Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe
First, sorry if I came across as "lecturing". That is not my intention. Being that this is a religious forum meant to explore religious opinions, it sometimes can sound as "lecturing" when one does express an opinion.

If I had a dollar for every person who interpreted for me Romans 3 and concluded that either "Mary cannot be immaculate or sinless" or "all men are born totally depraved", I would have a big pile of money here. To properly read Paul, however, one must be cognizant of the context of what he quotes. And a simple reading of Psalms 5 will show that Paul is not refering to EVERY single human person. He is refering to the wicked. Paul himself admits that righteous persons DO seek out God. He tells us that even those WITHOUT THE LAW can do what is in the Law, because it is written in their hearts. By a more in-depth study, a person can conclude that ALL men universally are not evil by nature.

This is Catholic Teaching. There is no "infallible proof-texting" in Catholicism. Only about a dozen verses in the Scripture have such interpretation attached to it. What is more important than listing each and every verse and attaching an infallible statement to it is the infallible teachings of the Church. Christ established an infallible Church, not an infallible book. The Scriptures are merely PART of the Tradition (teachings) of the Apostles. The Apostles themselves have taught the Church the anthropology of man. They taught us that man is wounded, not evil by nature. Knowing this, we disregard your Romans 3 interpretation. Not only because it takes Paul out of context, but because it is not in the spirit of the teachings handed down by the Apostles.

If you desire "infallible" teachings of the Church's position on man and his woundedness (vs. being totally evil), I can do that. We can look to the Councils when they make such determinations and define the meaning of the Apostolic Tradition (Scripture, oral teachings and the daily practice of the Church, and liturgy). If you truly want to dialogue on this subject, I will give you what our Church teaches on the matter.

For example "Adam's sin is transmitted to his prosterity, not by imitation, but by descent" (De fide)

"Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God" (De fide)

"Human will remains free under the influence of efficiacious grace, which is not irresistible" (De fide)

The Teaching Church, not you and I, make such solemn and binding declarations. That is the way Christ intended, and that is the way the Church will continue to operate, until the end of time.

Regards

665 posted on 01/08/2006 9:31:32 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies ]


To: jo kus; Dionysiusdecordealcis; HarleyD; Gamecock; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Dahlseide; ...
For example "Adam's sin is transmitted to his prosterity, not by imitation, but by descent" (De fide)

That's as clear as mud. Who gets to interpret that?

"Human will remains free under the influence of efficiacious grace, which is not irresistible" (De fide)

Again that is clear as mud. If efficacious grace is not irresistible, then why is it efficacious? The only way it becomes efficacious is if you don't resist it. Hence efficacious grace is, by definition, that grace which a man cannot resist.

"Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God" (De fide)

What is that supposed to mean? Beatific Vision of God? Is heaven a mirage?

So the church has the exclusive ability to interpret scripture, but who has the authority to interpret the interpretations of the Church? You?

666 posted on 01/08/2006 9:47:02 AM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson