Lets talk about the supposed vow of chastity of Mary

[Thekla]

AGAIN, I have given you ALL of them related to the topic of this thread. I realize you seem extremely intent on diverting the discussion to other topics and to the views of other denominations, but we are to abide by the rules here at CF, aren't we?

Lutherans teach that Mary was a virgin at the Annunication and at the Nativity.

Lutherans use the TITLE of "Mother of God" although it is a title, not a dogma.

Lutherans teach a number of things about Mary that are taken, verbatim from printed words in the texts (Often from Luke and Matthew) - simply to repeat what Scripture verbatim states.

NONE of these things would you disagree with.

There you are. The ENTIRE, all-encompassing, total and complete list of Marian teachings in Lutheranism.

That's okay, Josiah.

I just thought my internet research on Lutheran dogmas had been insufficient - seems it wasn't.
And we do indeed seem to come from different grounds of experience, and thus understanding might be difficult.

And I guess we have different ways of communicating.

I highly value dialogue, and the role of true communication with others, the challenge and growing that can occur - that dialogue is a true opportunity, and a rich blessing. Including instances where dialogue arises from disagreement, and occasions where the particular disagreement is not itself resolved. I really wasn't trying to "throw you off" somehow.

Asking you related questions - the questions can help one to sense the ground of another's understanding, to glimpse the terrain, the topography. It's just a way of coming to "knowing", so one has a better sense of how to proceed to more accurately communicate.

I don't think this is against the rules of CF, but you can ask if you are uncertain.

Sorry this didn't work for you.

 

[Thekla]

For those interested in the matter of the identity of the adelphoi, here is Jewish teaching on breastfeeding (as it affects child spacing):

The Talmud also emphasizes the importance of breastfeeding. A mother is considered a “meineket,” or nursing mother, until her child reaches 24 months. Even if a baby has weaned, he or she can return to nurse at any time until the age of two. Between the ages of two and four years, or five if the baby is unhealthy, a child who has weaned for longer than 72 hours may not return to the breast, and age five is considered the upper limit for nursing in Jewish law.

Rabbis differ about whether the laws relating to a meineket still apply today, when babies are usually not dependent on breastfeeding for survival. Some rabbis grant an exemption from fasting on minor fast days to all mothers with children under two, whether or not the mothers are currently nursing.
According to the Talmud, widows or divorcees with nursing babies under two may not remarry. The concern is that the husband will naturally want his new wife to bear his child, and the new pregnancy could lower the mother’s milk supply and potentially harm the existing child. One friend who lives in a haredi community told me that her husband’s rabbi advises all of his students to practice birth control until their children have turned two. And the rabbi of another haredi friend does not permit women in their community to wean earlier without a medical reason.

more here:
Breastfeeding and Judaism: Why Moses' Mother Didn't Put Bottles Into The Ark Of Bulrushes | Green Prophet

 

[Dorothea]

1. Nowhere in the bible does it say Mary and Joseph are married, just betrothed (engaged), according to what I've read.

2. If they were never married, they could not have had other children out of wedlock.

3. If for some reason, people decide to go beyond the Scriptures and decide Mary and Joseph married, nowhere in the Scriptures does it say any other children are Mary's. Nowhere does it say she was the mother of other children, nor that these children were born of Mary.

4. If one wants to ignore this as well and go with these unscriptural and presumptuous belief that somehow Mary and Joseph did have all these children, when did this occur? All of a sudden Mary has 6 or whatever other children around the same age as Christ or even older. How does this work? If someone says before, there's no way because she was not married and knew no man at the time.

So, really, it's the other way around. Those who think Mary had children are reading into things that aren't there and are assuming much that isn't there as well. Those who believe she was ever virgin seemed to have actually studied and read the Scriptures and are able to understand what is said in that and what is not said.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Those who think Mary had children are reading into things that aren't there and are assuming much that isn't there as well.

1. Could the same be said for those who insist that Mary had no sex ever?

2. Those saying Mary had other children aren't saying it's a dogmatic fact, a matter of highest importance to and for all and matter of greatest certainty of fact, nor are they speaking (with SO much emphasis) of a normally private, personal matter. Do you see a difference there?




.

 

[Dorothea]

From the 5th century on no opposition whatever to the doctrine was expressed in either East or West until modern times. Several leaders of the Protestant Reformation believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Martin Luther believed that Mary did not have other children, and did not have any marital relations with Joseph,[29] maintaining, that the brothers mentioned were cousins.[30] This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jaroslav Pelikan noted that the perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther's lifelong belief,[31] and Hartmann Grisar, a Roman Catholic biographer of Luther, concurs that "Luther always believed in the virginity of Mary, even after his excommunication, though afterwards he denied her power of intercession, as well as that of the saints in general, ... and combated, as extreme and pagan, the extraordinary veneration which the [Roman] Catholic Church showed towards Mary."[32] For this reason even a rigorously conservative Lutheran scholar like Franz Pieper (1852–1931) refuses to follow the tendency among Protestants to insist that Mary and Joseph had marital relations and children after the birth of Jesus. It is implicit in his Christian Dogmatics that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is the older and traditional view among Lutherans.[33]


Franz Pieper, June 27, 1852 - June 3, 1931
He stated, that "we should simply hold that (Mary) remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity".[34] He taught that "Christ, our Saviour, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that"; and that " Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers".[35] In fact Luther held throughout his career that, "in childbirth and after childbirth, as she was a virgin before childbirth, so she remained".[36]

Perpetual virginity of Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dorothea]

1. Could the same be said for those who insist that Mary had no sex ever?

Not with what is said in the Scriptures. That Mary and Joseph were betrothed, but it doesn't say they married. It doesn't say any other children were Mary's. So, that wouldn't be jumping or taking a leap there to believe she never was with a man. It would be logical, especially with the scriptural passages and the Jewish history and culture of the time.

2. Those saying Mary had other children aren't saying it's a dogmatic fact, a matter of highest importance to and for all and matter of greatest certainty of fact, nor are they speaking (with SO much emphasis) of a normally private, personal matter. Do you see a difference there?

Then why are you constantly going on about sex? Just about every post I've seen you put on this thread is the same repeated words of Mary having no sex ever. Why do you keep saying that? It sounds like some type of obsession with sex, and it really is quite distasteful.

The difference is that nothing in the Scriptures says that she was married to Joseph or that she had other children. And it is dogmatic in our church because it is about Christ's Two Natures.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Those who think Mary had children are reading into things that aren't there and are assuming much that isn't there as well.


.

1. Could the same be said for those who insist that Mary had no sex ever?

2. Those saying Mary had other children aren't saying it's a dogmatic fact, a matter of highest importance to and for all and matter of greatest certainty of fact, nor are they speaking (with SO much emphasis) of a normally private, personal matter. Do you see a difference there?



.

From the 5th century on no opposition whatever to the doctrine was expressed in either East or West until modern times. Several leaders of the Protestant Reformation believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Martin Luther believed that Mary did not have other children, and did not have any marital relations with Joseph,[29] maintaining, that the brothers mentioned were cousins.[30] This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jaroslav Pelikan noted that the perpetual virginity of Mary was Luther's lifelong belief,[31] and Hartmann Grisar, a Roman Catholic biographer of Luther, concurs that "Luther always believed in the virginity of Mary, even after his excommunication, though afterwards he denied her power of intercession, as well as that of the saints in general, ... and combated, as extreme and pagan, the extraordinary veneration which the [Roman] Catholic Church showed towards Mary."[32] For this reason even a rigorously conservative Lutheran scholar like Franz Pieper (1852–1931) refuses to follow the tendency among Protestants to insist that Mary and Joseph had marital relations and children after the birth of Jesus. It is implicit in his Christian Dogmatics that belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is the older and traditional view among Lutherans.[33]

Thank you. Although I'm at a complete loss to know what that has to do with what I posted to you.


It has already been stated - numerous times - that SOME Lutherans embrace this view AS PIOUS OPINION, and that such is more than welcomed. It has already been agreed to - numerous times - that Luther held to the view quite passionately, as did most of the Lutheran Church Fathers. However, a "pious opinion" in Protestantism is a PERMITTED view, not a required view, it is a historic understanding that Scripture NEITHER confirms OR rejects. It is not ergo an official teaching, doctrine, dogma or de fide dogma.

As you know, the discussion here is NOT if from 220 on, there can be found those who believe this. NO ONE DENIES THAT. And no one denies that those who believe it do believe it. That's not the question, is it? The issue is this: Where is the confirmation of the claimed specific vow that Mary made to God? Where is the confirmation that the specific content of said vow is, "I will die - or not - having had no sex ever?" Where is the confirmation of it being a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth that Mary Had No Sex EVER?" It's not, "Have some believed this?" The question is, "Where's the confirmation to the level claimed?"


READ what you posted to me, namely: "Those who think Mary had children are reading into things that aren't there and are assuming much that isn't there as well." Could the same be said for those insisting that Mary made a specific vow to God with the precise content of "I will die - or not - having no sex EVER" and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance for and to all and a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever?







.

 

[Thekla]

The bigger question is:

why for 2-3 years, the same questions repeated regardless of the answers.

The questions are not what the questions are about.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Not with what is said in the Scriptures. That Mary and Joseph were betrothed, but it doesn't say they married. It doesn't say any other children were Mary's.

Exactly. The Bible does say that there were 4 named brothers and numembred and unnamed sisters of Jesus. But it doesn't say they were via Mary (athough - yes - "brother" here would need to be in the loosest meaning possible since Joseph was not related to Jesus - but yes, that meaning did exist). It doesn't say the WERE via Mary, and it doesn't say they were NOT via Mary. It doesn't say. The Bible also doesn't say that Mary had no sex ever. It doesn't say that She did and it doesn't say that She didn't. It doesn't say. If silence is reason to be silent in one case, why is it defended in the other as in fact confirmation of a view?


You said, Those who think Mary had children are reading into things that aren't there and are assuming much that isn't there as well." Okay, when you read the SILENCE about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born - SILENCE about anything remotely related to it - how is insisting, in the boldest way possible, "Mary made a vow to God, the precise content of said vow was 'I will die - or not - having had no sex ever' and that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of truth and fact that Mary had no sex ever" - how is that not "reading into things that aren't there and assuming much that isn't there as well?"

It sounds like some type of obsession with sex, and it really is quite distasteful.

I agree. NORMALLY, how often people have sex is a private matter. Note how we have YET to have any woman here defending this dogma telling us how often THEY have sex, and yet.... I know, it's just ONE of the many very peculiar things about this dogma. Many that are uncomfortable with it share your feeling completely, responding "why is it anyone's business? Much less a matter of highest importance?" I don't think it's any of my business how often you have sex (if at all).

The difference is that nothing in the Scriptures says that she was married to Joseph or that she had other children.

And nothing says that she wasn't or didn't have other children. And - to the point - NOTHING is said of any vow by Mary to God, NOTHING about the content of said vow, and NOTHING about how often She had sex - if at all - up to and including the moment of Her death (or undeath, depending on your view there). If silence means we CANNOT say Mary had children, why does SILENCE mean we can shout in the boldest way possible that Mary had no sex ever?





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The bigger question is:
.

Could it be that some think truth matters, even when it's just Mary we're talking about?


Could it be that when a denomination shouts - in the boldest way, as way to divide the church - that something is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth it thus should be relevant if it's true, most important and of the greatest certainty?


I have a hunch (that's all, because all here have avoided this), if I were to post (and I don't, I have WAY too much respect for you), that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all the world's people and a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth that YOU will have had sex 7654 times at the moment of your death (or undeath if you prefer), it would matter to you if such were true. You might even wonder why I insist on telling everyone that - even if it was true! IF your son asked, "Josiah - how do you know that to the level you claim? Why do you think THAT issue so very, very important for everyone?" I just think the "answers" (?) you've shared would not be given the time of day. I'm probably wrong about all of that, I'm growing in the opinion that you wouldn't care. But I think a lot would. Friend, this is not just some First Century female we're talking about, whose sex life is such an enormous issue for you. It's the Mother of Our Lord (and in a sense, MY Mother, YOUR Mother). She is THE most esteemed female (of not human being) who has ever lived. If you think I should respect YOUR sex life and not spread all kinds of stuff shouted as dogmatic facts of highest importance and greatest certainty of truth, why should we shout about Mary's? It could be that when we get to heaven and meet Mary, she will thank you for shouting all about her sex life. I don't deny that possibility. She might also be crying, hurt because her most precious aspect of intimacy, her most intimate part of her life within the Sacrament of Marriage was so boldly violated. I frankly doubt either will happen, for I believe God will tell Her of our hearts. But still, I keep remembering what my Catholic teachers so powerfully stressed to us: Gossip is defined by the RC as spreading a personal story about someone that is personal, potentially embarrassing and hurtful, often unnecessary, and that we have not confirmed it to be true. It's a sin we were told, a serious one. AND, it was stressed, "Gossiper ALWAYS insist what they say is true - but they run as soon as you ask them for the evidence."



Friend, I KNOW nothing I say means anything to any Catholic here - they are mandated to just embrace whatever their denomination says with quiet docility as unto God. I don't know if anything but that matters to members of the EO denomination or not, but it is NOT my desire to intent to "convert" anything becuase I regard that as impossible (in the case of Catholics and likely EO's). So, ask yourself: why am I here? The obvious answer is: Because I love Mary - and I think truth MATTERS about Her. I don't want Her heart broken - especially over such a profoundly personal issue of absolutely zero relevance to anything. AND because I care about what DIVIDES the church (because I think Jesus does) - two denominations have divided the Church ON THIS ISSUE. How often Mary had sex - if at all - after Jesus was born. I think someone should have pretty solid basis for doing this, for declaring DOGMA, and I just don't think "Cuz the Bible is silent, as is Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, and everyone before 220 when Turtullian denied it" works - it certainty doesn't for YOU, so why insist it must for everyone else?







.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Josiah,
Im not sure if I mentioned this but Im a former LCMS elder. I converted to the Orthodox church 10 years ago after my LCMS parish (and most of the other parishes in the Cincinnati area) pretty much abandoned the liturgy for praise band style worship. I still hold a deep appreciation of the Confessions and the historic Lutheran church.
Brian

 

[Thekla]

Could it be that some think truth matters, even when it's just Mary we're talking about?


Could it be that when a denomination shouts - in the boldest way, as way to divide the church - that something is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all and a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth it thus should be relevant if it's true, most important and of the greatest certainty?


I have a hunch (that's all, because all here have avoided this), if I were to post (and I don't, I have WAY too much respect for you), that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance to and for all the world's people and a matter of greatest certainty of fact and truth that YOU will have had sex 7654 times at the moment of your death (or undeath if you prefer), it would matter to you if such were true. You might even wonder why I insist on telling everyone that - even if it was true! IF your son asked, "Josiah - how do you know that to the level you claim? Why do you think THAT issue so very, very important for everyone?" I just think the "answers" (?) you've shared would not be given the time of day. I'm probably wrong about all of that, I'm growing in the opinion that you wouldn't care. But I think a lot would. Friend, this is not just some First Century female we're talking about, whose sex life is such an enormous issue for you. It's the Mother of Our Lord (and in a sense, MY Mother, YOUR Mother). She is THE most esteemed female (of not human being) who has ever lived. If you think I should respect YOUR sex life and not spread all kinds of stuff shouted as dogmatic facts of highest importance and greatest certainty of truth, why should we shout about Mary's? It could be that when we get to heaven and meet Mary, she will thank you for shouting all about her sex life. I don't deny that possibility. She might also be crying, hurt because her most precious aspect of intimacy, her most intimate part of her life within the Sacrament of Marriage was so boldly violated. I frankly doubt either will happen, for I believe God will tell Her of our hearts. But still, I keep remembering what my Catholic teachers so powerfully stressed to us: Gossip is defined by the RC as spreading a personal story about someone that is personal, potentially embarrassing and hurtful, often unnecessary, and that we have not confirmed it to be true. It's a sin we were told, a serious one. AND, it was stressed, "Gossiper ALWAYS insist what they say is true - but they run as soon as you ask them for the evidence."



Friend, I KNOW nothing I say means anything to any Catholic here - they are mandated to just embrace whatever their denomination says with quiet docility as unto God. I don't know if anything but that matters to members of the EO denomination or not, but it is NOT my desire to intent to "convert" anything becuase I regard that as impossible (in the case of Catholics and likely EO's). So, ask yourself: why am I here? The obvious answer is: Because I love Mary - and I think truth MATTERS about Her. I don't want Her heart broken - especially over such a profoundly personal issue of absolutely zero relevance to anything. AND because I care about what DIVIDES the church (because I think Jesus does) - two denominations have divided the Church ON THIS ISSUE. How often Mary had sex - if at all - after Jesus was born. I think someone should have pretty solid basis for doing this, for declaring DOGMA, and I just don't think "Cuz the Bible is silent, as is Mary, Joseph, Jesus, all the Apostles, and everyone before 220 when Turtullian denied it" works - it certainty doesn't for YOU, so why insist it must for everyone else?

You have no evidence that anyone was silent in the early centuries.
An absence of presently extant documentation is not absence of act.

The Bible, per the definition you use, engages in gossip.
To be pregnant, to have a child, is confirmation of sexual activity.
Per your statements, the Ecumenical Councils, and all who use the term aeiparthenos engage in gossip.

But also, anyone who uses the term "virgin" is engaging in gossip, per your parameters.

Calling someone "mother" or "father" is a form of gossip, too.
It is identifying that they engaged in a sexual relationship, which resulted in a child.


I don't think your questions are about your questions.

How can they be ?

How can someone who adheres to Sola Scriptura tacitly suggest that the Bible contains "gossip" ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You have no evidence that anyone was silent in the early centuries.

It's all we have.

Yes - it could be that Mary insisted that She and Joseph had sex twice daily, that they had 100 children (all red headed boys)- but we have NOTHING that indicates that she so said. Just like we have NOTHING that indicates that She said, "I will die - or not - having had no sex ever." Silence is a funny thing - it cuts both ways, but substantiates NOTHING.


You have revealed it yourself. The EARLIEST we have for ANYTHING on this point is from Turtullian, around 220 AD, and it's to DENY your view. To date anyway - before that - - - - - - - - - nothing. Silence. Does silence confirm She had sex twice a day? No. Does it confirm She had sex never? No.


Dividing Christianity forever with silence? Over how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born? "I KNOW - to the greatest certainty of truth and fact - I KNOW - as a matter of dogmatic fact - I KNOW - as matter of highest importance to and for all - because there is SILENCE?"








.

 

[Thekla]

It's all we have.

Yes - it could be that Mary insisted that She and Joseph had sex twice daily, that they had 100 children (all red headed boys)- but we have NOTHING that indicates that she so said. Just like we have NOTHING that indicates that She said, "I will die - or not - having had no sex ever." Silence is a funny thing - it cuts both ways, but substantiates NOTHING.


You have revealed it yourself. The EARLIEST we have for ANYTHING on this point is from Turtullian, around 220 AD, and it's to DENY your view. To date anyway - before that - - - - - - - - - nothing. Silence. Does silence confirm She had sex twice a day? No. Does it confirm She had sex never? No.


Dividing Christianity forever with silence? Over how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born? "I KNOW - to the greatest certainty of truth and fact - I KNOW - as a matter of dogmatic fact - I KNOW - as matter of highest importance to and for all - because there is SILENCE?"

If mention of sexual activity is gossip, your "all we have", the Scripture, is full of gossip.

You've stated before that you're a Sola Scriptura adherent.

Are you really against gossip ?

Is that truly your central concern - a concern so central you suggest that the very thing you embrace is full of the gossip you claim to despise ?

In my opinion, your central question, the center of your question, is something you shouldn't be asking of me or anyone else. It's a question within yourself, to be answered there.

 

[justinangel]

It's all we have.

You have revealed it yourself. The EARLIEST we have for ANYTHING on this point is from Turtullian, around 220 AD, and it's to DENY your view. To date anyway - before that - - - - - - - - - nothing. Silence.

Tertullian eventually embraced the Montanist heresy as well. In the same century, Origen bore testimony to the traditional belief in the PV of Mary.

Dividing Christianity forever with silence? Over how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born? "I KNOW - to the greatest certainty of truth and fact - I KNOW - as a matter of dogmatic fact - I KNOW - as matter of highest importance to and for all - because there is SILENCE?"

As a Lutheran you probably believe the Holy Spirit is a divine Person in the Holy Trinity, and that he proceeds from the Father through the Son. However, the earliest extant writing by an early Church Father on this doctrine is from Tertullian (Against Praxeus, 4:1) dated A.D. 216. There are no earlier writings that go back to the 1st century. So by your standards you should also be questioning whether your belief in the Holy Spirit is a dogmatic fact of the highest importance for all and not just the product of gossip. You may contest that Scripture supports your belief by gleaning the written word, but the best you can do is argue from hindsight as did many Trinitarian heretics of early times who cited the OT to support their unorthodox beliefs. Scripture isn't crystal clear on this article of faith. And so we must also rely on Tradition, as Catholics do on the matters of faith, including Mary's Divine maternity and chastity.

St. Thomas Aquinas provides answers to your question why the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is of the highest dogmatic importance and mustn't be denied. What is more important than the time of the first sign of a belief is the reasons for it. Dogmas essentially explain why all Christians must belief in something as truly revealed from God in the deposit of faith.

"First, Jesus is the Only-Begotten of the Father, so it was becoming that he should be the only-begotten of the mother. Second, Mary's virginal womb is the is the shrine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he had formed the flesh of Christ; wherefore it was unbecoming that intercourse with man should desecrate it. Third, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's mother: For she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son."

PAX

 

[razeontherock]

Scripture isn't crystal clear on this article of faith. [Trinity] And so we must also rely on Tradition, as Catholics do on the matters of faith, including Mary's Divine maternity and chastity.

Disagreed. I find Trinity to be perfectly clear in Scripture, and the same goes for Mary's Divine maternity, and chastity. (Until Jesus' birth) The only one of these that needs anything extra-Biblical for support is PV, although I must admit this is a case where Tradition at least does not contradict Scripture.

 

[washedagain]

Josiah,
Im not sure if I mentioned this but Im a former LCMS elder. I converted to the Orthodox church 10 years ago after my LCMS parish (and most of the other parishes in the Cincinnati area) pretty much abandoned the liturgy for praise band style worship. I still hold a deep appreciation of the Confessions and the historic Lutheran church.
Brian

You abandoned you church because of the praise band?????? Really?

 

[Incariol]

You abandoned you church because of the praise band?????? Really?

Is there something shocking about it? His parish through the liturgy out in favor of the sort of happy-clappy band concerts. Not exactly an insignificant issue.

 

[razeontherock]

You abandoned you church because of the praise band?????? Really?

They never learned how to tune up?

 

[justinangel]

Disagreed. I find Trinity to be perfectly clear in Scripture,....

So did the the Monarchianists, Unitarians, Sabellians, and Arians. So do the Mormons and Jehova Witnesses.

...and the same goes for Mary's Divine maternity, and chastity. (Until Jesus' birth)

The Greek word for the conjunction "until" is heos, and it doesn't technically function to reference the future after an event. What you think is clear may not necessarily be true.

The only one of these that needs anything extra-Biblical for support is PV, although I must admit this is a case where Tradition at least does not contradict Scripture.

And the Trinity: how the three divine Persons definitively relate to each other.

The unanimous writings of the early Church Fathers bear testimony to the orthodox beliefs of the times. The Canon of Scripture was established partly on the criterion of what the Church traditionally and universally believed. The books that were inconsonant with the Apostolic Tradition were rejeccted as apochryphal.

PAX