Combox for:
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Catholic Dogma
[3 November 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...y-
catholic.html
Dave --
How do you account for the fact that John P. Meier (priest and professor at Notre Dame) rejects this teaching and his book (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1) was given the impramateur [sic]?
Benedict XVI praised Meier's book in in Jesus of Nazareth ("a model of historical-critical exegesis")?
I don't imagine Benedict agrees with Meier on this point, but do you agree with Meier's method?
Given what Pope Benedict has said about the historical-critical method in "God's Word: Scripture Tradition Office" and elsewhere, I'd call that "praise" a left-handed compliment.
As to the imprimatur, who gave it? And did he explicitly deny something or teach something antithetical to the faith in the book you mentioned? How so? A heretic can write the Gospel truth and receive an imprimatur and nihil obstat and still be a heretic. He just can't write his heresies and get them, properly so-called.
We've gone over this before, Jeb. The imprimatur means almost nothing these days. It's only as good as the man who grants it, and imprimaturs can be and have been rescinded when found to have been granted in error.
Don't look at the imprimatur. (Even the SDA heretic Samuele Bacchiochi had an imprimatur on his book "From Sabbath to Sunday." He was recently told by Rome that his imprimatur was nothing more than legal permission to have his university thesis printed on the press of the Gregorian Pontifical University, and never signified approval by the Church with his conclusions, contrary to his repeated claims, nor did he have permission to transfer that imprimatur from his thesis to the English translation and adaptation of his thesis.) Look at the arguments, see if they agree with what the Bible says and what the Church has always believed, and then determine whether or not the book is right. If Fr. Meier is really a heretic who rejects the Perpetual Virginity, then it doesn't matter if somebody stamped an imprimatur on his book. The Church has already rejected every single argument that Fr. Meier lists in his summary of objections to the dogma.
I go with what the Church teaches, not a theologian who dissents from it. That's the difference between us Catholics and you Protestants. You count heads of theologians to determine truth. We count on the Church for the truth no matter what the head counts are.
Just a couple of comments by St. Augustine on Mary’s perpetual virginity:
“Say with a chaste mind, ‘A woman conceived, a virgin conceived. She conceived by faith, she conceived as a virgin, she gave birth as a virgin, she remained a virgin.’ Believe all that, and don’t let yourself think of that womb as unclean. Because even if that flesh had been unclean, Christ on coming would have cleansed the unclean flesh, would not have been rendered unclean by its being unclean. Note the lowliness of your Lord; if it horrifies you, you are proud; lowliness does not horrify the proud."
Sermon 159B:13:1, Works, p. 158. Date, c. 404.
And again, from Sermon 341, On the three ways of understanding Christ in Scripture: Symbolized by Jacob’s Three Rods. Date, most likely 409 or 417.
Section 25: The reference of the three kinds of rod to the conception and birth of Christ.
“So how then is the sacrament of the Lord’s incarnation shown in the three rods? What sor of rods were they? One was a nut tree, one was from a plane tree, the other a balsam tree (Gn 30:37)…. (341:25:1, p. 303)
“Now the Virgin Mary was not going to conceive a son in the heat of sexual desire, but in the coolness, so to say, of totally faithful chastity and undefiled virginity; not yearning for a man’s embrace but conceiving by faith; with child as a virgin, due to give birth as a virgin, due to remain a virgin. So all this she received from the Holy Spirit. It was the Spirit himself who bestowed on here that cool relief from the heat of carnal desire, and that’s why he is represented by the rod of the plane tree. I’m very much mistaken if in the gospel itself the angel doesn’t speak and say to her, The Spirit of God will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you “(Lk 1:35). (341: 25:3, p. 304)
But had the Church fallen into error by the fifth century? Had Christ forsaken his Bride? Listen again to our Saint:
“The weaker brothers and sisters in the Church have been troubled by the problem raised by the Arians, but by the Lord’s mercy the Catholic faith has triumphed. He hasn’t, after all, deserted his Church; and even if it was troubled for a time, it was so that it would always continue to make supplication to him by whom alone it could be kept firmly established on solid rock. And the serpent is still hissing, and doesn’t keep quiet. He is trying, by promising us a kind of knowledge, to cast us out of the paradise of the Church, no permitting us to return to that paradise from which we were originally thrown out.”
Sermon 341:12:2, Works, p. 293.
The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century; Sermons, III/11, Newly Discovered Sermons, 1997, translation and notes, Edmund Hill, O.P., ed. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., New City Press, Hyde Park, New York, ISBN 1565481038
Dave,
Why do I count heads to determine what the truth is? Most theologians are liberals and I'm not. I follow the bible.
BTW, how do I know what the infallible teaching of the church is? Given that the church changed on biblical inerrancy, church/state relations and other things at Vactican 2, why couldn't it change on women priests?
Given that the church changed on biblical inerrancy,
No, we didn't, contrary to the untenable claims of men like Fathers Brown or Mackenzie, etc.
church/state relations and other things
The doctrine did not change, the prudential approach to the modern world changed.
at Vactican 2, why couldn't it change on women priests?
Because what the Church believes about women's ordination is something that has been believed and held always, everywhere, and by all.
Why do I count heads to determine what the truth is?
Who is counting heads? Pay attention to what the pope and bishops are teaching. Theologians have human wisdom about the bible just like protestants do. What we want is teaching from those God has ordained to teach. We don't care who has letters behind their name or who has written a popular book. Are they legitimate successors of the apostles?
Most theologians are liberals and I'm not. I follow the bible.
So you admit you ignore most theologians. How do you know they are wrong and you are right? Could some of them not be right about some things?
When you say you are not liberal, does that mean you are following a conservative exegetical tradition? I think it does but I am wondering if you see it that way. Is that tradition somehow protected from error? If it is in error, how would you know? Can you get outside your own tradition and question it? You can see how deeply ingrained Catholics tradition is in us Catholics. Is you tradition any less ingrained in you?
> Most theologians are liberals and I'm not.
I reply: You are a Protestant, Jeb. Therefore by definition the ultimate liberal.
> I follow the bible.
I reply: Yet you reject James 2:24 & believe in Sola Fide.
>BTW, how do I know what the infallible teaching of the church is?
I reply: Liberals like Jeb are typically vague. There is little doubt Catholics reject Eternal Security yet Calvinists & Arminians using the Bible alone(which is not taught in the bible) can't seem to figure it out.
>Given that the church changed on biblical inerrancy,
I reply: You are such a pathological liar Jeb. You have been REFUTED on this by Dave, myself & by others. You equat a fiat creationist interpretation of genesis 1&2 with "inerrancy". That's comical from a historic Christian perspective & merely reflects 19th century fundamentalism.
> church/state relations and other things at Vactican 2,
I reply: There is no such change anymore then there are "contradictions" in Holy Writ. Gosh use Atheist talking points much?
> why couldn't it change on women priests?
I reply: Almost EVERY Protestant denomenation that came from Reformation times has allowed female clergy. Yet the Catholic Church remains unmoved?
Jeb we ALL KNOW you are not interested in dialog or debate. When you are ready actually make an original argument for once let us know.
I am calling Jeb out.
I challenge him to show us from OFFICAL DOCUMENTS issued by the Eccumencial Councils or dogmatic decrees from past Popes Vs. Present ones that the Church has "changed on biblical inerrancy".
Put up or shut up. I don't think you have either the education or the guts to answer me.
>How do you account for the fact that John P. Meier (priest and professor at Notre Dame) rejects this teaching and his book (A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1) was given the impramateur [sic]?
Who cares? IMPRIMATUR means let it be printed.
Now a NIHIL OBSTAT OTOH is an offical statement by a Censor Deputatus that the document in question has no doctrinal error!
As the Reviewers of Meier's book point out on Amazon it contains no NIHIL OBSTAT.
So nice try Jeb but tryiing to mislead us only proves my long standing contention you are not an honest individual.
The Jeb-Jim battles are back!
1. As far as sola scriptura is concerned, Jesus appealed to Scripture and expected people to believe in HIm notwithstanding what the Jewish priests said.
2. I challenge anyone to find statements from the pre-Vatican 2 church teaching that the church's opposition to religious freedom was "prudential."
3. As far as the church changing its teaching on inerrancy, this what Raymond Brown, et al taught. Two popes put him on the PBC. Is Scott a priest, theologian or church-approved bible scholar? Has Benedict ever expressed any concern about Brown, Fitzmyer, etc?
4. Yes, many protestants have gone liberal and have women ministers. So what? This is unfortunate, but is it any worse than what is taught every day at Notre Dame, Georgetown, etc.?
As far as sola scriptura is concerned, Jesus appealed to Scripture and expected people to believe in HIm notwithstanding what the Jewish priests said.
Would that be the same Jesus who told the Jews, "You search the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them"?
I challenge anyone to find statements from the pre-Vatican 2 church teaching that the church's opposition to religious freedom was "prudential."
Why do you issue that challenge? Has anybody claimed that the Church's opposition to religious freedom is merely prudential?
Since you used the word "prudential," you must be referring to what I said about the Church's prudential approach to the modern world having changed while the doctrine remaining unchanged. But to put forth your challenge is to prop up a straw man.
As far as the church changing its teaching on inerrancy, this what Raymond Brown, et al taught.
Yes, and he was wrong.
Two popes put him on the PBC.
Which does not prove a thing. The Church's doctrine of biblical inerrancy does not change simply through the appointment of a gifted exegete to a purely advisory commission of Bible scholars.
But of course you already knew that, because you've been told that time after time after time after time. It doesn't matter how many times people tell you that water is wet -- you still claim it's dry.
Has Benedict ever expressed any concern about Brown, Fitzmyer, etc?
Not by name, but he has expressed concerns about the misuse of historico-criticism, which is a roundabout way of expressing concern with the speculations of folks like Brown and Fitzmyer.
Yes, many protestants have gone liberal and have women ministers.
Actually that would be almost all of them.
So what?
So it means they used to say women couldn't be ordained, and now they say the exact opposite. You ask why the Church couldn't do the same thing without mentioning that it's your own fellow Protestants who have changed on women's ordination, whereas the Church has done nothing but reaffirm and reaffirm and reaffirm again what she has always believed about the impossibility of women's ordination.
This is unfortunate, but is it any worse than what is taught every day at Notre Dame, Georgetown, etc.?
Not much worse . . . and of course we note that those institutions have a lot of Protestants and de facto Protestants on their faculties.
>1. As far as sola scriptura is concerned, Jesus appealed to Scripture and expected people to believe in HIm notwithstanding what the Jewish priests said.
I reply: Begs the question. I appealed to Scripture (James 2:24) against Sola Fide and expected Jeb to believe in Holy Writ notwithstanding what the reformers & his master Martin Luther said. Does that mean I BELIEVE in Sola Scripture? No it just means I believe Scripture is an authority. Jesus believed Scripture was an authority. Well duh! He also believed the Pharasees (who where not the Priests BTW get your Bible straight) sat in the "Seat of Moses". Where does the OT alone speak of a "Seat of Moses"? It doesn't, Jesus neither believed in nor taught Sola Scriptura.
>2. I challenge anyone to find statements from the pre-Vatican 2 church teaching that the church's opposition to religious freedom was "prudential."
I reply: Argument from Silence. I challenge Jeb to show me one Second Century Father who used the term homoousious to describe the Nature of God the Son. It didn't come to be used that way till the fourth century. Development of doctrine. Also whenever Jeb gets called on his bullshit he ALWAYS shifts the burden of proof when challenged. Why? Because he sucks at defense. All he is good at is taking cheap shots. He has no intellegent critique.
FYI None other then Traditionalist Fr. Brian Harrison has shown in his writings the harmoney between Pre & Post V2 teaching on religous freedom.
I guess Jeb can't "put up". Why am I not suprised?
>3. As far as the church changing its teaching on inerrancy, this what Raymond Brown, et al taught. Two popes put him on the PBC. Is Scott a priest, theologian or church-approved bible scholar? Has Benedict ever expressed any concern about Brown, Fitzmyer, etc?
I reply: As we can see Jeb has no rational answer. There simply is no Authoritative Doctrinal Statement changing the Church's teaching on inerrancy otherwise he would have quoted one. I can cite Chapter & Verse from the teaching decrees of Morman Prophets substancially changing Morman doctrine(which doesn't shock Mormans since they believe God can change his mind). I don't have to make ambigious charges. It's not hard. So WHY can't Jeb cite the authoritative declaration of ONE POPE?
OTOH to take a different approch Jeb seems to REALLY believe whom the Pope puts on the PBC somehow constitutes an EX Cathedra decree? Do some REALLY research Jeb & stop cribing Chick Comics buddy. You are embarising yourself.
>4. Yes, many protestants have gone liberal and have women ministers. So what?
I reply: Well according to your own irrational standards applied to you clearly SOLA SCRIPTURA is responsible for Women Priests & Liberalism. After all Jeb if you can IGNORE James 2:24 & believe Luther words instead. Then it's not hard for Protestant Liberals to explain away all the other verses that condemn female clergy if one ignores Tra
Hello Jeb,
You commented on 11/3 that "Benedict XVI praised Meier's book in in Jesus of Nazareth ("a model of historical-critical exegesis")" Unfortunately, if you had read the entire book, you know that Benedict XVI did not praise it at all. In fact, the Pope critiqued the use of the historical-critical method of exegesis as it suffers from severe limitations and pitfalls in its usage.
In fact, I recently read something very similar in Ronald Knox's "The Belief of Catholics" wherein he suggests that the historical-critical method as it used by Protestant exegetes ultimately leads to the undermining of the authority of Scripture itself as there is nothing to correct one's erroneous conclusions when such occur.
You said, "As far as sola scriptura is concerned, Jesus appealed to Scripture and expected people to believe in Him notwithstanding what the Jewish priests said." Jesus appealed to the Scriptures when Scripture was used to attack His teachings by the Saducees, the various schools of Pharisees and the scribes. I am not aware of a single instance when Jesus appealed to the OT Scriptures or sola scriptura to teach the am'haretz. Perhaps you can explain to us how Jesus' teachings at the Sermon on the Mount could in any stretch of the imagination could be described as an "appeal" to the Scriptures or an application of sola scriptura.
(Comment cont.)
You wrote: "I challenge anyone to find statements from the pre-Vatican 2 church teaching that the church's opposition to religious freedom was "prudential." Your challenge is a bit vague. What do you mean by religious freedom or for that matter "prudential?"
If you are talking about the freedom to sin, would Scripture suffice? "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin." Jn 8:34 Perhaps you might want to read the whole pericope starting at Jn 8:31 through 8:59.
To put it into more explicit terms, John Henry Newman said "The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse."
If I am misunderstanding your words here, perhaps you could restate them or give a refernce to what you are declaiming about the Catholic faith.
You wrote, "As far as the church changing its teaching on inerrancy, this what Raymond Brown, et al taught. Two popes put him on the PBC. Is Scott a priest, theologian or church-approved bible scholar? Has Benedict ever expressed any concern about Brown, Fitzmyer, etc?" As I understand what Fr. Brown taught vs. what he believed, Fr. Brown believed and held to what the Catholic Church believed. He separated his beliefs from what he could discern by using the historical-critical method which he argued was not sufficient to establish all of the doctrines of the Church.
You wrote, "Yes, many protestants have gone liberal and have women ministers. So what? This is unfortunate, but is it any worse than what is taught every day at Notre Dame, Georgetown, etc.?" My response, I am not aware of any women priests teaching at Notre Dame or Georgetown.
Quit while you are behind Jeb. Everyone here has got your number.
Commenting by HaloScan
