Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
Please show proof that what Paul was referring to as "tradition" is what the Catholic Church teaches today. No Catholic has been able to do that for me.
Yes, that wold be true --- but only only if we were talking about Actual Sin, the sin one commits.
It is not true of Original Sin, the sin one inherits.
At the beginning of their lives, both Adam and Eve, in Eden, enjoyed Original Innocence, Original Justice, Original Blessing, Original Grace. Despite all this, they sinned. They still had free will. So would Mary have had free will. Otherwise we are all nothing but ventriloquists' dummies, sock-puppets, androids, and this world is the Matrix and whole shebang is a farce.
No. God said *Do not bow down to the carved images.*.
It needs no *interpretation*. Everyone can see what bowing down is and it breaks God's commandment.
God says, *Do not bow down to them.*
Plain and simple.
Bowing to them is bowing to them.
I have not been following this debate closely, but here your response is more of a rant rather than dealing with the support for the alternative interpretation (which was/is not necessarily mutually incompatible in the eyes of all, incldg. Kenrick as it appears you are not reading all that Elsie posted, for that quote is prefaced by,
And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock , stated that,
Emp. mine. Here it is clearly stated that Kenrick supported Peter as the rock, and the spelling is correct, even if the end attribution has a k instead of an r, while the quote proved a link to the source (cached here ).
Thus nothing is being "hid," is misrepresented, which charge is another overreach by you, at best. It is perfectly valid to use such a statement from an author while noting that the author does not share the same conclusion as the writer who uses it, and who even provides access to the source. Some RCs authors do likewise in citing Prot authors.
You yourself invoked a edited quote of Luther that appears on some RC sites (indicating you never read the context), unaccompanied by any note stating what his argument and conclusion was, as well as utterly failing to even provide the source, let alone a link:
As Luther said, “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
RCs authors also sometime cite ECFs as if they are supporting the RC apologist when they are not. And do not even mention many other RC quotes of Luther, which also abound on the Internet.
And what would be misrepresenting Kenrick would be to invoke him as one who always supported the infallible Roman papacy as V1 declared it.
This question has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
The Second Person of the Trinity has existed from all eternity, with a divine nature.
At a point in history, he was conceived in Mary's womb. At that instant, he began to exist with a human nature. Thus, from that time forward, he will always exist with a divine nature and a human nature.
He is one divine Person with a divine nature and a human nature.
The divine Person has existed from eternity. His divine nature has existed from eternity. His human nature began to exist when Mary conceived him in her womb.
Mary conceived him in her womb and gave birth to him. She is therefore his mother.
Because Jesus Christ is ONE PERSON, who is God, and Mary is his mother, Mary is called "Mother of God."
Mary, the mother of Jesus, when she is raised from the dead at the next Resurrection, will be shocked (if she is told) to find millions of people had prayed millions of prayers to her or in her name while she was still dead.
Why would God condescend to save a damaged mother race with a blasted, twisted human nature?
Jesus Christ is one divine Person, who has existed from eternity. His divine nature has existed from eternity.
His human nature began to exist at a certain point in time, in the womb of Mary. Therefore she is his mother.
Since Mary is the mother of a Person who is God, she is called "Mother of God."
What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.
Except when, as the Bible shows, it doesn't.
"Bowing clearly is not the point, which can occur when you are doing a country dance" ---Dutchboy88
Metmom, I'm quite sure you know that what’s forbidden is bowing in adoration; not bowing as a sign of honor or respect.
Can I show that Biblically? Sure. It permeates Old Testament culture.
I looked up “kneel(ing)” and “bow(ing)” in the good old BibleGateway Keyword Search, and found so many references it would be exhausting to list them all.
Genesis 23:7 Then Abraham rose and bowed down before the people of that land
Genesis 33:3-7 Jacob bowed down to the ground seven times as he approached his brother Esau
maidservants and their children bow down to Esau
Leah and her children bow down
Joseph and Rachel bow. Etc. etc!
Genesis 37 Joseph’s dreams: his brothers’ sheaves of corn -— and then the sun and moon and eleven stars —— bow down to him. Later his brothers actually do bow down to him with their faces to the ground
Genesis 48:11 Joseph bows to Jacob “with his face to the earth.”
1 Kings 1:15 Bathsheba bows low (face to the ground) and kneels before the aged king David
2 Kings 1:13 the captain kneels before the prophet Elijah, and “prays” —begs-— him to spare his life and the life of his 50 men
Moses bows down to father-in-law; Ruth bows down to Boaz;
David prostrates before Jonathan;
David prostrates to Saul;
Abigail prostrates to David;
Saul prostrates to Samuel;
Nathan prostrates to David;
Obadiah bows to the ground before Elijah; the prophets in Jericho bow before Elisha;
the “whole assembly” bows low and prostrates before David;
David bows to the Temple;
David prostrates to Jerusalem;
God causes the king’s adversaries to bow prostrate on the ground and “lick the dust at his feet”;
the sons of the oppressors will bow to Zion.
OK, pretty obviously the patriarchs, prophets, and kings knew about the commandment not to bow down and worship anything or anybody but God. But here they are bowing, kneeling, and prostrating, and God is not offended. Why?
Because the commandment clearly forbids bowing and worshiping a creature as the Creator; it does not forbid kneeling or bowing (to king, prophet, father, husband or brother) as a form of honor.
The commandment does not prohibit kneeling or bowing to give honor. It prohibits adoration toward anyone but Almighty God.
Now here’s an interesting episode:
1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.
Here’s the King bowing to his mother. Does that mean she’s equal to God? No. It doesn’t even mean she’s equal to the King. It means he’s pleased to honor her because of her royal dignity, her relationship as Queen Mother.
As our mindset gets further and further from traditional custom and culture, it gets harder and harder to grasp what was once the universal language of physical gesture (he salute, the tip of the hat, the bow, the genuflection, the handclasp, the curtsey, the kiss) and put each expression in its proper perspective.
Dutchboy88 understands this (LINK)
"Bowing clearly is not the point, which can occur when you are doing a country dance" ---Dutchboy88
So; is this an admission that the Catholic Leaders of the past were POORLY Catechized?
Or that they had no idea what they were writing about?
Pick which way you want it to be.
The 'church' is what Catholics SAY it is:
Scripture plus tradition.
I have posted both.
They disagree.
Now what???
This old coot still has it!
--Mrs.Elsie(Your glasses are by the computer.)
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.