When does Marian veneration and devotion go too far? When is the line crossed?

[Root of Jesse]

So how do you reconcile that scripture itself points to Tradition and that it comes by both word and epistle? What sort of rationale do you apply to that in order to continue insisting that scripture alone reigns supreme?

Heck, even the OT relies heavily on Tradition. Extrabiblical tradition. So does the NT.

For example, in 2 Timothy 3:8-9, who are Jannes and Jambres?

Another: Acts 7:52-53, Gal 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2-3 mention that the Law was put into effect by angels. Where do they get this notion?

 

[Albion]

So how do you reconcile that scripture itself points to Tradition

It doesn't.

Are there other questions?

 

[Rhamiel]

That's not Sacred Tradition.

It might be a reliance upon that which is customary or proven or accepted, etc. as a means to understanding Scripture. If so, it's nothing that any believer in Sola Scriptura could disagree with. Sacred Tradition, however, is supposedly a second stream of divine revelation--although it is opinion, folklore, and ideas that are entirely human except for the theory (and that's all it is) that the hand of God is behind it all.

lol I would say that "which is customary or proven or accepted" is a HUGE part of Sacred Tradition
also, proper interpretation of Scripture can be seen as part, the biggest part, of Sacred Tradition

your own church has an episcopal structure, it can not be argued that the episcopal structure is clearly laid out in the Scripture, yet your own church accepts this tradition as part of what is proper for the Christian Church

Christians line up their teachings with what scripture says, not the other way around.

well the early Church had to distinguish which books WERE scripture
so yes, they used the oral teachings that the received from those who came before them + what was commonly accepted to come about with a cannon of scripture

 

[Gnarwhal]

It doesn't.

Are there other questions?

Hm that's weird! I could've sworn that Tradition was mentioned by St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians and his second letter to the Thessalonians! Oh wait...

1 Corinthians 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.


2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It doesn't.

Are there other questions?

So who are Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3: 8-9?

How does Paul know who they are? Where are they in the OT, and why would he expect Timothy to know who they are?

 

[Root of Jesse]

So who are Jannes and Jambres in 2 Timothy 3: 8-9?

How does Paul know who they are? Where are they in the OT, and why would he expect Timothy to know who they are?

Bumping. Seems maybe people are trying to find out the answers?

It's pretty simple, really. Jannes and Jambres were the magicians who contended with Moses before Pharoah.

The point is that they're not mentioned by name in the Bible, yet Paul uses their names as if everyone would know them. So an extra-biblical source is the source of this reference.

There's other examples of this use of extra-biblical sources. The point is that it is Tradition that gives us these references, not Scripture. How could this be, if we believe in Sola Scriptura?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Heck, even the OT relies heavily on Tradition. Extrabiblical tradition. So does the NT.

For example, in 2 Timothy 3:8-9, who are Jannes and Jambres?

Another: Acts 7:52-53, Gal 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2-3 mention that the Law was put into effect by angels. Where do they get this notion?

This is also extra-biblical reference. Again, proving that the Bible doesn't use the Bible alone for proof of its own texts...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Would you vote to get rid of the Theotokion and stavroTheotokion from the services and all service related items? This item being a cross.

Obviously, we do not find Theotokion and stavroTheotokion's in our bibles.

Theotokion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...instructs us and allows us to praise God for the particular events or persons whose memory is celebrated and made present to us in the Church."

Ridding ourselves of such hymn prayers are not in our best interst as Christians.

Perhaps the OP would provide a picture of the cross and a closeup of the inscription?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Albion]

Hm that's weird!

I could've sworn that Tradition was mentioned by St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians and his second letter to the Thessalonians! Oh wait...

1 Corinthians 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.


2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

Thanks for proving my point. Now I don't have to type out all those verses myself.

You said that "scripture itself points to Tradition."

Now, we see that "Tradition" AKA Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition--which we had been discussing--is NOT in Scripture.

The verses above refer to "the traditions" but never, ever to that hypothetical parallel to the Bible which is supposed to define Christian doctrine for us (or for those who are Catholic-minded, anyway).

The traditions =/= Tradition.

By now, we're all familiar with debates in which someone tries to pass off a word that has several different meanings as saying something other than it does. I may say, for example, that you are sharp. Do I mean that you are quick with a cutting remark...or do I mean that you are intelligent?? The word can be used either way.

But here, THEY AREN'T EVEN THE SAME WORDS.

Tradition =/=the traditions. The first means a hypothetical second stream of divine revelation that is found in the opinions, customs, legends, etc. passed down through the ages as part of the beliefs of the body of believers and presumed to be God-inspired. And it merely has been given the title of "Tradition" by churchmen. It could as easily have been called Divine Custom or Stream of Truth.

But "the traditions" mentioned in scripture (above), don't and cannot refer to that idea:

1. There is no indication there of what traditions or customs these are! Yet the mere appearance of the word in the Bible is supposed to justify the invention of new doctrines from the Assumption to Purgatory to Papal infallibility!?

2. There is no reason to think that "the traditions" referred to are doctrinal, or if they are, that we don't already know them. If the hearer was told to hold to the traditions, that could mean something as uncontroversial as continuing to gather with other believers. Or it could mean something otherwise spelled out in one of the Gospels or Epistles that we have already, thanks to us acclaiming the Bible as divine revelation. In either case, there is no warrant for using the mere word to justify inventing a supplement to the Bible.

So, no. "Tradition" is NOT in scripture, and "the traditions" that do appear there come with no additional information such as would be necessary for you to be able to answer the following question for me: "Well then, what ARE those traditions we're supposed to believe and hold to??

Cheers.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

...the term "Theotokos" is understood by Orthodox Christians to have not only pious but also theological significance: in calling the Virgin Mary the "Birthgiver of God," it is affirmed that Christ possesses a human nature as well as a divine nature (as opposed to being purely divine). This is an essential understanding in the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Thus the title "Theotokos" is as much a statement about Christ and the incarnation as it is about the Virgin Mary herself; it is this particular view of the incarnation that allows Mary to bear this title.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

It's a white and blue cross. The features are a blue sky with white clouds. It's just "Mary" and "Save Us" in fancy script.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It's a white and blue cross. The features are a blue sky with white clouds. It's just "Mary" and "Save Us" in fancy script.

So it's a commercial product. Not something from a Church. Something you would find at an interstate truck stop?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

I have no idea. I don't go looking for such things.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Thanks for proving my point. Now I don't have to type out all those verses myself.

You said that "scripture itself points to Tradition."

Now, we see that "Tradition" AKA Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition--which we had been discussing--is NOT in Scripture.

The verses above refer to "the traditions" but never, ever to that hypothetical parallel to the Bible which is supposed to define Christian doctrine for us (or for those who are Catholic-minded, anyway).

The traditions =/= Tradition.

By now, we're all familiar with debates in which someone tries to pass off a word that has several different meanings as saying something other than it does. I may say, for example, that you are sharp. Do I mean that you are quick with a cutting remark...or do I mean that you are intelligent?? The word can be used either way.

But here, THEY AREN'T EVEN THE SAME WORDS.

Tradition =/=the traditions. The first means a hypothetical second stream of divine revelation that is found in the opinions, customs, legends, etc. passed down through the ages as part of the beliefs of the body of believers and presumed to be God-inspired. And it merely has been given the title of "Tradition" by churchmen. It could as easily have been called Divine Custom or Stream of Truth.

But "the traditions" mentioned in scripture (above), don't and cannot refer to that idea:

1. There is no indication there of what traditions or customs these are! Yet the mere appearance of the word in the Bible is supposed to justify the invention of new doctrines from the Assumption to Purgatory to Papal infallibility!?

2. There is no reason to think that "the traditions" referred to are doctrinal, or if they are, that we don't already know them. If the hearer was told to hold to the traditions, that could mean something as uncontroversial as continuing to gather with other believers. Or it could mean something otherwise spelled out in one of the Gospels or Epistles that we have already, thanks to us acclaiming the Bible as divine revelation. In either case, there is no warrant for using the mere word to justify inventing a supplement to the Bible.

So, no. "Tradition" is NOT in scripture, and "the traditions" that do appear there come with no additional information such as would be necessary for you to be able to answer the following question for me: "Well then, what ARE those traditions we're supposed to believe and hold to??

Cheers.

What about Jannes and Jambres? What about Angels putting the Law into effect?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What about Jannes and Jambres? What about Angels putting the Law into effect?

What about them?

 

[sonshine234]

Cowering you say? I already told you why I use the bible alone.

You, however, seem to be of the opinion that there’s another source for the inspired word of God to be used in conjunction with the bible. So far you’ve failed to show me what it is.

You have not showed any evidence from Scripture that were are to use it alone exclusively.

 

[sonshine234]

We are of the opinion that God speaks as well as writes, and that His speaking is as much the Word of God as His writing.

Exactly. God speaks through Holy Tradition, which the Scriptures came out of.

 

[sonshine234]

That's really bogus. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Logically, Paul is speaking of people, as that's who he is addressing, and Jesus is God, so there's that. Then we're left with the human Mary. I know it's cozy for RC's to believe she never once sinned and to twist the context of what Paul is clearly saying, but it's not so.

Jesus was also fully man, so if your going to say that verse applied to man than it applies to all man including Christ. Now we know the Christ was without sin so that verse can not mean all

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Nice strawman.