not living and active Word of God.

But the main point is that the oral Word of God is that Mary is the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Standing Up]

It's interesting how we want to apply some verses to ourselves and others relegate as applying only to that time period. Protestants like the passage about the Bereans, and apply the verse to a modern context. But 2 Thessalonians seems to be treated as if it's not living and active Word of God.

You're confusing one thing. The Bereans modeled SS for all time. Paul models "abide the traditions" for all time. But you've confused the latter as some sort of "blank check". Paul doesn't say "abide the traditions that will come after me whatever those may be".

Otherwise good point. RC should be SS, like the Bereans. And RC should abide the traditions extant in Paul's time, rather than usurp that authority to make-up Tradition.

 

[patricius79]

You're confusing one thing. The Bereans modeled SS for all time. Paul models "abide the traditions" for all time. But you've confused the latter as some sort of "blank check". Paul doesn't say "abide the traditions that will come after me whatever those may be".

Otherwise good point. RC should be SS, like the Bereans. And RC should abide the traditions extant in Paul's time, rather than usurp that authority to make-up Tradition.

I agree that Paul models abiding by the oral traditions for all time. But if you say that the only oral traditions we should follow are those that were explicit in Paul's' time, there is a problem. First, the Bible doesn't say that. Secondly, the same would have to apply to the Bereans, meaning that we should accept no Scriptures except those present at that time. Thirdly, the Scriptures extent at that time did not teach Sola Scriptura, and neither did any afterwards.

 

[Standing Up]

I agree that Paul models abiding by the oral traditions for all time. But if you say that the only oral traditions we should follow are those that were explicit in Paul's' time, there is a problem. First, the Bible doesn't say that. Secondly, the same would have to apply to the Bereans, meaning that we should accept no Scriptures except those present at that time. Thirdly, the Scriptures extent at that time did not teach Sola Scriptura, and neither did any afterwards.

Wrong to your bolded statement. Like I said, you interpret it as a "blank check". But Paul clearly does say "in his time":

2Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

"Been taught". Not the ones centuries later.

2Thes 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Received from us (Paul and apostles).

 

[Albion]

You're confusing one thing. The Bereans modeled SS for all time. Paul models "abide the traditions" for all time. But you've confused the latter as some sort of "blank check". Paul doesn't say "abide the traditions that will come after me whatever those may be".

 

[patricius79]

Wrong to your bolded statement. Like I said, you interpret it as a "blank check". But Paul clearly does say "in his time":

2Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

"Been taught". Not the ones centuries later.

).

Paul says to hold fast to the traditions which you have been taught, whether orally OR BY LETTER.

I think your argument just rejected any epistles written after 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

 

[patricius79]

The verse says to hold fast to the traditions, just as there WERE handed on, WHETHER orally OR BY LETTER"

So you are saying that based on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we should not hold fast to any of the Scriptures given after this verse was written?

 

[patricius79]

It's sad that people would vehemently argue against the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. It's one thing to be unsure or to respectfully have a different view. But if people have contempt for this Word of God, I think it is sad and offensive to our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary's Son and God.

 

[Standing Up]

Paul says to hold fast to the traditions which you have been taught, whether orally OR BY LETTER.

I think your argument just rejected any epistles written after 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

It's sad to think some drive a wedge between Paul and the other apostles.

 

[patricius79]

It's sad to think some drive a wedge between Paul and the other apostles.

Who is doing that?

Paul says to hold fast to the traditions, just as they WERE handed on, WHETHER orally OR BY LETTER.

Your argument was that based on "as they WERE handed on", we should only hold fast to the oral traditions that had been handed on to that point. But then based on the verse, the same would apply to the written traditions, which would mean rejecting all epistles written after 2 Thessalonians 2:15, including those written by Paul.

Or we can accept the plain meaning of the Word of God, which is that we should hold fast to both the written and the oral traditions of the historic Church.

Of course, most of the Apostles wrote nothing, and our Lord wrote nothing. They handed on the oral Word of God which the Church penetrates more and more deeply over the centuries, understanding more and more the tremendous dignity of being the Immaculate Mother of God.

 

[Standing Up]

Who is doing that?

Paul says to hold fast to the traditions, just as they WERE handed on, WHETHER orally OR BY LETTER.

Your argument was that based on "as they WERE handed on", we should only hold fast to the oral traditions that had been handed on to that point. But then based on the verse, the same would apply to the written traditions, which would mean rejecting all epistles written after 2 Thessalonians 2:15, including those written by Paul.

As you agree, hold fast to the traditions oral or written at that time. This isn't saying reject my (Paul) next letter. Paul is talking about traditions, not letters.

 

[patricius79]

As you agree, hold fast to the traditions oral or written at that time. This isn't saying reject my (Paul) next letter. Paul is talking about traditions, not letters.

A "tradition" is a custom or belief which is handed on. Your interpretation would mean rejecting any custom or belief given by Paul--whether orally or in writing--after 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was written.

 

[Standing Up]

A "tradition" is a custom or belief which is handed on. Your interpretation would mean rejecting any custom or belief given by Paul--whether orally or in writing--after 2 Thessalonians 2:15 was written.

Paul's not rejecting apostles. He's saying abide the traditions you've heard from me. But you're right; Paul is saying reject traditions that come afterwards.

 

[justinangel]

It's much more "tenable" than your theory about Henry VIII founding a new church.

It's a historical fact. It all started In 1533 when King Henry Vlll divorced Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn. As a result, he was excommunicated by Pope Clement ll who refused to annul the previous marriage. Civil divorce is forbidden in the Catholic Church ( Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10-11). See the ECFs on marriage and divorce. Anyway, he decreed the Act of Supremacy in 1534, making the English monarch instead of the pope the head of the Catholic Church in England. He also closed down all the Catholic monastaries. After a brief experiment with Protestantism under his son Edward VI (1547-53) and a brief return to Catholicism under his elder daughter Mary I (1555-58), England officially became Protestant in 1559 under his younger daughter Elizabeth I (1558-1603). Except under the Catholic James II (1685-88), Catholicism remained illegal for the next 232 years. Catholic Christians faithful to the Holy See at Rome and refusing to swear allegiance to the English soveriegn existed mostly in secret congregations centred on the country houses of Catholic peers and gentry. Priests had to be trained and ordained abroad, and on returning to England they were liable to imprisonment. From about 1580 to 1680 they also risked execution, as did those who harboured them. Catholics were also liable to fines for not attending Protestant services (‘recusancy’). About 300 faithful Catholic clergy were martyred. After Catholic worship finally became legal on a permanent basis in 1791, most of the country-house chapels were closed and the missions moved to the nearest towns, following the shifts of population caused by the Industrial Revolution. So Catholic churches in England are now mostly in cities and towns and date from the last two hundred years. Hence, the Anglican Church is not the Catholic Church in England. The bishops who swore allegiance to the English sovereign forfeited their apostolic lineage. All ordinations have been invalid ever since. Meanwhile, in the complexity of the outgrowth of all the different branches in Anglicanism, most ancient apostolic traditions have been lost, including the Marian traditions. What you are left with is some borrowed Catholic capital which includes the Bible.

There is some question as to whether the Papal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, was started by Leo or by his immediate predecessor, but there's no question about Henry founding a new church. He didn't.

It all started with Henry. Despite his actions, he never espoused Protestant beliefs. But the true Catholic Church was in hiding for centuries. Your idea of there being a "papal Roman Catholic Church" apart from the Catholic churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and former Constantinople (sorry, no London) is a piece of revisionist historical fiction.

Nicaea I 325 318 bishops attended under Bishop Hosius of Cordova, legate of Pope Sylvester, and Emperor Constantine. The Nicene Creed was approved, the date of Easter was fixed, and the Arian heresy was condemned. The contents of holy scripture were decided.

Constantinople I 381 150 bishops attended under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I. The Nicene Creed was reaffirmed and expanded, with the clauses referring to the Holy Spirit added. The heresies of Macedonianism and Apollinarianism were condemned.

Ephesus 431 200 bishops attended. St. Cyril of Alexandria presided, representing Pope Celestine I. Defined the true personal unity of Christ and declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos). The heresies of Nestorianism and Pelagianism were condemned.

Chalcedon 451 150 bishops under the legates of Pope Leo the Great and Emperor Marcian. Tome of Leo and Definition of Faith approved, clarifying the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ. Eutyches, who taught that Christ had only one nature, was excommunicated.

Constantinople II 553 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I. Condemned the errors of Origen and The Three Chapters of Theodoret, Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Bishop Ibas of Edessa. While they were all together, the bishops confirmed the authority of the first four Ecumenical Councils, since some folks were questioning them, particularly the Council of Chalcedon.

Constantinople III 680-681 174 bishops under the legates of Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus. Attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch. The heresy of Monothelitism was finally condemned by defining the two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. The whole controversy was fairly silly, and most of the adherents of Monothelitism did so for political, rather than doctrinal, reasons.

Nicaea II 787 367 bishops under the legates of Pope Hadrian I. Originally convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene. The Council condemned Iconoclasm as heresy, much to the relief of artists throughout the East.

http://www.popesonparade.com/councils/councils.html

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.'
Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171)

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180)
"
And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided."
Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle."
Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342)