Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
Perhaps you should read what happened to Nestorius and how is tongue rotted in his mouth for blaspheming the Blessed Mother?
correction-”is tongue” should read “his tongue”
The limit is that whatever doctrine the Church might refine today cannot contradict any previous divinely revealed doctrine, and so any apparent innovation cannot condtradict either the scripture or other de-fide statements of the Church.
Both penance and purgatorial cleansing is in the scripture, as I showed you. It is your personal, fallible interpretation of the scripture that is in contradiction. Bu tthe real test is not even if they are spelled out in the scripture, but that they do not contradict it. For example, several marian dogmas are indeed merely alluded to by the scripture. They do not, however, contradict it.
The Church does not teach that. Read the Catechism. Christ is the only way to Heaven: there is no salvation outside the Church. Everyone in Heaven is in the Church. If a Muslim makes it to heaven, he is no longer Muslim, but rather Catholic Christian. You can refer to my numerous posts to you stating that on this thread, and I think both I and the author of the Catechism write quite clearly.
“Perhaps you should read what happened to Nestorius and how [h]is tongue rotted in his mouth for blaspheming the Blessed Mother?”
If my tongue rots in my mouth, I’ll post a picture and repent.
Maybe.
But since the adoration of Mary is contrary to the entire Scripture, maybe I’ll stay true to the Word of God regardless of what happens to my flesh.
Some parts of Mariology don’t bother me. If someone wants to claim she was taken up into heaven, have at it - scripture doesn’t say, and I was not there.
What makes my skin crawl - if not my tongue to rot - is stuff like this:
“48. Let all, therefore, try to approach with greater trust the throne of grace and mercy of our Queen and Mother, and beg for strength in adversity, light in darkness, consolation in sorrow; above all let them strive to free themselves from the slavery of sin and offer an unceasing homage, filled with filial loyalty, to their Queenly Mother. Let her churches be thronged by the faithful, her feast-days honored; may the beads of the Rosary be in the hands of all; may Christians gather, in small numbers and large, to sing her praises in churches, in homes, in hospitals, in prisons. May Mary’s name be held in highest reverence, a name sweeter than honey and more precious than jewels; may none utter blasphemous words, the sign of a defiled soul, against that name graced with such dignity and revered for its motherly goodness; let no one be so bold as to speak a syllable which lacks the respect due to her name.
49. All, according to their state, should strive to bring alive the wondrous virtues of our heavenly Queen and most loving Mother through constant effort of mind and manner. Thus will it come about that all Christians, in honoring and imitating their sublime Queen and Mother, will realize they are truly brothers, and with all envy and avarice thrust aside, will promote love among classes, respect the rights of the weak, cherish peace. No one should think himself a son of Mary, worthy of being received under her powerful protection, unless, like her, he is just, gentle and pure, and shows a sincere desire for true brotherhood, not harming or injuring but rather helping and comforting others.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P12CAELI.HTM
If that doesn’t cross the line into worship for you, it does for me. Better for my tongue to rot than to give the honor due God to a creature.
I believe, yes, but what I believe is a factual and historical witness of the Church. Christ factually and historically was born of a virgin, died on the cross and rose again, redeemed our sins, installed the Church as a witness to that, sent us the Holy Ghost to guide us today, ascended into heaven, is present in the Holy Eucharist, will come again to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will be no end.
This is not a philosophy that I find agreeable, these are facts that are there no matter what I think of them.
Understand the difference?
You both raise the possibility of a papal apostasy. In 630 Puget speaks of a pope possibly converting to Islam (well, literally, what you say simply makes no sense as “Allah” is simply Arabic for “God”, but I understand what you are getting at). Then Mr. Roger suggests that the pope embraces homosexuality.
We have had bad popes but we never had an apostate pope. Historically, bad popes were of bad behavior or were bad administrators, but they did not leave any doctrinal mark. The Holy Ghost seems to have guided the Church very well so far.
But let us say, a future pope commits an apostasy and attempts to proclaim it dogmatically. Well, if so, the Pope will leave the Church and a new pope will be elected. There will be massive confusion, yes. But the Church won’t fail.
The pope is not a commander in chief. He is not even like an American president, free to work out whatever he wants with the other branches of government. He is absolutely bound by the teaching of his venerable predecessors, and those of the entire Church. You, Mr Roger, noticed that as you were reading some apostolic constitution on Mary, didn’t you?
It is the perennial hope of the liberalizers in the Church that a Pope one day will have woman priests or allow contraception, etc. He cannot do that: he cannot alter existing teaching on faith and morals. All he can do is refine an existing belief, apply it to new conditions and define forms of worship.
We are very safe. We know for a fact (Mt. 16:18) what the final chapter will be: we win.
I think it is very beautifully said and describes very well the love we have for Our Lady, our Queen and Mother, who brought Christ to us — and to you.
“4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God...
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God...
12So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.” - Romans 14
I believe God takes more pleasure in a heart that seeks to serve Him than one that is intimidated by men. We each will stand before God to give account - better sincerity than false obedience. And may God have mercy on us both, for I’m sure we will both need plenty!
;>)
Indeed, one who searches for God, pleases God. However, it cannot become any sort of celebration of diversity of beliefs, for “he that gathereth not with me, scattereth”.
True, which is why you and I often debate what the truth is, and will undoubtedly do so again.
I tend to think of it as spokes on a wheel - if the spokes all point to the same source (God), then they will eventually get closer, if not meet.
That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t challenge beliefs I believe contradict the Word of God - just that I need to remember that God doesn’t require a perfect grade on a theology test, and to trust Him in dealing with your (and my!) heart.
Clearly, all references to the sheep are made with Jews in mind, not Gentiles and not Samaritans, and his mission was to the Jews, not Gentiles.
Your example of the Canaanite woman simply shows his compassion and recognition of her faith. Gentiles can become Jewish by conversion.
There is no doubt that the ministry of Jesus focused on the Jews. Acts explains how that was broadened to include the rest of us
Acts tells us exactly why Gentiles were sought as per Act 13:4 "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles."
In other words, because the Church failed to win any significant following in Israel and was about to be eliminated shortly.
It was not why Jesus was sent, it was not his mission, it was not where the disciples were told to go, it was an afterthought, even running-for-their-lives kind of a decision.
And this accords with what Jesus said in John 10: “14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
Nothing here indicates Gentiles. Again, sheep is a term used for the Jews, and given that not all Jews were following him, some were not of his fold. This is perfectly consistent with his mission.
Of course, if one picks and chooses which verses to trust, then all of it becomes meaningless. I choose to accept both Matthew and John and Acts...
I understand what you are getting at; however, I think the vocabulary you are using is problematic. A fact is testable, independently verifiable by any - even those who don't believe in the fact.
Everything you listed is simply taken on faith, and faith alone. We believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, not because it's recorded indelibly and without error, but because we believe it to be such. It's untestable, and as such cannot be a fact.
You can claim them as truths or articles of faith, but they are not facts. For if they are facts, what good is faith? Why is faith needed for something that is factual?
Very interesting and I really appreciate your responses/comments to me and throughout this thread. Thanks.
Are you saying that Moses introduced new law never before known to Israel when he received the Ten Commandments?
Also, are you reading Genesis 6:9 literally or as a metaphor? That is did Noah walk with God as in walking or simply following precepts.
So Catholics believe the Israelite's understanding of the Atonement, animal sacrifice and "repentance" were incorrect or insufficient?
Tahnk you.
“In other words, because the Church failed to win any significant following in Israel and was about to be eliminated shortly.”
No, the Church had won a number of Jewish converts - 3000 on Pentecost.
Acts records “1Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” 4And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women.”
More important, “15As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
The question wasn’t number of converts, but who was first in line.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to witness it, it is still a fact that the tree fell in the forest.
There are many historical facts that we cannot test or independently verify. This doesn't make them any less facts.
what good is faith?
Faith is needed in order to receive the guidance of the Church, which at times is difficult.
There are three sets of laws in the scope of our conversation, according to the Catholic Church. First, there is natural law; this is the law "written in the hearts of men" (Romans 2:15) that men obey due to the call of their conscience and natural reason. No one needs to give people a law that would say that God is to be loved, men naturally know that it is reasonable that they are to love their creator. When they fail at loving God they fail not because they were not given that law, but because they do not follow their conscience under stress. This state of affairs allowed Noah to love God even before any dispensation of law occurred. He was naturally perfect. (Abel is another example of such natural love of God).
Second, there are the Noachide commandments, usually summarized as 7 in number, that were given Noah (Gen 9); they are not as strong as the Ten commandments given Moses. Unlike natural law, these are codified, precise instructions. In His loving kindness God gave them so that men can find it easier to properly form their consciences.
Thirdly, there are the Ten Commandments given Moses, and through Moses, to the Jews. They develop and strengthen the Noachide commandments. Then more instruction followed, the total number of commandments given the Jews is just over 600.
So these are three different things, and the Natural Law underlies all the precise commandments. Note that we, as Christians, obey the Ten Commandments not because they were given through Moses to the Jews (if we did, we'd have to obey all 600+), but because they are also natural law. Jesus repeated most of them and explained them, and brought them out of the realm of jurisprudence back into the realm of human conscience and its proper function of loving God(Matthew 5-7).
are you reading Genesis 6:9 literally or as a metaphor?
I read it literally, but I understand the idiomatic usage of "walk". I think that it is clear that the inspired author wanted to tell us that Noah was a perfect, sinless man, and also to understand that one becomes perfect by "walking" with God, that is, doing everything as if God is right next to you.
So Catholics believe the Israelite's understanding of the Atonement, animal sacrifice and "repentance" were incorrect or insufficient?
Yes, insufficient. They were correct because God gave them to them, but they were given them in order to prefigure for them the perfect sacrifice of Christ and atonement of sin that flowed therefrom, and teach them repentance. This is what plan, or "economy" of salvation is all about: the gradual revelation of God, initially to the Jews and now to all nations. It is not unlike rearing a child: initially you giove a child simple rules and punish him for violating them. But as the child grows, your plan evolves: you rely less on the rules and more on the intellect of the child, so that out of a child an adult is formed.
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.