Posted on 08/22/2009 4:27:02 PM PDT by NYer
St. Augustine said that "the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old is fulfilled in the New." Like other Church Fathers he distinguished between the outer "literal" and the inner "spiritual" meaning of Holy Scripture. And like the others, he often preferred spirit to letter.
The categories into which various Fathers divided the spiritual sense need not concern us here, only their zealous attempts to read the figurative meanings of the Bible. They saw the New Testament foreshadowed in the Old through several devices. Types are persons, things, or events taken as historical (Adam is a Type of Christ); prophecies are predictions (the Messiah will be born of a virgin); and allegories are poetic comparisons, not limited to strict personifications (Holy Wisdom is a gracious woman). Our discussion will move freely across all these categories.
The Fathers saw every part of the Scriptures as linked to every other part. They believed that God had encoded patterns of similarities and contrasts into his Word to produce flashes of illumination. Making cross-comparisons rounds out our picture of what Salvation is--and is not. For instance, innocent, devout Abel is a Type of Christ while jealous, murderous Cain his Antitype.
Mary entered this web of associations early, when St. Justin Martyr (d. 165) contrasted her obedience with Eve's disobedience immediately after referring to Christ's symbolic titles in prophecy. His insight was repeated a generation later by St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca. 200): "What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith." Thus Mary came to be called the New Eve and the Latin pun Eva/Ave for the reversal entered Christian lore.
Eve is the mother of all according to the flesh, but Mary according to the spirit. As universal spiritual mother and first Christian, Mary is also a Type of the Church, a parallel first noted by St. Irenaeus. Therefore, the same Biblical imagery used for the Church can also apply to Mary: she is the living Ark of the Covenant, the ultimate Temple, the new Jerusalem, and the perfected Israel as Bride of God.
These Old Testament prefigurations are brought forward into the Book of Revelation and amplify the Woman Clothed in the Sun (Rev 12:12), the "great sign" manifested immediately after the scene of the Ark in the celestial Temple. The pregnant Woman's body carries the Messiah as the Ark once held the Divinely sent Tablets of the Law, Aaron's rod that flowered, and a pot of manna Moreover, she is also the mother of all Christians. But this Woman flees from the threatening Satanic Dragon, unlike Eve who fatally lingered when the Serpent spoke.
The Woman does not, however, grapple directly with the Dragon, though some Marian devotees wish it were otherwise. Direct engagement with the Foe is left to other Marian Types. Deborah rallies the Israelite army (Jgs 4:4-16), Jael smashes the head of an enemy general (Jgs 4:17-22), Judith beheads Holofernes (Jdt 13), and Esther maneuvers Haman onto the gallows (Est 7), in each case saving their people from certain destruction.
Besides the typology of specific characters, Messianic Psalm 45 has been traditionally taken to represent Christ as the king with Mary as the queen who stands beside him adorned "in gold of Ophir". This Psalm is often quoted in the liturgy, including texts of Marian feasts such as the Assumption. There it refers to Our Lady's entrance into heaven and justifies showing her enthroned beside her Son.
The queen in the Psalm is the king's bride but the normal structure of a Semitic court gave the king's mother far more power than any wife. This situation, demonstrated by the relationship between Solomon and his mother Bathsheba (1 Kgs 2:12-25) does fit Mary, so Bathsheba was used as a Type of Mary. In the incident shown, however, Bathsheba's intercession gets the petitioner executed. The only other queen mothers shown in action, idolatrous Maacah (1 Kgs 15: 18) and murderous Athalia (2 Kgs 11), could be called Antitypes of Mary.
The Old Testament also gives many poetic images for Mary that have proven important in art and prayer. These cluster around several themes that illustrate doctrines. Her Divine Maternity is the ground of everything else, shown in metaphors for fruitfulness and containment. As a Virgin Mother, Mary is unpenetrated, an impossibility miraculously possible. As a unique partner in Redemption, she is a passage, source, or signal. As a perfectly sinless being, things beautiful and unblemished reflect her.
Some of the imagery preceded the dogmas. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption were only defined in modern times while Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix are still commonly believed without dogmatic definition.
Although these images developed more quickly in the East than the West, this essay is limited to European examples. The anonymous eighth or ninth century Latin poem Ave Maris Stella, which would enter the Breviary, is an early Western example that builds on Patristic insights. It begins:
Ave maris stella, Hail,Star of the Sea,
Dei Mater alma, Loving Mother of God,
Atque semper Virgo, And ever-Virgin,
Felix coeli porta. Happy gate of heaven.
Sumens illud Ave Receiving that "Ave"
Gabrielis ore, From Gabriel's mouth,
Funda nos in pace, Secure us in peace,
Mutans Hevae nomen. Changing Eve's name.
Star of the Sea, mistaken for the Hebrew meaning of the name Mary, and Gate of Heaven, paralleling Jacob's ladder to heaven (Gn 28: 10-12, 16-17), later became invocations in the Litany of Loreto.
In the West during the first millennium, the Madonna and Child motif was meant to defend the Incarnation. Only towards the end of that period does it become a devotional object in its own right as Mary herself loomed larger in European Christian consciousness.
By the year 1000, a new style of Madonna emerged, first in southern France, that came to be called the Majesty of Mary. Enthroned as a queen, the Mother presents to the world her Child who holds a book. This is also the visual formula for another Litany title, Seat of Wisdom. With her lap doubling for her womb, Mary is the living throne of the New Solomon. (Good examples from the twelfth century are carved above entrances to Notre-Dame of Chartres and Notre-Dame of Paris.)
Relying on earlier collections of Patristic ideas, such as the Glossa ordinaria, typological thinking dominated Biblical interpretation in the High Middle Ages. It shaped art from Austria to England. Major cycles of images survive in the glass of Canterbury cathedral and the Verdun altar, a masterpiece of enameled gold. In these works Mary appears in Gospel scenes matched with Old Testament parallels such as the Annunciation of Jesus paired with the Annunciations of Issac and Samson.
One striking new motif that originated in twelfth century France was the Tree of Jesse, taken from Isaiah's prophecy of the lineage of the Messiah: "A shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom" (Is 11:1). The tree sprouts from the lions of David's father Jesse bearing the ancestors of Christ. As time went on, Mary received more emphasis to appear in a flower atop the Tree holding Jesus, the final fruit.
As devotion to Our Lady blossomed in medieval times, so did the range of Marian typologies. Honorius of Autun (d. 1152) expounded a set of images that soon turned up on the new Gothic cathedrals of France. The most complete expression of Honorius' ideas was carved around the Mary-portal at Notre-Dame of Laon in the thirteenth century.
These stone reliefs at Laon depict prefigurations of Mary's virginal conception: Gideon's fleece, wet by dew when the ground stayed dry and vice versa (Jgs 6: 36-38); Moses' Burning Bush unconsumed by its fire (Ex 3:1-14); Daniel miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk while sealed in the lions' den (Dn 14: 28-42); the Ark of the Covenant, a womb-equivalent, which contained Aaron's flowering rod (Num 17:1-11); Ezekiel's Shut Gate that only the Lord may enter (Ez 44:2); the Stone Not Cut by Hands (Dn 2:34-35); and the Three Young Men in the Fiery Furnace, unharmed by flame (Dn 3)
The Laon reliefs also show Daniel killing a dragon worshipped by the Babylonians (Dn 14: 23-27), a fate the Eden Serpent will share thanks to Mary (Gn 3:15), and Balaam's prophecy of the Messiah's lineage, "a star shall rise out of Jacob" (Num 24:17) that was joined to Mary's title Star of the Sea to make her the guiding star of mankind.
Medieval books of typologies were extremely popular as aids to meditation among the literate. Two famous examples (both available in modern replica editions) are the illustrated Biblia pauperum (Poor Men's Bible) and the Speculum humanae salvationis (Mirror of Human Salvation) from the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries respectively. Originally hand-copied, these works got into print in the fifteenth century carrying woodblock illustrations.
The Biblia consists of carefully structured sets of one New Testament event flanked by two Old Testament comparisons tied together with four prophecies and captions. For example, the Coronation of the Virgin is matched to the enthronements of Bathsheba and Esther.
The Speculum shows one Biblical or legendary scene with three separate parallels from the Old Testament or secular history, plus explanations. The comparisons themselves can function as commentaries as when the Birth of Mary is paired with the Tree of Jesse (her lineage), the Shut Gate (her virginity), and the Temple of Solomon (God's presence in her)
Meanwhile, a new repertoire of Marian symbols was developing from the thought of the Mellifluous Doctor, St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1153). Thanks to his four volumes of sermons of the Song of Songs, Mary came to be showered with fresh and even sensuous metaphors.
Although the Song of Songs--which ostensibly celebrates Solomon's love for his Bride the Shulamitess--continued to be read in the traditional way as an allegory of Christ's love for the Church or God's love for the human soul, it now had lovely Marian connotations.
As in Psalm 45, the Lover is Christ and the Bride Mary. Erotic language is spiritualized to signify total contemplative union between God and his most perfect creature. "I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him: and I will not let him go . . . ." (SoS 3:4)
Comparing the Virgin to flowers, gardens, foodstuffs, spices, perfumes, gems, and precious metals mentioned in the Song of Songs is lush but fitting. Seeing her as she who comes forth "as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array" (SoS 6:9) has the cosmic flavor of the Apocalyptic Woman (Rv 12:1)
But modern sensibility flinches at calling the Blessed Mother a grape (uva) or cluster of grapes (botrus) as in SoS 7:7 although the milk of her breasts "sweeter than wine" was transformed into the Sacred Blood of her Son and thence into the Eucharist. Neither are we comfortable seeing her as a marriage bed (thalamus) or couch (triclinum) as in SoS 1:15 although her womb was the chamber in which God's romance with the human race was consummated. Yet these shocking epithets were used in a late medieval Missal from Evreux, France.
The Cantica canticorum, a book of woodblock images made in the Netherlands before 1465 spread daring metaphors to a wider audience. For instance, "A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, he shall abide between my breasts" (SoS 1:12) is quite an audacious image to apply to Our Lord and Our Lady. Surprisingly, it is taken to mean the Sorrowful Mother clasping the dead body of her Son.
This style of similitude reaches a lovely peak in a Book of Hours printed in Paris in 1505. The figure of the pre-existent Immaculata stands praying beneath the gaze of God who says: "Thou are fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee." (SoS 4:7) She is surrounded by her symbols which are mostly from the Song of Songs (marked *): "bright as the sun,"* "fair as the moon,"* "gate of heaven," "exalted cedar" (Sir 24:17), "planted rose" (Sir 39:13), well of living water,"* "enclosed garden,"* "city of God," "sealed fountain,"* "spotless mirror" (Wis 7:26), "tower of David,* "lily among thorns,"* "precious olive (Sir 24:19), "star of the sea."
Such poetry survived the Council of Trent's purifications to influence the beautifully mysterious titles in the Litany of Loreto, the official Litany of the Blessed Virgin (1575). Notice that nearly all are metaphors for Mary's sinless body--her lap, womb, vagina, and neck (by extension signifying her whole figure). These phrases are:
Mirror of Justice: As "unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness (Wis 7:26) Mary would necessarily reflect Divine justice.
Seat of Wisdom: She is the living throne of Christ who is Divine Wisdom.
Cause of Our Joy: She is the means through which the Joy of the Redeemer came into the world.
Spiritual Vessel, Vessel of Honor, Singular Vessel of Devotion: "Vessel" can stand for body, Mary's body being uniquely graced for "containing" Christ. Possible allusion to a virtuous High Priest as "a vessel of beaten gold, studded with precious stones" (Sir 50:9) because Mary offers Christ to us.
Mystical Rose: This is an ancient symbol of love, beauty, and femininity, Our Lady's favorite flower. cf: (Sir 50:8).
Tower of David, Tower of Ivory: These citadels are both well-guarded (SoS 4:4) and splendid (SoS 7:4) images of the Bride's beauty.
House of Gold: Solomon's Temple was richly adorned with gold.
Ark of the Covenant: Mary is the blessed resting place of God.
Gate of Heaven: Through the Incarnation in her virgin body, the Shut Gate (Ez 44:2) and the Jacob's Gate of Heaven (Gn 28:17) are opened to us.
Morning Star: Mary signals the coming dawn of Salvation (Sir. 50:6 and SoS 6:9).
And so it was. We used to learn our Marian theology through symbols. They shaped our art and inspired our prayer. Surely the time has come to reclaim that heritage, to reconstruct a culture described by art historian Emile Male in which "everything in the world admired by man is only a reflection of the Virgin's beauty."
“Perhaps someone with an “St.” before their name.”
Sorry, but he isn’t dead yet. That is required for you to listen, I take it?
Plus, there’s that creepy exhumation of the body in this whole “process”. Do they still take relics when they do that?
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. Today, there are more than 30,000 different non-Catholic Churches all claiming to have the "Truth". When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
“Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the “sheep” (the faithful).”
Constantine founded the Roman Catholic Church. The Church Christ referred to is the body of believers, not a specific organization. Organizations are of men.
“The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.”
Ah, but who in the Catholic Church interprets Scripture? Individuals.
There can obviously be more than one interpretation of scripture. Many times, that is OK. Many scriptures have multiple meanings, and are intended to be of use in different ways. However, obviously some questions only have one answer. That doesn’t mean we need to know that answer.
As an example, what is the EXACT interrelation involved in the Trinity? Although there are a number of verses that apply, God didn’t give us that answer. Therefor, it is a bad question to ask - although many in the church have done so, with many bitter disagreements.
This is an example of the sinfulness of man, not the imperfection of the Word.
The Eucharist - literally flesh and blood, or spiritually flesh and blood? I think the interpretation is very obvious - he is speaking spiritually, just as he was when talking about how he who eats and drinks will not hunger or thirst. I also think a literal interpretation is contrary to ‘do this in remembrance of me’, and it encourages the belief that we sacrifice Jesus many times. But the point of scripture is that we need to observe it, not try to understand every part of it in a philosophical manner.
One of the great errors of the young church was to fall prey to philosophy - trying to make God understandable, when no human can do so.
Some things are pretty clear cut. Are we supposed to focus on Mary, and call her Queen of Heaven and pray to her? Nope! Jesus made that very clear in Luke 11. He made it clear every time he addressed her...”Woman”. The Apostles made it very clear by making no mention of her at all - none. Zero. Not a single line in any epistle mentions her in any way. Meanwhile, many verses make it clear that we are to approach JESUS with confidence. We don’t need a mediator to Him. Jesus doesn’t meed Mary to explain human needs to Him. God is the King, and Mary isn’t His Mother or Spouse. She isn’t “Mrs God”. In a physical sense she was His mother, but not in a spiritual sense - Jesus existed before the world began.
Catholics say they do not worship Mary, but having read the declaration of her feast day, I’d like to know - if that isn’t worship, what is? If a woman crying, “Blessed are the breasts that nursed you” was misguided, and focusing on the wrong thing, then what is “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...”?
Purgatory is another doctrine that isn’t optional. It isn’t that it just isn’t mentioned in scripture, it contradicts the very basis of our salvation. If God’s forgiveness is only partial, then the sacrifice of Jesus wasn’t whole. We might as well go back to killing goats.
The concept of indulgences is another. Forgiveness for sale? One might as well bottle the wine used in the Eucharist, and offer it for sale...buy the BIG bottle, if your sins are many!
Now, about the 30,000 denominations - they don’t exist. The guy who developed that number used a definition of denomination not shared by anyone else. He says there are 8,196 Protestant denominations, and 2,942 Roman Catholic denominations. In his counting, a lot depends on how ‘jurisdiction’ is defined. Since each church in the Southern Baptist Convention is autonomous, every church in my denomination is considered a denomination of its own...and when you use a standard like that, 30-40,000 may be possible.
Yet if you took the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith to a Baptist Church, perhaps 80-90% would agree to it. The only major split I know of among Baptists is free will vs predestination, and the large majority of Baptists I’ve known had no real opinion on either.
However, you might notice that the numbers for Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox don’t add up anywhere close to 30,000 - that figure includes many faith traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity.
Agreed.
And as this article clearly demonstrates, for good reason, since no way can chr*stianity be read into the "letter" of the Hebrew Bible.
It's a good thing the church fathers lived so long ago, or the sophisticated Catholics who chuckle at the trailer park prophets would be laughing their heads off.
First off my friend. I do not dislike Mr. MacArthur. I love him dearly. He helped wake me up from my own “private” hermeneutic’s. I simply did not know whether to accept his Calvinism as well. Therefore, I sought out the early Christians, and chose to trust them rather than the modernist christian interpretation. Therefore, I am also not Roman Catholic. I am Orthodox...and yes, they understand Greek just fine. After all, they never stopped using it, and they have followed St. Paul to the letter when he wrote. “So then, brethen, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Miriam's role was not her characteristics or value, 1. Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers 2. Joseph is descended from King David. 3. The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad 4. If a woman who has no brothers marries a man of the same tribe 5. Joseph and Miriam are married (each descended from King David)
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
but her bloodlines to King David,
having no brothers and
the exception started by
the daughters of Zelophehad.
There are five things that are important here:
and is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.
(These were daughters who had no brothers)
is in effect (Numbers 26, 27, 36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7).
She can inherit forever.
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Yah'shua (Messiahship).
You just made my point; you are your own pope. There can be only one Truth and one interpretation of that particular truth. The Eucharist IS literally flesh and blood. How dow we know? Because our Lord told us so. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. His listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction? On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
And what was their reaction? In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. John 6:66 tells us that "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood."
“They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?”
Because their hearts were bad, and their rejection of his teaching was a manifestation of their rejection of him. They were not following him as God, or because they sought the truth, but because of miracles. They were ‘disciples’ looking for an earthly King, perhaps.
In any case, we read, “63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”
Why did Jesus speak in parables? “9 And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, 10 he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.”
And as John 6 makes plain, not all his disciples were true either. They didn’t get an explanation because they wouldn’t have received it anyways.
“You just made my point; you are your own pope...”
In a sense. I am the one who will be judged for my life, so I am responsible for the decisions I make. On that day, it won’t help me to say, “But I trusted the Pope!” Not when we know that many Popes have been flagrantly evil men, with no sign at all of knowing or or caring about God.
In Matthew 16, we read, “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
It isn’t what others say that counts for us, “But who do you say that I am?”
“There can be only one Truth and one interpretation of that particular truth. “
If we are to accept the Roman Catholic Church’s official position on Scripture and doctrine, then how do we reconcile it when they change their minds?
If there can be only one interpretation and their interpretation is the only one allowed (which is a false reading of 2 Peter 1:20), then were they wrong in their interpretation before? What of the teaching regarding “limbo”? Benedict the 16th CHANGED THAT, did he not? Was all previous teaching on the subject error? What else do they have wrong?
Scripture is not a great mystery, only for the sages in robes, but is the Great Mystery - God’s Gift to us! Be mindful of Mark 7:5-7......
(5) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”
(6) He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
(7) They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ (8) You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
Can you give an example of the Catholic Church changing her position on Scripture?
“Can you give an example of the Catholic Church changing her position on Scripture?”
Not with only a cursory reading of your church’s history. I can certainly find examples that question dogma like Papal Infallibility, though.
Honorius comes to mind.
Quite a lot of PRACTICE has changed. Such as the selling of indulgences.
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.