pritybetta: answer on Catholics

Originally posted by pritybetta
What exactly are those beliefs and practices that were not written down and that existed in the apostle's communities? I know of none, except those the apostles had written to them to stop doing. And why would they write something they didn't believe in or practice? Just because a community did somethings does not mean the true believers did them. You can ...[text shortened]... an help someone with prayer, but how can those who have died pray or even hear prayers?

What exactly are those beliefs and practices that were not written down and that existed in the apostle's communities?

For one, infant baptism which epiphinehas rejects. However, if we read the works of Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, who are a generation after the apostles, we find that their communities practiced infant baptism. It is plausible that this would have had the apostolic stamp of approval.

The Lord does not contradict himself. I believe the NT is divinely inspired because it does not contradict its self nor does it contradict the OT.

Are other non-contradictory works also divinely inspired?

I never said they believed Mary was a redeemer, I said they believed she [b]contributed to removing sin and redeeming. They teach that in their church and it has no Biblical standing.[/b]

And you are wrong. The Catholic Church has no such doctrine. As I explained, there is a proposed doctrine (unlikely to succeed) that says that Mary contributed to Jesus' redemptive role by giving birth. This is not saying that without Mary, Jesus could never have redeemed mankind. It is simply restating what scriptures says. That this was the start of the process that would lead to salvation.

She gave birth to Jesus' physical body, that does not mean that she is the mother of God for the Lord was here long before she was.

But they mean "mother of God" in the sense that she gave birth to Jesus' physical body. That is her honorific title, and obviously, it does not mean that she really conceived God in her womb and before that He did not exist.

And how would her faith or lake of faith have anything to do with Christ's redemption?

Presumably it wouldn't. But no Catholic has claimed that it would.

Furthermore, the Catholic church teaches this only because a Pope claimed it to be true? That is also another problem I have with them, they rely on a man more than the Lord.

Do you remember writing this:
"Do you really believe that the Lord would let his children believe in something that is not true? Wouldn't you think he had the power to make sure his children know what is true and what is from Him?"

How can men that have died pray?

Perhaps you ought to read Revelations. Apparently the prayers of the dead filled seven vats, if I recall the details properly.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am unclear about your point. Are you saying that 'brothers and sisters' could not mean cousins?

I am saying that there is no reason to believe that it means cousins, given the context. The only
reason we question it at all is because St Jerome brought up this issue. Church Fathers who
cited the passages involving 'brothers and sisters' took it to mean just what it said. It wasn't
until the issue of perpetual virginity arose, took shape, and took hold dogmatically that
the reinterpretation of the 'brother' had to be revisited.

Just like you observe that St Polycarp's and Ignatius's practicing infant baptism gives a certain
credence to the Apostolic understanding of such a practice, so too does the writings of 2nd-century
Christians give a credence to the notion that 'brother' does in fact mean 'brother,' especially
since St Jerome has an axe to grind (in supporting the developing dogma).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Conrau K
As Catholics have a tradition which holds that Mary was a perpetual virgin, they can then dismiss these passages as uncontroversial because they could mean some other family relation.

It could mean 'other family relation,' but there is no reason to think that it does except that
there is this existing, 4th-century dogma which makes such a logical interpretation inconvenient.
It also means understanding the word 'until' (eos) in 1:25 in St Matthew in a bizarre manner.

Furthermore, there is no other example in pre-Christian writing where 'brother' means 'cousin'
in the context of 'mother and brothers and sisters.' The use of 'brother' as 'cousin' occurs when
the term is used broadly, like as St Paul uses it to refer to his 'brothers and sisters.' They would
be unique uses of the word in the context to mean something other than 'brother' and 'sister,'
peculiar to the Christian Scriptures and ignored for 300 years by other Christian writers and
Church Fathers.

Nemesio

Originally posted by pritybetta
There goes assumptions again just because you don't want to believe in something that is clearly stated in the Bible.

only in some translations. in king james brothers is replaced with brethren.

i agree with conrau that it can mean something else. why cant you admit that? who is fit to interpret the bible, why and how do we know they are right?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I am saying that there is no reason to believe that it means cousins, given the context. The only
reason we question it at all is because St Jerome brought up this issue. Church Fathers who
cited the passages involving 'brothers and sisters' took it to mean just what it said. It wasn't
until the issue of perpetual virginity arose, took shape, a
since St Jerome has an axe to grind (in supporting the developing dogma).

Nemesio

I am going to admit that I do not have sufficient exegetical abilities to match some of your crticisms. I cannot judge whether Jerome's interpretation renders Matthew 1.:25 "inconvenient". I doubt, however, St. Jerome was the first to contend that Mary was a perpetual virgin, even if probably the most vociferous in the early church. The influence of St.Jerome is largely confined to the Latin church (mainly for his translation of the Vulgate). He is not regarded as a major theologian and his writing on perpetual virginity is unlikely to have caused its spread throughout the Greek church (as the Orthodox churches still celebrate the feast of the ever virginity). This site gives a series of patristic quotes (some much earlier than Jerome) which affirm the doctrine of her virginal perpetuity (although, I understand that as this is an apologetic site, it is unlikely to acknowledge disagreement from other church fathers. So it unlikely to be objective):

http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

It is important to notice, too, that Jerome writes about the perpetual virginity in response to another scholar's (Helvidius) attempt to systematically refute it by scriptural exegesis. I have to wonder why, if it was universally (or even predominantly) accepted that Jesus had brothers and sisters (according to our familial notions) before then, did Helvidius need to present a compendium of arguments against perpetual virginity? I also have to wonder why St. Jerome so rages on the point and comes close to charging Helvidius with heresy for his denial of perpetual virginity ? (he call it sacrilegious, mad, outrageous to the Virgin, foolish and blasphemous; he accuses Helvidius of extreme ignorance and even rants about Helvidius' bad grammar*. I don't think these reactionary comments say much for his sanity if the church fathers sided with Helvidius) You can read Jerome's letter here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

In this work, Jerome claims the support of a number of church fathers,

We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.

Unfortunately, he does not directly quote their works. But given that his confidence that they agreed with him, it is lame of you to say that the doctrine of perpetual virginity was "a fourth-century dogma" that did not have the support of previous church fathers.

Let me also remind you that I am not committed to translation "cousin". "Cousin" was only one of the possibilities I mentioned, although maybe not the one most compatible with textual scholarship. The other alternative is that these brothers and sisters were Joseph's children from a previous marriage (and Jesus really would be seen as their brother because he is the "son of Joseph", as in John 1:45). This idea pre-dates Jerome and Origen, at least, was one of its proponents (and, as I said before, I do not think the number of church leaders who believed this could be small, as it is a doctrine present in both Latin and Greek Christianity. Jerome was too small, and too late in church history, to account for the origin of the doctrine of perpetual virginity. If the Greek church largely ignored St. Augustine, which is a non-controversial claim, they almost certainly ignored Jerome, even if they do celebrate him on their calendar of saints.)

I also think you are too dismissive of Jerome's position. He does argue his case ably. Obviously St.Jerome's scriptural exegesis is a bit ridiculous in comparison to modern standards. His approach is to systematically account for every James and Joses as the son of some other Mary, of whom one James must be the son of Mary of Clopas, the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. His strict view on the historicity of scripture comes across as fundamentalist today. But it would be pragmatic for those who believe that the gospels are reliable historical records to consider these criticisms - for example, as Jerome writes, if Mary had four sons (see Matthew 13:55), why was she alone at the crucifixion and entrusted to a disciple? Jerome is a bit more rhetorical on this point:

15. What darkness, what raging madness rushing to its own destruction! You say that the mother of the Lord was present at the cross, you say that she was entrusted to the disciple John on account of her widowhood and solitary condition: as if upon your own showing, she had not four sons, and numerous daughters, with whose solace she might comfort herself?

It is not exactly a proof that Mary could not have had children and that, therefore, these supposed "brethren" were cousins. It is, however, a pragmatic argument that a Christian would have to consider if they took the gospels as historically reliable (I personally see Mary's loneliness in John's gospel as a narrative tool used for dramatic effect). But as I am not a Christian , I am entitled to dismiss the veracity of the gospels. If I were a Christian, and thus inclined to view scripture as inspired and inerrant, I do not think Jerome's argument would be so easily disregardable.

*Reading Jerome. I'm guessing he would have loved this forum.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am going to admit that I do not have sufficient exegetical abilities to match some of your crticisms. I cannot judge whether Jerome's interpretation renders Matthew 1.:25 "inconvenient". I doubt, however, St. Jerome was the first to contend that Mary was a perpetual virgin, even if probably the most vociferous in the early church. The influence of St.Jero ...[text shortened]... dable.

*Reading Jerome. I'm guessing he would have loved this forum.

Just to clarify, I know that the doctrine of perpetual virginity was defined in the fourth century; I just dispute that it began with Jerome and has no antecedents among the corpus of patristic writing. My argument is as follows: the Greek church accepted the argument that Mary was a perpetual virgin, clearly showing it was not a belief endemic to the Latin church or specifically to Jerome; Jerome claims the support of a number of church fathers (which is verified by one of the sites I gave, though of dubious authority; Jerome's argument has some credibility.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Just to clarify, I know that the doctrine of perpetual virginity was defined in the fourth century; I just dispute that it began with Jerome and has no antecedents among the corpus of patristic writing. My argument is as follows: the Greek church accepted the argument that Mary was a perpetual virgin, clearly showing it was not a belief endemic to the Latin ...[text shortened]... y one of the sites I gave, though of dubious authority; Jerome's argument has some credibility.

...the Greek church accepted the argument that Mary was a perpetual virgin...

Ah, gee—you’re going to bring up a point on which I disagree with the Greek church...? 😉

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...the Greek church accepted the argument that Mary was a perpetual virgin...

Ah, gee—you’re going to bring up a point on which I disagree with the Greek church...? 😉[/b]

How about, the Greek church agreed with it then, even if not now. I could be wrong about this, but the Orthodox churches still celebrate the perpetual virginity of Mary in their liturgical calendar - although it could be optional, like in the Anglican church.

Originally posted by Conrau K
How about, the Greek church agreed with it then, even if not now. I could be wrong about this, but the Orthodox churches still celebrate the perpetual virginity of Mary in their liturgical calendar - although it could be optional, like in the Anglican church.

No, you might be right about the Orthodox church (I'll have to go and check). Here, I would be more of an "optional Anglican"--wonderful phrase that! 🙂 (Seriously, I suspect that you are correct about the Orthodox, and I was just making a joke...)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Just to clarify, I know that the doctrine of perpetual virginity was defined in the fourth century; I just dispute that it began with Jerome and has no antecedents among the corpus of patristic writing. My argument is as follows: the Greek church accepted the argument that Mary was a perpetual virgin, clearly showing it was not a belief endemic to the Latin ...[text shortened]... y one of the sites I gave, though of dubious authority; Jerome's argument has some credibility.

I didn't say that it started with St Jerome. Yes, there are all sorts of divergent beliefs about
Mary's importance, role, and nature between the first and fourth centuries.

What we see, as we move away from the first and towards the fourth, is an increase in the
number of people adhering to the notion of perpetual virginity. And, with St Jerome's providing
the authorized translation -- basically the translation of the Bible -- for the Roman
Church, his translational choices reflect his preconceived notions about what the Bible said.

It's like English translations of the Psalms; they are always made in light of the Christian
Scriptures. A reading of them in Hebrew or in translation consistent with Hebrew tradition
(and not refracted through a Christian lens) is very sobering (for example, Robert Alter's recent,
not particularly elegant, but very accurate translation gives you an idea).

The Greek Church came to accept the argument of perpetual virginity. It was not a
patent part of NT theology. An examination of 2nd-century texts shows that the authors believed
that Jesus had a family, and had no objection -- moral or doctrinal -- with the notion in their
examination of the texts which were to become canonical. The explanations offered to reconcile
these texts which were inconvenient to the notion of perpetual virginity were all made in the
third and fourth centuries (after the dogma started to gain ground, and after those texts which
were to become canonized were starting to establish themselves as the prominent ones) were
all after the fact, ones which disagreed the tacit beliefs of the early Church Fathers, and
ones which are at best spurious ('brother' = cousin as the preferred understanding, 'until' means
something other than 'until' and so forth).

Look, I respect St Jerome. He was one of the most important scholars and theologians in
all of history. But he was subject to the same blinders that we all are: the baggage of preconceptions
taint and influence translation. And, as he thought his preconceptions to be Divinely driven,
he started with them and molded his translation around them.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I prophesy that you will ignore the content of this post either wholesale or just regurgitate another
50 misquoted passages from the Christian Scriptures.

Prophet, I am.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I didn't say that it started with St Jerome. Yes, there are all sorts of divergent beliefs about
Mary's importance, role, and nature between the first and fourth centuries.

What we see, as we move away from the first and towards the fourth, is an increase in the
number of people adhering to the notion of perpetual virginity. And, with St Jerome's p nely driven,
he started with them and molded his translation around them.

Nemesio

I didn't say that it started with St Jerome. Yes, there are all sorts of divergent beliefs about Mary's importance, role, and nature between the first and fourth centuries.

Mea culpa. That was probably my imperfect reading.

The Greek Church came to accept the argument of perpetual virginity. It was not a patent part of NT theology. An examination of 2nd-century texts shows that the authors believed that Jesus had a family, and had no objection -- moral or doctrinal -- with the notion in their examination of the texts which were to become canonical.

I still disagree with this. Jerome invokes the support of four second-century church fathers. Maybe these four are a minority of this period; maybe Jerome reads into their works with the same bias he reads into the bible. But it does seem that the second century, in some tenuous way, acknowledges or alluded to Mary's virginal perpetuity.

The explanations offered to reconcile these texts which were inconvenient to the notion of perpetual virginity were all made in the
third and fourth centuries (after the dogma started to gain ground, and after those texts which were to become canonized were starting to establish themselves as the prominent ones) were all after the fact, ones which disagreed the tacit beliefs of the early Church Fathers, and ones which are at best spurious ('brother' = cousin as the preferred understanding, 'until' means something other than 'until' and so forth).

Firstly, I do not think that Jerome argues "brother = cousin". His argument is that that those mentioned as 'brethren' are in fact cousins. He then explains that 'brother' encompasses a range of male familial relations in Hebrew, which need not necessarily mean siblings from the same parents. He is not making the argument that 'brother' equals 'cousin'; his claim is that 'brother' means a lot of familial relations, and in this case, the family relation is cousinry. He is not claiming that the gospel writers understood these 'brothers of Jesus' as cousins or intended 'cousin' when they said 'brother'. He is saying that what the gospel writers meant was some familial relation (and he does not commit himself to the claim that the gospel writers meant to say these 'brothers' were not brothers on the maternal side) and that, by looking at the whole NT corpus, we can figure out that they are cousins.

Secondly, although unacceptable in biblical scholarship, many Christians understand the OT through the NT (the old testament is the new testament concealed; the new testament is the old testament revealed -- St. Augustine); many also criticise scripture retrospectively from a post-tradition perspective (such, as you have explained in another thread, is the case with the doctrine of the Trinity.) But this is a perfectly legitimate hermeneutic for those Christians who believe, as the gospel writers do, that Jesus fulfilled the (supposed) messianic expectations of the OT, and who believe that the Holy Spirit guided the early guided the early church to come to a deeper doctrinal understanding. Catholics, who believe in the organic evolution of tradition, are consistent when they adapt their scriptural interpretations to suit their dogmatic developments (so long as the interpetation is at least possible, even if implausible when taken without the tradition.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I didn't say that it started with St Jerome. Yes, there are all sorts of divergent beliefs about Mary's importance, role, and nature between the first and fourth centuries.

Mea culpa. That was probably my imperfect reading.

The Greek Church came to accept the argument of perpetual virginity. It was not a patent part of NT theology st possible, even if implausible when taken without the tradition.)

[/b]But this is a perfectly legitimate hermeneutic for those Christians who believe, as the gospel writers do, that Jesus fulfilled the (supposed) messianic expectations of the bible, and who believe that the Holy Spirit guided the early guided the early church to come to a deeper doctrinal understanding.

I just want to say, for my part, that I have never denied that such a reading is a “legitimate hermeneutic” on the part of Christians—full stop. My only problem has ever been with Christians who refused to acknowledge that hermeneutic as such.

For example, when Christians insist that the “Trinity” is “clearly” implied in the Hebrew Scriptures—thereby presuming that Jews are, at best, stupid—and, at worst, dishonest—in reading their own scriptures. As Nemesio has pointed out repeatedly—and you have as well—the scriptures are in no way “clear” on such doctrinal points. (And, I think all three of us agree, that does not invalidate those doctrinal points.)

No one—absolutely no one—reads the Biblical texts without applying some “a priori” hermeneutic(s), whether consciously or not. Period.

[Yeah, I know: these comments were not directed to me; and you are likely unsurprised by my views. 🙂 I just wanted to vent them once again.]

EDIT: By the way, that notion of an “organic evolution” of tradition is one point that I think the RCC has over Orthodoxy. Actually, I think that is present in Orthodoxy—but unacknowledged. I suspect that the proper approach is a kind of “dynamic tension” between the original and organic evolution. Both the RCC and the Orthodox might agree with that in principle—while each accusing the other of going overboard on one side or the other...?

Originally posted by vistesd
As Nemesio has pointed out repeatedly—and you have as well—the scriptures are in no way “clear” on such doctrinal points. (And, I think all three of us agree, that does not invalidate those doctrinal points.)

You are right. I think Nemesio is objecting to the claim that the evangelists must have meant 'cousin' when they said 'brother', when this is a retrospective interpretation that emerged out of a need to reconcile dogma with scripture. I have no problem with that. My only qualification is that 'brother' could mean 'cousin' and that retrospective interpretations are not necessarily bad (although reading back, I don't think Nemesio has criticised that so long as Catholics are honest that it is retrospective.)

I think the Orthodox do (or did) have an organic evolution of tradition. This is, in part, what theology is for: to explain the faith (the scripture, liturgy, ecclesiology and sacraments) that has been passed on and attempt to discover more truths which could be formulated as a doctrine. There is a joke that the goal of a Catholic theologian is to get another doctrine declared, and it is probably a half-truth. Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox churches are bound to the ideas of antiquity, but see themselves as re-explaining and developing what has been given to them by tradition. The problem with the Orthodox churches is that the communion is unstable (the Greek Orthodox is at loggerheads with the Coptics; the Russian Orthodox is hostile to the Armenians) and theologians in the Orthodox communion are unsure what procedure there is to calling an council which would be trully ecumenical and able to add doctrines.

Originally posted by Conrau K
You are right. I think Nemesio is objecting to the claim that the evangelists must have meant 'cousin' when they said 'brother', when this is a retrospective interpretation that emerged out of a need to reconcile dogma with scripture. I have no problem with that. My only qualification is that 'brother' could mean 'cousin' and that retrospectiv ...[text shortened]... re is to calling an council which would be trully ecumenical and able to add doctrines.

I think the Orthodox do (or did) have an organic evolution of tradition.

Again, I think you are right. I just think they have not acknowledged that as much as the RCC has. That may be changing as Orthodoxy is in recent decades more opened up to the rest of the world (not that their “enclosure” was all their fault). People like Kallistos Ware are certainly talking about it.

The problem with the Orthodox churches is that the communion is unstable (the Greek Orthodox is at loggerheads with the Coptics; the Russian Orthodox is hostile to the Armenians) and theologians in the Orthodox communion are unsure what procedure there is to calling an council which would be truly ecumenical and able to add doctrines.

Yeah—but how is this different from saying that democracy is messier than monarchy? The Orthodox have not historically been as concerned as the West to nail down doctrines—again, the example of universal salvation. The Orthodox do recognize the problems that “ethnic” divisions are causing—particularly in a country like the US where you have the Greek Orthodox diocese, the OCA, the Russian Orthodox, etc., often in the same metropolitan area.