Faithful Ag said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

I'm unclear as to whether or not there is anything Biblical to support that doctrine. I would have liked to have seen a bit more Biblical verses to support his beliefs but I think many things are possible that are not necessarily spoken of in the Bible.

That was one thing that I disliked about the Catholic Church. They seemed to advocate for various doctrines without providing Biblical support.

---

I am curious. Specifically which doctrine(s) does the Catholic Church advocate or teach that lack Biblical support? Which one of these doctrines stands out in your mind as the most problematic for you?

As a lifelong Catholic, I have found the most difficult thing in these discussions is NOT a lack of Biblical support for Catholic doctrine, but rather a very different way of approaching Scripture. The Biblical support for Catholic doctrine is absolutely there - but it might not be in the "proof-text" form that Protestants commonly expect or demand from the Bible. I thought Trent Horn made a great point about this in the video posted in this thread.

In Catholicism it is not the proof-text, chapter and verse approach of Protestants but more of a typological, narrative approach. As great a benefit that the addition of chapters and versus were to Bible, I think sometimes it can cause us to focus too much on a specific verse and we can miss the bigger picture or meaning or context. This leads to quoting some verse(s) to support our position and then other verse(s) to discount the other's position. The Bible doesn't contradict the Bible, however our faulty interpretations can make it seem that it does.

So, if there is a specific doctrine that the Catholic Church teaches that you don't think is Biblical - I would be more than happy to engage on that specific doctrine if you like.

---

Great post. Thank you. I'll respond a bit later.

The Catholic Church teaches that the blessed Mary is without sin. Is there a Biblical reference for this teaching?

Can you provide a bible reference that says that the bible is the sole source of all Christian teaching and doctrine?

Or for that matter, a bible reference that defines what books are scripture? Maybe that would be a better place to start.

M1Buckeye said:

---

The Catholic Church teaches that the blessed Mary is without sin. Is there a Biblical reference for this teaching?

---

From Tim Staples at Catholic Answers



1. Mary is revealed to be "full of grace" in Luke 1:28.



2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Zech. 2:10; Zeph. 3:14-16; Isaiah 12:1-6, etc.



3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fufillment of the prophecy of Jer. 31:22.



4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's in Luke 1:42.



5. Mary is not just called "blessed" among women, but "more blessed than all women" (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.



6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1.



7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere.



8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8.



Not all will agree with the interpretation of theses scriptures this way, but I trust the pillar if truth given to us by Our Lord, the Church, who's supreme authority of interpreting scripture guides the faithful

Zobel said:

---

Can you provide a bible reference that says that the bible is the sole source of all Christian teaching and doctrine?

Or for that matter, a bible reference that defines what books are scripture? Maybe that would be a better place to start.

---

Isn't it self evident? I guess a better question is - are there times that Biblical authors cite outside sources to establish their doctrine? Maybe Acts 17:28?

jrico2727 said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

The Catholic Church teaches that the blessed Mary is without sin. Is there a Biblical reference for this teaching?

---

From Tim Staples at Catholic Answers



1. Mary is revealed to be "full of grace" in Luke 1:28.



2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Zech. 2:10; Zeph. 3:14-16; Isaiah 12:1-6, etc.



3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fufillment of the prophecy of Jer. 31:22.



4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's in Luke 1:42.



5. Mary is not just called "blessed" among women, but "more blessed than all women" (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.



6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1.



7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere.



8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8.



Not all will agree with the interpretation of theses scriptures this way, but I trust the pillar if truth given to us by Our Lord, the Church, who's supreme authority of interpreting scripture guides the faithful

---

Thank you. I appreciate the feedback.

As a Catholic, I had always presumed that Mary was without sin. After all, God certainly would NOT allow a sinful womb to carry the holiest of holies, right? That's what I believed. But this verse seemingly contradicts my own belief that I held near and dear:

Romans 3:10-12 (ESV)
10 as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."

With that said, here is a link to the complete chapter. As we know, context is everything. It seems to me that God is not referring to Mary but, if taken literally, Mary would fall under "none is righteous, no, not one" and "no one does good, not even one".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3&version=ESV

Another verse used to argue against Mary being without sin is Luke 1:47. The argument is that, if Mary was without sin, she wouldn't have needed a savior.

Luke 1:47
English Standard Version
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Isn't it self evident? I guess a better question is - are there times that Biblical authors cite outside sources to establish their doctrine? Maybe Acts 17:28?

---

I'm inclined to agree with you as I believe that we have an inherent ability to know the truth. Inherently, I believe that Mary was without sin but, some scripture inclines me to question that belief.

I absolutely know and believe that there are COUNTLESS truths that are not explicitly stated in the Bible. The Bible was not intended to be an encyclopedia of ALL knowledge. With that said, if one is going to preach something as doctrine, then I believe the onus is upon them to demonstrate scriptural evidence for said doctrine.

St Paul makes several references to tradition without blinking. So does St Stephen in his speech to the Sanhedrin.

Zobel said:

---

St Paul makes several references to tradition without blinking. So does St Stephen in his speech to the Sanhedrin.

---

That's true. But we wouldn't hold up Greek poets as equal to Scripture. And Jesus referenced tradition in a negative light many times.

M1Buckeye said:

---

Another verse used to argue against Mary being without sin is Luke 1:47. The argument is that, if Mary was without sin, she wouldn't have needed a savior.

Luke 1:47
English Standard Version
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

---

To say that Mary is convinced without sin, is not to say that she is not in need of a savior. Why if she has no sin, why would she need a savior? I believe this is what protestants see with this teaching. Somehow we are saying that Our Lady is without need of, or greater than Our Lord. Rather we believe Our Lord in choosing Mary as his vessel to come into the world, placed a special grace upon her. As the Angelic salutation states Hail, full of Grace, notice how many times in scripture the Angels refer to humans by their nature rather than their name. We as men are bound by the sacraments of baptism and reconcilation to have our sins forgiven. Our Lord has no such boundaries.

But how does Mary who is sinless have a savior? She is saved just as we are by the merits of the passion, death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He applied his grace to her in a different order than he does to us, but her grace has the same source as ours. If a man falls into a hole(sin), he is trapped until he saved by someone with a rope(Christ). Rather than allowing Mary to fall in the hole, he prevented her from falling into it to begin with.

When I say references to tradition I mean he cites it as authoritative without cross-referencing it to scripture. For example that the Law was delivered by angels, "the Rock that followed them," "Jannes and Jambres" and numerous oblique references to things like Jubilees.

M1Buckeye said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

M1Buckeye said:

---

The Catholic Church teaches that the blessed Mary is without sin. Is there a Biblical reference for this teaching?

---

From Tim Staples at Catholic Answers



1. Mary is revealed to be "full of grace" in Luke 1:28.



2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Zech. 2:10; Zeph. 3:14-16; Isaiah 12:1-6, etc.



3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fufillment of the prophecy of Jer. 31:22.



4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ's in Luke 1:42.



5. Mary is not just called "blessed" among women, but "more blessed than all women" (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.



6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1.



7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4; 19:26-27; Rev. 12, and elsewhere.



8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8.



Not all will agree with the interpretation of theses scriptures this way, but I trust the pillar if truth given to us by Our Lord, the Church, who's supreme authority of interpreting scripture guides the faithful

---

Thank you. I appreciate the feedback.

As a Catholic, I had always presumed that Mary was without sin. After all, God certainly would NOT allow a sinful womb to carry the holiest of holies, right? That's what I believed. But this verse seemingly contradicts my own belief that I held near and dear:

Romans 3:10-12 (ESV)
10 as it is written:
"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."

With that said, here is a link to the complete chapter. As we know, context is everything. It seems to me that God is not referring to Mary but, if taken literally, Mary would fall under "none is righteous, no, not one" and "no one does good, not even one".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3&version=ESV

---

From reading the epistle from the beginning it seems to me that the Apostle is comparing the Gentiles and the Jews, and coming to the conclusion that all nations have fallen short

***Edit for wrong emoji not mad but filled with the joy of Christ*****

.

I believe you are correct.

I do believe that Mary was without sin, in spite of a seeming lack of biblical evidence. More likely is that there IS evidence and I simply have not seen or understood.

M1Buckeye said:

---

The Catholic Church teaches that the blessed Mary is without sin. Is there a Biblical reference for this teaching?

---

I am glad you chose this doctrine to discuss. Yes. I will present the doctrine of Mary being without sin including the Biblical support.

I am very busy today with work today so please bear with me on my response time. I will spend some time on this tonight and I look forward to engaging with you on this specific doctrine. Thanks!

The doctrines relating to Mary are woven throughout the Old and New Testament. All doctrines relating to Mary are more about understanding who Christ is than they are about Mary. I think that reality can be a difficult hurdle for many see or understand or overcome.

Quote:

---

The RCC predates the Bible

---

What do you guys mean by that?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The RCC predates the Bible

---

What do you guys mean by that?

---

The church began with the apostles on pentecost forty days after the ascension of Jesus.

The New Testament wasn't canonized until 393A.D.

What did the church use before that?

Jabin said:

---

What did the church use before that?

---

My guess is what was passed down from the Apostles.

First it would have been the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament in Greek. After a while they would have the first Gospels and Epistles. Many books not in the New Testament were read, depending on region. It was through Church Councils and much debate that the New Testament as we know it was put together. I think it is worthy to contemplate that the Bible was defined by the Church's Authority, not the other way around.

Weren't all of the books in the NT written before that Church council?

Which ones weren't read in the churches before the Council?

Did the early church not consider the NT books as Holy and authoritative prior to the Council?

Where did the Church Council get its authority?

Boy, these sure seem like innocent questions.

But to answer the direction you're going. Yes, all of the books of the NT were written prior to those councils. There were other books also written, which are not today in the NT. So there's both an inclusion and and exclusion process going on.

I'm not sure what "holy" means when it comes to scripture or how one would guess at the early Church's opinion on such things. I am also certain that "authoritative" probably means something different to you than it does to them. But, there is no doubt they revered the gospels and epistles and considered them special.

The primary distinction historically between what was scripture and not scripture is not what is inspired, or uniquely authoritative, or whatever else. The definition used by the people of that time is very simple - what is suitable to be read aloud in church. In that regard, canonical lists are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is to say, they describe what was being done already, as opposed to dictating what must be done. This is the root of the word "canon" - what is standard.

But what was being done already was not homogenous for quite sometime. Different local churches used different books, had incomplete canons, rejected some, included others. The reality is there was no single council that fixed the canon. Indeed there was no formal, official canon until Trent.

You might consider that to this day the only book in the typical NT that is not read in the liturgical cycle of the Orthodox Church is Revelation. Is that book scripture? Is it canon? It's only a question that is relevant within the confines of the debates about sola scriptura.

As for where councils get their authority - they have none, in isolation. Church councils as gatherings of human beings are only authoritative insofar as they voice the reality of the truth as revealed by Christ. Thus they can err, and have. On the other hand, the Lord told His Apostles that the Spirit would lead them into all truth, and we know that the Spirit guides, leads, and shepherds the Church today as its sole Pastor and Teacher. The Spirit is actively protecting and leading the Church, and as such the Church itself is infallible - not because of some property it has in and of itself, but because it exists as the Body of Christ, and derives it's place as the pillar and foundation of truth from its relationship with the Truth.

The reality is dogmatic fact, revealed through the life in Christ, in the Church, participating with and in Him as members of His Body, in a continuous unbroken tradition going back to the Apostles whom He taught. And here is precisely where the reliability and authority of the canon is to be found: a reflection of what the Church was doing, as they had been taught, and as they held fast just as they were instructed by word and letter.

I understand and think that I largely agree with your position, which is a bit more nuanced than "The RCC predates the Bible" or that the RCC created the Bible, not vice versa.

Do you happen to know if any documents survive from the church councils that dealt with the Canon? Documents that preceded them, were written at and during the councils, or were issued following the councils? I have this vague recollection, probably wrong, that no such documents survive and all that we know about them is what was written in later documents. Could easily be wrong, though.

Speaking of the book of Revelation, here is a blog post on its ready acceptance into the Canon. It surprised me, containing statements of fact of which I was not aware. Any thoughts or comments on it?

How Difficult was the Book of Revelation's Journey into the Canon? - Canon Fodder (michaeljkruger.com)

Finally, do you have any references for this statement:

Quote:

---

The definition used by the people of that time is very simple - what is suitable to be read aloud in church.

---

And, pre-councils, how did people make that determination?

We have the acts of the various councils - the documents that produced them. There have been hundreds of councils in church history, one reason being that at the first ecumenical council the Church decided that local bishops should have councils twice each year (canon 5). We also have lists referencing what people should and shouldn't read - for example from St Cyril of Jersualem's catechetical lectures when he says "Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church." This is the same formulation the council of Hippo says "That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture...for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." It's a bit circular, but I think that's kind of the point. The scripture is what the Church reads as such - that's what "makes" it scripture.

Fr Stephen de Young has some great stuff on canonicity, including Revelation
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/08/15/is-the-book-of-revelation-canonical-in-the-orthodox-church/
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/02/21/decided-books-new-testament/

Quote:

---

And, pre-councils, how did people make that determination?

---

As above, they read what they read. They had instruction from the Apostles. What matched, they read; what didn't they rejected. I can't see how else you can arrive where we are today, honestly.

https://www.newadvent.org/
This is a great resource you can find most writings of Church Father's and documents from the councils here.

But tread lightly, as St. John Henry Newman put it

So nothing on or from Nicea?

And it was my impression that many, many of the early fathers were writing lists of what they considered to be canonical. So it wasn't simply "they read what they read."

I'm simply looking for evidence to support the assertion that it was the Church that created the Canon as opposed to God himself through his Spirit. The council(s) were obviously part of the process, but not 100% of that process. From what I've read, there was remarkable consensus on what constituted the books of the Canon prior to Nicea. And, from what I've read, the primary purpose of Nicea wasn't to formalize the Canon that we have today, but rather to consider formally the many non-canonical books that some were trying to insert into Scripture.

jrico2727 said:

---

https://www.newadvent.org/
This is a great resource you can find most writings of Church Father's and documents from the councils here.

But tread lightly, as St. John Henry Newman put it

---

I don't know. When I was younger, and didn't know much history, I thought that the RCC had a point. However, as I've grown older and studied much history, I have come to wonder how anyone can know the history of the RCC and remain a Catholic.

The canon wasn't discussed at Nicaea at all. It's a complete fiction. The view of canonicity as "a list of books that are authoritative and must be followed and all doctrine has to come from them" is just foreign to the early church.

The early fathers used common language everywhere - they read what was passed on to them, literally in Greek what was 'traditioned' to them. They read what they received. Not all churches received the same things, but they knew what was and wasn't true when they encountered it. Just as you or I could interact with some other document purporting to be Christian and say - yeah, that's what we believe in my church, or - no, that's some other belief that isn't the same as ours.

They read what they read, and the different canonical lists from different fathers who came from different regions and different apostles reflect that ... for example, those who spiritually descended from St John like St Justin and St Irenaeus read Revelation. Those who didn't might not have.

Councils never added anything new when it comes to the faith - they never claimed to. They always ratified and affirmed what was received from the Apostles. The matters of canon is no different.

So you disagree with our RCC brothers and sisters who claim that the RCC created the canon?

No, the Church created the canon. Who else decides what scriptures are read in Church as scripture but the Church? But this act of creation wasn't by decree, but by a living faith. Councils ratified the canon, the same way they ratified all doctrine as an affirmation of dogmatic fact.

These two statements would appear to be contradictory:

Quote:

---

No, the Church created the canon.

---

vs.

Quote:

---

Councils ratified the canon, the same way they ratified all doctrine as an affirmation of dogmatic fact.

---

You've also said that Councils don't create doctrine.

Doesn't ratification mean an approval of something that already exists? Isn't that you said that the Church councils did with regard to doctrine?

And any records of what actually happened at the councils of Hippo, Carthage or Laodicea?

I'm not sure I understand the contradiction.

Canon just means "the books read in Church". You could even extend it to be "what a religious sect considers scripture." Heretical sects had a different canon than the Christian churches. But Christian churches themselves had different canons. Over time these canons normalized, as Christian liturgical tradition - especially the lectionary tradition - homogenized. Various councils came together as witness to say, these are the books we read in Church, as we received from our fathers, from the apostles. That doesn't make the canon, it just witnesses to it as an extant practice.

Councils ratify doctrine to make dogma. In other words, the faith has a set of teachings (doctrines) but when recognized officially as an article of faith they become dogmas. But, in reality there is dogmatic fact, meaning there is a True Faith, and this true faith has necessary dogmatic elements, as represented in the doctrinal teachings of those living out that faith. Councils merely recognize elements in a formal way.

Same with the canon. The canon is a set of books a group of Christians uses and accepts. That's a true, real thing whether or not they bother to sit down and make a list and send it around as an official proclamation. But they still produced that canon.

///


The records of what actually happened at those councils are the acts of those councils. I'm not sure I understand quite what you're asking.

Ratification and creation are two completely different things. There is no need to ratify something that one has created. The U.S. Senate ratifies treaties created by the executive branch. That ratification is not the same as creation.

And the significance of the point is that God, and God alone, created the Canon. The Canon would have existed with or without the existence of the Church councils. Did the Church councils play a useful role? Certainly, but that role did not include creation of the Canon.

The danger is in the Church placing itself in a position of authority equal to or even higher than God.

Next, you say that the word Canon merely means that it may be read in Church. But that status must carry an immense amount of significance. What standards are or were used to determine if something could be read in Church? I am not familiar at all with EO doctrine, but presumably the significance of that decision must be that what is read is the Word of God or something like that, no?

What evidence do you have for the authority of church councils? Isn't the only evidence the writings of Church figures after those councils? In effect, isn't the Church acting as its own proof of authority? In prior posts, you have argued that the Bible is not self-authenticating. Aren't you contending instead that the Church is self-authenticating?

Finally, you ask:

Quote:

---

The records of what actually happened at those councils are the acts of those councils. I'm not sure I understand quite what you're asking.

---

Do we even have the acts of those councils? If memory serves, we do not, but rather we have only what people wrote centuries later. In addition, the documents authorizing or calling the councils, and the documents generated by the participants following the council, would have great significance in understanding the context of the council and what the members of the councils thought that they were deciding. An example from more "modern" times are the writings of the members of the US Constitutional Convention, such as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. They have provided a great advantage in interpreting the Constitution itself.