I missed the point on the New Testament canon? Thus saith Atty. Llasos in this article. Overall, the article only made a lot misdirections and lame excuses for not providing any official interpretation during the first 300 years of the church that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary.
This is a red-herring. I never said or ever claimed that no single individual at that time believed that the Book of Revelations was inspired. And Mr. Gerry Soliman is very much aware of that because he candidly admitted: “I'm sure he doesn't mean that.” If that is so, why raise the issue in the first place? Gerry Soliman doesn’t make any sense here!
Or maybe Atty. Llasos is just avoiding the argument. If you thinks that there are people who believe in the inspiration of the book of Revelations before the "final settlement" of the canon in the 4th century, then please show us someone authoritative from that time who interpreted the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary.
He continued, “Whatever happened to the so-called infallible church?” Excuse me, what has infallibility of the Church got to do with this? The problem with Mr. Soliman is that he is throwing “infallibility” here and there without really understanding what we actually mean by it. To prove that Mr. Soliman is in the dark when it comes to the meaning of “infallibility,” here is his own question: “Is there no infallible bishop who is able to recognize the writings of the apostle John after 70AD?”
Mr. Gerry Soliman is barking at the wrong tree. He is shadow-boxing with an invisible opponent. As is his wont, Gerry Soliman is debunking something that we don’t teach. Where in Catholic teaching does it say that an individual bishop, save the Bishop of Rome, is infallible? We don’t teach that an individual bishop is infallible. So, Mr. Soliman’s question is senseless.
Maybe Atty. Llasos has forgotten how Roman Catholics criticize Protestants on private interpretation since this causes disunity. I mean, Roman Catholics boast that they have an infallible magisterium to interpret the Scriptures for them. How does it apply here? Well, here is Atty. Llasos' chance to show this claim that an infallible magisterium, as well as the papacy, is operative even before the 4th century. Okay so where is the infallible interpretation of Revelations 12?
Oh yes, Atty. Llasos may run again to the reason that there was no controversy during that time and therefore it isn't necessary. Again we would have to ask, do we need a controversy to initiate an official interpretation? How about those who just want to inquire the meaning of Scripture? Well, we are faced with excuses so far.
But, were there bishops who recognized the writings of the apostle John after 70 A.D.? If Gerry made his homework thoroughly, he would have not asked that. With a little research, he would have easily ascertained that there were bishops who recognized the writings of John, especially the Book of Revelation, after 70 A.D. They were Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (b. 296) and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (b. 130). Aside from Bishops, there were others who recognized the Book of Revelation.
There you go! You have identified bishops who recognize the inspiration of the book of Revelations. So Atty. Llasos would now have no difficulty of providing us an official interpretation of Revelations 12. Then again... he hasn't done that.
Going back to the church fathers:
Even if the canon was being debated, it certainly didn’t mean that no Christian, like Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus would not recognize the Book of Revelation as among the inspired writings. By the very nature of a debate, there are at least two sides in a controversy. And Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus just happened to be on the side of the inclusion of the Book of Revelations and made an identification of the woman as the Church. As I explained in my previous article on the Church Fathers, the identification of the woman with the Church by some Church Fathers did not altogether exclude other Church Fathers from seeing a Marian referent in that woman insofar as the Fathers saw Mary in the Church and in the Church Mary. The Catholic Church holds this ecclesiological and ecclesiotypical Mariology then as now.
It would sure be nice for Atty. Llasos to provide us with concrete evidence that there are bishops or even church fathers during the first 300 years of the church who actually see the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary. Here, Atty. Llasos is giving us assumptions. Yes, there are certain beliefs about Mary during the first 300 years of the church but does it mean that there was really a unanimous consent that the woman of Revelations 12 is, among others, Mary? Evidences are needed here.
It would also be nice to hear from Atty. Llasos to admit that there was really no official interpretation nor a unanimous consent during the first 300 years of the church that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary.
This is a red-herring. I never said or ever claimed that no single individual at that time believed that the Book of Revelations was inspired. And Mr. Gerry Soliman is very much aware of that because he candidly admitted: “I'm sure he doesn't mean that.” If that is so, why raise the issue in the first place? Gerry Soliman doesn’t make any sense here!
Or maybe Atty. Llasos is just avoiding the argument. If you thinks that there are people who believe in the inspiration of the book of Revelations before the "final settlement" of the canon in the 4th century, then please show us someone authoritative from that time who interpreted the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary.
He continued, “Whatever happened to the so-called infallible church?” Excuse me, what has infallibility of the Church got to do with this? The problem with Mr. Soliman is that he is throwing “infallibility” here and there without really understanding what we actually mean by it. To prove that Mr. Soliman is in the dark when it comes to the meaning of “infallibility,” here is his own question: “Is there no infallible bishop who is able to recognize the writings of the apostle John after 70AD?”
Mr. Gerry Soliman is barking at the wrong tree. He is shadow-boxing with an invisible opponent. As is his wont, Gerry Soliman is debunking something that we don’t teach. Where in Catholic teaching does it say that an individual bishop, save the Bishop of Rome, is infallible? We don’t teach that an individual bishop is infallible. So, Mr. Soliman’s question is senseless.
Maybe Atty. Llasos has forgotten how Roman Catholics criticize Protestants on private interpretation since this causes disunity. I mean, Roman Catholics boast that they have an infallible magisterium to interpret the Scriptures for them. How does it apply here? Well, here is Atty. Llasos' chance to show this claim that an infallible magisterium, as well as the papacy, is operative even before the 4th century. Okay so where is the infallible interpretation of Revelations 12?
Oh yes, Atty. Llasos may run again to the reason that there was no controversy during that time and therefore it isn't necessary. Again we would have to ask, do we need a controversy to initiate an official interpretation? How about those who just want to inquire the meaning of Scripture? Well, we are faced with excuses so far.
But, were there bishops who recognized the writings of the apostle John after 70 A.D.? If Gerry made his homework thoroughly, he would have not asked that. With a little research, he would have easily ascertained that there were bishops who recognized the writings of John, especially the Book of Revelation, after 70 A.D. They were Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (b. 296) and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (b. 130). Aside from Bishops, there were others who recognized the Book of Revelation.
There you go! You have identified bishops who recognize the inspiration of the book of Revelations. So Atty. Llasos would now have no difficulty of providing us an official interpretation of Revelations 12. Then again... he hasn't done that.
Going back to the church fathers:
Even if the canon was being debated, it certainly didn’t mean that no Christian, like Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus would not recognize the Book of Revelation as among the inspired writings. By the very nature of a debate, there are at least two sides in a controversy. And Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus just happened to be on the side of the inclusion of the Book of Revelations and made an identification of the woman as the Church. As I explained in my previous article on the Church Fathers, the identification of the woman with the Church by some Church Fathers did not altogether exclude other Church Fathers from seeing a Marian referent in that woman insofar as the Fathers saw Mary in the Church and in the Church Mary. The Catholic Church holds this ecclesiological and ecclesiotypical Mariology then as now.
It would sure be nice for Atty. Llasos to provide us with concrete evidence that there are bishops or even church fathers during the first 300 years of the church who actually see the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary. Here, Atty. Llasos is giving us assumptions. Yes, there are certain beliefs about Mary during the first 300 years of the church but does it mean that there was really a unanimous consent that the woman of Revelations 12 is, among others, Mary? Evidences are needed here.
It would also be nice to hear from Atty. Llasos to admit that there was really no official interpretation nor a unanimous consent during the first 300 years of the church that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment