The 'blessed virgin Mary'

[tabletalk]

Well one thing seems certain; you dont know Mary, or her children.

But you, Lord, are a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, most loving and true.

Turn to me, have pity on me; give your strength to your servant; save this child of your handmaid.

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

Protestants don't want to 'know Mary, or her children.'

Catholics seem to want more than Christ, more than the 66 books of the 'protestant bible', more than 2 sacraments, more than the offices of Elder/Bishop and Deacon, more than a piece of bread and some wine to celebrate a simple memorial, and more than the free gift of eternal life.

'Little children, keep yourself from idols'

 

[robert derrick]

A Stick to Beat Us With

While I am not one to live in the past, Catholics have gone from inquisitioning protestors to death, to being the victims of the 'beatings' by protestants who still refuse their mysticism and corruption of Scripture.

Defending the gospel from false doctrine is not an attack on innocents. The attack begins with the pushers of falsehood against Scripture.

Even the two witnesses in Rev 11 stand only to defend the gospel against them that would hurt them.

"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." (Gal 2)

All false doctrine is a burden and bondage that limits liberty of the faith of Jesus (Matthew 23). 'Mary worship' is just another demand for an added circumcision of the heart to that of Jesus, and calling it a 'bonus' doesn't make it any less burdensome or destructive to faith.

To be literally correct, it is Mary's perpetually virgin stick of Motherhood they point at us, trying to ram it into the Vine of Christ, that we snap off and cast aside as so much deadwood to be burned.

 

[robert derrick]

Protestants don't want to 'know Mary, or her children.'

Catholics seem to want more than Christ, more than the 66 books of the 'protestant bible', more than 2 sacraments, more than the offices of Elder/Bishop and Deacon, more than a piece of bread and some wine to celebrate a simple memorial, and more than the free gift of eternal life.

'Little children, keep yourself from idols'

With all heresies, there are one or two certain Scriptures that plainly denounce them as false, simply and directly.

Once such here I believe is the simple commandment to honor thy mother, not someone else's. There is no disputing that you can't honor equally two mothers, even as you can't love equally two masters.

In the end, you will honor the one and forsake the other. And their willingness to reject the Scripture without hesitation proves they are beyond reason. And then they double down by accusing others of not properly knowing and honoring that other 'Mother', who does not exist anyway...

For me, that makes it an end of all argument. "An heretic after the first and second admonition reject." (Titus 3)

 

[robert derrick]

"TRADITION is not a dirty word. Traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions)."

1. The only 'kind' of tradition addressed by Jesus was condemned by Jesus.

2. Paul likewise condemned tradition as the same, except in context of steadfast faith and commandment:
"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." (2 Thess 3)

This 'tradition' is in context of commandment. They carry the same weight of Law of Christ, where the transgressors are not to be kept company with (1 Cor 5). They are the disorderly and unruly shunned for protection of the body from corruption against Christ and God. They are taught to the church as matters of the faith wherein we must stand fast (2 Thess 2:15).

This is not 'oral' tradition passed on by Paul but never written as Scripture. This 'tradition' is in fact the specific doctrine, rule, and law of Christ given by Jesus to the apostles to be commanded to the believers of Jesus' church. (Acts 1)

 

[robert derrick]

"Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition."

And here is the worm hole and slippery slope of false teaching and 'tradition' for that of doctrine of God.

To say that there is no 'qualitative' difference between written and oral tradition (which Paul never said in writing), is simply to say that the Bible does not contain all oral tradition of God, but only the written one! And so any oral tradition spoken by man, but not written in Scripture by God, can still be Scripture for us, if we choose to believe it. So, there is written Scripture and there is unwritten Scripture from God.

Therefore, unwritten oral tradition, having no qualitative difference between written oral tradition, makes void written Scripture as necessary to confirm the truth and the faith of Jesus and of God, since any oral tradition not written may be believed as true from God.

And I say any, because if any claimant of the faith of Jesus believes it, then it must be so.

 

[robert derrick]

"Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition."

One simple question arises:

Since indeed there is authoritative unwritten 'oral' tradition of Scripture apart from the written one and just as quantitatively legitimate, then neither requires verification of the other. What is written does not have to confimr what is not, and what is not written does not have to confimr what is.

And so there is no need to bother trying to 'prove or justify' either one by the other! I mean, the Bible only contains the written stuff from God's spoken oral tradition. It does not contain all the unwritten stuff from God to man.

If the unwritten part of 'oral' of tradition of God is just as legitimate and of no qualitative difference between the written part, then why the debate in the first place?? Since it is evident that all Scripture given by inspiration of God to man is not all written?? The Bible just contains the written part, but not the whole part.

 

[robert derrick]

"Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition."

Since the Bible only contains the written part of Scripture from God, but there is an equally quantitative unwritten part from God, then all that remains to be fully informed of God and to know all His will and teaching in the world, is to read and hear as much of the unwritten part as well as the written...

Such as Mary in fact remained a virgin on earth and is called The Blessed Virgin Mary in heaven, and is likewise ministerially and spiritually our Mother of God in heaven. She is the New Jerusalem that will come down out of heaven to be the eternal womb of our resting place with God.

This is the unwritten oral part that we are to accept alongside the written oral part that does not say this. And since this unwritten oral tradition has not need of verification from the written, because there is no quantitative difference between the two, then there is no need for dispute between one and the other. But rather only a need on them that have not heard to 'understand and believe' on them that have heard...

So why all the arguing? Afterall, they heard it and believe it and so should we! And just because we never heard it until they told us it, doesn't mean we may reject it, but rather we must perceive we are now more enlightened in our faith!

And as honest and sincere believers in the oral tradition of God, whether written or not, then we are compelled to search out and hear as many things as possible about Jesus and God, that we never knew, because we only confined ourselves to the written part.

By Jove, I think I've got it! We who were seeing through a glass more darkly than others, because of our 'sola scriptura' stubbornness, must repent and open our hearts and minds to the loving embrace of our dear Mother Mary, who's unwritten oral tradition is for us too! Which is being carefully and divinely and mediatorially offered as a gift to us by them that see clearer than we ever knew possible!

Now I too can be more than just a 'Christian' as they were in Antioch with Paul's ministerial writings only: sola Paulua. But I can be a bonus Christian! A 'Catholic Christian' who is well versed in all oral tradition of God, both written and unwritten...! Thank God and His Son and His Mother too!!

What rubbish.

"When the heart strays from the written Scriptures only as inspiration of God Himself, then the mind loses all touch with intelligent discussion about the true things of God..." (Anonymous)

 

[Illuminator]

"Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition."

One simple question arises:

Since indeed there is authoritative unwritten 'oral' tradition of Scripture apart from the written one and just as quantitatively legitimate, then neither requires verification of the other. What is written does not have to confimr what is not, and what is not written does not have to confimr what is.

Oral tradition compliments the written, there is no contraction. The only way anti-traditionists can prove otherwise is to make up a false definition of Tradition, (straw man fallacy) which is done constantly.

And so there is no need to bother trying to 'prove or justify' either one by the other! I mean, the Bible only contains the written stuff from God's spoken oral tradition. It does not contain all the unwritten stuff from God to man.

Agreed.

If the unwritten part of 'oral' of tradition of God is just as legitimate and of no qualitative difference between the written part, then why the debate in the first place?? Since it is evident that all Scripture given by inspiration of God to man is not all written?? The Bible just contains the written part, but not the whole part.

Agreed. It's rather silly to think that Jesus just quoted the New Testament to the Apostles for 3 years.

 

[Illuminator]

Oral Tradition that is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 3:14-15; 2 Thess 2:15, etc. does not refer to orally transmitting the message of the Bible. It refers to the Oral Tradition apart from the Written Tradition (the Bible).

The Oral Tradition has not been corrupted and we know this for three reasons:

1) Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other. But not everything is written in the Bible, according to the Bible itself (i.e. John 21:25; Acts 20:35). Thus since not everything is in the written record if Oral Tradition says something that is not explicit in the Written Tradition that does not make the Oral Tradition wrong. It only means that that subject was not mentioned in the Written Record.

Oral Tradition was a long time aspect of the religious life of the Jews. They recognized the existence of Divine Oral Tradition. There are some passages in the New Testament, for example, that refer to the Divine Revelation of the Old Testament but deal with items not in the written Old Testament. It is obvious the Apostles knew and believed in a Divine Oral Tradition.

2) The importance of Oral Tradition is great. This is seen by the fact that St. Paul tells us to listen to and obey Tradition (that is Divine Tradition, not human customs) as Scripture. He even tells us that people who do not follow this Divine Oral Tradition are to be shunned (2 Thess 3:14).

All the possible teachings of Jesus cannot possible be placed into one book as the Bible itself affirms. Also, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the early decades of the Church. All that existed was the Oral Tradition of the Apostles. Even after the letters of the New Testament began to be written and passed around it was not until the 4th century that the Church put in place exactly which letters were to be considered Scripture and which were not. How the bishops made that decision was, in part, on whether the letter in question was consistent with the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles.

Oral Tradition ALWAYS precedes Written Tradition. Written Tradition (the bible) is a small subset of the larger Oral Tradition. This has always been the case - in the Old Testament and in the New Testament times.

3) I proper concern is whether or not this Divine Oral Tradition is passed on from generation to generation accurately. Well, God is not so cruel that He would not account for some way to preserve His Word. His Word, after all is life. We must have a way to preserve the Word of God. God did that through a Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit. God has ALWAYS had a Magisterium. In the Old Testament times we had the Chair of Moses that Jesus mentions in Matt 23:2. For the New Covenant a new chair of authority was put into place --- just as was done with the previous four covenants in Old Testament times. This new chair was and is the Chair of Peter (Matt 16, Isa 22:21-23).

But how to we check to be sure, if we do not have the faith to trust God's Magisterium? Well, the same way that we can know for sure that the Bible we read today is the what was actually written in the First Century -- by comparing what we have today with the written record of history.

In the case of the Bible, we compare what we have today with extant manuscripts from as close to the first century as possible.

In the case of the Oral Tradition, the same is true. We look to extant manuscripts of sermons, essays, Church documents, etc. from the Church Fathers that affirm that what we believe today is the same things that they believed then.

There is NO doctrine of the Catholic Church that cannot be traced to the early Church. Over the centuries our understanding of doctrine has matured from that of the infant Church, but the doctrine remains unchanged. We know this because we can prove it with documentary evidence.

When Protestants posit a theological belief that is contrary to what the Catholics believe, I ask that person to show me where any of the Church Fathers believed has he believes. If the early Christians believed as the Protestants do today there would be some evidence of this -- essays, sermons, writings of some sort. But there are none. The Catholic Church, however, can produce truckloads of extant manuscripts from the First, Second, and Third Centuries that show the foundation for ALL that the Catholic Church believes.

This evidence is overwhelming and sure. There are no other works of antiquity that we are as sure about as we are about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

One of the rules of historical documentary evidence is that a manuscript that was written or copied 50 years after the actual event or after the original autograph is most likely to be more accurate than a copy made 500 years late. "I heard it through the grapevine" effect violates the rules of historical documentary evidence and is a straw man fallacy.

Well the oldest extant manuscript we have of Plato was a copy made 900 years after Plato's death. In actuality we cannot possible know for sure if those writings are actually Plato's.

But with the New Testament writings we have extant copies only a few decades from the original autographs. This is POWERFUL evidence that the Bible we have today is indeed the accurate writings of the Apostles.

In similar manner, we have extant copies of the thinking and teachings of the Church Fathers that we can compare to prove that the Oral Tradition we teach today had its foundations and beginnings in the early Church.

If a person is to believe that the Platonic Dialogues are actually written by Plato, then one should have no problems believing that the Oral Tradition of the Church is intact for the evidence for the Church is nearly absolute, the evidence for Plato is essentially speculative.

This should explain why "I heard it through the grapevine" is stupid and absurd.

 

[BroRando]

Mary was a virgin but not ever virgin. When a person reads the Bible instead of the Creeds made by man. There becomes a conflict of interest in the manmade doctrines or creeds. The clergy become uneasy and then at one time, forbad its' members not to read the Bible. No matter how heinous the crime. God's Word cannot be Silenced. So undermining of it began.

Claiming Mary was Ever Virgin is just one of many heresies against the Bible. So a 4th person was added Mother of God. Man made prayers were conjured up to be repeated over and over again. Thus the Goddess of Heaven was born not out Divine Will but by sinful hideous men who burned people at the stake.

This is the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, is it not? And his sisters are here with us, are they not?” So they began to stumble because of him. (Mark 6:3)

Jesus along with his Family went to the synagogue to worship the God of the Jews. So they were well known in their local community. When Jesus began his Ministry as the Christ, notice how his family first felt about him? But when his relatives heard about it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying: “He has gone out of his mind.” (Mark 3:21)

But how did Jesus feel about his Family trying to stop him from his ministry? The account continues: "But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever but is guilty of everlasting sin. He said this because they were saying: “He has an unclean spirit.” Now his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. As there was a crowd sitting around him, they said to him: “Look! Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you.” But he replied to them: “Who are my mother and my brothers?”

Then he looked at those sitting around him in a circle and said: “See, my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:29-35)

He later informs his disciples. "But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens." (Matthew 10:33)

 

[robert derrick]

"Oral tradition compliments the written, there is no contraction."

Plus no need to prove one or the other against the other.

Plus the blanket declaration: "Oral Tradition and Written Tradition compliment one another and not contradict each other."

And so, what do we have? Adding to the written Scriptures, any and all oral traditions not written but no doubt approved by church 'fathers and leaders', are to be accepted as matters of Scriptural faith alongside the written one in the Bible.

So, there is the written Bible and the unwritten Bible, and both are equally true as the oral tradition and spoken Word of God.

And even if someone believes there is contradiction between the two, it matters not, because:
1. They have been declared by said 'fathers and current leaders' to be without contradiction.

2. And even if there really looked like there was, and there are not!, it would not matter either, because approved unwritten oral tradition is to be accepted anyway, because written and unwritten are so equal, that they are independent of one another...

So the next simple question is obvious: Why even bother saying that there is no contradiction between the two?? As though that would be some kind of 'problem'?? I mean, since they are equally the whole oral tradition of God, whether written or not?

 

[robert derrick]

Mary was a virgin but not ever virgin. When a person reads the Bible instead of the Creeds made by man. There becomes a conflict of interest in the manmade doctrines or creeds. The clergy become uneasy and then at one time, forbad its' members not to read the Bible. No matter how heinous the crime. God's Word cannot be Silenced. So undermining of it began.

Claiming Mary was Ever Virgin is just one of many heresies against the Bible. So a 4th person was added Mother of God. Man made prayers were conjured up to be repeated over and over again. Thus the Goddess of Heaven was born not out Divine Will but by sinful hideous men who burned people at the stake.

This is the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, is it not? And his sisters are here with us, are they not?” So they began to stumble because of him. (Mark 6:3)

Jesus along with his Family went to the synagogue to worship the God of the Jews. So they were well known in their local community. When Jesus began his Ministry as the Christ, notice how his family first felt about him? But when his relatives heard about it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying: “He has gone out of his mind.” (Mark 3:21)

But how did Jesus feel about his Family trying to stop him from his ministry? The account continues: "But whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever but is guilty of everlasting sin. He said this because they were saying: “He has an unclean spirit.” Now his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. As there was a crowd sitting around him, they said to him: “Look! Your mother and your brothers are outside asking for you.” But he replied to them: “Who are my mother and my brothers?”

Then he looked at those sitting around him in a circle and said: “See, my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:29-35)

He later informs his disciples. "But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens." (Matthew 10:33)

You do know it is a complete waste of time trying to present written Scripture to them. They have plainly confessed their unwritten oral tradition to be equal with that of the written.

I mean, you pretty much find yourself presenting Scripture of the New Covenant to entrenched Islamists, who have their own unwritten oral tradition, likewise written down by men other than apostles of Jesus..

At least we dance and spar over the Scriptures only...

 

[BroRando]

But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name. (John 20:31)

 

[robert derrick]

But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name. (John 20:31)

Gosh. You are naïve. You can't fathom someone claiming faith in God who holds unwritten oral traditions equally with the written. It makes no sense, because there is no reason to it. Why have it written at all, if oral is good enough?

So, I must say, at least in this we are one and the same. We hold to what is written as being Scripture, nor what is only oral and later written down. All tradition is proven true or false by what is written in the Bible. Nowhere else.

"But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth." (Dan 10)

Only 'Scripture' is truth of God. Scripture by definition is that which is written.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine..." (2 Tim 3)

All this is written as Scripture is inspired of God, not all orally held, except it be confirmed by Scripture.

God is 'sola scriptura' and 'panto scriptura'. Man is anything you want it to be, whether orally or written.

Now, if these people had any seriousness to them at all they would go to John 21:

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

And claim that they are referring to the 'books not written'. But of course, they remain unwritten in the world, because God did not want nor need them to be...

 

[robert derrick]

If we, who have all the Scriptures of the whole Bible written for us are called 'sola Scriptura', then those Christians of Antioch who only had Paul's preaching and writings must be 'sola Paulua'.

 

[Philip James]

Protestants don't want to 'know Mary, or her children.'

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[Illuminator]

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture?

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

INFO: The sources of theology

 

[Philip James]

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture?

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic. There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

INFO: The sources of theology

We live the Faith!

As have our brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers before us!

Peace be with you!

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[kcnalp]

Mary was a sinner. Jesus was her Savior!

 

[robert derrick]

"So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic."

1. The use of the term 'Scripture' here dishonors Scripture of God, because it uses the name of 'Scripture' falsely.

Scripture of truth by God is what is written by God through man. 'Scripture' was never tested against apostolic tradition. Different writings were tested to confirm that which was indeed Scripture of God by the apostles vs other writings and oral traditions of man, whether by Thomas or pseudo-apostles.

2. The Scripture we have today in the Bible is that which the inheritors of the apostolic faith of Jesus determined to be indeed written by the prophets and the apostles, as well as some such as Mark and Luke, as opposed to all other writings and oral traditions.

"The canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected."

However, at no time were the writings of the prophets of the Old, or those of the acknowledged apostles of the New ever tested against other traditional writings and oral traditions. What was 'tested' was whether in fact such writings handed down were indeed that of the prophets and the apostles, or not.

3. There is today an already confirmed final and distinct difference between oral tradition of man written by man, and oral tradition of God written by prophets and apostles, called: The Word of prophecy. (Ezek 20 & 21) (2 Peter 1)