With some of your time you might want to read
Posted on 12/03/2012 2:15:56 AM PST by DouglasKC
btw, the free interpretation has led to the British-Israeliism as discussed above...
I meant Joseph Smith. Sorry, I keep mixing up the two names when typing. Normally on a Mormon thread I would refer to him as J Smith. Too used to abbrev/s like eggs and b....
Apology accepted in full. My apologies to you for not following the ensuing conversation in detail. Skimming through it, there seems to be some useful info there, some of which I was already somewhat dimly aware.
In the context you first used Joseph Smith it was all perfectly logical, and most likely quite accurate as to how the "lost tribes" + Egyptology entered into his mishmash in the first place. Smith turned back the clock, wrote a prequel, plagiarizing the original OT, inserting the "lost" theories, while also claiming to be the sole finder of this lost information, thus the [manufactured] claims of "restored Gospel", which if closely followed leave adherents going through life like white-knuckle dry drunks, needing to display perfection in this life, on their way to achieving their own "god hood" by their "works".
The more I look into it, the more insidious it appears. Yet there is still hope, for present day Mormons (many of them, I get the impression) rely more upon the words of Christ, leaving behind [hopefully] specifically Joseph Smith initiated theology. But here I speak of individuals, and their salvation which may be obtained through Christ, not Mormon theology itself, for it is a distortion beyond repair.
Don't you just love those who assert that everyone possesses the ability to accurately interpret Scripture....except for those who disagree with their interpretation.
Peace be with you
Which extends into Catholicism to a degree, but the issue is whether there are limits, and the hyper allegorical hermeneutic of the borg, allows most anything, except that it must follow bord himself.
Historically those who have contradicted core truths (apostle’s creed, primacy of Scripture, salvation by grace versus merit..) have been contended against by evangelicalism as heretics and cults or cultic, depending the degree, as seen in the many evangelical works addressing this subject (including Martin’s “Kingdom of the cults,” which refutes British-Israeliism at length), and which the numerous classic commentaries also reveal. But which does not preclude being able to disagree to varying degrees about other things.
Within Rome herself there are also different degrees of required assent to teachings depending on which level of magisterial teaching such belongs to, though that may not be always easy to precisely discern.
And even within and without what is taught there are a great many things RCs also can and do disagree on, in addition to those which they are allowed to by lack of effective discipline.
And as very few specific texts have been infallibly defined, and RC principals of interpretation are quite broad, the RC has great liberty to interpret Scriptures to support Rome’s traditions, even if she herself does not officially invoke them.
But the borg takes liberty to a radical new level.
There are many misconceptions and misunderstandings of the Church, none greater than the Protestant views of infallibility. With only two exceptions in the last 2,000 years, the Church teaches from a presumption of communion and harmony. It only speaks when the Traditions and teachings are challenged. In fact, it was in response to challenges that the creeds were issued and later in response to new challenges the need for a formal canon was recognized and a canon infallibly declared. The canon was not something made up on spot, but affirmed, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, from among the competing arguments. It has been that way for every Ecumenical Council.
The teaching authority is not entrusted to a views or interpretations of a single person, or a private revelation, or not even a saint or a doctor of the Church, but on the consensus of the Episcopacy that makes up the living Magisterium. There are many matters still presumed to be governed by the Traditions, communion and harmony of the Church, but that will someday be infallibly declared in response to a challenge. When that happens it will be by the same Holy Spirit that has guided the Magisterium since the first Pentecost. Even Papal infallibility, that has only been invoked twice, is done, ex cathedra, from the Chair of St. Peter, by a person chosen by a consensus of persons guided by the Holy Spirit. It is a perfect process carried out by imperfect men. Error is the exception, Communion is the norm and it makes squabbles over personal interpretations seem petty and irrelevant.
Peace be with you.
While retaining all the power......
Though there is much confusion.....
More historical critical and doubtful every day.....
God's eye is on the sparrow....
While the Pope's eye is on the prize
All hail Palestine!
Vatican, Israel Spar Over Disputed Last Supper Site - by Daniel Estrin - April 5, 2012
Expose: The Vatican Wants to Lay its Hands on Jerusalem - By Giulio Meotti, Italy - 12/15/2011
Vatican rejects “chosen people” claim, calls on Israel to end “occupation” -Edited: 30 October, 2010
“Warning - The links on this page are valuable sources of information but there is no guarantee that all of the information provided is the truth. The truth is elusive at best and if you wish to find it you must listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research.”
“This is the age of deception. We are engaged in an information war. Links will take you to many other websites containing varying degrees of personal belief, religious dogma, truth, lies, misinformation, and disinformation. We urge you to practice due diligence in your quest for truth.” (Warnings credited to William Cooper)
The teaching authority is not entrusted to a views or interpretations of a single person, or a private revelation, or not even a saint or a doctor of the Church, but on the consensus of the Episcopacy that makes up the living Magisterium. There are many matters still presumed to be governed by the Traditions, communion and harmony of the Church, but that will someday be infallibly declared in response to a challenge. When that happens it will be by the same Holy Spirit that has guided the Magisterium since the first Pentecost. Even Papal infallibility, that has only been invoked twice, is done, ex cathedra, from the Chair of St. Peter, by a person chosen by a consensus of persons guided by the Holy Spirit. It is a perfect process carried out by imperfect men. Error is the exception, Communion is the norm and it makes squabbles over personal interpretations seem petty and irrelevant.
Thank you ,NL. You worded this perfectly!
Our Blessed Lord is with you for sure!
It sure gets blamed for a lot of stuff (i.e., paying alms to get your dead mother out of Purgatory).
Except that is not what anyone asserts, at least not me. Those who want to insist that only "their" church has the sole charisma of understanding the Word of God and deciding what is to be believed by all, of course, will disparage anyone else who seeks to know God's truth as revealed in Holy Scripture by the guidance and illumination of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Word of God stands as the source of God-breathed revelation and ALL claims to Christian truth must be judged by it.
A private interpretation of it's own self & role, the RCC has. Those East of her, do not agree. Those West of her, neither. The rootstock onto which she was grafted, the children of Israel take exception to the over-reaching extent of the claim, even more than a more limited acknowledgement of the grafting procedure, which brings Jew and Christian, to the same God revealed to them through her own prophets in times of greater antiquity. The Romish claim is interwoven through much of her man-made bulwark of both canon law and apologia, showing the "private" interpretation, regardless of he head counts at select Roman church councils.
In some regards, I guess everybody is out of step except our boy Johnny. Self declared leader, he is, always looking for the high seat, to be seen. Or at least that's how it worked out in the Middle Ages, with some real foul individuals claiming the seat, among other things. Power grabs, mixtures of church/state, grinding all opposition under it's (at times) profane arches, in the cruelest fashions... Which breaks the "linage" claim of some imagined Holiness residing in the edifice itself (for if it were to be passed down from individual to individual, some were clearly skipped over!) all of which helps everyone see THAT for what it truly is, with it ending up being like those Jews of old saying to the Lord Himself "we have Abraham to our Father". That's a pretty nervy posture to hold. One will need a Moses to intercede on their behalf, lest the Lord in His fury simply destroy them all. Which leads us all [theologically] back to Jesus, as intercessor for the sins of man.
The Reformation was a much needed correction. Get over it. Quit blaming everything except the rot that was in Rome at the time.
The Rome as home thing (for all things to do with the Lord, once and for all --- everyone else is simply wrong for disagreeing) is Supersessionism on steroids, for it nearly entirely leaves out the Jews, or when they are recognized as holding some sort of lesser status, those choices are turned off and on like a light switch, as history shows indeed has occurred. The Inquisition was aimed at (along with some "reform" minded folks) both Muslim and Jewish, but mainly Jewish conversos, suspected of claiming conversion, yet secretly harboring their own private religious thoughts which differed from State/Church agreement as to what should be "believed". The RCC, in conjunction with the arm of State, murdered several hundred thousand, (some by starvation, a few burned alive here & there) just in the Spanish chapter of the Inquisition alone (even as proper instinct in higher echelon of RCC tried to reel that horrible effort in -- they didn't try hard enough!) Yet we are to believe solemn councils are to have been "infallibly led" by the Holy Spirit? Tough sell, that one...
Speaking of British Israeli theory. haruPH! The way that comment has been used here at the last and then conflated is despicable. Blind teachings from blind guides. The errors of that theory, do not prove complete error of the Reformers. It's an apples and oranges comparison, which we see daily in RCC apologetic, who's overall consistent overreach has shot it's own credibility to pieces. We must look elsewhere for more complete truth, so that we may more fully understand.
If this were not true, RCC apologists would not be reduced to claiming infallible perfection for select "councils" or the paperwork (dogma) that has been developed & produced over the centuries...for the inerrant Spirit would be more to the forefront, not just in those select things apologists can cover with claim of "Spirit".
As to the identity of the Harlot, I'll not go so far as to name the RCC. Yet at the same time, we can see in history, and in this present day, a spirit of co-mingling things of this world with those given us by the Lord, but not only (or much at all, certainly not totally!) by the present day RCC, for there are those ministers there today whom see clearly that they cannot so much effectively tell others Christ is Lord and end up with the desired results, as much as they can help lead others to discovering for themselves that truth, just as Peter himself learned the truth. The same goes for best & most proper evangelization outside of the RCC also, unless one prefers to ignore Vatican II (which confesses there are indeed real Christians beyond it's own walls) thus shutting out any real discussion, pretending or holding the view that evangelization, a leading of others to receive the Spirit of the Lord, a near impossibility if not in Romish style.
Which of course, is how I know these things, seeing there in those other churches too (not Rome alone, or in particular
), those whom mistake church itself for being truly representative of Christ. Meeting the Lord there, finding confirmation there of His promises, people can fall into mistaking their own church's way for His own Way. Much error can be committed in that way, that mistaken identification of just who we are, in relation to God, with the resulting confusion again having led us to a veritable Tower of Babel of conflicting views and voices, reminding us too of why the Lord first struck them then --- to prevent them then at that time from building with their own hands, a tower to reach the heavens, even God's own heavens.
Meanwhile, "church", wherever it is, under whichever banner, when departing from that properly obtained knowledge of Christ themselves, taking "lovers" on the side as it were, mixing in worldliness for worldliness gain, slaying all those whom oppose such occasionally monstrous blasphemies, can in ways be seen as "the Harlot", when manifesting that spirit.
Outside of churches, (compared to those inside of them but still in opposition to Him, even with praises for Him on their lips, who are part "Babylon" in their hearts) is the other portion of Babylon --- mankind's governmental/religious/political systems which oppose the Creator and His own desire (thus also oppose Christ) and slay whichever true prophets stand in opposition to their own selfish pleasures/powers/gain whenever such prophets arise among them, in times and cultures far & wide.
When the rider of the white horse arrives to make war with her (the Harlot) she falls/will fall. That we can see as portion of the Gospel, the good news that He will set all things aright, sparing those washed in His blood, even the blood seen on the hem of His own garment. If I am mistaken, and that not be the blood from his washing of the robes he gives to His beloved, it may be the blood of those fallen in conflicts far from Him and His spirit, when man errs, heading not His voice ... then in a fashion it be the blood of His own grief(?) for the shed blood of His own creation (mankind) acting upon our own wills which He imbued us with, in making man in His own likeness?
The life is in the blood. I am uncertain of just what the blood on the hem of the garment of the rider of the white horse spiritually is to be otherwise defined, so speak here out loud searching for possibility.
Otherwise, I have heard in the spirit from Him directly, such type of grief in regards to man warring upon man, one group going out of their way to stir conflict by way of a single particular act, the other (fated?) to reacting, responding with force, and the grief in Him for such as was shown, was profound. This was shown to me, allowed to be palpably sensed, some time before that one day.
I am overall in my communications in this note, sharing as best as I can how I am directed, led to believe upon reflection of various things; so may be freely enough disregarded if one so chooses. The last, concerning His grief over war & conflict...that particular one, continuing to this very day, being much a part of the overall wider scene, I can only tell you is not my "opinion" or mere belief at all, but what was truly in Him, as I assume he allowed me to sense it, revealing it, thus sharing that, even with a lowly nobody such as myself. I cannot say that I know Him deeply, greatly intimately, but I do know the sound of His voice. My heart aches for Him, whenever I think about that grief, think about that day, what He allowed me to "hear" of it --- confirmation that it would transpire as I had heard in the spirit months earlier was the intent of the hijackers, that and the grief, nothing more.
Which is why it, and its main propagator, is so roundly considered aberrant and only held by a cultic few.
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume4/BritishIsraelism.htm
http://www.watchman.org/reltop/britisrl.htm
http://watch.pair.com/brit-israel.html
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/britishisrael.htm
http://www.bible.ca/pre-british-israelism-foy-wallace.htm
I for my part see much ignorance among RCs about infallibility. Despite your inference that I expressed a misconception that your essay corrects, and that it is all accurate, nothing of your essay refutes what i said.
Which was: “Very few specific texts have been infallibly defined, and RC principals of interpretation are quite broad, the RC has great liberty to interpret Scriptures to support Rome’s traditions, even if she herself does not officially invoke them.”
Jimmy Akin in Catholic Answers (”The Limits of Scripture Interpretation’) states,
As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent…”
And that “The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty”
- http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp
“The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm
Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples stated “There is a lot of freedom with regard to the interpretation of Scripture.” Tim affirmed that even the verses infallibly defined by the Roman Catholic Church “are left open to other interpretations as long as you don’t deny that which has been infallibly interpreted.” (http://tquid.sharpens.org/staples_infallible_1.mp3)
For even the arguments and reasons behind an infallible decree are not necessarily infallible:
“’the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based..” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
And usually, not “only” as you say, an infallible pronouncement is made only when some doctrine has been called into question, and does Rome not only speak infallibly to dogmatize an issue that had been indisputably settled prior to it, as knowledge about the debate about papal infallibility evidences, and similarly the canon.
In addition, while in one sense “the teaching authority is not entrusted to a views or interpretations of a single person,” as the Pope is part of a church, yet, as Vatican II stated,
it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
However, RCs are not certain how many times Rome has spoken infallibly (including the canonizations of saints, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, etc.) even when by the Pope himself:
Hahn has proposed a two-statement canon of ex cathedra papal statements. But apologist Tim Staples says there are at least four, and likely very many more. In his audio tape series, “All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” he berated those who state that popes have only spoken infallibly on two occasions. Staples mentioned the two ex cathedra statements to which Hahn refers, and then adds at least two more, referring first to pope Boniface VIII’s statement Unam Sanctam (1302), and second, to St. Leo’s letter to Flavian* which was examined and approved by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. (refs: http://www.examiningbeliefs.com/apol75.htm)
And not only can what level a teaching falls under be open to some interpretation, but so can their meaning to some degree, (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/official-interpretation-of-private.html)
And which includes how much if any dissent is allowed to non-infallible teachings (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm), presuming you know what they are.
Thus my statement is correct, as is the reality that Catholics under sola ecclesia can also disagree about many things, (http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/disagrementsssandse.html) in addition to what they dissent on.
Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.
Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076
I was shocked to find out that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (which asserts that "from the first moment of her conception the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by the singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of mankind, kept free from all stain of original sin") was defined only in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in his bull Ineffabilis Deus. The dogma was only a little over a century old! And I found it futile to argue that even though the definition was late, the teaching had been universally held beforehand. Not so! Right up to the very time of the definition, various parties contested its orthodoxy. ...
I sadly concluded that the erroneous Roman understanding of original sin had led to another erroneous teaching, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The dogma was clearly an unwarranted innovation.
It was much the same with the dogma of papal infallibility. This doctrine asserts that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, "from the throne," or officially, on matters of faith and morals, he teaches infallibly. Thus the whole Church is bound by his teaching. - Orthodoxy and Catholicism, "What are the differences;" http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/12/lay-roman-catholic-and-eastern-orthodox.html See also
Amen. And they both operate under the same premise of being the one true church in particular, and with their church being the supreme authority.
There are some “evangelical” type SDA’s who want to minimize Ellen and marginalize the fundamental SDAs (and liberal Prots who accommodate them), but the latter have the authority as they represent the historical SDA based on its core writings, like as fundamentalists Muslims do.
As with Judaism, British Israelism asserts theologically related claims of a genetic link to the early Israelites. As such, it is based on a genealogical construct. This belief is typically confined to the geo-political status or the prophetical identity of the nation, not to the individual's superiority or salvation status with God.
Due to the diverse structure of the movement, other elements of its belief and its key doctrines may be embraced by individual adherents. British Israel theology varies from the conventionally Protestant Christian. More extreme forms include the Christian Identity Movement, which has some historic roots in British-Israelism[31] The core belief of British Israelism is that the Anglo-Saxon peoples of Britain and Northern Europe have a direct genetic connection to the Ancient Israelites mentioned in the Bible. Most British Israel movements believe that personal, individual salvation is open to all people.
Human genetics does not support British Israelism's notion of a close lineal link between Jews and Western Europeans. Genetic research on the Y-chromosomes of Jews has found that Jews are closely related to other populations originating in the Middle East, such as Kurds, Turks, Armenians and Arabs, and concluded that:
Middle Eastern populations...are closely related and...their Y chromosome pool is distinct from that of Europeans. (Nebel, 2001.)[32]
Y-DNA Haplogroups J2 and, to a lesser extent, J1 are most commonly identified in Jewish people, which is in contrast to Western Europeans. The more distant Haplogroup R1b is the most commonly identified in Europeans.[33][34][35][36]
Critics of British Israelism note that the arguments presented by promoters of the theory are based on unsubstantiated and highly speculative amateur research. Tudor Parfitt, author of The Lost Tribes: The History of a Myth, states that the proof cited by adherents of British Israelism is "of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre." (Parfitt,2003. p. 61.)[37]
Other critics cite similar problems:
“When reading Anglo-Israelite literature, one notices that it generally depends on folklore, legends, quasi-historical genealogies and dubious etymologies. None of these sources prove an Israelite origin for the peoples of northwestern Europe. Rarely, if ever, are the disciplines of archeology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics or historiography applied to Anglo-Israelism. Anglo-Israelism operates outside the sciences. Even the principles of sound biblical exegesis are seldom used, for...whole passages of Scripture that undermine the entire system are generally ignored...Why this unscientific approach? This approach must be taken because to do otherwise is to destroy Anglo-Israelism's foundation.” (Orr, 1995)[38]
Proponents of British Israelism claim numerous links in historical linguistics between ancient Hebrew and various European place names and languages.[39][40] As an example; proponents claim that “British” is derived from the Hebrew words “Berit” and “Ish”, and should therefore be understood as “Covenant Man”. Critics, however, argue that these words have other roots and that this interpretation of the Hebrew is incorrect.[41] Another example is Rhys' assertion of equivalence between Cymry and Cimmerian, which is at odds with the generally accepted derivation of Cymry from an earlier Celtic form *kom-broges, meaning "people of the same country"; only the modern form of the word looks similar.[42][43] Yet another example is the alleged connection between the 'Tuatha Dé Danann' and the Tribe of Dan. Secular sources indicate that the true root of this phrase is the 'People of the Goddess Danu'.[44] Other links are claimed, but cannot be substantiated and contradict the findings of academic linguistic research. This shows conclusively that English belongs to the Indo-European language family and is unrelated to Hebrew, which is a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family. “No trace of the slightest real connection can be discovered” between English and ancient Hebrew. (Greer, 2004. p74.)[45][46]
Adherents of British Israelism cite various scriptures in support of the argument that the Northern Israelite Tribes were lost. Critics argue that British Israelists misunderstand and misinterpret the meaning of these scriptures.[38][47][48]
British Israelism rests on linking different ancient populations. This includes links between the "lost" tribes of Israel, the Scythians, Cimmerians, Celts, and modern Western Europeans such as the British. To support these links, adherents claim that similarities exist between various cultural aspects of these population groups, and they argue that these links demonstrate the migration of the "lost" Israelites in a westerly direction. Examples given include burial customs, metalwork, clothing, dietary customs, and more.[50] Critics argue that the customs of the Scythians and the Cimmerians are in contrast with those of the Ancient Israelites.[48][51] Further, the so-called similarities and theories proposed by adherents are contradicted by the weight of evidence and research on the history of ancient populations. It does not provide support for the purported links.[52]
Parfitt suggests that the idea of British Israelism was inspired by numerous ideological factors, such as the desire for ordinary people to have a glorious ancestral past, pride in the British Empire, and the belief in the "racial superiority of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants".[39]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism#Compatibility_with_present-day_research_findings
You should realize that the feast of The Immaculate conception is a major event in the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrated on December 9th and is very traditional because it's completely historical according to the EO's.
The issue The EO's have is they don't believe in original sin and they did not like the scholastic terminology
Here is a good article that was posted n FR from 2003
Eastern Christianity and the Immaculate Conception
Answer by Anthony Dragani on 11-04-2003:
Dan,
Thank you for the kind words.
Concerning the Eastern Catholic understanding of the Immaculate Conception, I will offer a very brief summary of the issue. First, the theological seeds of the Immaculate Conception originated in the East, and were later spread to the West. Since the earliest centuries the Eastern Churches have celebrated "St. Anne's Conception of the Theotokos," on December 9. Only later was this feast transplanted to the West, where it is celebrated on December 8.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches we have maintained much of the theological heritage of the Eastern Church Fathers. We try to be very Patristic in our theology, and generally model our theological approach after the great Eastern Fathers. In the West theology has developed somewhat differently. Beginning in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a whole new style of theology developed, known as Scholasticism. Scholasticism utilized a great deal of philosophical terminology from the writings of Aristotle. It essentially created a whole new way to approach theological questions, and answered them with very specific philosophical terminology. Scholasticism was the dominant theological system in the Western Church until the beginning of the 20th century.
In 1854 Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Being a good Western theologian, he used a great deal of scholastic terminology in the definition. Here it is, with the specifically scholastic terms emphasized by me:
"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the MERITS of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every STAIN of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful."
There are two terms used in the definition that are completely foreign to Eastern Christian theology: "merits" and "stain." Both of these terms are of very late origin, and came to mean very specific things in the scholastic system. But to us Eastern Christians, who still use only the theological expressions of the Church Fathers, these terms are completely alien. So is this a problem, or isn't it?
I don't believe that this a problem at all. If something is written in a language that you can't understand, you simply TRANSLATE it! With some very basic knowledge of scholastic theological terminology, what Pope Pius IX is saying becomes very obvious: From the very first momemnt of her existence, Mary was miraculously preserved from all sin. We Easterns would go even a step further: she wasn't just preserved from sin, but was graced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Also, the definition speaks of Mary being "free from every stain of original sin." In the East we have always spoken of Mary's perfect holiness. The language "free from every stain of original sin" is really a somewhat negative formulation in comparison. In fact, this definition speaks of Mary as being "absent of something (the stain of sin)," while we would prefer to speak of her as being "full of something (the Holy Spirit)." In this regard I think that the Eastern approach makes a marvelous contribution to the understanding of this dogma. So does Pope John Paul II:
"In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary's holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition." (Pope John Paul II, General Audience June 12, 1996)
So, the Holy Father agrees that the Eastern understanding of the Immaculate Conception actually helps to elucidate the meaning behind the definition.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1034793/posts
“Don’t you just love those who assert that everyone possesses the ability to accurately interpret Scripture....except for those who disagree with their interpretation.”
That’s a falsehood. Protestants don’t claim that the various pseudochristians don’t have the ability, just that they’re not exercising it.
“btw, the free interpretation has led to the British-Israeliism as discussed above...”
Protestants pretty much universally denounce the BI’s and the Philadephians, just like the Catholics. So, what are you after? Would you like us to burn them at the stake?
How would the Catholic, “no free interpretation” doctrine stop such heresies from appearing? People have freedom of worship now, if they want to make up their own religion, the Catholics can’t stop them any more than the Protestants can. I can cite plenty of heretical “Catholic” groups as evidence of that.
So, what’s your proposed solution? Repeal the 1st Amendment and go back to state religions?
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.
