Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Why Roman doctrines can't be compared with Protestant doctrines


In some comments the other day, it was brought up that in some cases, some Protestant doctrines are closer to Catholic doctrines than they are among themselves. This cannot be, and the charts nearby show why. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism have two different "objects of faith." What you have here are the models of how these "objects of faith," and the doctrines themselves, work together. This is to show how they relate. (And these are just to represent concepts of the churches -- they are not intended to be comprehensive).

In the model showing the Churches of the Reformation, salvation is by Christ alone. Christ alone, and Him crucified, is the object of our faith. Explicating this, there is a core of orthodox beliefs, surrounding Scripture, God, Christ, man, sin, redemption, etc. That is, the doctrines explain how Christ effects this salvation. With some small exceptions, these doctrines, especially for the first 100 years or so after the Reformation, virtually all the big and important doctrines were the same among the Protestant churches. Any differences that existed among these churches were to be found not in the core doctrines, but in some of the peripheral ones. (And my list is taken from the order given in many systematic theologies of what is known as "theology proper" -- again, this is not intended to be representative of any one school of thought, but just to be representative of how things worked, in order to illustrate the contrast between how Roman Catholics think of their doctrines, and how Protestants think about doctrines.)

The other chart shows the Roman Catholic view of things. For the Roman Catholic, salvation is "through the Church to Christ." Roman Catholic doctrine is "a seamless garment". It is a whole, an entirety unto itself. There is no extricating any one doctrine from this circle of doctrines. This is what Rome calls "the fullness of the faith" or "the entire deposit of faith." It is also what is believed to be "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Here is how the CCC describes it:
84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
Note that "this Magisterium", while it claims to be "not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant," really has seen the Scriptures over the centuries not for what it is -- the Word of God to be listened to and obeyed. Rather, as Pius XII and others have described it: "theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition." That is, start with this circle, then use the Scriptures (and Tradition) as the source for proof texts.

Scripture is not to be understood as God's Revelation over time to man; for Roman Catholics, what God has revealed is precisely "the circle"; For the Roman Catholic, the object of faith, the "rule of faith" is precisely "the circle," the sum-total of Roman Catholic doctrine today.

Scripture is just one source must be combed through to find texts which might be used, however obliquely ("implicitly"), to support current Roman dogma. What counts for Roman Catholics is this "Entire Deposit of Faith". Even Christ is only one component of this circle, and he is thus part of the background. The "Church Teaching" is in the foreground. "Through the Church to Christ." Yes, Christ's work is essential to the Roman Catholic. But Christ's work is only mediated to you, the individual believer, by the Church's efforts and processes (i.e., through "the Sacraments").

And you, if you are to be a Roman Catholic in a state of grace (which is necessary if, when you die, you are to enter heaven), must accept all at once, all of it, everything that the Roman church teaches, without question, if you are to be a Roman Catholic. This is not "subscription". There are no objections or exceptions. It's all or nothing.

The thing about this system is, the acts of the evil popes are outside of this circle. (This I call "the Alias Smith and Jones defense of the papacy: for all the trains and banks that they robbed, they never taught anyone." That is, their evil acts did not contribute to "the circle"). Abusive priests and the bishops who hide them and give them comfort are outside of this circle.

Roman Catholic theology distinguishes between fides quae, what Aiden Nichols called "the faith of the Church" [which essentially is "what the Roman Church has come to believe over the centuries, and the sum total of what it requires you to believe"], and fides qua, which is the individual's act of having faith.

For the Protestant, there is one object of faith (fides quae): Christ alone. The Protestant acknowledges that there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.... Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

With this foundation in place, then, we "search the Scriptures". As Turretin notes, "Paul appeals to the judgment of believers to prove all things and to hold fast to what is good. John wishes believers to try the spirits whether they are of God. Surely this could not be said if this examination were either impossible or dangerous to them."

In Roman Catholicism, "fides quae" is the entire circle. The object of faith is the entire circle. In Roman Catholicism, there is the entire body of doctrine, "the fullness of the faith" which is what must be accepted. Rome presents its body of doctrine as "a seamless garment," and when you "have faith," that is, when you have "fides qua," it is that entire circle, that entire body of doctrine that you must believe. You must go "through the Church to Christ." You cannot pick and choose among Roman Catholic doctrines on things. You have to swallow the thing whole.

You can't say, "Rome has a pretty good doctrine of 'X'; I'll work toward bringing that knowledge to my church, without bringing the wrong things that Rome teaches into it." It doesn't work that way.

Roman teaching must be accepted in its totality, or rejected in its totality.

97 comments:

John Bugay said...

So, I want to clarify that when Roman Catholics talk about "unity," they are not talking about the "unity" of the people. They are talking about "the unity" of the circle. All Roman Catholics buy into that circle. That's where the unity exists. Individually, they may not all "interpret" that circle properly (only the Magisterium can do that), but "the circle" remains intact.

Viisaus said...

From these sketches it would seem like the Protestant church model is actually functionally "Trinitarian"! Different churches are separate entities but can yet be of same essence.

While "the unity" that the RCC so much calls for suddenly looks quite functionally UNITARIAN.

John Bugay said...

Hi Viisaus. I made a technical error in posting this; I had written it up as a draft, but forgot to change the posting time that gets populated into that field when you save a draft. So I am going to re-post this at some time when it won't appear down the page.

I like the "Trinitarian" idea, and in fact AA Hodge has written on the multiplicity of multifaceted Christian beliefs as if it all created a mosaic or a symphony, and I've got that on-hand to post as well.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Wow. This is a very, very, very good and instructive and informative post.

It's reasonable to believe that there are large numbers of Cafeteria Catholics out there who don't buy into the Whole Circle of Catholic Magisterial Dogma. And I think the Catholic clergy know this and I imagine that there is a good number of Catholic clergy who don't buy into the Whole Circle of Catholic Magisterial Dogma either.

John, I wholly and fully support your idea of bumping up this post to give it greater prominence.

John Bugay said...

Thanks TUAD... The RCC lives in it's own world, for sure.

Viisaus said...

"I like the "Trinitarian" idea, and in fact AA Hodge has written on the multiplicity of multifaceted Christian beliefs as if it all created a mosaic or a symphony, and I've got that on-hand to post as well."

Yes, it might well pay off to dig deeper on this... we already know that Rome's soteriology is semi-Pelagian, that its christology is semi-Monophysite - why could not the unity-obsessed RC ecclesiology be semi-Unitarian as well?

The post-Vatican II ecumenism has been a downright treason or sellout of the earlier intolerant RC ecclesiology. Truly "traditional" Romanists would not be able - with good conscience - to follow Christ's magnanimous teaching here, concerning an independently acting exorcist who did not enjoy proper "apostolic succession" (Mark 9:38-40):

"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For he that is not against us is on our part."

Imho, this is perhaps right behind Matthew 23:8-11 among those Gospel teachings that are LEAST digestible for authoritarian church systems. It allows way too much liberty for the orderly Roman taste.

http://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/mark/johnson/mark9.htm

"39. Forbid him not. He neither praises nor blames him for following an independent course, and not working with his disciples. He simply declares that he must not be forbidden, and that those who work the same kind of work that we do should be regarded, not as enemies, but allies. Thousands, in every period of church history, have spent their lives in copying John's mistake. They have labored to stop every man who will not work for Christ in their way from working for Christ at all.--Ryle."

Kim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Bugay said...

Thanks Kim!

Viisaus said...

One of the results of this Romish unity of faith is an unnatural "equalization in importance" of different articles of religion. An example: according to RC dogma, it would be JUST AS MUCH an apostasy from Roman Catholic faith to deny the Assumption of Mary as to deny the Resurrection of Christ!

Elizabethan-era Protestant scholar William Whitaker ended his magnum opus on Scriptures with this expression of indignation on this phenomenon:

http://www.archive.org/stream/adisputationonh00fitzgoog#page/n725/mode/2up

p. 706

"Who can adequately conceive the greatness of this insult, that these rotten popish traditions, whereof there is not one syllable in Scripture, should be counted equal to the Scriptures?"

TheDen said...

John,

Good post. I think this summarizes it pretty well.

First off, Christ is at the center of the Catholic life (CCC 1618).

The key difference between Catholics and Protestants is that for Catholics, we were given teachings from Christ that are protected by the Magisterium.

For Protestants, the teachings are derived and interpreted from Scripture.

The reason why the Catholic submits to everything the Church teaches is because we believe it all to be true. We believe that the entire Deposit of Faith--handed down from the Apostles is what Christ said and taught and it's not open for negotiation.

If that is wrong, then the Church should be rejected.

If the Church is correct, then it truly is the One True Church.

John Bugay said...

TheDen, thanks for affirming that it was a good summary. I have been accused of not being a good tour guide for RCism.

You may be correct that "Christ is the center" but be is at the center of a flat circle in which all things are equally important, and Viisaus is certainly correct to say that this "equalization of importance" is a great insult.

John Bugay said...

And when you say "handed down from the Apostles," there is absolutely no link that you have other than the Scriptures, which you must DENigrate by saying that God's intimately, God-breathed Word is not sufficient to communicate what God intended it to accomplish.

Thus, the way that the magisterium is the "servant" to the Word is to treat it as an incompetent and to, in actual practice, become its master.

All other forms of "tradition" are no more reliable than a game of "telephone"

TheDen said...

John,

"the center of a flat circle in which all things are equally important"

If they are all equally important it's because they all came from Christ. It came from God. Saying that, they are not all equally important. What's greatest of all is love (per 1 Corinthians 13:13) Specifically, it's love of God (per Luke 10:27). Even more specifically love of God is obedience to Christ(per John 14:15).

JB: "that God's intimately, God-breathed Word is not sufficient to communicate what God intended it to accomplish. "

This is obviously not true as the variation in Protestant doctrine that you have highlighted in this post show it's not sufficient.

What did Christ teach specifically? If Protestants disagree on key teachings (e.g. baptism) then yes. Scripture alone is obviously not sufficient.


JB: "Thus, the way that the magisterium is the "servant" to the Word is to treat it as an incompetent and to, in actual practice, become its master."


No, that is incorrect. The Church's responsibility is to faithfully interpret Scripture to what A. what the author wanted to affirm and B. What God wants to reveal. (CCC 109)

John Bugay said...

If they are all equally important it's because they all came from Christ.

Christ did not provide us with any Marian doctrines. In fact, he said quite the opposite.


Saying that, they are not all equally important.

They are all equally important (within the RC system) to say, as Viisaus says: "An example: according to RC dogma, it would be JUST AS MUCH an apostasy from Roman Catholic faith to deny the Assumption of Mary as to deny the Resurrection of Christ!"

This is obviously not true as the variation in Protestant doctrine that you have highlighted in this post show it's not sufficient. ...What did Christ teach specifically? If Protestants disagree on key teachings (e.g. baptism) then yes. Scripture alone is obviously not sufficient.

You are making an assumption about what is sufficient. You are making an assumption that the variations in doctrine are significant in God's eyes.


The Church's responsibility is to faithfully interpret Scripture to what A. what the author wanted to affirm and B. What God wants to reveal. (CCC 109)

CCC 109 says, "To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words." It is followed in subsequent paragraphs by what probably might be considered a "Roman Catholic Hermeneutic."

That's more than I want to get into here, but just to your point: I've written extensively about a typical Roman Catholic proof text: 1 Tim 3:15:

The "church" as "pillar and support of the truth," in that verse, is such that "Paul's illustration of the "church" is first that of a "household." The second point is, "God’s truth exists; it is the task of the entire church, by its behavior, to lift up the truth of God, to put it on display for the world to see, by their very behavior

That is what the verse actually *says*. And that is very far removed from what Rome tells us that it says (LG 8).

This is just one example among many. For centuries Rome's authorized version included the mistranslations in the Vulgate. It is amazing to think that "what God wanted to reveal" can have been done so, infallibly, through mistranslations.

Ikonophile said...

"You are making an assumption about what is sufficient. You are making an assumption that the variations in doctrine are significant in God's eyes."

You are making an assumption about what is sufficient. You are making an assumption that the variations in doctrine are NOT significant in God's eyes.

St. Paul clearly states that we are saved by truth (2 Thess. 2 among other places). It is odd that the early Church thought of baptism in a sense very much unlike modern Protestantism, that it is a doctrine that is acceptable to disagree on and consider unessential to salvation in some capacity(see Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, etc.).

Baptism is not, nor has ever been, relegated to the category of theologumena, or pious opinion. It isn't born out in the history of the Church or Scripture for that matter. We'll disagree about the Biblical references, of course. That goes without saying. But history certainly points in a direction that is clearly not Reformed, or Protestant in general. Call it apostasy, pretend that only heretics wrote in the early centuries of Christianity, whatever you have to do to. Just remember, John, you also are making assumptions. I can easily point that finger right back at you.

John

TheDen said...

John,

JB: Christ did not provide us with any Marian doctrines. In fact, he said quite the opposite.

Really? What did He say that was opposite to Marian doctrines?

JB: They are all equally important (within the RC system) to say, as Viisaus says: "An example: according to RC dogma, it would be JUST AS MUCH an apostasy from Roman Catholic faith to deny the Assumption of Mary as to deny the Resurrection of Christ!"

I will concede that you have to agree with doctrine such as the Assumption to be Catholic but is it that different from adhering to Baptist teaching to be Baptist or Presbyterian teaching to be Presbyterian? Can I be Presbyterian and not agree with TULIP? I’m sincerely asking this as I really don’t know perhaps I’m assuming incorrectly.

Ikonophile said...

The Den,

I think Visaus is referring to what is dogma, versus what is traditionally a denominational teaching. I doubt (though I could be wrong) that those Protestant denominations that baptize children would call infant baptism dogma. Whereas, in RC, the assumption of Mary is a dogma, i.e. on the level of "if you disbelieve this, your salvation is in danger". I doubt Protestant communions that baptize children would say the same.

It's interesting to note that Orthodox Christians also believe in the assumption of Mary, but it is not a dogma. Of course, I know of no Orthodox Christian to does not believe it (there may, in fact, be some but that number is certainly a great minority, if they even exist) but if one did not believe it, his salvation would not be in jeopardy.

John

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

TheDen: "If that is wrong, then the Church should be rejected."

TheDen, I hear ya. Take a look at this post, Home Sweet Away From Rome, and speculate if the Church was rejected as you conjecture.

Ikonophile said...

TUAD,

Closing Churches do not necessarily mean that there are less RCs. If Detroit (and much of Michigan) is a dead zone for jobs (as it has been for the last few years) it's no wonder that people move away. I'm not saying that there have been no decreases in the number of RCs in Detroit or anywhere else. In fact, I wonder what your own denominational statistics are for church growth and decline. I bet if we look at statistics for multiple denominations in Michigan (where I live, btw) I'd bet that since the auto industry died, there are plenty of folks who have moved away, whether RC, Reformed, or otherwise.

I also understand that not all of these Churches closed within the last ten years. But I think Detroit has been on the decline for far longer than that. That city started to die long before the economy did.

It is also worth noting that besides not presenting one's own statistics (growth and decline) in the post you linked, RC church growth was not reported. Seems a bit one sided to me.

I'm no fan of RC, but I'd rather not resort to hypocrisy as John has done above by merely asserting that TheDen is assuming this or that, while guilty of it himself in his very own comment that rebukes him, or by showing a list of Church closings without reference to one's own denominational statistics or without also presenting RC growth in the same post. Who knows? Perhaps RC church growth is on the decline. In fact, that statistic just might bring more weight to the Triablogue post, or not. I don't know the statistics myself, to be honest. Next time, try something more substantial.

John

John Bugay said...

Ikonophile: It is odd that the early Church thought of baptism in a sense very much unlike modern Protestantism, that it is a doctrine that is acceptable to disagree on and consider unessential to salvation in some capacity(see Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, etc.).

You'll really have to be more clear about what you mean. Early thoughts about baptism were all over the place. There were credobaptists and paedobaptists living together in the same communities without conflict for a long time.

At one point, doctrines about baptism were so stretched and mis-shapen, that many people, including someone like Constantine waited till his deathbead to be baptized.

Everett Ferguson's massive work on baptism in the early church notes:

Although in developing the doctrine of baptism different authoris had their particular favorite descriptions, there is a remarkable agreement on the benefits received in baptism. And these are present already in the New Testament texts. Two fundamental blessings are often repeated: the person baptized received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). The two fundamental doctrinal interpretations of baptism are sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ, with the attendant benefits and responsibilities (Romans 6:3-4), and regeneration from above (John 3:5) with its related ideas...

I don't know that "Protestants in general" would disagree with that.

In general we can say that there was a great deal of similarity in the baptismal rites during the patristic period. Major items on which there were differences or the beginning of differences include the following (1) the West was beginning to separate the postbaptsimal rites that became confirmation from baptism; (2) the Syrian practice was an unction associated with the Holy Spirit before baptism, whereas the principal annointing elsewhere was after baptism; (3) the liturgy at Milan included an "opening of the ears" (ephatha); (4) the liturgy in the East included a spitting in th erenunciation of the devil; (5) in in Milan and Spain there was a footwashing; (6) in a few places catechesis on the sacraments preceded baptism, but at other places it followed the experience itself.

I wonder, do you still spit at the devil in your baptism ceremonies? Is that an essential part of your baptismal liturgy?

John Bugay said...

Mark 3:20-35:

Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” ...

Who is more at the heart of this family than Jesus's mother? And here she is, taking charge of him, among those who accuse him of being out of his mind. In fact, she is addressed later in this same pericope:

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”



Apparently her status not only did not impress him, but made a negative impression on him.

This is a part of other ways that Jesus distanced himself from his physical family.

For example, note again the language he used. In John 2:4, Jesus responds to Mary, "What to me and to you?" Irenaeus noted, "When Mary pressed on toward the admirable sign of the wine and wanted prematurely to participate in the anticipated cup, the Lord said, repelling her untimely haste: "Woman, what have I to do with you'" (Against Heresies 3:16:7). Augustine and Chrysostom both believed Jesus was reprimanding her in this passage.

And the language clearly says so: It is the same phrase, "What to you and to you", it is used in various places in the LXX: "What have I done that you should do this to me?" (Judges 11:12, where it was given in response to an attack on the country, 2 Chronicles 35:21, 1 Kings 17:18, where the widow of Zarapeth whose son has just died, cried out in these words to Elijah, "What do you have against me?" and also "That is your business how am I involved?" (2 Kings 3:13, Hosea 14:8).

In the NT, that is the same expression that the Demons shout in Matt 8:29 and Mark 5:7, and also the demon-posessed man in Mark 1:24. It is a phrase of hostility.

Again, "interpreting with the sense of the Church" goes against the evidence of the language itself.

John Bugay said...

Ikonophile: I'm no fan of RC, but I'd rather not resort to hypocrisy as John has done above by merely asserting that TheDen is assuming this or that, while guilty of it himself in his very own comment that rebukes him

You may note that "what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied" and in the meantime, I've provided Scriptural and historical evidence, both on the question of the Marian doctrines, and on baptism in the early church.

I am unwilling to concede that anyone is deprived of heavenly blessing because they are practicing Lutheran baptism, or Reformed baptism, or Baptist's baptism, or Mennonite baptism.

That makes it a "secondary" issue.

The same goes for church government as well. Why is it ok for Liberius to be prancing around flirting with the ladies, and Damasus to have hired mobs that killed 137 of his opponents' supporters, but Presbyterians resorting to a more biblical model, which holds elders accountable, is somehow not ok?

TheDen said...

Ikonophile,

Thank you for the clarification regarding dogma. I have a better understanding.

Yes, we would be in apostasy. No, it doesn't mean we are condemned to Hell (I don't think anyone's said that but if that's implied that would not be true.)


TUAD,

As luck would have it, I actually live in the Detroit area (that's a statement you don't often hear!)

While there is probably SOME truth that the reason the parishes are closing due to people leaving Catholicism, that's not the main reason.

The shifting demographics in Detroit is the leading cause. Fifty years ago, there were large communities that were mainly Polish, German, or Irish descent in Detroit. After the race riots of 1967, there were huge shifts of populations (called the "White Flight") which left the urban areas mainly African American. So, these Catholic parishes in Detroit suffered and ended up having to eventually shut down.

So, a lot of these old Catholic parishes in Detroit have become Baptist or Pentecostal churches. The Catholic parishes in suburban Detroit--where I live now--are quite large and growing.

Viisaus said...

"Whereas, in RC, the assumption of Mary is a dogma, i.e. on the level of "if you disbelieve this, your salvation is in danger"."

"In danger?" Pope Pius XII expressed it rather more uncompromisingly back in 1950 - ex cathedra:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

"Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
...

It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Viisaus said...

Note that Pius anathematized even "agnostic" attitude towards the Assumption - "to call into doubt".

John Bugay said...

Viisaus, one might wonder if they've got that one scheduled to be "reformulated positively," as they have done with "no salvation outside the Church". Now, as you know, anyone can achieve salvation just by living within the boundaries of their conscience. Maybe those of us who have willfully denied this dogma can make reparations just by thinking happy thoughts or something.

Viisaus said...

"At one point, doctrines about baptism were so stretched and mis-shapen, that many people, including someone like Constantine waited till his deathbead to be baptized."

Still decades after Constantine, emperor Theodosius (who had pious Christian parents) did likewise:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14577d.htm

"During the year 380 he was able to conclude a victorious peace with the Goths; on 24 November he held his triumph at Constantinople. Meanwhile he had also repressed the Vandals and Huns. Early in the same year a severe sickness at Thessalonica made him seek baptism, and he was baptized by the Catholic Bishop of Thessalonica, Ascholios. Socrates (Church History V.6) says that since Theodosius "was a Christian from his parents and professed the faith of the Homoousios" he first assured himself that the bishop was not an Arian (cf. Sozomen; Church History VII.4)."

Kim said...

I wonder, do you still spit at the devil in your baptism ceremonies? Is that an essential part of your baptismal liturgy?

John, yes, the Orthodox church I attended still does that. It was part of the (adult) baptism I attended. Btw, my baptism in an Assembly of God church 20 years ago is not considered valid according to Metropolitan Jonah, so I was going to have to be re-baptized had I continued as a catechumen.

Kim said...

(Adding to my last comment) I had been properly baptized into the Trinity, so it wasn't that. I guess MJ has decided to not consider the AOG denomination as valid?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"While there is probably SOME truth that the reason the parishes are closing due to people leaving Catholicism, that's not the main reason."

Glad to see you realize and recognize that there are people leaving Catholicism.

For different reasons obviously.

Eg. Some people left over the clergy pedophile crisis and scandal.

Others left because of disagreement with Magisterial dogma.

And so and so forth.

John Bugay said...

Wow Kim, everyone in all the western churches must all now be damned for not spitting at the devil all these centuries. I never thought it was this bad. I can see why the EOs have such a superior rite.

Viisaus said...

Already back in the Reformation era, Protestant scholars pointed out that RCs themselves has given up one big tradition that early Christians had practised, which the EOs still practised and which the Hussites had sought re-instate - namely, the Infant Communion:

THE HISTORY OF PAEDOCOMMUNION: FROM THE EARLY CHURCH UNTIL 1500

"If paedocommunion was the common practice of the church in ancient days, then why do we not practice it today? Keidel asserts that infants and children were forbidden from the Lord's Supper because of "the doctrine of transubstantiation and the doctrine of concomitance (i.e., that Christ is present entirely under either kind)... The fear that infants and children might spill the wine and thereby profane the actual body and blood of the Lord appears to have been the primary reason for this discontinuance."49 Actually, it was not only the infants and children who ceased drinking the "transubstantiated" wine. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries ALL of the laity (in the West), adults included, began to back away from the cup. 50
...

In a further attempt to justify the termination of paedocommunion, the Fourth Lateran Council also came to "the landmark decision that confession must precede communion and that first communion should occur at the 'age of discretion.'"60 Therefore, communion becomes associated with confession instead of baptism. "Infants who had enjoyed full membership in the church in times past were reduced to catechumen status by the actions of the Lateran Council and the Council of Trent."61"


This RC decision to postpone giving the sacrament of Eucharist for kids was and is just as "arbitrary" as the Baptist decision to postpone the sacrament of Baptism for kids. Be sure to remind Romanists of this.

Ikonophile said...

"Wow Kim, everyone in all the western churches must all now be damned for not spitting at the devil all these centuries. I never thought it was this bad. I can see why the EOs have such a superior rite."

Wow, John, what an absolutely ignorant understanding of Orthodox soteriology and the mystery of baptism.

The spitting on the devil or the catechism (before, after, both) may vary from local church to local church, but the understanding of baptism does not change, i.e. it's doctrinal significance which doesn't vary.

John

John Bugay said...

Wow, Ikonophile, what disunity you Orthodox have in your baptismal practices. Yet you say it has no effect on the efficacy of the baptism?

Can you imagine that Protestants have a similar understanding regarding baptism? Spit or no-spitz, God knows what it is you are doing, and counts it accordingly.

TheDen said...

JB: “Apparently her status not only did not impress him, but made a negative impression on him.”

It doesn’t say anything in Scripture that Jesus has a “negative impression.” It doesn’t say that he doesn’t go out there and see His mother. The “negative impression” is something you’re forcing into the text. What Jesus explains is that “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mary followed God’s will perfectly, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to Your word” Jesus isn’t looking at His mother negatively. He’s describing her.


Regarding John 2, you’re not reading it right. Did you ever notice John 2:1? The subject of John 2 is not about Jesus. It’s about Mary. Mary was the one invited to the wedding. Jesus is mentioned second--almost as an afterthought in verse 2--”Jesus and His disciples were also invited to the wedding.”

Do you notice who the servants go to? They go to Mary when they have no wine and Mary intercedes for them to Jesus. And Mary tells them what she would tell us. “Do whatever He tells you.”

Then Jesus, being obedient to His mother (see Luke 2:51) turns water into wine. Even though it was not yet His time.

What John 2 tells us isn’t about Jesus. What it tells us is if we as servants need help, we can go to Mary who will intercede for us to Jesus. She will direct us (servants to Christ--but no longer slaves, Christ calls us friends per John 15:15) the same way she directs the servants. To do whatever He tells us. This is all a foreshadowing of John 15 and it points to Mary.

Ikonophile said...

"You can't say, "Rome has a pretty good doctrine of 'X'; I'll work toward bringing that knowledge to my church, without bringing the wrong things that Rome teaches into it." It doesn't work that way."

And following this logic: for this reason, Protestants don't accept absolute divine simplicity or the filioque... er, wait, yes they do.

John

John Bugay said...

Ikonophile: Protestant teachings aren't all "part of a seamless cloth" the way they are in Roman Catholicism. Individual doctrines may be discussed on their own (biblical) merits.

John Bugay said...

TheDen -- if you think that portion of John is "about Mary," you again show why Roman Catholicism must be rejected.

And it has to do with the doctrine of God.

"Christ Alone" implies that Christ is infinite. Therefore the gap between God and man is infinite.

When you bring Mary into it this way, you are illustrating the Roman "chain of being" -- God is up there, on the top of a heap of like-beings. God is certainly most important, but Mary, well, she's right up there in importance next to God and Christ.

This is a serious misunderstanding of who God is. And it's built right into your system.

TheDen said...

John,

JB: “if you think that portion of John is "about Mary," “

I’ve explained it to you using Scripture. Your understanding is that John’s intention is to show that Jesus is disrespecting His mother. John, the man whom Jesus loved, the man who was standing next to Mary at the Foot of the Cross who treated her as his mother and took her into his home after the Crucifixion is writing this?.

Do you really believe his intention is to show that Jesus disrespected His mom? Do you really believe Christ violated one of the Ten Commandments?


“When you bring Mary into it this way, you are illustrating the Roman "chain of being" -- God is up there, on the top of a heap of like-beings. God is certainly most important, but Mary, well, she's right up there in importance next to God and Christ.”

No, that’s not right. Mary is not “next to God and Christ.” She is the mother of Jesus Christ. Since we are joined to Christ--at Baptism, she is then our mother too. As Christ’s mother, His relationship with her is unique. It’s the relationship of a mother to a son.

As we are united to Christ, we should treat Mary as our Mother. She is the “Mother of the Church” as the Church is the Body of Christ. We should hold her in high regard because Scripture tells us to in Luke 1:48, “all generations will call me blessed.” We should honor her as we honor our mothers per the Ten Commandments.

To disrespect her is to disrespect Christ.

John Bugay said...

This is funny, TheDen, because I did not say Jesus was "disrespecting" his mother -- that's your word. And in no way did I come close to implying that he was somehow violating a commandment.

I in fact cited Irenaeus, and pointed to Augustine and Chrysostom, none of whom gave your interpretation to it, and all of whom suggested that Jesus was in some wah reprimanding her.

D.A. Carson calls it "a gentle rebuke" and traces the progression through this pericope: Jesus distances himself from Mary (and in fact, distances himself from all human ties); Mary does respond in faith, and becomes a disciple. That's all you can get from the John 2 and 19 mentions of Mary.

TheDen said...

John,

My apologies if I misread your text. I misread it as "disrespect" as you were comparing Jesus' speech to Mary with demons and saying it was with hostility.

I can agree that it was a "gentle rebuke" and yet He still responds to her.

"Mary does respond in faith, and becomes a disciple. That's all you can get from the John 2 and 19 mentions of Mary."

She responded in faith became a disciple when she said "Yes" to Gabriel back at the Annunciation.

Viisaus said...

"I misread it as "disrespect" as you were comparing Jesus' speech to Mary with demons and saying it was with hostility."

Christ's stern responses to Mary were not positively hostile, but they sure were not positively deferential or respectful either. It's "cold" talking to your mother like to some total stranger.

Many Protestants believe that Jesus on purpose, intentionally answered Mary rudely because He was omniscient and knew how RCs (and EOs) would in future worship Mary under the idolatrous infatuation that being in good terms with Mary would buy some "special favors" from her son. He thus delivered His Mary-slighting comments as an antidote to this tendency.

He surely did knock out the delusions of people like Bonaventure (RC Doctor of the Church) who argued that Mary could by her "maternal authority" COMMAND Christ to do this and that.

Viisaus said...

And here is a grassroots example of the perniciousness of Mariolatry.

In Bissera V. Pentcheva's book "Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium" (2006) there is shown an old Byzantine church fresco where this revealing dialogue between Mary and Christ has been written:

pp. 181-182

"What do you want, Mother?"

"The salvation of mankind."

"They have angered me."

"Forgive them, my son."

"But they do not repent."

"Well, save them anyway."

"They will have their redemption."

"I thank you, Christ."


There you have it - apparently Jesus Christ would not have wanted mankind to be saved, if not for His mother's pleading.

This whole Marian-intercession scheme has a distinct Monophysite flavor - Jesus is not so much a GOD-MAN as playing the role of judgmental God the Father Himself. So Mary essentially takes Christ's place as the merciful human advocate for men.

Viisaus said...

Here's the Bonaventure citation I mentioned:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14072/14072-h/14072-h.htm#sect3-5-3

"I will add to this catalogue of prayers and praises to the Virgin, only the translation of one prayer more from the same canonized Saint; it contains a passage often referred to, but the existence of which has been denied. It stands, however, in his works, vol. vi. page 466.

"Therefore, O Empress, and our most benign Lady, by THY RIGHT OF MOTHER COMMAND thy most beloved Son [JURE MATRIS IMPERA tuo dilectissimo Filio], our Lord, Jesus Christ, that He vouchsafe to raise our minds from the love of earthly things to heavenly desires, who liveth and reigneth."

TheDen said...

Viisaus,

V: "Many Protestants believe that Jesus on purpose, intentionally answered Mary rudely because He was omniscient and knew how RCs (and EOs) would in future worship Mary under the idolatrous infatuation that being in good terms with Mary would buy some "special favors" from her son."


That's interesting as Catholics believe He called her "Woman" as a reference to the Protoevangeleum-Genesis 3:15.

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Also, it's almost like a bookend as He calls His mother "Woman" twice. At the beginning of His ministry in John 2 and at the end at John 19. Pointing her out as the New Eve and the mother of all the faithful who bear wintess to Jesus Christ and are obedient to Him per Revelation 12:17.


V: "There you have it - apparently Jesus Christ would not have wanted mankind to be saved, if not for His mother's pleading."

Sorry but I cannot find your reference anywhere online and I'm too poor (cheap?) to buy the book.

So, this is allegedly an icon from a Church somewhere out East? Hardly authorative. Don't you think?

V: ""Therefore, O Empress, and our most benign Lady, by THY RIGHT OF MOTHER COMMAND thy most beloved Son [JURE MATRIS IMPERA tuo dilectissimo Filio], our Lord, Jesus Christ, that He vouchsafe to raise our minds from the love of earthly things to heavenly desires, who liveth and reigneth."

You know, I've Googled, "THY RIGHT OF MOTHER COMMAND" and "JURE MATRIS IMPERA" and all I get are anti-Catholic web-sites. Are you sure that this is from St. Bonaventure? I would think the Catholic sites would have it too.

Kim said...

Since we are joined to Christ--at Baptism, she is then our mother too. As Christ’s mother, His relationship with her is unique. It’s the relationship of a mother to a son.

This is the kind of logic that ends up with Mary as Co-Mediatrix. At what point do you stop the exaltation of her? I'm amazed at how far even the Orthodox are willing to go.

Kim said...

D.A. Carson calls it "a gentle rebuke"

If you look at the references of Jesus dealing with Mary from the time Jesus is 12 until He is on the cross, He is mildly rebuking her every time. I don't see any signs of Him raising her up to the level that the RC and OC do. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe she wasn't even spoken of in exalted terms until the 300's. It's an innovation just as is the praying to the saints. The earliest of the early church did not do these things.

TheDen said...

Kim,

"At what point do you stop the exaltation of her? "

This is scriptural. At the Cross, He gives her to John and John takes her in. All who love Jesus (ie obey His commandments) as much as John did can behold her as mother.

John himself explains this in Revelation 12:17 when he tells us that the devil will wage war on her offspring--"those who keep the commandments and bear witness to Jesus."

TheDen said...

Kim,

"If you look at the references of Jesus dealing with Mary from the time Jesus is 12 until He is on the cross, He is mildly rebuking her every time. "

Per Scripture, Jesus is obedient to her. (Luke 2:51).

Kim said...

This is scriptural. At the Cross, He gives her to John and John takes her in. All who love Jesus (ie obey His commandments) as much as John did can behold her as mother.

That is an assumption. I am all for giving Mary honor for her role as Christ's mother, but does that mean that I should revere her to such a degree that I pray to her? I would honor her as I would any godly older woman in the faith, and then some. But not to the point of calling her names meant for Christ and seeking Christ through her. Sorry. That goes too far.

Kim said...

Per Scripture, Jesus is obedient to her. (Luke 2:51)

Of course, He did. Even so, He still rebuked her.

John Bugay said...

TheDen -- in Ratzinger's work, Called to Communion," Peter is "obviously" a big deal because he his name is mentioned some 140 times. (This is out of more than 7900 verses in the New Testament). Paul occupies nearly half of the New Testament.

On the contrary, Mary is mentioned only in a handful of verses. Mark portrays her negatively (she is among those seeking to "take charge of him, for they said, 'he is out of his mind.'")

Jesus dismisses her at this point, more "highly favored" at this point are his disciples, those who do the will of God.

Rome wants Mary to be our mother; but Paul even tells us, explicitly (Galatians 4), Sarah is our mother.

Roman Catholicism relies on a mistranslation of Luke 1:28 ("full of grace," implying that she has something to give out; instead, that word should at best be rendered "favored"). There is another mistranslation [though it appears in Ineffabilis Deus, which promulgates the Immaculate Conception as a dogma], Gen 3:15, which has "the immaculate foot" stomping on the serpent's head. It is a mistranslation of an article, which is clearly masculine in the Hebrew; even Roman Catholic translations now correctly render this in the masculine.

John 2 is a rebuke, a distancing of himself from her. That there is "a bookend" in John 19 shows Jesus's concern that his mother, a 50-something widow, is cared for in her old age.

Devotion to Mary as it "developed" began in the Protoevangelium of James, a thoroughly unhistorical document that has its roots in pseudepigrapha of the mid to late second century. Many of these documents were created as pure fictions, and this is one of them. The other Marian dogma, the "Assumption of Mary," is first found in transitus literature of the fifth century -- it was ruled heretical, before they pulled it out of the trash and used it as the earliest mention of such a thing.

But Rome doesn't look at things historically. It takes its dogmas and looks backward -- any mention, however oblique, counts as "proof". There is no attempt to look for what the text is really saying. Instead, the text is forced into whatever meaning Rome thinks it needs to have.

This simply illustrates the bankruptcy of Roman Catholicism.

Viisaus said...

"John himself explains this in Revelation 12:17 when he tells us that the devil will wage war on her offspring--"those who keep the commandments and bear witness to Jesus.""

You are relying on apocryphal fables. It was not until several centuries that Christians began to think that Revelation 12 was referring to Mary instead of the general symbolic figure of the church.

For example, here's one early Christian commentary on Revelation by Victorinus of Pettau (who was martyred in the persecution of Diocletian):

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.xii.html

"1. “And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”]

The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles,2298 which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh."

Viisaus said...

According to Richard Littledale, the pre-Nicene Christian writers gave Mary no more attention than the NT itself did:

"Plain Reasons Against Joining The Church of Rome", pp. 68-69

http://www.archive.org/stream/plainreasonsaga00littgoog#page/n72/mode/2up/search/cyprian

"1. In the ante-Nicene period, the following extant writers never so much as name St. Mary at all; St. Barnabas, St. Hermas, St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, St. Hippolytus, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus,^ St. Firmilian, St. Dionysius, Arnobius, and St. Methodius.^

2. St. Justin Martyr mentions her twice in connexion with the Nativity, and once with the flight into Egypt. St. Clement of Alexandria once touches on her virgin childbearing. Tertullian mentions her four times, once in connexion with the Nativity, once merely to defend the occasional interchangeableness of the words "woman" and "Virgin" by showing that both are applied to her ("De Veland. Virg." vi.), but twice actually to charge her with lack of belief and with seeking to call Christ away from His work (De Carne Christi, vii.; Adv. Marc. iv. 19), thereby arousing His indignation. Origen, very similarly, names the Blessed Virgin but casually a couple of times, and in the one place where he goes more into detail, he explains the sword of Simeon's prophecy to be unbelieving doubt, whereby she was offended at the Passion. "Through thine own soul .... shall the sword of unbelief pierce; and thou shalt be struck with the sharp point of doubt" ("Hom. in Lucam," xvil) St. Archelaus defends the Virgin-birth against Manes, and incidentally touches on the message to our Lord regarding His Mother and brethren. St. Cyprian casually names her once as Mother of Christ (Epist lxxii., al. lxxiii).

There remain only two passages from which any conclusion can be drawn; The first of these is in St Irenaeus, where he says that St. Mary's obedience counterbalances Eve's disobedience, so that she has become the "advocate" of Eve. ("Adv. Haer." V. xix.) We have only the barbarous Latin translation here, and cannot tell exactly what the Saint wrote or intended,^ but we have his mind plainly enough expressed in another place, where he speaks of Christ having "checked the inseasonable haste of His Mother at Cana." ("Adv. Haer." III. xvi.) The other is in a fragment of St Peter of Alexandria, where he styles St. Mary "glorious Lady, and ever-Virgin." Clearly, nothing in these scanty details supplies the justification sought for."

john said...

I find it amazing that "Catholic E-Pologists" are so out of touch with what THEIR OWN Catholic Scholars are saying. My investigation into Roman claims began when I was still Roman Catholic and I read quite a few Catholic Scholars, both Historians and Theologians, I broadened my research into both Protestant and "secular" Historians and they WERE ALL saying the SAME THING about Roman claims, IE that they have no Historical or Biblical validity which is why I AM NO LONGER Roman Catholic. The Protestant case and claims win the day for me both Historically and Biblically. MOST, if not ALL Rome's unique Dogmas IE Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility (Based on greed and lust for power, control and gold), Purgatory( Based on pagan graeco-roman mythology with some neo-Platonism thrown in),Indulgences, Marian Dogmas (Based on heretical and gnostic literature which btw was condemned by two Bishops of Rome), Romes view of Justification (neo semi-Pelagianism) are all man-made fabricated Dogmas.

Viisaus said...

"And if I'm not mistaken, I believe (Mary) wasn't even spoken of in exalted terms until the 300's. It's an innovation just as is the praying to the saints. The earliest of the early church did not do these things."

This testimony of John Henry Newman is again worth citing:

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Classic_Sermons/George%20Salmon/infallibility_church.htm

"Dr. Newman himself, disclaiming the doctrine that the Invocation of the Virgin is necessary to salvation, says (Letter to Pusey, p. III): 'If it were so, there would be grave reasons for doubting of the salvation of St. Chrysostom or St. Athanasius, or of the primitive martyrs. Nay, I should like to know whether St. Augustine, in all his voluminous writings, invokes her once.' But he holds (p. 63) that, though 'we have no proof that Athanasius himself had any special devotion to the Blessed Virgin,' yet, by teaching the doctrine of our Lord's Incarnation, 'he laid the foundations on which that devotion was to rest.'"

It was awareness of silences like this that forced Newman to come up with his "Doctrine of Development."


It was not until the 5th century that Marian cultus truly began to emerge. One thing that shows this is that only then did Christians begin to dedicate churches to Mary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_di_Santa_Maria_Maggiore

"Santa Maria Maggiore was one of the first basilicas built in honor of The Virgin; the purpose was to highlight the role of the Virgin as “Mother of God in ordinance with the decree issued by the Council of Ephesus (431 CE).[9]
...

The central debate that was decided during the Council of Ephesus was the nature of the Virgin and the Incarnate Christ, and the conclusion came that the Virgin was in fact “Mother of God”. Santa Maria Maggiore was built by Pope Sixtus III to commemorate this decision and some scholars believe that this opened the gates for personal devotion and formal cults of the Virgin Mary.[12]"

john said...

Now as far as Marian Dogmas go Mary's Assumption has NO Historical or Biblical basis. I quote Eamon Duffy a well known and respected Roman Catholic Historian.

"there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for the Assumption of Mary"

Epiphanus a Bishop who had his see in the area of Palestine wrote:

"But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was
buried or was not buried. Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain. Did she die, we do not know. Either the holy Virgin died and was buried, or she was killed, or she remained alive; for her end no-one knows."

Epiphanus lived in the area so any word or rumour of what happened to Mary would have been known to him, but he admits that NO ONE knows what happened to her, and his attitude is that if Scripture is silent on the matter then any speculation on what happened to Mary isn't crucial or important to the Christian faith.

Viisaus said...

"The Protestant case and claims win the day for me both Historically and Biblically."

Yes - like George Salmon put it in his dignified-but-biting manner:

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Classic_Sermons/George%20Salmon/infallibility_church.htm

"An unlearned Protestant perceives that the doctrine of Rome is not the doctrine of the Bible. A learned Protestant adds that neither is it the doctrine of the primitive Church.

These assertions are no longer denied, as in former days. Putting the concessions made us at the lowest, it is at least owned that the doctrine of Rome is as unlike that of early times as an oak is unlike an acorn, or a butterfly unlike a caterpillar. The unlikeness is admitted: and the only question remaining is whether that unlikeness is absolutely inconsistent with substantial identity. In other words, it is owned that there has been a change, and the question is whether we are to call it development or corruption."

Viisaus said...

TheDen:

"So, this is allegedly an icon from a Church somewhere out East? Hardly authorative. Don't you think?"

Not an icon, but a church wall-painting. And I said that it was a "grassroots example" of how Mariolatry worked (and in uncultured countries still works) on the popular level. "Woe unto the seducers of simple ones", as only few Christians know the fine differences between latria and hyperdulia.

That fresco showed how twisted idea the RC/EO hoi polloi masses really often got - that Jesus Christ represents stern, even cruel divine JUSTICE while Mary as the benevolent "Queen of Heaven" is the distributor of divine MERCY.

http://www.archive.org/stream/plainreasonsaga00littgoog#page/n36/mode/2up/search/formal

pp. 32-33

"Some extracts from a formal theological work, Liguori's "Glories of Mary," are therefore added here: —

"Queen, Mother, and Spouse of the King, to her belong dominion and power over all creatures."

"She is Queen of Mercy, as Jesus is King of Justice."

"In the Franciscan chronicles it is narrated that Brother Leo once saw a red ladder, on the top of which was Jesus Christ; and a white one, on the top of which was His most holy Mother, and he saw some who tried to ascend the red ladder, and they mounted a few steps and fell; they tried again, and again fell. They were then advised to go and try the white ladder, and by that one they easily ascended, for our Blessed Lady stretched out her hands and helped them, and so they got safely to heaven."

If this (which Liguori TWICE uses in proof of the tenet it involves) be not blasphemy against the Lord Jesus Christ, and a formal denial of His power to save and His being the way to heaven, there are no such sins possible."

Viisaus said...

"Epiphanus lived in the area so any word or rumour of what happened to Mary would have been known to him, but he admits that NO ONE knows what happened to her"

It was apparently not until post-Chalcedonian times that Mary's assumption (or "dormition" as EOs put it) became something more than mere unserious and/or heretical theological fan-fiction:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormition_of_the_Theotokos#Development_of_the_Dormition_tradition

"The first four Christian centuries are silent regarding the end of the Virgin Mary's life, though it is asserted, without surviving documentation, that the feast of the Dormition was being observed in Jerusalem shortly after the Council of Ephesus.[3]

At the point in the later fifth century when the earliest Dormition traditions surface in manuscripts, Stephen Shoemaker has detected[4] the sudden appearance of three distinct narrative traditions describing the end of Mary's life: he has characterised them as the "Palm of the Tree of Life" narratives, the "Bethlehem" narratives, and the "Coptic" narratives—aside from a handful of atypical narratives."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary#History

"Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott stated, "The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries.... The first Church author to speak of the bodily assumption of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours."[11]"

Kim said...

Thanks, Viisaus, for correcting me on the time period about Mary. It's the 4th century, yes? I was thinking 4th century, but thinking that was the 300's because I am an idiot. Ha! I hope I can get the century-to-years thing down before I am an old lady. Got any special rhymes to help me out? ;) All of your comments are very helpful and encouraging. Keep it up!

Viisaus said...

"I was thinking 4th century, but thinking that was the 300's because I am an idiot."

Don't be too hard on yourself. :)

John Bugay said...

To john -- I appreciate your comments here. I've been scouring my memory, and I think I am remembering the name of one former Catholic "epologist" who may have faded off the scene and turned into you. I don't want to speculate on your secret identity though. If you ever feel like keeping a secret identity is too burdensome, and you want to chat behind the scenes, please feel free to email me, "johnbugay" at gmail. ;-)

For Roman Catholics, "speculation" is the key word. "Speculation-turned-dogma" is the kind of thing that happened with Mary. But that was only one of the speculative things that was going on.

Since we are talking about the gospel writer John, let's go back to that thrilling day of yesteryear, and look at the scene that John is reporting:

Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face. ... So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.... Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

In the vernacular, Jesus is hanging, naked, on a cross, with soldiers mocking and spitting on him; his mother, who really has been dependent on him for support through all of this, what's he thinking? Is it, "Dude, ok, it's time. Here's my mom: she said 'all generations will call me blessed.' So go spread the word: Remember the wedding. Tell the people to check with her when they don't get their way from me ... when you write this story, be sure to book-end these two events, so that folks don't forget"? Or is he thinking, "Dude, my brothers are untrustworthy (Mark 3). Take care of my mom for me"?

John Bugay said...

Viisaus -- thank you for bringing up Liguori.

Genuine exegesis involves a study of the language to determine what's really going on. There is just simply no warrant in these passages for the "later reflection" that turned Mary into a goddess.

And TheDen, please don't try and convince us that "the Church" tried very hard to put limits on the amount of "devotion" that people had for Mary. Viisaus is right: the masses who were baptized after Constantine were well aware of goddesses they worshipped, but no one had any idea of the Scholastic distinction between Laetria and Hyperdulia.

No heretic was ever burned for having too much devotion to Mary. There simply were no cautions in that direction.

John Bugay said...

Kim -- I'm grateful that you've shared your story here. Jesus said, "a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks."

He draws us, and we, being the sinful, needy creatures that we are, go in all sorts of directions. Some of us get caught up in those detours, but there is one destination. Jesus also said, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Rome has, for centuries (and infallibly so), encouraged people to stop at Rome, and to focus on Rome, along with the one-ring circus it has set up for the worshipping pleasure of its audience.

And with its sideshows, it prevents people from going directly to the cross of Christ, which is the only source of life for the death in which we are mired.

Kim said...

Thanks, John (B). The gospel message is ever so slightly changed in Catholicism so that we are smoothly drawn into buying it without really seeing the vast differences that truly exist between it and what Paul teaches. When coming into the RC (and even the OC) is equivocated with coming to Christ, the waters get murky. But thank God that He opens our eyes and lets us see it for what it really is, an attempt to mediate for Christ. We become part of the Body of Christ when we are born again. We are not born again because we become members of the RC. I believe the OC believes as the RC does. They seemed perplexed about how to categorize me, a baptized, born again believer for 20 years, since I was not (in their eyes) validly baptized; and so, did I have the Holy Spirit as far as they were concerned?

John Bugay said...

Thanks Kim. The RCC would have recognized you as validly baptized, but not having "the fullness of the faith." CCC846 and ff says:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:


Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:


Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.


I don't know what the EOC would say. I'm inclined to think they'd be a bit less "generous" than this.

(Note the line about those who "moved by grace, try in their actions to do... -- the RCC adopts something close to full-blown pelagianism.)

john said...

To John Bugay: Yes I was a Roman Catholic and I did engage in Catholic apologetics mostly on Matt Slick's CARM Catholic board, but seldom elsewhere on the "net". And yes I used a different nic back then.It is rather ironic that in studying History and Theology in order to be a better Roman apologist that I saw that Rome's claims were untrue and many of her Dogmas as fabrications invented by men and Theological speculation based on Pagan Mythology and heathen Greek and Roman Philosophy, something St. Paul warned us against.

Ikonophile said...

"You may note that "what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied" and in the meantime, I've provided Scriptural and historical evidence, both on the question of the Marian doctrines, and on baptism in the early church."

You're correct. You have and I have not.

John

John Bugay said...

john -- Thanks for sharing that part of your background. I do recall Matt Slick and CARM, but I never really participated there (although James Swan spent a lot of time there).

But you are not who I thought you were.

;-)

John Bugay said...

Ikonophile: You're correct. You have and I have not.

I wasn't even talking about you. Go back and re-read that. Where "TheDen" provided scripture references, I dealt with them. What he gratuitously asserted, I gratuitously denied.

Kim said...

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

The OC says this, too. So who's right?

Here's what it should say:

"Outside of Christ there is no salvation."

The thing I notice about Catholic apologists is that ALL of their evangelizing is for their Church, not specifically for Christ, whereas, we Protestants (evil as we are) evangelize for Christ alone. The focus for CA's is "come to the Church for salvation". We say, "come to Christ for salvation."

TheDen said...

Kim,

"The OC says this, too. So who's right?"

They're both right. There is only one Church as there is only one Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is the Church per Scripture. The Body of Christ is not split between the EOC and the Catholic Church. It's one Church.

There is no salvation outside of it as that's how Christ saves us. We are baptized into His Body. We are united into Him. That's how we are saved--per Scripture.

This does not mean that Protestants are not saved. It says that salvation is through the Body of Christ as that's what Christ taught us.

Kim said...

Right, The Den, but both the RC and OC believe that they have the true faith and we Protestants are outside of it in a way because we are not members. There is the feeling when reading their literature that we are more like bastard sons and daughters. At least that is how we are made to feel by the language they choose to use of us. A condescending tone is spoken as if they are superior to us.

We are outside looking in, you see.

John Bugay said...

Kim, there is "one true church" and it is not coterminous with either the RCC or the EO. In fact, large swatches of those organizations are excluded. (In the case of Rome, it excluded itself at Trent when it anathematized the Gospel.

http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/the-unity-of-the-church/

Kim said...

I'm with you, John. I spent too long listening to the never-ending RC vs. Prot argument of "The True Church: Visible or Invisible?"

I was so sucked into believing there was "one true visible church" that I felt the FULL weight of that statement (Outside the Church there is no salvation"). I'm no longer worried about finding "the one true church" as I no longer believe Rome's or Constantinople's claims to that end. They may have a long history, but they seem to have let their traditions form them more than Scripture.

TheDen said...

Kim,

"we Protestants are outside of it in a way because we are not members. "

No, that's not true. You're not outside looking in. 90% of what you believe is correct. (Christ, Trinity, etc.) It's that you're not 100% in the the Church. You know most of it. Not all of it.

Outside looking in would be atheists and/or non-believers.

Kim said...

What do I believe that is incorrect?

TheDen said...

Kim,

I don't know. Where do you think the Church is wrong? Let's exclude the Marian dogmas for the time being unless that's the only point of disagreement that you have.

Kim said...

Forgive me for throwing it back at ya, but you said 90% of what I believe is correct. What do you consider the other 10% to be?

John Bugay said...

TheDen, the first place Rome is wrong is in its sense of authority. The Bishop of Rome never was in charge of the church. Nor is Scripture the final authority; it's merely buried in that circle somewhere, to be picked at when you need a proof-text.

Within the Doctrine of God there are aberrations. (Aquinas's reliance on Pseudo-Dionysius enabled subtle differences in what a Biblical doctrine of God is vs. what Roman Catholicism accepts). What this means is that Catholics don't mind to blur the absolute and infinite gulf between God and man. This is evidenced in the Ratzinger/pan(en)theism posts. The Reformers held to a strictly Biblical doctrine of God, no neo-Platonism added.

In the Doctrine of Man, RCs hold that man was created good, but God gave a "donum superadditum" which he lost in the fall. Protestants hold that Adam was "very good" without a nonBiblical donum superadditum. The upshot of this is that RCs hold that man was merely "wounded" during the fall; whereas Protestants hold that there was a spiritual death.

These things echo throughout the various systems.

Kim said...

The upshot of this is that RCs hold that man was merely "wounded" during the fall; whereas Protestants hold that there was a spiritual death.

The OC also believes in the wounded theory. We just need healing. But that doesn't jive with the Scriptures that say we were dead in our sins. We weren't wounded, we were dead!

Colossians 2:13:

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins..."

John Bugay said...

Kim, that's just one of the consequences of not allowing the Scriptures to stand on their own; they must be filtered and the meaning changed.

Kim said...

True. Our O priest said they read the Bible, but don't study it (afraid to interpret it, methinks). I saw so little of the Bible within my O church's life other than what was read in the liturgy that I wonder if they even read it otherwise. That was one of the things that made me question being there.

John Bugay said...

I have not ever set foot in an Orthodox church, that I can recall. I attended a funeral at an Byzantine rite church.

Kim said...

I think the Byz Caths and the Orth. are nearly the same in practice. It's just that the Byz Caths are under the Pope. You probably witnessed an Orthodox funeral.

TheDen said...

John,

OK. I’m going to hold off on the authority part as I’m sure it’s been covered like a million times on this blog. I think you and I have covered the Ratzinger part pretty well. I’ll go right to the third part.

First off, Catholics also hold that man is created “very good” but yes, there is a “donum superadditum.” It’s in the Bible.

When God created man, He gave man dominion over all things. Man was free to eat from any tree except for the tree of knowledge of good and bad. In the center of the garden was the Tree of Life.

The Tree of Life is what you’re calling the “donum superadditum.” The fruit from the Tree of Life is what gave Adam the grace of eternal life. Eating from the Tree, Adam would live forever.

When Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, his disobedience deprived him of the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:22). God banishes Adam and all mankind from the Tree of Life in Genesis 3:24. This banishment deprives all man from eternal life and condemns all men to death.

Jesus Christ changes that. Adam’s disobedience deprives us of the Tree but Jesus’ obedience restores it. Jesus Christ restores the access to the Tree of Life. His cross becomes the Tree of Life and His Body and Blood becomes the fruit. We eat of His Body and drink of His Blood and we gain eternal life.

We unite ourselves into Him at Baptism and through our obedience to Him, we see eternal life. Through our eating of His Body and drinking of His Blood, we remain in Him and He in us (John 6:56). Without Him, we see death.

The Tree of Life is what was lost in the Fall. The Tree of Life is the “donum superadditum.” Protestants don’t have it because Protestants (some of them) have rejected the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the “Bread of Life” and with it, we shall never hunger and will have eternal life per John 6.

John Bugay said...

The Tree of Life is what you’re calling the “donum superadditum.” The fruit from the Tree of Life is what gave Adam the grace of eternal life.

This is not only overly simplistic, but it is incorrect.

Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" notes that "Our first parents, before the fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace." That is, this "supernatural gift given to man in the primitive state" was not a part of his original constitution."

"The supernatural is not superadded merely externally to nature, but affects nature intrinsically. It permeates the being and the powers and perfects it either within the created order (e.g., the preternatural gifts) or through eleveation into the divine order of being and activity (absolutely supernatural gifts). The fathers and theologians compare the supernatural to fire which makes iron glow, or to a plant which is grafted on a tree." (Ott pg 102).

This is all just more speculation.

Here is Michael Horton citing Bavinck (Bavinck in bold):

The Reformation rejected this Neoplatonic mysticism, returned to the simplicity of Holy Scripture, and consequently gained a very different concept of grace.

Grace serves, not to take up humans into a supernatural order, but to free them from sin. Grace is opposed not to nature, ony to sin. In its real sense, it was not necessary in the case of Adam before the fall but has only become necessary as a result of sin....The "physical" opposition between the natural and the supernatural yields to the ethical opposition between sin and grace....
("Covenant and Salvation," 193).

According to the federal (Post-Reformation) theologians, Adam and Eve were never in a state of grace before the fall. Endowed in their creation with all of the requisite gifts necessary for fulfilling God's eschatological purposes, there was nothing lacking requiring a gracious supplement.

This reveals a fundamentally different understanding not only of the original condition of humanity in Adam (under a covenant of works), but of grace itself. After all, "the image of God is not a superadded gift but integral to the essence of humanity," as Bavinck observes. (194)

TheDen said...

John,

"Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" notes that "Our first parents, before the fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace." That is, this "supernatural gift given to man in the primitive state" was not a part of his original constitution." "

Yes, the "supernatural gift" was the fruit from the Tree of Life." We did not "just" have eternal life. God gave it to us through His nourishment from the Tree. It was not something we were born with. And with Adam's disobedience, we lost it. This is what Ott's talking about. It's not overly simplistic. It's in Scripture.

So, Scripture tells us that Adam received eternal life through obedience to God and the fruit of the Tree of Life which was lost to him and all mankind through his disobedience.

The Gospels tell us we receive eternal life through our our obedience to Christ and from eating His Body which through His obedience was sacrificed on a tree for us.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

“Hundreds of disillusioned Anglicans were preparing Sunday to defect from the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church in time for Lent, Sky News reported.”

From British Anglicans Preparing Mass Defection to Roman Catholic Church.

Which causes one to ask "Why?"

"It follows a campaign by a former Anglican bishop in protest at its stance on the ordination of women and gay clergy.

Despite the efforts of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Anglo Catholics have begun leaving following the conversion of three Anglican bishops in mid-January.

The Church of England said that 1,000 of its 13,000 parishes were opposed to the ordination of women.

At St. Barnabas church in Tunbridge Wells, southeastern England, the parish priest said that a majority of his parishioners want to defect -- and he is considering going too.

Father Ed Tomlinson believes that traditionalists who oppose the ordination of women have been badly let down by Church leaders."

--------

Let us then consider what I believe that Catholicism teaches about itself and which John B. reiterates:

"Roman teaching must be accepted in its totality, or rejected in its totality."

So we have these Anglican traditionalists in the Church of England thinking that there's only two choices:

(A) Anglicanism going liberal with WO (which is simply a manifestation of deeper liberalism) in the Church of England, or...

(B) Roman Catholicism.

So they choose (B).

I think this is a false dichotomy. IMNSHO, they should reject both (A) and (B) because WO is clearly against Scripture and Roman Catholicism is clearly in severe error with some of its aberrant doctrines, and so these so-called Anglican traditionalists should reject both theological liberalism and Roman Catholicism and choose a biblical faithful conservative Protestantism.

Anyways, this mass defection is the rotten fruit of theological liberalism.

john said...

To TheDen and anyone else here who is interested.

Not only is Rome's teaching on The Fall and Original Sin and its effects is wrong but Rome's teaching on the Atonement and its nature is wrong.

The Biblical view is called "Penal Substitution" in which on the Cross Jesus suffered the wrath of God and the punishment for sin we deserve in our place and stead to thepoint where when when Jesus said "my God, My God, why have you forsaken Me" God the Fathers wrath and punishment was upon Jesus the Lamb of God and in our place took God's curse and judgement for sin in our place, Jesus felt the abandonment by God we deserve. Jesus took our sins and the punishment they deserve along with the consequences for those sins upon Himself and bore them in our place. Do I believe in Purgatory? You bet, its called Jesus Cross on Calvary. Rome's teaching on the Atonement goes like this.
Jesus voluntarily died as a sin-offering as our representative to appease God's wrath for sins we have committed and commit. The Father was so pleased with this that now Grace can be given to us based on the Merits of Christ. So when we come to Jesus and accept His work the Father forgives us of the Guilt for our sins. When one is Baptised all sins, guilt and their consequences are washed away. AFTER Baptism when one confesses their sins in the Sacrament of Confession the Guilt for those sins is forgiven but we must still "Atone for and make Satisfaction" to God for those sins either here in this life or in Purgatory after we die or both. When I was in CCD (just before and during Vat. 2) we were still taught the "pre-Vat. 2" Catholicism and we were taught that Purgatory was actually punishment and torture to Atone for and make Satisfaction to God for our sins whose Guilt had been forgiven (the Guilt was forgiven so we wouldn't end up in Hell) but we still had to suffer for those either thru doing Penance here and/or being punished in Purgatory) but a "way out" of all this was by gaining "Indulgences" in which these "consequences" IE Purgatory might not be necessary or just a minimal stay in Purgatory, even a "minimal stay" in Purgatory was scary because we were also taught that one minute in Purgatory was more painful than a dozen lifetimes of the worst physical pain on Earth.

I say that the whole Roman system is an insult to Our Lord Jesus Christ and what He did for us, I am glad to be FREE of that abomination of Romanism IE the Roman Catholic Church, praise God!!!!

Viisaus said...

"When I was in CCD (just before and during Vat. 2) we were still taught the "pre-Vat. 2" Catholicism and we were taught that Purgatory was actually punishment and torture to Atone for and make Satisfaction to God for our sins whose Guilt had been forgiven (the Guilt was forgiven so we wouldn't end up in Hell) but we still had to suffer for those either thru doing Penance here and/or being punished in Purgatory) but a "way out" of all this was by gaining "Indulgences" in which these "consequences" IE Purgatory might not be necessary or just a minimal stay in Purgatory, even a "minimal stay" in Purgatory was scary because we were also taught that one minute in Purgatory was more painful than a dozen lifetimes of the worst physical pain on Earth."


It is highly intructive to hear testimonies like this from the older generation - "lest we forget". They show what Rome was really like before its ecumenical-modernist charm offensive.

Post-Vatican II RCC with its unnatural liberal poses reminds me of how an institution like the Planned Parenthood has swept under the carpet its eugenical past (Margaret Sanger et al). They both have skeletons in their closet they would like us to forget.

John Bugay said...

were still taught the "pre-Vat. 2" Catholicism and we were taught that Purgatory was actually punishment and torture to Atone for and make Satisfaction to God for our sins whose Guilt had been forgiven (the Guilt was forgiven so we wouldn't end up in Hell) but we still had to suffer for those either thru doing Penance here and/or being punished in Purgatory) but a "way out" of all this was by gaining "Indulgences" in which these "consequences" IE Purgatory might not be necessary or just a minimal stay in Purgatory

All of this is still in effect, you know. They've just adjusted the messaging so that this part is not so far out front. But it does give lie to those times when it is said, "Catholics too believe in salvation by Christ alone..."

By the way, someone just said that to me last night, on the "Catholic Answers" discussion board:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=532097

If any of y'all would like to stop over there and say "hi," I'm sure the good folks there would appreciate it :-)

Kim said...

All of this is still in effect, you know. They've just adjusted the messaging so that this part is not so far out front.

This kind of thing makes me appreciate sola Scriptura all the more. No worrying about some sneaky doctrine appearing out of nowhere. Scripture is out there for everyone to see.

PeaceByJesus said...

Very insightful blog post John, supplemented by the versed Viisaus and others.

I was listening to "Is the Reformation Over? (Rethinking the push for détente with Rome)" by Phil Johnson at the same time, so i received a double doctrinal dose.

Yet something i do conditionally disagree with is your statement that,

"if you are to be a Roman Catholic in a state of grace (which is necessary if, when you die, you are to enter heaven), must accept all at once, all of it, everything that the Roman church teaches, without question, if you are to be a Roman Catholic."

It is true that as the Baltimore catechism. teaches,

"A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic,"

yet what Rome may officially say is not only open to some interpretation (despite the assertions of unity by RCAs), but what she effectually conveys must be taken as evidencing what she truly believes and currently teaches.

Thus when the Ted Kennedy's of the world are honored by RCs in life and in death it sends a message to Catholics that the essential requirement is that one dies in the arms of Rome.

Only if such liberal pro-homosexual (54%) and abortion-sanctioning Catholics (30% or more) convert and become conservative evangelicals does real concern for their salvation become manifest.

In cults in Jesus is a means to an end (belonging to their group), as like Rome, they hold to sola eccelesia - the church or leader essentially being the supreme authority with assured unquestionable veracity - and rather than directing souls to Scripture as the assured Word of God, with Christ being the real focus of faith, Rome largely preaches herself, and fosters faith-reliance upon her self-proclaimed powers for salvation for even the most nominal Catholics.

It may even be said that the Christ Rome preaches is often treated like a copyrighted product they own ("our Lord"®), who (and whose words) is autocratically defined by them as needed to support the claims of Rome, yet whose teachings do not depend upon the weight of scriptural warrant, but her presumed assured veracity, as she has infallibly defined herself as infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallible defined scope and subject-based formula. Against which there can be no law.

Yet the Christian church began in dissent from the historical heavyweights who presumed more than what was written.

PeaceByJesus said...

Also, while i did not find the actual volume that the quote from Bonaventure is from online, i did find a reference to "Mirror of the Blessed Virgin Mary," which is often ascribed to St. Bonaventure, but is now considered the work of Conrad of Saxony, by many

And which further and abundantly evidences how many RCs have no problem going far beyond what is written, (1Cor. 4:6) not being bound by the need for actual Scriptural exegetical warrant, while they feel free to wrest any text to support their supererogation of devotion to the creature Mary of Rome (with her psychological appeal), which may be said to excel that which is seen given to the Creator, and which stands in stark contrast to what the Scriptural Mary exampled. (Lk. 1:46-55)

Just a few sampled from the literal volumes of praise to the Mary of Rome in "Mirror of the blessed Virgin Mary" by Conrad of Saxony (http://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0025/).

But the angelic intelligences are the handmaids on whom Mary, their Lady, as it were, leans in Heaven...she leans upon them as one most powerful by commanding them. Mary leans upon all the angels by her power. St. Augustine says: "Michael, the prince and leader of the heavenly militia, with all his ministering spirits obeyeth, O Virgin, thy commands; by defending in the body and by receiving the souls of the faithful, especially by presenting to thee, O Lady, those who day and night commend themselves to thee."

The handmaid of the Lady Mary is every human soul, yea, the universal Church.

Psalm 100: "The rod of his power the Lord shall send forth." The rod of power is the Virgin Mary.

The rod of power is the Virgin Mary. She is the rod of Aaron, flowering by her virginity and fruitful by her fecundity. She is that rod of which it is said in Isaias: "There shall spring forth a rod from the root of Jesse."

...she dominates all creatures. (cp. 3)

Mary is a heaven, as much because she abounded in heavenly purity, heavenly light, and other heavenly virtues, as because she was the most high throne of God, as the Prophet saith: "The Lord hath prepared His throne in heaven" (Ps. CII, 19.) (cp. 5)

John Bugay said...

Hi PBJ: sends a message to Catholics that the essential requirement is that one dies in the arms of Rome.

Robert Reymond has an article somewhere, and the net effect is that the only group that needs fear Vatican II were those who were already practicing Catholics. That is, if you aren't a Catholic, so long as you're trying to follow the dictates of your conscience, you'll be all right because "Mother Rome is here, being the sacrament of your salvation". But if you are Roman Catholic, and you fall, you still are liable for that. Maybe it has something to do with the notion that "to whom much is given, much will be required".