Posted on 05/11/2005 10:04:08 AM PDT by NYer
I was wondering that too. Is it baiting to not come here for a mutual agreement society meeting?
And on that last point, I must agree wholeheartedly. Were it not for Gods Plan of Salvation and the Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would be looking forward to a long time dark.
I wonder why there is so much fear on the part of Protestants and others concerning the possibility for error within the Catholic Church. Taking into considertion the Biblical injuction not to "cast pearls before swine etc," know they not that our priests, heirarchy and tradition are the very walls that protect us from paganism? Sure we may be over enthusiastic in our devotions from the persepctive of those who have lost that security but, we are not going to run off a cliff so long as those walls are in place. Luther himself was no enemy to Marian devotion but it seems to be a more common development the farther away you get from those walls. Part of it is a lack of historical context, they just don't remember the fuedal symbology which most Marian devotion is surrounded in. They see it as some kind of paganism.
Hello again, Zuriel. Thanks for responding.
You said ..."You, and those that think the way you've been taught, openly admit that there are two natures to Jesus Christ. Then why is it so hard to see that the flesh was begotten, and the Divine nature "laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of" his hands?
That is what Catholics believe, if I understand you correctly. The Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, is eternally begotten of the Father. At a point in time, the Logos took on the nature of humanity in addition to His Divine Nature. He was thus borne of the Virgin Mary in history, and possesses two natures.
"If a second person of a trinity made creation, what was the Father doing? I know that answer, too. ;)"
Well, thank the Fathers of the Church, as they defined it 1500 years ago and more. God consists of Three Persons, but there is "only" ONE Divine Nature. When One of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity is said to being "doing something", the Three are together doing it. Jesus tells us time and time again that Him and the Father are One. He can do nothing (and nor can the Spirit) without the Father. When we say that God made creation through the Logos, we call this "approbration" (I hope I got the spelling). It says that the whole divine economy is the common work of the Three Divine Persons. God is One Principle. However, we account the work of redemption to the Son and the work of sanctification to the Spirit. The sole distinction between the Three is their relationship with One Another and Their origin.
"Is it because your dogma must maintain it's man-made "Tradition"?"
Hmm. Everything that the Catholic Church has defined as dogma is considered Apostolic Tradition and is found in Sacred Scripture, either implied or explicitly stated. Without correct interpretation of Scriptures (our Apostolic Tradition), how would we know that the Arians were wrong and the Catholics were correct? If you were to read about Arianism, you would find that their belief that Jesus was NOT the ESSENCE of God, but only like His essence, has Scriptural warrant. Check Proverbs 8:22, for example. "there was a time where the Son was not" was what Arius wrote. Without correct interpretation of Scriptures, where would we be? More divisions within the Body.
As to "traditions of men", before you cast anymore stones, brother, you should consider that the idea of Sola Scriptura is found NOWHERE in Scriptura itself. A tradition of men? Considering that God reveals Himself through oral and written means (2 Thess 2:15), you are removing part of His Revelation. Considering a "tradition of man" moves people away from God, wouldn't you say that fits the bill for a "tradition of man"? Don't you find it strange that THE pillar of Protestantism is built on a "tradition of man"?
Regards
Those of us who seem to be on the outside throwing rocks at your walls would suggest that faith in the walls is not faith in Jesus at all.
Aw, cheer up. I don't recall ever having commented on Muslim beliefs about Mary.
I said "...His is merely an explanation that makes sense of the analogy of faith.***
You asked "...And this explanation is now obligatory belief?
No. Unless the Council that defines something for belief and uses the same formula. ONLY such definitions, guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) are said to be guarded by the Holy Spirit. Speculation and thought leading to a definition are not dogmatic, per sec.
I said "...That doesn't mean that we just figured out in 325 that Jesus was God. The same with any development of dogma.
You responded "...Slight difference in that from the beginning the Scriptures have been clear that Jesus is God"
Don't be so sure of yourself. There are a number of Scriptural verses that can cause problems with your idea that Scripture is crystal clear on the issue. Think, why would Arius use the same Scripture to question that Jesus was NOT the same essence as the Father? Check Proverbs 8:22 (his favorite verse, from what I read about Arius). What about the times when Jesus ranks Himself below the Father? There are I believe 3 verses, but the specifics escape me now. ALL heretics used the same Scriptures that the Catholics used. The difference was interpretation - thus the REQUIREMENT for Apostolic Tradition. Otherwise, how can we worship in Spirit and in Truth if we don't have the Truth? Christianity is a REVEALED religion.
"Not to be course here, but Jesus doesn't sit on Mary when he renders judgement."
LOL! I don't recall that I said that. The point was that the Ark of the Covenant is not pointing to God as much as the CONTENTS of the Ark points to God (or in the OT, of WHOM sits on the Mercy Seat). The Israelites did not WORSHIP the Ark! Catholics do not WORSHIP Mary! I am not aware of the Early Church Fathers refering to the Mercy Seat and Mary as any sort of analogy, just the Ark itself.
"They Church was also extremely dogmatic about Aristotelian cosmology for quite some time - even to the point of punishing dissenters as heretics. What of that?"
Perhaps you mean Platoism? Aristotelian philosophy did not come into vogue in the West until Aquinas. You have to admit that man is a product of his environment. We base our understanding of God to a degree on the philosophy and culture of our day. Protestants, for example, take the democratic ideals and individualism of the United States and apply it to their ideas of God, the Church, and worship. Is it unusual that the Church, a community living within the world but not of the world, would use culture's definitions and philosophy to try to understand God and what was in Scripture and Tradition? Being anachronistic makes it more difficult to understand why the Fathers did what they did. When we try to define who God is, we do the same thing they did, using 21st century ideas and philosophy to speak to the people of today. Otherwise, the Church loses relevance. With this in mind, some language seems to define our beliefs better than others, thus the West often continues with Thomistic definitions, such as transubstantiation.
Regards
Ksen, do you realize the absurdity of that statement? Of course there are more than a handful of documents that have been issued by various Popes throughout history, that doesn't mean that all of them are to be taken as infallible dogma.
Which statement? I speak absurdly so many times it's hard to keep them all straight. ;^)
Of course there are more than a handful of documents that have been issued by various Popes throughout history, that doesn't mean that all of them are to be taken as infallible dogma.
I wasn't asking for every Papal document. I was asking for a concise list of the "handful" of places where the Pope has spoken infallibly.
I was talking above with one of the Catholics about this and he said that the Pope has only spoken infallibly a handful of times. I asked for a list of them. He gave me two so far. Then I was graciously told to do my own research. Then I was told to look on the Vatican website. I commented that there are a lot of documents on Vatican website. How do I tell which ones are infallible, and which ones aren't?
Why is it turning out to be so hard to get a list of these few infallible pronouncements? I wouldn't think it'd be this hard since there are supposedly only a few documents.
"I expect that Marianism is very very old. But what I find is that it is not part of the bible."
You are correct. And it is inconsequential. The Church has NEVER taken the view of Bible Alone until the Protestant Reformation, when Luther overcompensated the then Church's overemphasis on Tradition (see, a sentence that gives us both criticism!). Can we agree, with the Bible, that the Holy Spirit is in the Church? "Do you not know that you are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you"? (1 Cor 3:16). Notice, the "you" above is a PLURAL Greek "YOU". The Spirit is guiding the Church. We Catholics call this the "sense of the faithful". The Church, in their definitions of infallibility, has said that the sense of the faithful has an infallibility in it (some requirements go along with this, of course). Thus, when the faithful, in their worship, in their devotion, in their prayers, "always, everywhere, and everyone" consider Mary such and such, or can ask that she pray for them, the Church weighs this matter to be the will of the Holy Spirit.
"The bible points us to Jesus through Jesus and the Holy Spirit"
It also points us to Jesus through creation, other people of the faith community, and events in our lives.
"If Mary was the key to being closer to the Lord..."
If Mary brings someone closer to God, closer to the ideals of the beatitudes, closer to loving their neighbor, then maybe we should not be so harsh. We should correct over-emphasis (like those who consider Mary the fourth person of the Trinity) on Mary, but we should heed Paul's advice "for the kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink (or Mariology, if I may), but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:16). Paul certainly approved of freedom in the name of Love. Sorry, Scripture verse escapes me, but I am sure that he says something to that effect.
Brother in Christ
Ah, you've come rapping at the gate but will the Master let you in...?
"Those of us who seem to be on the outside throwing rocks at your walls would suggest that faith in the walls is not faith in Jesus at all"
If I may interject? You are making a false dichotomy. The Church is the Body of Christ. The Church is the Bride of Christ. The Church is one with Christ. Jesus promised to protect it and send His Spirit to guide it to all truth. Catholics consider that respectfully submitting to the teachings of the Church are, in effect, submitting to Christ, the Head of the Church. Our faith is in Christ. At least that what the Church tirelessly teaches. Perhaps some Catholics get overenthusiastic about the Church heirarchy proper, but the Church itself says that they are the servants of Christ.
Regards
Is biblewonk having a tantrum?
I'll see if I can locate a definitive list for you.
What bible were these guys reading in the 3rd century? These are the guys that studied with the apostles. It is biblical, just not in your interpretation. As I said very early on in this thread, that is really what all of these types of arguments boil down to. You have your personally interpreted bible and that is it. Catholics have the bible that has been studied by church fathers and their knowledge has been passed on to us. Just like Jesus said he would do for us. We can be confident because Jesus gave us His church and apostolic succession to guide us. You may be able to sway nominal Catholics with your endless misinformation, but you won't get us. I understand your need and your right to come on threads like this and try to "save us heathens" but you are fighting a losing battle here. I wish I were better able to express myself!!
Side note...how do you find the time to be on here all the time?!? I have a very hard time keeping up!!! ;o)
God Bless you!
"We Catholics call this the "sense of the faithful". The Church, in their definitions of infallibility, has said that the sense of the faithful has an infallibility in it (some requirements go along with this, of course). Thus, when the faithful, in their worship, in their devotion, in their prayers, "always, everywhere, and everyone" consider Mary such and such, or can ask that she pray for them, the Church weighs this matter to be the will of the Holy Spirit."
That's a very nearly completely Orthodox position. I learn something new everyday. Thank-you, jo kus!
Nearly all his important works are in the nature of historic theology. The best-known and most useful is his "Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum" (first ed., Würzburg, 1854), a handbook containing a collection of the chief decrees and definitions of councils, list of condemned propositions, etc., beginning with the oldest forms of the Apostles' Creed. It has often been republished, with considerable additions ...The Catechism uses the 1965 edition, which is listed on the Abbreviations page as "DS".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.