Posted on 04/13/2013 2:54:16 PM PDT by NYer
You posted that list to me .. I never brought up Luther's name. Balance? Where is that?
The Church is only infallible in her definitions on faith and morals. The proof is that, although comprised of fallible "earthen vessels", the Church has never erred in her definitions of faith and morals in spite of the flawed humans who serve her. You still trust that infallibility when you read the Bible.
Peace be with you.
As do I!!! And that is precisely the point. Images convey a message to the illiterate, deaf or those not familiar with the language of a particular country. Voice transmits a message to the blind. From the time of Christ's death until Guttenberg produced the first bible in 1450, most people relied upon the oral and/or visual transmission of the salvation message. They did not have bibles because they were too costly. Today, we are overwhelmed with bibles from so many different sources that we are confronted with a new risk, that of reading one that is not faithful to the original.
God bless you, Elsie, on stepping back and opening your mind and heart to history and reality. And that brings us back to the original message given by Pope Francis.
The Catholic faith is not centered simply on a book -- the Bible -- but on Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh, Pope Francis said.
A bit of misunderstanding between sin and infallibility. Infallibility only applies to matters of faith. The question is not, can the Popes sin but did they pronounce some error in defining a matter of faith.
Christ’s mother is Mary
Christ is God
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.
Which one do you deny? A or B?
He said, “Behold our mother.” to the apostle John.
What’s that got to do with misnaming Mary to fit an agenda?
When it is recorded that Jesus addressed Mary, He addressed her as “Woman”, never as “Mom” or “Mother” or any other title.
So a mortal woman gives birth to God, eh?
Can you say “Mormonism”?
Same error.
To the first century Jews addressing Mary in public as "Woman" was far more respectful and endearing than addressing her as Mother or Mary.
It is far more important that you understand that Mary is referred to as "the woman" in Genesis 3:15.
Peace be with you
Is this the same Genesis chapter 3 that never really happened?
Christ is God
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God."
Which one do you deny? A or B?"
Well, I certainly do not deny John 8:58, "Jesus said to them,'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."
Now, which Roman heresy would you prefer to trot out to deny Jesus pre-existed Mary?
It happened every bit as much as did John 6:41-59 did it not? You will have to determine for yourself if they were symbolic, allegorical or literal. Fortunately, I have the guidance of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Magisterium to guide me.
Peace be with you
Not according to those Catholics who use a rejection of the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis as a cultural marker to distinguish themselves from Protestants. Are you not one of that number?
As for John 6, that's not in my Bible so it's not my problem. However, Genesis is very assuredly in the Catholic bible, however embarrassing that may now be to them.
Peace be with you
Forgive me for asking, but I'm curious: Do you all your posts that way out of a sincere expression of peace are do you merely use it to be smarmy? Surely you know if the latter that you aren't going to win any converts that way.
It most assuredly is sincere and not smarmy. Peace is a gift that can only come from Christ that is shared among the faithful. The traditional response is "And with your spirit" to acknowledge the presence of the Holy Spirit. From the earliest Christians the sign of peace was both a greeting and a blessing and is today still a part of the Liturgy. Those I believe do not worship and love God do not receive it from me, but instead receive my prayers.
Peace be with you
Rather, it is RCs who cannot humbly admit that their church overall did not place a priority on reading and Bible literacy among the laity, even whenn it could effect it, and in fact often hindered it (which some Catholic authors admit), in contrast to such believers as the Puritans in passing the "The Old Deluder Act" (1647) below.
And literacy rates during the 18th century were comparatively quite good in the colonies, with about half of the men being able to read. The higher literacy rates helped spread many of these ideas throughout the colonies during the 1700s. (Danzer, Gerald A. "The Commercial North." The Americans. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell/Houghton Mifflin, 1998)
And showing what could be done sometimes, WP says of Sweden:
The 1686 church law (kyrkolagen) of the Kingdom of Sweden (which at the time included all of modern Sweden, Finland, and Estonia) enforced literacy on the people, and by 1800 the ability to read was close to 100%. But as late as the 19th century, many Swedes, especially women, could not write.
More here: http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Education_in_the_United_States#Early_American_education
"The Old Deluder Act"
From Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (1853), II: 203
It being one chief project of that old deluder, satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue [alluding to Rome], so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors.
It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of those that order the prudentials of the town shall appoint; provided those that send their children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can have them taught for in other towns.
And it is further ordered, that when any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammar school, the master thereof being able to instruct youth so far as they may be fitted for the university, provided that if any town neglect the performance hereof above one year that every such town shall pay 5 pounds to the next school till they shall perform this order.
“Now, which Roman heresy would you prefer to trot out to deny Jesus pre-existed Mary?”
So you deny that Mary was Christ’s mother then. If she were not his mother, who was Christ’s mother?
Yes, we Christians call it the Virgin Birth.
Excuses, excuses.....
Fact of the matter is that neither Jesus not the Holy Spirit ever referred o Mary as the Mother of God.
That still makes it a man made construct, and an erroneous one at that.
Error is what you get when you deviate from Scripture.
It’s really quite a red flag when men presume to know better than the Holy Spirit on spiritual matters. Try sticking to Scripture and you won’t fall into error like teaching that God has a mother.
So, Metmom, I ask you the same question.
Which do you deny, that Jesus is God or that Mary is his mother?
snicker.....
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.