Progressive revelation

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Apr 4 2005, 10:13 AM'] You are saying that the [b]conception[/b] of Mary is implicitly declared in [b]scripture[/b] and in [b]tradition[/b].  Please provide the implicit statements. [/quote]
The protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15 is the prediction of Mary's conception, and that text indicates that there will be complete enmity between the Mother of the Redeemer and the serpent. Thus, she will not be under his dominion.

As far as Tradition is concerned, because the Holy Theotokos is called the Panagia (all holy) it follows that she cannot be subject to the Devil or his reign. This belief is shared by the Latin Church, the Byzantine Church, and all the other Eastern Churches.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Apr 4 2005, 01:05 PM'] No, Luther's views are not a development of doctrine properly understood, nor would he have claimed that in reference to his own teaching.  Moreover, it is a doctrine of the faith that the sole authentic interpreter of divine revelation (scripture and tradition) is the living Magisterium of the Church, i.e., the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, understood diachronically, and not merely synchronically. [/quote]
And as such Luther invented new doctrine that the Church has never taught nor believed. The idea that human beings are 'snow covered dung heaps' a common mental image based on his theology that man is not only stained by original sin but is by nature evil and depraved is found no where in Church teaching for 1500 years, most especially not among the Apostles themselves.

Doctrine can indeed develop, but it cannot change.

You can say:

We believe there is one God.

To

We believe there is one God in three persons.

To

We call this doctrine the Trinity.


You cannot say:

A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

To

We believe in salvation by faith alone.

Edited April 4, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Circle_Master]

Two things you need to do then,

1) Provide implicit Scripture still as Genesis 3:15 does speak of enmity, but it is between her and the serpent, and also between her SEED and the serpent. Thus it cannot mean 'sinlessness' as the immaculate conception defines it. Or else seed as a collective - referring to the total people of faith through the ages would have also had immaculate conceptions.

2) Find your earliest support for the 'Holy Theotokos' being called the Panagia. Saying it is shared in the 3 churches gives it a 11th century date at least. Not very early.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Apr 4 2005, 10:38 AM']1) Provide implicit Scripture still as Genesis 3:15 does speak of enmity, but it is between her and the serpent, and also between her SEED and the serpent.  Thus it cannot mean 'sinlessness' as the immaculate conception defines it.  Or else seed as a collective - referring to the total people of faith through the ages would have also had immaculate conceptions.[/quote]
Yes, the enmity is between the [i]woman[/i] (i.e., Mary) and her [i]seed[/i] (i.e., Christ), and the serpent and his seed, and so it is not just between her seed and the serpent as Protestants erroneously hold. As far as her seed being collective is concerned, once again the Catholic position holds that the seed referred to in Genesis 3:15 is Christ, i.e., the whole Christ, and that means that it is Christ and His Church that are in opposition to Satan. But Christ, both the Head and the Body, are not at enmity with the serpent in the same way, for the Head is the source of the enmity, while the Body only participates in Christ's enmity. Now as far as Mary is concerned, she stands with Christ in a special relationship at the focal point of salvation history, for she begins the redemption by her fiat, and in doing so she effaces the disobedience of the first woman. All of this is a part of the Tradition of the Church, something which Protestants rejected nearly 500 years ago, and so of course I do not expect you to understand this, nor do I expect you to believe it. A man can only make an act of faith in all that God has revealed, after first receiving and then assenting to the gift of grace given to him by Christ the Lord.

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='Apr 4 2005, 10:38 AM']2) Find your earliest support for the 'Holy Theotokos' being called the Panagia.  Saying it is shared in the 3 churches gives it a 11th century date at least.  Not very early.[/quote]
The earliest recorded use of the word Theotokos in reference to Mary is from Origen's commentary on Romans, which was written in the early 200s A.D. But it is important to remember that the Gospel of Luke, in recounting the visit of the Holy Theotokos with St. Elizabeth, calls Mary, the "Mother of my Lord," and so the title is implicitly contained within the Gospel of Luke itself. Moreover, the doctrine of the Incarnation of the eternal Word requires the use of this term as a Christological title, because Mary is the Mother of God made man as is clear from John's Gospel (cf. John 1:14). Thus, to deny the title Theotokos to the Blessed Virgin involves the heresy of Nestorianism. Now as far as the title Panagia ([i]all holy[/i]) is concerned, it is connected to the fact that Mary is "full of grace" (cf. Luke 1:28; Greek: [i]kecaritomene[/i]), and the title is used by St. Ephraim and other Eastern Fathers, along with its use in the Eastern liturgies of St. James, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Basil, in order to emphasize both that Mary is full of grace (i.e., that she is filled with the uncreated divine energies), while also highlighting the truth that Mary is the New Eve.

[Donna]

The Douay Translation of the Bible, also says "ipsa"...[i]she[/i] will crush. The Woman will crush the head of the serpent.

But at any rate, the OT is filled with Our Lady, as it were, and her immaculate-ness; the Canticle of Canticles and etc;.

[Donna]

According to the Denzinger, an anathema was placed thus at the Lateran Council (649):

"If anyone does not properly and truly confess [i]in accord with the Holy Fathers[/i], that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary..." etc; ..."and that she incorruptibly bore Him..." etc;

This is placed under the heading "Mary...conceived without original sin" in the index. It is # 256

-[i]my emphasis [/i]

[Matt Black]

Donna, what about the Hebrew?

Apotheoun and Bro Adam, I don't recall Athanasius being sanctioned by any Magisterium when he propounded his doctrine of the Trinity or his NT canon - but both turned out to be right even though he didn't live to see that and was repeatedly condemned and exiled for his Trinitarian orthodoxy. So, quite the opposite in his case and his lifetime

As for Luther, what he propounded could be as inferred from Scripture as Athanasius' Trinitarianism, and what Adam quoted of his writings could as easily be drawn from Augustine's doctrine of original sin

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Apr 5 2005, 02:47 AM']Apotheoun and Bro Adam, I don't recall Athanasius being sanctioned by any Magisterium when he propounded his doctrine of the Trinity or his NT canon - but both turned out to be right even though he didn't live to see that and was repeatedly condemned and exiled for his Trinitarian orthodoxy. So, quite the opposite in his case and his lifetime.[/quote]
You proceed under the false assumption that I accept what St. Athanasios taught merely because he taught it. In reality I accept the teaching, not of St. Athanasios [i]per se[/i], but of the Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, who defined the dogmas of the Trinity and Incarnation in successive General Councils (i.e., Nicea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon). The teaching of St. Athanasios is not perfect in every respect, for he failed to make the proper distinction between the theological terms [i]homoousios[/i] and [i]hypostasis[/i], but these terms were only distinguished in meaning at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I after he had died. Thus, I follow the Magisterium of the Church, which was instituted by Christ the Lord Himself in order to faithfully guard and expound the deposit of divine revelation, and not any one man. I also honor St. Athanasios the Great as a holy and venerable man, because he defended the truth of Son's consubstantiality with the Father, but I honor him because the Magisterium defined this truth, and not simply because St. Athanasios taught it.

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Apr 5 2005, 02:47 AM']As for Luther, what he propounded could be as inferred from Scripture as Athanasius' Trinitarianism, and what Adam quoted of his writings could as easily be drawn from Augustine's doctrine of original sin.[/quote]
The teachings of Luther and St. Athanasios are not comparable. Firstly, because the Council of Nicea (i.e., the Magisterium) accepted the teaching of St. Athanasios as an orthodox expression of the faith of the Church, while the same cannot be said of Luther; instead, he was excommunicated by the Magisterium for heresy. Secondly, as far as it concerns the teaching of St. Augustine, it should be remembered that not all of his views have been accepted as [i]de fide[/i] by the Church, but even more importantly, it should be noted that Luther's interpretation of St. Augustine's doctrine does not take into account the full scope of the teaching of the bishop of Hippo. Luther ignored St. Augustine's anti-Donatist writings entirely, while also rejecting his teaching on free will. Luther was actually more of a determinist than Calvin, holding that free will was simply a fiction, and so Luther could not say what St. Augustine said, i.e., that "He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it." [St. Augustine, Sermon 169]

Luther's teaching, unlike St. Athanasios' teaching, was condemned has heretical by the Church, and so there can be no comparison between the two men. St. Athanasios is one of the blessed saints of the Church, while Luther stands in the line of those condemned for teaching heresy.

[Matt Black]

And would your answer be the same if you were living in 350 under an Arian bishop?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Edited April 5, 2005 by Matt Black

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Apr 5 2005, 09:35 AM'] And would your answer be the same if you were living in 350 under an Arian bishop?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
Yes, my answer would be the same, because the Magisterium as a whole did not subscribe to the Arian heresy. Now of course, unlike the Roman Pontiff, individual bishops, i.e., taken as individuals, can err, but the Pope and the bishops in communion with him cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

[Matt Black]

But can we even talk of a Magisterium outwith a General Council at that point in church history? And if the correct approach to Athanasius and the Arian controversy then was to call a General Council where both sides were represented, surely the same standard should have been applied to Luther and his followers? But there was no General Council at which the Lutheran view was represented; indeed I am not sure there could have been as you no longer had the Orthodox on side

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Archangel]

FYI, there is difference between [b][u]t[/u][/b]radition and [b][u]T[/u][/b]radition. For example, praying the rosary is [b][u]t[/u][/b]radition and the Immaculate Conception is [b][u]T[/u][/b]radition.

[Matt Black]

Anyone care to comment on the Luther/ Athanasius comparison?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Archangel]

Here's an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the Council of Trent which was held in response to the Protestant heresies.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm[/url]

I guess bureaucracy moved slowly back then, and so the council did not convene until a year before Luther's death in 1546.

[cmotherofpirl]

Matt it would be accurate to say we have progressive understanding of truth, however, we do not have progressive revelation of truth.

There are no new dogmas.

Edited April 9, 2005 by cmotherofpirl