This is a continuation of the discussion on the woman of Revelations 12. As you know, Atty. Llasos wrote his response to my arguments against identifying the woman as Mary. This article responds to Atty. Llasos' article over here.
As I have argued before, identifying the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary is not an apostolic teaching. There is no official interpretation during the first 300 years of the arguably infallible church that the woman is Mary.
Atty. Llasos argues:
First, as I also pointed out before, Mr. Soliman suffers from inherent mental inconsistency here. Mr. Soliman does not believe that the Roman Catholic Church existed for the first 300 years. It would be hypocritical for him to demand an “official interpretation” from a church he thinks did not exist at that time.
Well we all know that Roman Catholics are also guilty of this kind of double standard. For instance, our doctrine of Scripture alone. They assert that this only started during the 16th century. Their apologists demand us to show proof that this doctrine existed before the 16th century Reformation. Here you have Atty. Llasos protesting that this is not a valid demand on the grounds that we believe they existed after the first 300 years of Christianity.
We are tempted to ask, who has the double standard here?
Second, there was no need for an “official interpretation” that the woman in Revelations 12 is Mary during the first 300 years. It was not an issue that needed to be officially settled. I argued:
“Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that.”
For Mr. Soliman to ask for an official interpretation, he must show the necessity for it and the controversy that demanded it at that time. There were in fact controversies that necessitated an official interpretation from the Church. For instance, the Divinity of Christ was officially and dogmatically settled, in a much later date than Mr. Soliman demanded – in 325 A.D. in the Council of Nicaea. All the other Christological controversies were officially, formally, dogmatically and infallibly settled in Church Councils in much, much later dates. Gerry Soliman is guilty of double standard here. He demands of an official interpretation of Mary as the woman of Revelation 12 which he does not demand of others.
In response, we have to ask:
1. In the first place, is there something to agree or disagree on Revelations 12? Has it been taught during the first 300 years of the church that the woman is Mary and were there people agreeing or disagreeing with it? Let's face it, there is nothing to agree or disagree about if something doesn't exist yet.
2. Do we need a controversy for the so-called infallible church to make an interpretation? "I'm sorry I don't know what the gospel of Paul to the Galatians is telling us because there is not enough controversy for our magisterium to make an official interpretation." Is that how it works?
Third, why the first 300 years? That is a purely arbitrary end point. Mr. Soliman does not explain why he chose the first 300 years as the cut-off period. He failed to present any manual in patrology that requires patristic sources to be confined only in the first three centuries of the Christian era.
So let's explain for the benefit of Atty. Llasos. Roman Catholics are boasting that they have a 2,000 year pedigree. This means that their beliefs should be historical, held from the beginning. Unlike sola scriptura which they argue started only in the 16th century, Roman Catholics claim that their doctrines are in accordance with the early church fathers. Since many Protestant believe that the Church of Rome is not apostolic, here is one of their chances to prove their claim. So let's have the pre-Nicene interpretation and citations. Then again, do they really have something to show?
These being said, I do have a valid claim to demand for an official interpretation and even patristic citations during the first 300 years.
Other detailed arguments concerning the Bible, church fathers, and so-called Evangelical sources will be discussed in succeeding articles.
As I have argued before, identifying the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary is not an apostolic teaching. There is no official interpretation during the first 300 years of the arguably infallible church that the woman is Mary.
Atty. Llasos argues:
First, as I also pointed out before, Mr. Soliman suffers from inherent mental inconsistency here. Mr. Soliman does not believe that the Roman Catholic Church existed for the first 300 years. It would be hypocritical for him to demand an “official interpretation” from a church he thinks did not exist at that time.
Well we all know that Roman Catholics are also guilty of this kind of double standard. For instance, our doctrine of Scripture alone. They assert that this only started during the 16th century. Their apologists demand us to show proof that this doctrine existed before the 16th century Reformation. Here you have Atty. Llasos protesting that this is not a valid demand on the grounds that we believe they existed after the first 300 years of Christianity.
We are tempted to ask, who has the double standard here?
Second, there was no need for an “official interpretation” that the woman in Revelations 12 is Mary during the first 300 years. It was not an issue that needed to be officially settled. I argued:
“Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that.”
For Mr. Soliman to ask for an official interpretation, he must show the necessity for it and the controversy that demanded it at that time. There were in fact controversies that necessitated an official interpretation from the Church. For instance, the Divinity of Christ was officially and dogmatically settled, in a much later date than Mr. Soliman demanded – in 325 A.D. in the Council of Nicaea. All the other Christological controversies were officially, formally, dogmatically and infallibly settled in Church Councils in much, much later dates. Gerry Soliman is guilty of double standard here. He demands of an official interpretation of Mary as the woman of Revelation 12 which he does not demand of others.
In response, we have to ask:
1. In the first place, is there something to agree or disagree on Revelations 12? Has it been taught during the first 300 years of the church that the woman is Mary and were there people agreeing or disagreeing with it? Let's face it, there is nothing to agree or disagree about if something doesn't exist yet.
2. Do we need a controversy for the so-called infallible church to make an interpretation? "I'm sorry I don't know what the gospel of Paul to the Galatians is telling us because there is not enough controversy for our magisterium to make an official interpretation." Is that how it works?
Third, why the first 300 years? That is a purely arbitrary end point. Mr. Soliman does not explain why he chose the first 300 years as the cut-off period. He failed to present any manual in patrology that requires patristic sources to be confined only in the first three centuries of the Christian era.
So let's explain for the benefit of Atty. Llasos. Roman Catholics are boasting that they have a 2,000 year pedigree. This means that their beliefs should be historical, held from the beginning. Unlike sola scriptura which they argue started only in the 16th century, Roman Catholics claim that their doctrines are in accordance with the early church fathers. Since many Protestant believe that the Church of Rome is not apostolic, here is one of their chances to prove their claim. So let's have the pre-Nicene interpretation and citations. Then again, do they really have something to show?
These being said, I do have a valid claim to demand for an official interpretation and even patristic citations during the first 300 years.
Other detailed arguments concerning the Bible, church fathers, and so-called Evangelical sources will be discussed in succeeding articles.
0 comments:
Post a Comment