Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Mary, Destroyer of Heresies

Ah, all this time I thought it was the recent batch of Roman apologists destroying heresy and protecting the infallible magisterium. But I was wrong:

Mary, Destroyer of Heresies

24 comments:

Andrew said...

James, you ignorant slut.

Rhology said...

From the first page over there, I saw these statements:

Maybe it means that, through her intercession, if we are truly seeking the truth , we will find it (in God's time). Let's ask her!!!

There is a time that I was facing very hard circumstances which almost forced me to choose to leave the Catholic Church for the sake of my marriage, but because I had always had a close relationship with Mary, it became impossible for me to leave the Church. No matter how the devil pulled, the rope that tied me to Mary kept me within the bounds of the Catholic Church.

With the protection of Mary, we are covered by her spotless mantle and hence safe despite our varied weaknesses. A big proof is that the only Church under the sun that is spotless is the same Church that have Mary as Her Patron, the Catholic Church.


Now I'm waiting for someone to come along and be like "What's wrong with those?"

steelikat said...

Jesus Christ, Destroyer of Heresies.

Just wait.

EA said...

After reading the comments at CAF, it's clear that no one that has responded to that thread knows why Mary has this title.

James Swan said...

After reading the comments at CAF, it's clear that no one that has responded to that thread knows why Mary has this title.

That's one of the unspoken problems in Romanism. The Bible alone has enough to keep one busy for a lifetime of more. A Roman Catholic though has a Bible plus a stack of other materials to digest into a coherent theological system. It's no wonder to me that so few are able to quickly navigate to an accurate answer on this. Even when an answer is given, that answer can also be open to debate.

Erik Mojica said...

Here's your "Bible Alone" answer as found in Genesis 3:15, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel."

The key word is ENMITY, which is defined as, "The state or feeling of being actively opposed or hostile to someone or something."

The reference to Mary may come from the ambiguity of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts, which reference (from Latin) ipsa or ipsum. Here is a good commentary on the matter:

She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head. Ch. --- The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other MSS. conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Sept. agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Sept. and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin. We believe, however, with S. Epiphanius, that "it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure." We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. H. Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, S. Aug. S. Greg. &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent's head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. S. Bern. ser. 2, on Missus est. "We crush," says S. Greg. Mor. 1. 38, "the serpent's head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power." The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. H.

So it is through Christ alone that Mary, and her role in salvation history, can be given the title of Destroyer of Heresies.

+JMJ

Erik Mojica said...

Oh, 2 off-topic items:
@Andrew: I love the "Real Presence" icon you have as your profile pic. Great selection.

@Rhology: Your use of the Chi-Rho monogram is equally nice and serves as a great homage to the positive impact that Catholicism has played in your life as Constantine was the first Christian to adopt the monogram. In effect, he baptized a symbol used by pagan Greek scribes.

And on the quote from CAF, I believe you made an error because you posted them out of context. Way out of context.)

Oh, there is really nothing wrong with what is being said. The Blessed Mother is our mother and she does intercede for us, she does protect us but she is not the patron of the Church (that is St. Joseph). Mary is the model of the Church and the first, perfect Christian.

@EA: I think you need to back over the original thread because many persons made the same connection.

Lastly, for all, this is not an official title. However, Theotokos is.

+JMJ

Rhology said...

Can you identify anywhere in the Bible that depicts Mary as the one who crushes the serpent's head?

EA said...

"Here is a good commentary on the matter..."

Seriously?

First, you don't cite the source of the commentary, which apparently is from Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary (1859), you just quote it in its entirety.

Secondly, the commentary doesn't interact with the text. It refers to but does not quote from other sources regarding ipsa / ipsum. No exegesis, no insight.

Finally, there's this:

As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine.


"@EA: I think you need to back over the original thread because many persons made the same connection."

Why? Since the laity is respecfully waiting for their superiors to determine this, no one over there KNOWS why Mary has this title anyways. Just as I originally stated.

Andrew said...

There's a difference between "real presence" and "transubstantiation".

Also I hardly see how the idiosyncratic interpretation of a text, by a particular sect within "Christendom", based upon a questionable wording of that text, which is actually a promise concerning the coming of Jesus, means anything at all.

Erik Mojica said...

@Andrew: Firstly, I see no other Church except that of the Orthodox that can claim and prove Apostolic succession. Certainly not the ecclesiastical communities formed from traditions of men such as all the "sects" that spawned from Luther's errors and disobedience to God (broke his vows you know).

Next, I agree that there is a difference between transubstantiation and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The difference is that transubstantiation is a term coined to describe the process and manner in which Christ transforms the substance of the bread and wine into His Real and Sacramental Presence - worthy of praise and adoration. For in Eucharistic Adoration we can physically stand before Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And by eating His flesh and drinking His blood we can have eternal life. (That last part sounds oddly familiar to something in John 6)

Rhology said...

None can prove apostolic succession. It's a chimæra.

Rhology said...

Fortunately, knowing the truth and believing and following it is not dependent on ap suc.

Erik Mojica said...

@Rho: Try Genesis 3:15. Check out the Greek texts, then the Latin and then the various translations. Also read the passage in the full context of salvation history.

Again, it is not important, truly, who crushes the head of the serpent - whether Jesus and/or Mary - because Mary can only accomplish through her Son.

I think we can all agree that only God has the power to do and/or enable us to do this.

Erik Mojica said...

@Rho: The Latin Church and every other Church that makes up the Holy Catholic Church in addition to the Orthodox Churches can proves this, otherwise they would not be churches under the One True Church. They would be ecclesiastical communities much like your local congregation.

(Difference with the Orthodox is that they remain out of communion, in schism, with the rest of the Universal Church. Ecclesiastical communities are the invention of men and not of God - He only established One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.)

Quick question though. Without Apostolic tradition and succession, how would you know what the Bible even looks like? New Testament in particular?

Rhology said...

otherwise they would not be churches under the One True Church

And they're not churches under the One True Church. So, problem solved.


Without Apostolic tradition and succession, how would you know what the Bible even looks like? New Testament in particular?

I trust God to preserve His Word, not an imaginary succession.

Erik Mojica said...

@EA: I apologize for not citing the commentary passage but I figured you all were familiar with the Haydock Commentary. BTW, it is an aggregation of various other commentaries along with some of his own comments.

Anyway, I am glad that you pointed out a comment like, "but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine." It shows that we Catholics do what Our Founder asked us and that was to listen to those He left on earth to govern His Church - through Whom the Holy Spirit would lead to all Truth.

We operate on God's time no matter how impatient we are.

Erik Mojica said...

@Rho: Yeah but what gives you any idea that that which you read and cherish is the actual Inspired Word? Keep in mind that the text cannot be self authenticating. That would be like the Catholic Church claiming apostolic succession without proof.

And yes, though you may not believe it, the Church has proof: 2,000+ years and still here, still teaching the same stuff, having no other founder other than Christ Himself, Christ leaving St. Pete in charge, St. John was still around when the early fathers were hanging around, the whole Catholic phrase in AD 110, etc. (Those are just minor arguements).

Rhology said...

Erik,

I did a full debate with a knowledgeable EOdox on that topic.


Keep in mind that the text cannot be self authenticating.

1) Is it your claim that the church can be?
2) There's some higher authority than God's very revelation to which we should appeal to authenticate God's Word? What would that be?


2,000+ years and still here

Hinduism is older.


still teaching the same stuff,

Whether you're referring to EOC or RCC, that's demonstrably untrue.

Erik Mojica said...

@Rho: You still haven't answered the question concerning Scripture. How do you know what have is indeed the Inspired Word of God?

You mentioned the Hindus. Their Vedas are considerably older than even the Old Testament texts and they claim them inspired as well. Yet know know this to be false. Why should anyone believe otherwise about our text?

And the Church is not self authenticating. There is plenty of extra-ecclesial evidence concerning her existance and authority.

Reneged this Rho, Jesus established One Church and gave her authority to rule and decide in His stead as she would have the Holy Spirit as her guide. And from her, this His guidance the Church came to know what texts were inspired and texts were not. Thus the Bible came from the Church. The Church did not come tron the Bible.

Rhology said...

You still haven't answered the question concerning Scripture. How do you know what have is indeed the Inspired Word of God?

I answered that question at length in the debate I linked.


Why should anyone believe otherwise about our text?

1) This doesn't answer the question that YOU have to answer about RCC. You appealed to the church's antiquity to substantiate your position. I did not.
2) You have to answer the same question. How would YOU answer it?
3) I start with God's Word's self-authenticating nature and impossibility of the contrary, specifically the impossibility of Hinduism's being true. Its self-contradictory teachings.


There is plenty of extra-ecclesial evidence concerning her existance and authority.

1) What kind of extra-ecclesial evidence of her AUTHORITY are you talking about? That seems to be a category error on your part.
2) If God established the church, why are you appealing to some lesser authority to substantiate her authority?
3) Since the church is not self-authenticating either, doesn't this eviscerate your earlier argument that "the text cannot be self authenticating"?


Jesus established One Church and gave her authority to rule and decide in His stead as she would have the Holy Spirit as her guide.

How do you know?



Thus the Bible came from the Church.

1) Which church?
2) The Old Testament precedes the church by quite some time.
3) The NT came from apostles and prophets not "the church".

Peace,
Rhology

Erik Mojica said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rhology said...

These are all circular arguments and presuppose the existence of the Written Word and canon thereof prior to the Church. This is not the case historically.

1) So far yours have been all circular arguments and presuppose the existence of a Roman Church to select a canon of Scripture. This is not the case historically.
2) I've raised numerous questions and challenges along those lines, which you haven't answered.


For the OT, the Jews had no established Canon.

1) Then how'd they know which books to translate in the LXX?
2) How'd Jesus and the apostles know which books to quote from?
3) Why didn't Jesus' enemies object to His quotations from the OT?
4) How did the Christian church operate with no Canon of the OT until 1546?



there was no established Canon there either

1) When are you talking about?
2) If you'd read my debate, you'd know that an important and helpful distinction between God's Canon and man's recognised Canon explains this just fine.



I would like to correct your notion that the NT comes from the apostles and prophets. The Bible contradicts you in Ephesians 2:20:

1) So apostles and prophets DIDN'T write the NT?
2) What is your point from quoting these psgs?



A1) St. Ignatius to the Romans 110 AD comes up first in my mind. Epistles of Pope St. Clement dated around the 80s AD (John was alive & Revelation was in the works), the Didache.

1) What gives these texts authority?
2) Are these texts older than Hinduism?


A2) I have full assurance from Christ that His Church will not teach error (Mt 16:18).

This is circular.



A3) The Bible is not self-authenticating. Please show me in Scripture where it says "this is the canon, this is the meaning, this is the order, etc."

I never claimed that the Bible expresses its own table of contents.
Rather, God's Word by virtue of it being God's Word is self-authenticating. And this works itself out in the real world via the fact that the ppl of God eventually came to the same Canon of the NT, despite vast geographical dispersion.


Without the Church the Bible would remain a book, a "dead letter" if you will

1) You're using "dead letter" WAY out of context. 2 Corinthians 3. Maybe read it again.
2) The Word of God is described in the exactly opposite way in Psalm 119, 2 Tim 3:16, Hebrews 4:12.




It is only through His body, the Church, that we can fully understand the Sacred Scripture.

1) How do you know?
2) How could someone come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that RCC is correct before he submits himself to RCC?


B1) Look towards the Roman historical documents concerning the persecution of Christians in the 1st Century.

What kind of extra-ecclesial evidence of her AUTHORITY are you talking about? That seems to be a category error on your part.


B2) It is not for my benefit but for yours because it appears that you do not take God at His word.

Said the guy who thinks God's Word needs external authentication. Ironic.



B3) Nope. My reference to external evidence is to show that the Church's existence is document in non-Church sources. It goes to impact on non-Christians.

Where did I question the church's EXISTENCE?



C1)Outside of Scripture, e.g., Matthew 16:18-19, 18:18; Acts 2, etc.

Why are you quoting Scripture to me? I thought it is only through His body, the Church, that we can fully understand the Sacred Scripture.


D1)Certainly not yours. The Catholic Church.

Evidence?


D2)The Jews had no single canon. In fact, no one had any "official, infallible" canon until...The Catholic Church

See above.


D3)I lead off with this one.

See above.

EA said...

Pius X in PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS uses this title for Mary. Not sure if this is the first use, but I found it while researching something else.