Posted on 07/19/2009 2:17:43 PM PDT by NYer
There are plenty of Protestant equivanents. For example, sola scriptura - which is actualy sort of funny in that this interpretation is nothing more than tradition to which one must adhere lest one be called heritical.
Did you look at the other link?
“This means that we can’t approach Scripture as if it were something that needs to be interpreted by us, but rather quite the opposite -- we need to let Scripture interpret us, our lives, and our world,” he explained. “To read the world in light of Scripture, as opposed to Scripture in light of the world, is the hallmark of a Christian reading of the Word of God.”
But this isn’t in the Christian mode of YOPIOS. It is interpeted by the Catholic Church.
YOPIOS, for your information:
Your
Oen
Personal
Interpretation
Of
Scripture.
**Yes, and he resides in all Christians, even though we are sinful. Somehow we do not need to be sinless to receive the grace of God and be filled with the Holy Spirit.**
Yes, but Mary was sinless so that she could house God the Son in her womb!
How many times have I said that now?
Yes. And with the paragraph and conclusion of Vatican I, you are not allowed to reach a conclusion different from the teachings or ex cathedra or extraordinary magisterium findings of the Catholic Church. Correct?
For example, take the Catholic positions on communion and Mary's eternal virginity. The former mandates that there is only a literal interpretation; symbolic is not allowed. The latter demands symbolic/inferred only, literal is not allowed.
The Catholic Church has essentially dictated when a person must interpret Scripture literally and when they cannot. And any interpretation to the contrary - even if there is a reasonable logical support for that contrary conclusion - is heretical and must be avoided.
How is that not the Catholic Church dictating how scripture must be interpreted? We have the Catholic Church explicitly stating that you must follow the teachings and dictates of the Church, and that you cannot reach different conclusions, and that you must interpret literally when told to do so, and symbolically/figuratively when told so.
Seems to me to be pretty cut-and-dried; the Catholic Church is - according to its own dogma - the sole arbiter of how to read and interpret scripture.
Now, about sola scriptura, I would merely point you to 2 Tim 3:14-17. Paul explicitly states that the scriptures written and lessons orally taught at the time Timothy was a child were all that were needed to gain the wisdom to be saved. Nothing more, nothing less.
I also know enough of Catholicism to realize that the Catholic Church does not address this section of scripture, probably for the very claim it makes. You do not need additional teachings or writings to gain salvation. In fact, I would recommend a reading through the entire chapter (2 Tim 3) through eyes not colored of any church or dogma, but as a clearly scriptural warning about how institutions and men are corruptible and corrupted.
Scripture to support that, please? And where does it say that a person must be sinless to house God? You have acknowledged that God - in the form of His Holy Spirit - resides in all of us, and we're not sinless. God clearly can reside in a failed, sinful man. Mary does NOT have to be sinless to be the mother of Christ.
How many times have I said that now?
You have said it many times, but have not given any scriptural basis for the sinless nature of Mary. You have made the claim and stated that it is by your logical conclusion only (and that of the Catechism).
Likewise with the original article that started this thread - it appeals to tradition only, without a scriptural basis for the claim made.
In fact, I would even posit that it's appeal to tradition is incorrect as this position - Mary's infallible nature - is only from 1854, and does not reflect the traditions of the Orthodox Church which is as old and steeped in tradition as the Catholic Church!
You believe Mary was sinless; I do not. This is a case where the scriptures do not support the Catholic position, but in fact provides evidence to the contrary. Witness Stephen being full of grace; the perfect counterpoint to the demands that a person must be sinless to be full of grace and filled with God in the form of His Holy Spirit.
We already went through this.
Luke 1 -- "Hail, Mary, full of grace."
Of course. This is why I drew the distinction between St. Stephen and Our Lady. I agree that both were filled with grace at a certain time in their lives, and therefore their sin was washed away: Mary was filled with grace even prior to the Annunciation and St. Stephen -- at his electin as deacon and subsequent martyrdom. (And I was filled with grace this morning along with a couple hundred other people). The inference that Mary was filled with grace since her conception is made because otherwise we have to presume some oher moment in her life when that outpouring of grace had occurred, and the Scripture is silent on that. In the case of St. Stephen it is clear from context that he received the grace because of his faith just like he also received the blessing of martyrdom. Since he was an adult convert like all the deacons and bishops of the Early Church, we cannot presume anything of his life prior to the ordination. However, if you wish to believe, on the strength of the passage in Acts 6, that St. Stephen was sinless all his life, that would be a reasonable, especially for a Bible Alone Christian, interpretation. It just does not happen to come from the Catholic Holy Tradition.
I agree that if we were go by scripture alone, we would have some competing interpretations of Luke 1:28. But we don't go by scripture alone: the Church received the deposit of faith from the Holy Apostles in its entirety, which in due course produced both the New Testament Scripture and the infallible interpretation thereof. My task here as a Catholic is not to deduce the Catholic doctrine from the Scripture but rather explain the Scripture in the light of the doctrine received by the Church from the Holy Spirit directly.
the root caritow means favored, NOT sinless
The root is charis (χαρις), grace. "Favor" is an translation suitable in non-theological contexts; do a parallel search of "grace" in your preferred translation in the New Testament and you will always or nearly always find the Greek original say "χαρις" or an inflection thereof. "κεχαριτωμενη" means something like "engraced". The only reason Prtoestant translations use "favor" is to downplay the significance of Archangel's choice of words. Of course it does not mean "sinless"; sinlessness is an inference, not the text itself.
Romans 3:23
But Noah and, of course, Christ are described in the Scripture as free from sin. We know of sinlessness of others. For example, what sin did the babies massacred by Herod commit? Would not reason compel us to think that a two year old baby cannot sin?
Further look at the context of Romans 3. Not only have "all" sinned, they also do not seek God, none of them is righteous and in fact all are quick to shed blood. It is clear that St. Paul speaks in generalities in that passage. Indeed, the entire passage is a paraphrase of Psalm 14(13). But the next Psalm speaks of righteousless: "He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice: He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour", etc. Romans 3 is to be taken in the same way the relevant psalms are written, as a contrast between the sinful and the righteous, but not as a prooftext of universal sinfulness.
Was Stephen sinless?
“Psalm 103 and 148 both command Angels to worship God”
Oh yes, of course. I don’t see from there why we should be praying to angels or worshiping them. I don’t doubt they are worshiping God quite constantly in heaven.
Wow! You are great in your explaaations. Were I only half that knowledgeable!
Humans were made perfect and in the glory of the Resurrection they become prefect again. That is the Orthodox anthropology.
Thank you. So there is no scriptural claim that Mary was sinless, just an inference running counter to 2000 years of Orthodox tradition.
Mary could have been purified and filled with grace at any time from conception to a second before the angel's visit. We don't know - it is not stated as such.
Would it not be more logical - and consistent - to conclude that Mary was sinful until the point she was filled with grace when she was visited by the angel? She was clearly born with sin (Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12) like all people since Adam (see the Council of Trent).
Clearly this is a case where doctrine is ex scriptura; and in fact it requires conclusions that deny scripture to maintain itself (eternally chaste Mary in face of the overwhelming scriptural evidence to the contrary).
I am not stating this to say that the Catholic Church is evil or corrupting. Rather, I - like all men and all institutions of men in infallible! It's important to realize that; 2 Timothy 3 is quite instructive as well.
This is why we must constantly judge the claims of man against the scripture. When the two are in conflict, scripture simply must trump.
You push too hard to "prove" that there is no freedom to let the Holy Spirit guide the Catholic believer into the light and truth of the scripture.
The hierarchs are totally correct in drawing the line at some points, for instance the doctrine of the trinity. This doctrine is established in scripture though not explicitly named. To intrep the scripture differently is anathema in the catholic church (lower case intended.) Although there many not be the same hierarchies in Protestant denominations, a set of doctrines and standard bearers exist and the doctrine of the trinity is similarly established and maintained.
I think that we both agree with the understanding that sola scriptura does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Scripture.
I don't push - the Catholic Church demands it. For example, can a Catholic accept that Jesus had brothers and sisters born of Mary and still be a Catholic?
“Scripture cannot be the supreme authority for the simple reason that the Gospels were not written for many years after Christ died. Until they were written, the supreme authority on doctrinal issues was Peter and his successors.”
I understand that the gospels and indeed the whole NT was not written until after Christ died and rose again. Until the NT was written, indeed, all the Scriptures we had were the Old Testament and the direct teaching of the apostles. I think they were more than adequate since by definition the apostles were taught directly by Jesus, and appointed as apostles by Him. That was ‘a’ if not ‘the’ main purpose of the apostles. So I accept apostolic teaching; I just think it ceased with the death of the last apostle.
When they died I am grateful they left us the NT canon. That’s what I rely on. Not on anyone who came after any apostle.
“In addition, Christ set up His Church knowing full well that He was using foolish and sometimes sinful men. Peter’s weaknesses were well known to Christ. Still, he selected Peter, warts and all. He wanted frail humans, guided by the Holy Spirit, spreading the faith.”
Well, I’ll just say “amen” to that!
As for them setting up the Mass at Pentecost, oh no :), you know we see the Mass as rather a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. In other words, on the cross, “It is finished,” I don’t think we are instructed to re-sacrifice again and again in some way. The mass is a big argument between Protestants and Roman Catholics, of course. That, the authority of the Magisterium and the Pope and so forth, and the worship/veneration whatever you may call it of the saints.
It is true we must utilize the Scriptures as originally written, and not tinkered with. In this Protestants and Roman Catholics are in the same boat. I think we agree on the 66 books and most accepted English translations of them. So yes, I think they “got that right,” as I confess the RC church has gotten several doctrines right. I just can’t accept any unBiblical doctrine they may teach. You ask what is unBiblical they have taught? The sale of indulgences is a primary example. Obviously a terrible thing to do. Perhaps they have officially renounced that; I hope so. Purgatory is another one. Limbo, which I think has been recently, I am not sure what the term would be, recalled or changed or what have you.
It was the only church at the time that accepted the canon; you may truly call it the Roman Catholic church, I may call it the Protestant, but it was everybody, before the east/west split and the Reformation. The various church councils, consisting of duly ordained men, accepted it. We both recognize that, I think. Yes, I think they got it right!
“He said He would not leave us orphans.” God is good. I know we agree upon that.
You are correct. And I think would would also agree that when tradition and history run counter to scripture, that scripture is correct. Sometimes, traditions are wrong.
I never heard of someone being excommunicated for believing it.
When a mixture of younger close relatives (e.g. half-brothers, cousins, blood brothers, adopted children) is described in one word, the Middle Easterners to this day use “brother” or “sister”. Specific words for “nephew” etc. exist, but it doesn’t mean they are used unless the precise relationship is the focus of the speech.
Even when a single person is referred to, and he is not a brother, the Scripture still uses “brother” at least in one occasion, when Abraham calls Lot his “brother” when in fact we know Lot was his nephew.
In a culture of large extended families sharing the household it is not unreasonable.
At least two of the supposed “brothers” are attributed to Mary Clopas and not to the Blessed Virgin in another gospel.
This does not prove that Mary never had other children. It just shows that the scripture prooftext about the “brothers” isn’t.
How we know that Mary had no other children? We infer it. First, theologically, as the totality of human fulfillment inherent in the choice of being the virginal Mother of God would seem to preclude other familial ambition. If God made a part of your body a holy-of-holies temple, would you fool with it? Second, if Jesus had blood relatives, why would St. John the Evangelist chosen as caretaker? Thirdly, it doesn’t seem that the purpose of the marriage of Mary to Joseph was to make babies anyway. When Archangel announces to Mary, she seems perplexed by the suggestion that she would become pregnant by anyone. “I know not man”, she replies. How many young brides do you know who marvel at the idea that they would soon give birth to a great man? She had never intended to be a mother, or to be a consummated wife.
Does denying the Catechism leave one a Catholic? Accepting that Jesus had brothers and sisters born of Mary is opposite the Catechism.
Yes, I agree.
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.