tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2250792146091152308..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Catholicism in the dock, part 2Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5322089020376886972018-06-24T02:30:30.493-04:002018-06-24T02:30:30.493-04:00Yeah. I have heard that. For a Jewish man to call ...Yeah. I have heard that. For a Jewish man to call his mother "woman" is a rebuke an insult. The wedding of Cana is Jesus rebuking her.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06882636190759154653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67076645539365374712018-06-24T02:11:36.168-04:002018-06-24T02:11:36.168-04:00"Her submission is admirable, but God's p..."Her submission is admirable, but God's plan is not contingent on her consent."<br /><br />Kapow! And that Arminians is predestination in one sentence.<br />Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06882636190759154653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49188202066638217892018-06-21T18:01:02.478-04:002018-06-21T18:01:02.478-04:00For documentation of how widely the church fathers...For documentation of how widely the church fathers contradicted Roman Catholic Mariology, see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/historical-roots-of-reformation-and.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The earliest patristic evidence is against Mary's perpetual virginity and sinlessness, rejects the veneration of images of her, and rejects praying to her. Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian refer to her as a second Eve, but also refer to her as a sinner either directly or indirectly. Some of the fathers also refer to other women as a second Eve. The appeal to Jerome's rendering of Luke 1:28 in the Vulgate is misleading, since he considered Mary a sinner. The earliest interpretations of Revelation 12 are non-Marian. For hundreds of years, fathers across the world discuss issues like who in history has been assumed to heaven and who never died, citing the examples of Enoch, Elijah, and Paul over and over again. They never cite Mary. It's highly likely that they had no concept of her being assumed. I discuss these issues and others in articles like the ones linked above. Roman Catholic Mariology isn't patristic Mariology. The two are contradictory. Appeals to development are erroneous, since an oak doesn't grow from a redwood seed.<br /><br />Going to John 2:4 for support of a Catholic view of Mary is shameless. The language Jesus uses there after referring to her as "woman" is used in other passages as well, so we have a lot of evidence indicating what the language means. Jesus is rebuking Mary, which implies that she sinned. For a discussion of that passage and other Biblical passages referring to Mary as a sinner, see the first article on the sinlessness of Mary on the page linked above.<br /><br />On the same page, you'll find some articles about whether Christ is present in the eucharist and in what manner. Roman Catholicism doesn't teach a "real presence". It teaches transubstantiation. When Catholics begin a discussion by retreating from the latter to the former, that tells you something about how deep in history their beliefs actually are. Men like Irenaeus and Augustine, like so many other people long before the Reformation, contradicted transubstantiation. Citing their belief in some form of eucharistic presence isn't a defense of Roman Catholicism. It's a defense of something else. The evidence suggests that there was a wide variety of eucharistic views from the patristic era onward, including views not involving a physical presence of Christ in the elements. A physical presence is less than transubstantiation, but a universal tradition or something close to that can't even be claimed for a physical presence, much less for transubstantiation.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com