Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I think Pope Leo XIII in 1878-1903 did not have all the facts concerning the makeup of the fetus. To say "the flesh and blood of the virgin, since the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary", shows an ignorance of biology. The egg from the woman's ovary is a distinct cell containing her genetic code (DNA) having 23 chromosomes. The sperm from the father also contains DNA and 23 chromosomes and together they create a distinct individual that never before existed and never will exist again. The baby needs only nourishment and a safe environment (from the mother, of course) to develop to term. He has his own flesh and blood quite different from the mother's and is totally separate in form. They are "hooked up" through the umbilical cord through which the baby receives nutrients and oxygen.
With Jesus, there was no human father sperm to fertilize the ovum and that was the miraculous part, as well, but he still had flesh and blood that was different from Mary's - it was all his own. I don't blame Pope Leo for this, of course, because the scientific understanding of human reproduction and genetics was only in its infancy (no pun intended). But it also brings up the question of the infallibility of the Popes and whether or not they are influenced by the Holy Spirit when they make such statements. I doubt highly that God was not aware of the facts of life.
He was not telling all of you guys to kiss the Koran, but what he did show was a complete lack of spiritual discernment ... and a need to be loved by men.. neither of these things are marks of a godly spiritual leader.. they are features of the natural man
BB,You’re overreaching . If there was no DNA in Christ that came from Mary than Christ would not be fully man
It is a common misconception that Luther was basically acting alone and in a summary manner in rejecting the apocrypha, and did not include James and Hebrews in his Bible, but from what i have learned in reality the rejecting and questioning of a few books by Luther, whose views were part inn a process of development, was based upon the judgment of scholars of Rome and scholarly principles. Luther and the Reformers treated the Apocrypha as did many in the centuries preceding them, which was that these books are not to be held as equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.
Substantial dissent existed through the centuries and right into Trent, even among some of the best scholars over the apocryphal books. (Hubert Jedin Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent: St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947; pp. 278, 281-282). Among them was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin writes that his position was “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271).
Despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence, the decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17) after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%). This definition, coming over 1400 hundreds years after the last book was written, was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation. And in so doing, it arguably chose to follow a weaker tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired, while the canon of Trent is not exactly the same as that of Carthage and other councils.
As for James and Hebrews,
“Luther's translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther also translated and included the Apocrypha, saying, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." He expressed his thoughts on the canon in prefaces placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. In these prefaces, he either questioned or doubted the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (his Catholic contemporaries, Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, likewise questioned the canonicity of certain New Testament books). Of his opinion, he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. Of the four books, it is possible Luther's opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Luther was of the opinion that the writers of James and Jude were not apostles, therefore these books were not canonical. Still, he used them and preached from them.” Five More Luther Myths
Luther's questioned Hebrews by pointing out that throughout Church history it has had a “reputation” of uncertain canonicity. Erasmus had a critical attitude to the same four New Testament books Luther did. Cardinal Cajetan questioned the canonical status of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude (among others).
“The Epistle of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap. 25) among the antilegomena (disputed books). The ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very few: It was used by no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the second century. Iren`us seems to have known the epistle (his works exhibit some apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly cites it. The Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito contains it, and Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences of it in his extant works, and according to Eusebius VI. 14, wrote commentaries upon "Jude and the other catholic epistles." (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1).” Source: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol. 1 http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/footnote/fn14.htm
“Most writing from before 200 do not mention the Epistle of James. One significant text does quote James: The Shepherd of Hermas, written before 140 M66. The theologian and biblical scholar, Origen, quotes James extensively between 230 and 250. He mentions that James was Jesus' brother, but does not make it clear if the letter is scripture M138. Hippolytus and Tertullian, from early in the third century, do not mention or quote James. Cyprian of Carthage, in the middle of the third century, also makes no mention. The "Muratorian Canon," from around 200, lists and comments on New Testament books, but fails to mention James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. Yet by 340 Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Christian historian, acknowledges that James is both canonical and orthodox, and widely read. However, he categorizes it, along with the other catholic epistles, as "disputed texts" M203. Two Greek New Testaments from that time each include James, along with the other catholic epistles M207. In 367 Athanasius lists the 27 New Testament books we presently use as the definitive canon M212. But the battle for James was not won. Bishops in 428 and 466 rejected all the catholic epistles M215. Early bibles from Lebanon, Egypt, Armenia, India and China do not include James before the sixth century M219. A ninth century manuscript from Mount Sinai leaves out the catholic epistles and the Syriac Church, headquartered in Kerala, India, continues to use a lectionary without them still today M220. — James and Canon: The Early Evidence
On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. One particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63 Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P137_49234
And it is should be stated that, as helpful as they are, ecclesiastical decrees themselves are not what established writings as Scripture (much less can ecclesiastics declare they are assuredly infallible, when speaking in accordance with their infallibly defined formula), but as with true men of God, writings which were wholly inspired of Him became progressively established as such due to their unique enduring qualities, with further revelation being complementary what was manifest prior as from God, and the moral effects and other supernatural Divine attestation which often accompanied it, and which results from trusting and obeying it. (1Cor. 2:15) More on the criteria and processes of acceptance of canonical books can be seen here.
However, it is possible to affirm Scripture as wholly inspired of God and yet deny its truth (which i do when i think or act contrary to its faith), but Roman Catholic liberal scholarship also impugns upon the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and Catholics themselves have complained that it relegates numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials. (St. Joseph’s medium size, NAB, Catholic publishing co., copyright 1970, 92)
Wow what an admission, Catholics do not get the actual flesh and blood of jesus at communion..they get the flesh and blood of Mary .... now I understand why she is so worshiped
And His DNA was 1/2 from Mary's chromosomes.
The baby needs only nourishment and a safe environment (from the mother, of course) to develop to term.
For nine months, under her skin, inside her uterus.
He has his own flesh and blood quite different from the mother's and is totally separate in form.
But of course, with half her DNA.
They are "hooked up" through the umbilical cord through which the baby receives nutrients and oxygen.
Nutrients from what she eats, oxygen from her breath, again for 9 months.
No matter how proddies try to diminish Mary, she was hardly incidental to Christ's life.
It lives!
You said "I suspect He isn’t all that pleased with the racism and elitism in yours (heart) at this moment."
Offering sacrifices to a demon is not acceptable to our Lord. Muarte is a demon.
When the Spaniards settled in Aztec territory, they saw demon worshipers cutting the hearts out of living people as a sacrifice to their demon gods. They were correct in stopping it.
Without looking at skin color or culture, I call these practices demon worship. What do you call them, "multiculturalism?"
Incidentally, crying "Racist" is often a desperate attempt to manipulate others; and more often than not, the one labeling others as "Elitist," is the actual elitist.
But I will say a prayer for you tonight that you may learn a bit of tolerance for those whom you cannot understand.
Please don't send me to the sensitivity seminar, Mr Socialist Totalatarianist.
Isa 40:6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:
Isa 40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
So what does God say about the matter??? Yor religion doesn't bother to consider what God has said, about any thing...
Our body is a shell...It hold us, It holds how we are; a living spirit and soul...
Our flesh will die and rot...UNTIL, God pulls it back together and our flesh is glorified into a heavenly body...
Obviously, Jesus had the same experience...Hid body died, Jesus body was glorified for the trip and residence in heaven...
We are created in the image of God...
Who cares what Nestor or any one of your popes say??? What does God say???
Well the thread has devolved into boring and your comments sent it into comatose.
Adios.
Put up your statistics and source or shut up.
You may as well be asking, Where does the law say a 12 year old can't drink alcohol...It doesn't does it...All is says is that you must be 18 or 21 to drink...But you can bet your life that 12 year olds are covered under the law...
And when God say to repent, or repent and be baptized, you can bet that anyone that doesn't repent is not qualified for baptism...
Babies can not repent...
You have to engage in mind reading to make that conclusion. No one other than God knows what was in his heart or what his thoughts were at that moment, but those who knew him well have offered a different assessment. They believe that JPII actually walked the walk. He believed that Christian love will conquer all evil and sought at that moment to show the world that.
Wow, I’m astonished the question of “Was Mary Sinless?” is over 1,200 posts. Of course the answer is “No”.
What’s with you Reformers. You could have saved everyone a lot of time. ;O)
Perhaps he was kissing it goodbye as being conquered by love!
If I may use this very bad analogy...
It's like when the mafia kisses someone as a brother and has them wacked the next day.
Every mother is important to their child, even if only for development.
That doesn't make Mary a deity.
Would you go to a heart surgeon's mother for a triple bypass solely based on her child's expertise?
Would you allow a mechanic's mother to adjust your brakes solely based upon her child's certification?
Mary was a wonderful, obedient servant for God. She did a very brave thing when others would have said "no" out of fear of how society would have condemned them.
There's no Biblical evidence that Mary remained a Virgin perpetually and there's no evidence of Mary being produced through immaculate conception.
We know she was a virgin while carrying Jesus. Why isn't this enough for you?
That's flame bait, frankly. You, the purported former Catholic, ought to know that Christ was the one crucified; Mary certainly suffered as much as any mother would from love of her Child; Mary's DNA was certainly 1/2 of Christ's DNA, but just as YOU are not your mother, neither was Christ His mother.
And in John 6, iirc, Christ did not say, "This is my mother's blood," He said, "This is My Blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant" and the same thing about the bread, "This is My flesh."
Putting stuff like you posted on the thread only makes proddies of whatever denomination look stupid.
Where does it say infants cannot be married? Would Rome count that as a valid marriage if the parties had no say so in the matter, and before it was consummated (and the Biblical basis for annulments is an issue itself).
Regardless, an argument from silence may be reasonable in the light of countervailing evidence such as conditions, and the requirements given in the Bible for baptism are things which an infant cannot do, namely repentance and wholehearted faith. (Acts 2:28; 8:36-38) The apostles commanded then men should repent, but never commanded infant baptism, which, considering the implications (ensuring all kids are born again), would be a most conspicuous absence is that were the case.
In addition, in the infirmity of the subject in the oft invoked example of proxy faith (Mk. 2:2-12) was physical, not cognitive. 1Cor. 7:14 is perhaps the best verse, but as in the Old Testament whole households were blessed due to one believer (even Lot's) , while circumcision, which is a type of baptism, did not make one saved, while in the N.T. salvation requires regeneration. And as that is evidenced by manifest heart and life changes, i believe empirical evidence of baptized kids versus unbaptized, other things being similar, is wanting as regards showing such.
Does not Paul mention “whole households” being baptized? Would that not include children? Did not the early church baptize infants?
Yes to all three, but simply children is not the issue. It should not take as much to save children once they are at the age in which they “know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,” (Is. 7:15) to bring them to realize Jesus loves them (He does) and their need and means of salvation. Which can happen anywhere. What is lacking is any example or reference that infants were baptized, or that they need to be. I am of the persuasion here that children to a certain indefinite degree of maturity are not culpable, and will not be punished, due to inherited guilt (2Ki. 14:5-6; 2Chr. 25:4; Jer. 31:29-30; Eze.18:20) Adam's sin did lead to condemnation, that of his own and his progeny due to man having and yielding to his a sinful nature, (Gn. 4:7) and he also and suffers the temporal effects if Adam's sin, but the final judgment is based upon one's own works. (Rev. 20:12). 24:16; Rev. 20:12-14. They may be not be said to be righteous, that of having tested virtue, but they can be considered innocent.
“no one can enter the kingdom of God without first being born of water and Spirit” as a couple of examples.
Then you have a whole household being born again, having received the same Holy Spirit and baptism as the apostles, before they touched water or had hands laid on them. (Acts 10:43-47; cf. 11:18; 15:7-9) That being said, baptism normatively is synonymous with the effectual decision to believe, as saving faith in one that is confessional in nature. (Rm. 10:9,10) and baptism is like a “sinner's prayer” in body language.
But the contrast between the flesh and the Spirit in Jn. 3:3-7, consistent with John's constant juxtaposition, best corresponds to physical birth versus spiritual birth, rather than water baptism, which Jesus did not do himself and Paul distinguished it from preaching the gospel, (1Cor./ 1:17) his prime duty in birthing souls into the kingdom of God and body of Christ. And whose members are only those who are born again, and who are baptized into it when one is born again. (1Cor. 12:13; cf. Eph. 1:13; Acts 15:7-9) To the glory of God.
Wow, what a triple Lindy off a steel pier jump to conclusions. Pope Leo XIII did not say that "Catholics do not get the actual blood and flesh of Jesus at communion". He said they were one in the same because His flesh was derived from Hers.
I don't expect you to accept that, but at least you can honestly comment on it.
Great! You agree with the Catholic Church on that point.
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.