re: Much Needed Clarity Regarding the Pope and the Recent Document Regarding Blessings

quote:

---

It doesn't. The title of Mary as Co-Redemptrix has never been official Catholic doctrine despite its popularity amongst Catholics since the early Middle Ages.

---

Why is it you always use the shifting position of,” this isn’t an official position of the church” etc. to downplay changing theology in the church?
If the Catholics have the keys to heaven and all truth, nothing that was supposedly passed down to the church by the disciples should have changed any. Nothing.
But we all know it has.

quote:

---

It doesn't. See point B. You're engaging in eisegesis here. You're starting with the presupposition that scripture alone is true, and then when you see a passage that says "scripture is God-breathed", you twist it to say that ONLY scripture is God-breathed"

---

I'm interpreting the text in light of its immediate context (referring to only the Scriptures) and the larger context, which is the entre word of God being the word of God, and being used to defend itself (such as the Bereans). I'm seeing a consistent teaching in the text that only becomes inconsistent when you take an extra-biblical doctrine (tradition as an equal authority to Scripture) and insert it into the text.

Ironically, Catholics are doing the thing that they accuse Protestants of doing

quote:

---

The passage literally says that scripture is USEFUL, not solely sufficient. The man of God is made thoroughly equipped through teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Scripture is stated to aid in those things, but the verse literally does not say it's the only thing that does this, or that it's sufficient at doing these things.

---

"Useful" is not the word that provides the understanding of "sufficient" in the Protestant interpretation. That which is "profitable", "useful", or "helpful" (all words that the Greek word means) does not preclude sufficiency. Food is profitable for us, and yet it is also necessary for us. Salvation is both necessary and profitable in terms of everlasting life. I can "profit" from that which is necessary for me. You are trying to make the word contrast with the word "sufficient", but it doesn't, and that's not where the "sufficiency" comes from in this passage.

The sufficiency comes from the words "complete" and "every good work", as I was explaining.

quote:

---

He told Timothy in verse 15 that the scriptures he was referring to, Timothy had read from infancy. This would be the Old Testament. Are you saying the Old Testament alone is able to sufficiently equip a man for every good work?

---

Yes, the OT alone is able to, as Jesus explained what the OT means; He didn't add to it but clarified it. The Westminster Confession of Faith again speaks to this in that the OT and the NT are both equally authoritative. We don't dispense with the OT just because clarity came with the NT.

With that said, Paul is again talking about the category of Scripture in verse 16. The Greek word graphe can mean a writing generally or the Scriptures broadly or particularly. Paul did not say "all of those Scriptures" (plural) are God breathed, but all Scripture (singular) is God breathed. In verse 15, Paul does use the plural form of the word (grammata) to refer to the collection of the OT Scriptures that Timothy was familiar with, but then he transitions to a broad statement about the character of Scripture in principle. Paul's grammar does not limit verse 16 to the Old Testament.

quote:

---

I was referring to sola scriptura as a whole, not that specific passage.

---

You said "That passage supports material sufficiency." Were you referring to 2 Tim. 3 or Acts 8 when you said the passage supports material sufficiency?

quote:

---

FooManChoo

---

quote:

---

Why is it you always use the shifting position of,” this isn’t an official position of the church” etc. to downplay changing theology in the church?

---

It's really odd that you think you're making any kind of point here. It's really simple. There are things the Church formally teaches, and there are things that it doesn't. Sometimes, a lot of people may think something that the Church doesn't formally teach. Obviously, if the second group is wrong, it doesn't follow that formal Church teaching is wrong.

It's really simple, and it's not shifting.

quote:

---

Sure. This is a reference to something that is considered to be more of a discipline than a doctrine/dogma. For instance...the fact that priests cannot marry is not a doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church that has been taught infallibly. It's a discipline. That being said, it is NOT an option for priests to get married just because it hasn't been dogmatically declared that they can't.

---

Hey, understand it however you want, but what I laid out in this post doesn't align with the notion that Catholicism adds the necessary clarity and authority that Scripture doesn't (by itself). It just shifts everything one place to the right by requiring interpretation of man's words rather than God's words.

Even in your example, the Catholic church provides a teaching about the Priesthood that is extra-biblical and then creates a discipline to put the doctrine into practice but requires all Catholic faithful to understand it and abide by it (a lay person can't call themself a Priest without abiding by the teachings and practices of the Catholic church), all while saying there is different levels of understanding and authority surrounding various things the RCC teaches.

If Catholics are going to argue that sola scriptura is practically useless because of differences in opinion, you should apply that standard to the magisterium.

quote:

---

changing theology in the church?

---

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."

Straight from the catechism of the Catholic Church.

Why do you choose to tell lies of men?

You use my name and then quote someone else.

Even so, I agree with Rev's assessment. The whole point of pressing this issue of the Magisterium is precisely because it is given as an argument against sola scriptura. The argument is that the Bible can be interpreted any number of ways so Christians need the clarity of the Church via the Magisterium to help us know what is the right way to understand things. When inconsistencies within the Magisterium are called out, they are downplayed as if it isn't a big deal. However it really is a big deal if the most weighty argument against sola scriptura relies upon the clarity and consistency of the Magisterium.

quote:

---

You are thinking with a 21st century mindset and that just doesn't work in the context of the period we are discussing. To Jesus's family he would have been a random person on the street because he wasn't family, disciple of Christ or not. If Christ had living brothers and sisters they would have been obligated as Jews to take care of their widowed mother. They would not have allowed a non-relative from Capernaum to take care of her. They also would not have been okay with him taking her all the way to Ephesus.

---

Again, Jesus was someone who spat in the face of man-made traditions when they contradicted or took priority over God's word and will.

Recall that when Jesus was told that His mother and brothers wanted to speak to Him, He said that the crowd that was following Him that they are His mother and brothers. Those who do the will of God are Jesus' family, which is why the elect of God are adopted into the family of God. We are sons and daughters of God and the very brothers and sisters of Christ if we belong to His family by faith.

Jesus wasn't shunning Mary or His half-brothers, but He was teaching a point that went beyond culture and custom. Giving John care over Mary wasn't out of line with Jesus' teachings because John was Jesus' spiritual brother.

quote:

---

What inconsistencies have been called out?

---

I specifically mentioned an inconsistency with the title of Mary, how it has been used differently in the past and how it seems to be downplayed and not used as much these days by the magisterium. When I was told that the magisterium wasn't acting with infallibility or by making an authoritative declaration about the title, I went on to describe the ways the magisterium is taught which shows the inconsistency in its understanding and interpretation even within Catholicism. It's either authoritative or quasi-authoritative depending on how it's interpreted.

quote:

---

Again, Jesus was someone who spat in the face of man-made traditions when they contradicted or took priority over God's word and will.

---

Since when is the fifth commandment a man-made tradition? The Jews had long understood the fifth commandment of honoring their father and mother as taking care of their parents in old age as they took care of them when they were children.

quote:

---

Recall that when Jesus was told that His mother and brothers wanted to speak to Him, He said that the crowd that was following Him that they are His mother and brothers.

---

Recall the context of that passage which is given in the Gospel of Mark. His family thought he was crazy because there was such a crowd surrounding their house they couldn't even eat. This is why Mary and his brethren wanted to speak with Him. This was Jesus's way of telling them that it was okay.

quote:

---

I specifically mentioned an inconsistency with the title of Mary, how it has been used differently in the past and how it seems to be downplayed and not used as much these days by the magisterium.

---

You mentioned an inconsistency as you perceived it. There are no inconsistencies to be had here. Mary has never been dogmatically defined as the Co-Redemptrix by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. There have been people within the Church who, for the last one thousand years or so, have wanted that title to be dogmatically defined by the Magisterium but no serious consideration has ever been given to that desire.