Posted on 01/29/2007 6:45:51 AM PST by stfassisi
Mary must be really, really old!
I had to wait until getting a house with a fairly large kitchen and some space in the basement. Beyond that, good books are numerous, supplies are available even out here 'in the sticks' ... and if you really screw up a batch (unlikely), just pour it in the garden. ;'}
A. There are two kinds of actual sin-mortal and venial.
"Mortal," that is, the sin which kills the soul. When a man receives a very severe wound, we say he is mortally wounded; that is, he will die from the wound. As breath shows there is life in the body, so grace is the life of the soul; when all the breath is out of the body, we say the man is dead. He can perform no action to help himself or others. So when all grace is out of the soul we say it is dead, because it is reduced to the condition of a dead body. It can do no action worthy of merit, such as a soul should do; that is, it can do no action that God is bound to reward-it is dead. But you will say the soul never dies. You mean it will never cease to exist; but we call it dead when it has lost all its power to do supernatural good.
"Venial" sin does not drive out all the grace; it wounds the soul, it weakens it just as slight wounds weaken the body. If it falls very frequently into venial sin, it will fall very soon into mortal sin also; for the Holy Scripture says that he that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little. (Ecclus. 19:1). A venial sin seems a little thing, but if we do not avoid it we shall by degrees fall into greater, or mortal, sin. Venial sin makes God less friendly to us and displeases Him. Now if we really love God, we will not displease Him even in the most trifling things.
Not a single Bible reference in any of it. Must be made up.
Just another example of a vain philosophy of man!
This is an ad hominem.
that's much of what our problem is... we live in a basement apartment so the only extra space is the garage...
how bad does it smell when fermenting (and for what sort of area does it spread over)?
i'd like to do a scotch ale or imperial stout...
Mary is called blessed among women in the Bible.
If the Bible accords her this honor, so should we.
Inappropriate jokes, sarcasms and false depictions of her is not Biblical.
The substance of MY posts, which is what I am interested in, is that the proper prism through which to understand the rest of the Bible, including Paul, is Jesus' life and deeds in the Gospel. Paul's letters are inspired, but they appear to conflict with much of what Jesus said and did, also James.
So, what are we to do?
Your tradition is to read the entirety of the rest of Scripture through Paul, to take Paul's statements as hard and fast facts, and everything else as properly interpreted through that prism.
I take what Jesus said and did as the hard and fast facts, and properly interpret Pauline Scripture through Jesus.
Likewise, the Old Testament, too, is Scripture. Jesus criticizes pieces of it and corrects the errors in impression that came in through the texts. You can read Levitical and Deuteronomic rules for divorce, part of the divine law, and you can read Jesus and find out that God NEVER intended divorce, and divorce was not part of the divine law at all, just a tradition of Moses. There is a direct and violent conflict between Scripture. Jesus was God, so Moses was wrong on that point, and those aspects of Scripture must be disregarded.
Jesus does the same thing when it comes to food. Leviticus and Deuteronomy give lists of food rules. Jesus says it's all bunkum: nothing you eat makes you impure. Another violent conflict in Scripture. Jesus versus the Torah. Jesus was God, so the Torah Scriptures he mentions are wrong.
I do not say that Paul is wrong. Parts of the Torah ARE wrong, Jesus said so, which is a strong and direct indication that EVERY WORD of Scripture does NOT have the same authority. Jesus versus Leviticus and Deuteronomy: Jesus wins, because he's God and Moses - inspired or not - wasn't.
Likewise, you are reading Paul to say that all ya gotta do is believe. This is squarely contrary to Jesus telling everyone a whole bunch of other things they have to do too.
Now, to square this circle, one can say that it is true, all you have to do is believe, but belief MEANS what Jesus said: love God above all AND love your neighbor, AND that means doing all those things Jesus said to do. That's the proper reading of Paul. Reading Paul to say that all ya gotta do is think you believe and get dunked, and that's it, regardless of your subsequent sins, is ignoring the whole content of Jesus' teachings in the Gospels, and is a dreadful mistake.
One comes to the point where one has READ Scripture, and sees what it says, but then one has to sort out what it MEANS. Scripture doesn't do this work for you. It is clear that Paul's view, taken literally and unmodified, is the prism by which you have chosen to interpret Scripture. Even then you seem to be doing curious things, like overlooking Paul's letter to Timothy where he lays out a whole hierarchical clergy, ordained by laying on of hands, with bishops and priests, deacons and diaconix. Or the letters in which he stresses that his followers keep on in the TRADITIONS (Paul's words) which Paul had taught them (and which he certainly doesn't spell all out in his letters).
The prism through which I see all of Scripture is Jesus.
Jesus reduces the whole Old Testament to two sentences. Good, that makes things much clearer.
And he gives practical examples for everything he speaks of.
Paul augments this.
Every piece of Scripture clearly does not have equal weight. Jesus himself says so. If every piece did, then when Jesus overrules kashrut and overrules Levitical divorce, there would be an irreconcilable conflict between two things of equal authority.
There isn't, because Jesus is God, and the Gospels have the greatest authority.
You don't view it that way, which is your right.
Another error, false supposition.
Good, so is that the name of the denomination, the Church of Christ? Or is it the Pentecostal Church?
I want to peruse your church's history and doctrines on its website, so that I can point out all of the vicious things that your denomination has done in its past. You seem to think this is relevant to Catholicism, then it must equally be relevant to the Church of Christ, or the Pentecostal Church, or whichever church, by name.
Are you a Baptist? A Southern Baptist?
A Pentecostal?
A United Church of Christ adherent?
You local, autonomous, independent congregation of believers, does it subscribe to a larger organization (such as the Southern Baptist Convention)?
Your answer was evasive.
Which Bible translation do you use?
*Thanks for, finally, admitting that. You also can't cite anything from any authoritative Catholic Source to prove you are correct.
Will that stop you? No. You know better than the Church.
Or do you?....more to follow
Strange that the bible never calls her God's mom.
"Mary must be really, really old!"
More!
More!
Specifically tell us what the Marian apparition at Lourdes was. Label it. And label the source of the amazing cures that flow from this "New Bethsaida".
Go ahead. Tell me!
Something appeared at Lourdes, and left behind a new and healing spring.
Something appeared to all of those people at Fatima.
Something appeared in Mexico and left that very strange cactus cloak.
Who was behind all that?
Was it all utter delusion (all those people at Fatima?)
What of the healings at Lourdes? They're real. Medically documented. This is 20th Century stuff. People don't willingly give up governmental disability benefits unless they're actually CURED of something.
By what power is this done?
Paul won't tell you. None of this Marian business is in the Bible.
Can Satan cast out Satan?
Is that what is happening at Lourdes?
Go ahead, put a NAME on the power and the source of the apparitions of Mary and the miracles of the sun and of Lourdes?
Delusion?
Demonic?
Or Holy Spirit poured out, and done by way of visions of Mary?
Which is it?
You are CERTAIN you know how everything operates, thanks to Paul, so take a chance - WHO makes the healings at Lourdes happen? The Holy Spirit? Or demons?
God doesn't mind you trashing his mom.
Go ahead and say it's demons.
Say it and believe it. Hold that in your heart.
And pray you got that right.
Because nobody will be forgiven the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Can Satan cast out Satan?
Jesus said no.
So, who is healing those people at Lourdes, at that abominable shrine to that woman?
Who is it?
If the Bible accords her this honor, so should we.
Agreed.
Since Mary is NOT called Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, etc. shouldn't we exercise the same Biblical restraint???
"You also can't cite anything from any authoritative Catholic Source to prove you are correct."
I did: the Bible (NAB St. Joseph's version, to be correct).
Are you an ordained member of the clergy?
So now the Holy Spirit can't keep His teachings straight? The God of the Universe can't keep His books in order?
The supposed "conflicts" you cite occur only with false doctrine. Adjust your doctrine to reflect that teachings of Scripture, and PRESTO, the conflicts disappear.
By your philosophy, God has to be a liar. Scripture cannot be in conflict with itself any other way.
The recent Synods of Bishops dealing with evangelization and catechesis have created increasing awareness of the need for perfect fidelity to the fundamental truths of faith, especially at the present time, when profound changes in human society and the concern to integrate the Christian faith into the various cultures require that a greater effort be made than in the past to make that faith accessible and communicable. This latter need, so urgent at present, requires that greater care than ever be given to safeguarding the true meaning and the integrity of the faith.
Hence, those responsible in this matter must be extremely attentive to anything that might introduce into the general attitude of the faithful a gradual debasement or progressive extinction of any element of the baptismal Creed necessary for the coherence of the faith and inseparably connected with important practices in the life of the Church.
We think it urgently necessary to call one of these elements to the attention of those to whom God has entrusted the function of advancing and protecting the faith, in order that they may forestall the dangers that could threaten this faith in the minds of the faithful.
The element in question is the article of the Creed concerning life everlasting and so everything in general after death. When setting forth this teaching, it is not permissible to remove any point, nor can a defective or uncertain outlook be adopted without endangering the faith and salvation of Christians.
The importance of this final article of the baptismal Creed is obvious: it expresses the goal and purpose of God's plan, the unfolding of which is described in the Creed. If there is no resurrection, the whole structure of faith collapses, as St. Paul states so forcefully (cf. 1 Cor. 15). If the content of the words "life everlasting" is uncertain for Christians, the promises contained in the Gospel and the meaning of creation and Redemption disappear, and even earthly life itself must be said to be deprived of all hope (cf. Heb. 11:1).
But one cannot ignore the unease and disquiet troubling many with regard to this question. It is obvious that doubt is gradually insinuating itself deeply into people's minds. Even though, generally speaking, the Christian is fortunately not yet at the point of positive doubt, he often refrains from thinking about his destiny after death, because he is beginning to encounter questions in his mind to which he is afraid of having to reply, questions such as: Is there really anything after death? Does anything remain of us after we die? Is it nothingness that is before us?
Part of the cause of this is the unintentional effect on people's minds of theological controversies given wide publicity today, the precise subject and the significance of which is beyond the discernment of the majority of the faithful. One encounters discussions about the existence of the soul and the meaning of life after death, and the question is put of what happens between the death of the Christian and the general resurrection. All this disturbs the faithful, since they no longer find the vocabulary they are used to and their familiar ideas.
There is no question here of restricting or preventing the theological research that the faith of the Church needs and from which it should profit. But this does not permit any omission of the duty to safeguard promptly the faith of Christians on points called into doubt.
In the present serious situation, it is our intention to recall briefly the nature and various features of this difficult twofold duty.
To begin with, those who act as teachers must clearly discern what the Church considers to pertain to the essence of the faith; theological research cannot have any other aim in view than to investigate this more deeply and develop it.
The Sacred Congregation, whose task it is to advance and protect the doctrine of the faith, here wishes to recall what the Church teaches in the name of Christ, especially concerning what happens between the death of the Christian and the general resurrection.
1. The Church believes (cf. the Creed) in the resurrection of the dead.
2. The Church understands this resurrection as referring to the whole person; for the elect it is nothing other than the extension to human beings of the resurrection of Christ itself.
3. The Church affirms that a spiritual element survives and subsists after death, an element endowed with consciousness and will, so that the "human self" subsists. To designate this element, the Church uses the word "soul," the accepted term in the usage of Scripture and Tradition. Although not unaware that this term has various meanings in the Bible, the Church thinks that there is no valid reason for rejecting it; moreover, she considers that the use of some word as a vehicle is absolutely indispensable in order to support the faith of Christians.
4. The Church excludes every way of thinking or speaking that would render meaningless or unintelligible her prayers, her funeral rites and the religious acts offered for the dead. All these are, in their substance, loci theologici.
5. In accordance with the Scriptures, the Church looks for "the glorious manifestation of our Lord, Jesus Christ" (Dei verbum, 1,4), believing it to be distinct and deferred with respect to the situation of people immediately after death.
6. In teaching her doctrine about man's destiny after death, the Church excludes any explanation that would deprive the assumption of the Virgin Mary of its unique meaning, namely the fact that the bodily glorification of the Virgin is an anticipation of the glorification that is the destiny of all the other elect.
7. In fidelity to the New Testament and Tradition, the Church believes in the happiness of the just who will one day be with Christ. She believes that there will be eternal punishment for the sinner, who will be deprived of the sight of God, and that this punishment will have a repercussion on the whole being of the sinner. She believes in the possibility of a purification for the elect before they see God, a purification altogether different from the punishment of the damned. This is what the Church means when speaking of Hell and Purgatory.
When dealing with man's situation after death, one must especially beware of arbitrary imaginative representations; excess of this kind is a major cause of the difficulties that Christian faith often encounters. Respect must, however, be given to the images employed in the Scriptures. Their profound meaning must be discerned, while avoiding the risk of over-attenuating them, since this often empties of substance the realities designated by the images.
Neither Scripture nor theology provides sufficient light for a proper picture of life after death. Christians must firmly hold the two following essential points: on the one hand they must believe in the fundamental continuity, thanks to the power of the Holy Spirit, between our present life in Christ and the future life (charity is the law of the kingdom of God and our charity on earth will be the measure of our sharing in God's glory in heaven); on the other hand, they must be clearly aware of the radical break between the present life and the future one, due to the fact that the economy of faith will be replaced by the economy of the fullness of life: we shall be with Christ and "we shall see God" (cf. 1 Jn. 3:2), and it is in these promises and marvellous mysteries that our hope essentially consists. Our imagination may be incapable of reaching these heights, but our heart does so instinctively and completely.
Having recalled these points of doctrine, we would now like to clarify the principal features of the pastoral responsibility to be exercised in the present circumstances in accordance with Christian prudence.
The difficulties connected with these questions impose serious obligations on theologians, whose function is indispensable. Accordingly they have every right to encouragement from us and to the margin of freedom lawfully demanded by their methodology. We must, however, unceasingly remind Christians of the Church's teaching, which is the basis both of Christian life and of scholarly research. Efforts must also be made to ensure that theologians share in our pastoral concern, so that their studies and research may not be thoughtlessly set before the faithful, who today more than ever are exposed to dangers to their faith.
The last Synod highlighted the attention given by the bishops to the essential points of catechesis with a view to the good of the faithful. All who are commissioned to transmit these points must have a clear view of them. We must therefore provide them with the means to be firm with regard to the essence of the doctrine and at the same time careful not to allow childish or arbitrary images to be considered truths of faith.
A Diocesan or National Doctrinal Commission should exercise constant and painstaking vigilance with regard to publications, not only to give timely warning to the faithful about writings that are unreliable in doctrine but also and especially to acquaint them with works that can nourish and support their faith. This is a difficult and important task, but it is made urgent both by the wide circulation of printed publications and by the decentralization of responsibilities demanded by circumstances and desired by the Ecumenical Council.
At an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved the present Letter, decided upon at an Ordinary Meeting of this Sacred Congregation, and ordered its publication.
In Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on May 17, 1979.
Franjo Cardinal Seper, Prefect
+Fr. Jérôme Hamer, O.P., Titular Archbishop of Lorium Secretary
*Brother,take it from Bub, you do have liberty to promote your personal opinions. You do not, take it from Bub,have liberty to try and characterise your own opinions as determinative, normative, or authoritative while, at the same time, castigating the Church as ignorant.
Jesus scolded Saul for attacking Him when Saul was attacking the Church. By analogy, when you are describing the Church as ignorant aren't you calling Jesus ignorant?
"Strange that the bible never calls her God's mom."
Ummmm...
Virgin Birth?
Mary with child?
The manger?
Luke?
"Jesus' mother was at Cana..."
"Jesus mother at the foot of the Cross."
Hello? McFly?
The Bible says that Mary was the mother of Jesus.
Oh! Wait! Maybe you mean that Jesus wasn't God?
John says that the Word was God and the Word became flesh.
Jesus was God.
Mary was Jesus' mother.
Ergo, Mary was the mother of God.
It is true that the Bible doesn't refer to the mother of Jesus as the mother of Yahweh. But Jesus is also God. And the Bible does too call Mary the mother of Jesus. Jesus being a name of God, the Bible does indeed overtly call Jesus the mother of God. That is what "Mother of Jesus" means, at least if Jesus is God.
And since the bible doesn't say that she was immaculately conceived, assumed into heaven, dispensatrix of all graces, mediator, head of the church, or able to even hear a prayer let alone in a matriarchal position over the Lamb of God....
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.