Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50; Mr Rogers; stfassisi
My point was that the source of marioloy is not the Bible.

Catholic Mariology is compatible with the Bible, -- Rev. 12 for example, is easier to understand with the doctrine of Assumption than without it. However, the Church does not derive doctrines from the Bible anyway: she derives the doctrines from the Sacred Deposit of faith given the Church beginning with the apostles. Both the scripture and magisterial teaching proceed from that source.

54 posted on 08/23/2009 6:14:43 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: annalex; kosta50; stfassisi

I spent part of today reading the Pope’s statement creating a feast day for Mary.

based on that example, the “Sacred Deposit of faith” seems to consist of all the writings of all the ‘saints’, which are then cherry-picked to support what you want to do.

I do not doubt the Catholic Church doesn’t derive doctrine from scripture...instead, it decides which doctrine it wants, and then twists scripture interpretation to support it.

For example, I just recently learned that in 325 AD, it was determined when Easter would be celebrated, and made a matter of the faith. And the decision wasn’t at Passover (when the resurrection occurred), but on the ridiculous formula used today.

That may be the Sacred Deposit of the Faith (hard to say, since no one has ever published what is or is not in that deposit), but it is foolishness - doctrine made up by men for political purposes. Rome then foisted it upon the world.

By 325 AD, the “Church” was paying attention to all wrong things for the wrong reasons. That is why scripture is so important.

While it is possible for texts to be distorted, the oldest texts we have are in 95-98% agreement with modern texts - depending on who you ask to keep count.

That is a far more trustworthy source than a Pope in 1950 citing art examples, and various statements from men who obviously didn’t care a whit about what the Apostles said.


55 posted on 08/23/2009 6:54:16 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: annalex
Catholic Mariology is compatible with the Bible, -- Rev. 12 for example, is easier to understand with the doctrine of Assumption than without it. However, the Church does not derive doctrines from the Bible anyway: she derives the doctrines from the Sacred Deposit of faith given the Church beginning with the apostles. Both the scripture and magisterial teaching proceed from that source.

I completely agree but our Orthodox bothers and sisters do not view the book of revelations as useful

56 posted on 08/23/2009 6:56:35 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: annalex; Mr Rogers; stfassisi
However, the Church does not derive doctrines from the Bible anyway: she derives the doctrines from the Sacred Deposit of faith given the Church beginning with the apostles. Both the scripture and magisterial teaching proceed from that source

Again, you are right Alex. However, there is no evidence of any awareness of such Deposit from the writings of the early Church. It seems that it took centuries before the Church "figured out" what she believed in. And if doctrine is not derived from the scripture, that flies in the face of what the scripture says about scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16), and especially when Catholics use scripture to justify doctrine/dogma (i.e. papal supremacy with Matthew 16, etc).

57 posted on 08/23/2009 8:31:02 PM PDT by kosta50 (Don't look up, the truth is all around you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson