Posted on 03/19/2014 8:19:20 PM PDT by ealgeone
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION
PART ONE THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION TWO THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER THREE I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT
ARTICLE 9 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church
963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503
You should have finished it... then you don't know what is!
Please See #95. But the short answer to your question is that I think the Bible is materially sufficient, but not formally. To use an analogy if faith were a house then the Bible would provide all the materials to build that house. But it’s not a house. Sacred Tradition, in keeping with Sacred Scripture is what builds the house.
So it does then beg the question: Did God give us the materials and say, “figure it out for yourself?”
my personal discussions with multiple priests i have known through the years. it’s hardly a big secret.
Portions of it... as much as 70 (or even more). The Whole Book compiled in Canon? About 300 years. Was there no Church before the Book? Or better yet, was there no Church until the printing press was invented 1,400 years later? If Christianity is dependent on each believer reading his Bible and memorizing verses, that wasn't possible until 1431. This would be a church better founded by St Gutenberg rather than Christ.
men’s traditions should never trump or be considered equal to scripture.
the pharisees got wrapped up in traditions to the point they missed Christ altogther, and decided to pay someone to murder him. their traditions took them far away from God, all the while they believed they were right to crucify Jesus and persecute Christians.
Based on your premise why would it not be reasonable to hypothesize that Christ was not fully human?
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
Well that was an easy one...
And yet it was "tradition" that built New Testament Scripture...
2 Thess 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
We don't follow the "traditions of men". We follow the traditions of God (the Deposit of Faith given by Christ) which formed the basis of faith for the early Christian Church.
That's a poorly conceived challenge. It shows the weakness of your own understanding. The simple answer is that she isn't God.
The problem is that is an either/or proposition. One has to step back and realize this is not an act of “trumping” but fulfilling. One has to believe they are not simply man’s traditions but what God had intended.
As has been pointed out the Canon of Scripture wasn’t even codified until hundred of years after the Crucifixion. The Early Church conducted itself not on what was written, but what was done. Given instruction by Christ to go and do these things. One has to accept that what the early church did has meaning. The Eucharist, the forgiveness of sins. All of these things. Christ’s Church did not begin with the codification of the Bible.
Were you at NKP, Thailand? Praise Jesus.
After 2000 years and such great thinkers as St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, et al, RegulatorCountry has finally found the flaw in the Church's thinking. Or maybe... just maybe... more study is called for. By your rationale there is no such thing as free will. In which case, God wanted us to fall. There is no sin...
Check your assumptions.
... and check your Assumptions as well. 1854, 160 years. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine et al had nothing to do with it. It’s a Roman novelty with which even the Orthodox take issue.
You just discovered our great secret! Priests are human beings... and make mistakes. Our doctrines and dogmas are not secret. Much can be found in the Catechism. When you find it among official Church teachings, we'll talk. Until then, be assured what you were told was not just wrong... it was wrong with eternal consequences.
Translation: Announcing the Opening of a New Thread for Catholic-Haters! Pile On!
Don't miss this Hit Parade of Catholic-Bashing!
People in heaven are all dead! They can't hear prayers!
How can Mary hear billions of prayers at the same time?
It's just a wafer!
Catholics worship a mere woman!
No wonder their priests molest children! They aren't allowed to marry!
Just speaking for myself but as a spiritual person it is interesting to learn about other religions regardless of which one you might have been brought up in and/or still practice.
What’s wrong with it?
As to St Thomas Aquinas's position on the matter, I offer the following from the Summa Theologica:
“I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: ‘(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.’ Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): ‘Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,’ etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: ‘The glory of children are their fathers’: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?’ Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the ‘Divine Wisdom’ (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.’“We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: ‘Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,’ etc. “
What I am wondering is this: Is this what I think might be from the Babylonian religion, of the worship of the queen of Heaven, and her son Tammuz, or was she eventually called Diana of the Ephesians? Sometimes it is hard to tell where one these mythological beliefs ends and the other begins.
Note: “wasn’t codified”... should go to bed.
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.