Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
the Catholic understanding of Scripture, just as her understanding of Tradition and the Magisterium are not fly by night teachings. They are the result of years of exegesis by thousands of theologians.
Just as we see here on this thread, a word or phrase misused or misunderstood creates further confusion and debate. That is why the Church is very careful in her descriptions.
When I said that the catechism could better explain, it is because I am just a simple person who has tried to faithfully understand and accept the teachings given me by the Church. I do this because I accept, after much prayer and study, that the Church is the one church founded by Christ.
Therefore, when I write here or speak with others, I do not always say it as clearly or surely as the Church has done so in her official documents.
It is not the Church which complicates, but our human nature and free will. The Church neither accepts or rejects something out of hand. It is only after many years that a declaration as binding is made, and that usually after a challenge that compels clarification of a teaching.
Other Catholics here, I think, believe as I do, and do as I do, which is to take all that we are taught into our hearts to ponder and understand. First we must come to accept the Church and her authority. It is a very intimate relationship that one outside of it may not be able to understand.
Good point...Certainly worth pondering, again...
I'm really sorry, but the rules applied here are that you can't define your own terms. You can however use a dictionary.
So, apologies again, saying Mary was totally depraved means she was completely, entirely, wholly perverted, deviant, degenerate, debased, immoral, unprincipled; debauched, dissolute, licentious, lecherous, prurient, indecent, sordid; wicked, sinful, vile, iniquitous, nefarious; warped, twisted, sick.
But Jesus is a Person, with two natures, human and Divine; these two natures are UNITED in one PERSON. There's no “wall of separation” between His two natures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incaa3.htm
Mary is the mother of a Person. She became His mother when He took flesh in her womb. She is not merely the mother of His human nature, she is the mother of the Person Jesus, Who is God, the Second Person of the Trinity.
Nobody is saying she gave birth to his eternal, Divine nature. That's been stated time and time again in the course of this enormous thread, now more than 6,500 posts in length.
You have to go further than what you said in your post. It doesn't include the full teaching about the Incarnation, and you've taken Pope John Paul's words out of context to try to “prove” an anti-Catholic talking point. It's a cheap debating trick, and it's glaringly transparent here.
Again, the mistake is that it is only Rome that requires anything. For a Catholic, there is no distinction between Rome and Christ acting through the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit which acted through the apostles, does so now through their successors.
The protestant(and I use the term to describe any who rejects the Church’s authority)claim that the Church wrongfully teaches doctrines and traditions of men and is therefore not of the body of Christ. Indeed, Catholics have been accused of the most spurious of blasphemies and demonic attachments.
The Church says that though full communion is to be desired, that some would choose otherwise does not mean they are not Christian and a member of the body of Christ.
Which is more likely to foster unity?
Again, it all comes down to authority. It would be disingenuous indeed for any protestant here to claim that they have come to their knowledge and understanding of Scripture solely on their own without the aid or previous theology of another man/woman.
What methodology would that be?
No doubt Christ is special, but how could He purchase our redemption if He did not have a 'sin nature' that could be submitted to the will of the Father?
I think the question is in error: As far as redemption goes, it is the Lamb of God, without spot or blemish, which is sacrificed for us... That Blood is the "coin" of purchase/redemption. The purity of that offering is priceless because it is without sin.
Hebrews 4:15 - "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin."
Clearly, if he did not have a 'sin nature', He was not "tempted in every way, just as we are".
There is the sticky wicket, isn't it? His temptation, and His time in Gethsemane are quite possibly the most human moments of all. One doesn't think of God being tempted or in distress...
But then, I don't have a "hypostatic union" to defend - So I can shrug my shoulders and say, "He is God. As God, anything is possible." It is a mystery which is not revealed, and I am content to leave it that way.
Do you actually think I look for TRUTH from the Pope? LOL! Only his subjects do that.
GOD’s WORD is the FINAL AUTHORITY. Mary was obedient, a faithful servant. It ends there. Moses was obedient, Joseph, Abraham, Paul and the list goes on and on. They fulfilled their destiny - what they were called to do. Are you doing the same?
No one is called to spread heresy. Satan does that and deceives others to do the same.
I was thinking more along the lines of who Christ really is as we know Him today, as opposed to who the Jews of those days thought he was supposed to be.
The expression Theotókos, which literally means, “she who has begotten God”,
No it doesn't ether. tokos pertains to birth, not to begetting. In medicine (speaks a guy who has many times had his hand up the wrong end of a ewe) dysTOCia (dis-TOE-shia) means a difficult birth, not a difficult begetting. The Latin term Deipara - is a good translation. Deigenetrix a little more abiguous, and HERE, maybe there could be seen, mistakenly, the idea that Mary 'begat' Jesus. But 'begetting' is a job for people of the guy persuasion.
Troublemaker. :)
-Does this make sense?
Yes. Quite... Except that the written Law was held inviolate... In a similar fashion to what happens today... Or at least as it was some decades ago... Like now, the Word was added to by bolting on traditions through "oral law," supposedly passed down through the ages... This was finally written down primarily as the Mishna, but it is quite similar in design to all who use tradition equal to the Word of God.
Yours.
THANK YOU!!!!
Some day we will know all knowledge is such things are even important to us.
In the meantime, however, anyone who just comes along and claims authority to add absurdities to Scripture like Mary being ever virgin or immaculately conceived, just because they decide to and the Bible doesn’t say it didn’t happen, is out to lunch, in a really serious way. It doesn’t give the authority to make up fairy tales and fish for Scripture verse to try to prop them up and claim Scriptural support.
Nothing in there about Scripture, only Scripture, or the exclusion of the rest of the Revealed Word.
2 Timothy 3:
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Absolutely, MadDawg!!!
Which is why I detest the very idea of female priests....
Oh, I am such a dinosaur!
May God forgive me if I offend Him!
Thank you dear brother in Christ for writing!
Yes, it all helps... And I believe that the total evidence strongly outweighs Matt 23:2-3...
But Matt 23:2-3 seems to be very explicit. Without the whole evidence of context AS context, it can be taken very wrongly.
Oh, is that ever the truth dear Deo volente!
Thank you ever so much for your post!
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.