Posted on 08/10/2016 1:58:53 PM PDT by redleghunter
August 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Italian Bishop Nunzio Galantino, a personal appointee of the pope and a prelate who has been extolled as the “prototypical ‘Pope Francis bishop,’” is coming under criticism after delivering a homily to young people at World Youth Day in which he rewrote the story of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
While the clear meaning of the text is to emphasize God’s hatred of sin, in the bishop’s telling the message of the story is about Abraham’s willingness to emphasize “positive possibilities” and "signs of hope" despite the “misdeeds” of the people of Sodom.
It’s an interpretation that fits less with Catholic tradition than with the grievous admonition from the Extraordinary Synod on the Family that the Church should emphasize the “positive aspects” of mortally sinful lifestyles.
Here is what Bishop Galantino said, according to a translation provided by author and commentator Rod Dreher:
The intense dialogue between God and Abraham in the first reading tell us about prayer. And it’s about prayer that Jesus is asked in the Gospel. A prayer which is not an escape from troubles and responsibility, but a live experience made of listening and answering, through which God creates an authentic relationship and pushes us to be daring. As daring as Abraham’s intercession prayer in favor of Sodom. A city upon which nobody would have bet a dime. His intercession prayer and his will to dare save Sodom. The city is saved because some righteous ones are there, even though a few of them. But the city is saved above all because Abraham, a man of prayer, is not a relentless accuser, he doesn’t speak against but in favor. Abraham, man of prayer, doesn’t point to the misdeeds, but he announces the possibility for something new. Abraham, man of prayer, announces and invites to look at the positive possibilities. Abraham, man of prayer, is a tireless searcher for sign of hopes to present to the Lord for Him to give them value.
The Bible doesn’t explicitly describe how Jesus exited the tomb. As you recall, the stone had been rolled away. However, it’s clear from Luke 24 that Jesus appeared and disappeared at will following the Resuurection.
Bottom line: if God’s Word said Jesus exited Mary’s womb miraculously, I’d believe it. But all the Scriptures tell us is that Mary,”gave birth.”
If you’ve already looked it up, then no doubt you know the verse in question is Colossians 4:10.
What are your thoughts? I.e.: why would God eschew the word, ‘cousins,’ if that was in fact the relationship He intended to convey? Why would God use the word for, ‘brothers,’ if that was NOT the relationship He intended to convey?
Incidentally, take all the time you need to reply. There’s no rush at all.
Interestingly enough, the Bible says she “brought forth”, not “gave birth”.
Actually, in Matthew it states that the angel of the Lord rolled back the stone, so although it is not clear from other gospel readings how Jesus exited the tomb, Matthew makes it clear that the angel rolled away the stone after the resurrection.
But, yes, I do understand where you are coming from: Sola Scriptura.
The Greek word, eteken, which is alternately translated, ‘brought forth,’ or ,’gave birth,’ is the word used to describe ALL births, not just Mary’s. So if you wish to utilize that word to denote special circumstances in Mary’s case, you’d need to apply those same circumstances to all other births. I.e.: the word used is simply the Greek word that conveys giving birth in general; it is not unique to Mary.
I reread all Gospel accounts before I posted yesterday. I was aware that the angel rolled away the stone. I only mentioned that the Bible does not detail Jesus’ egress from the tomb, which happens to be true.
Where I am coming from is Revelation 22. Dire warnings are given to anyone who adds to the words God has revealed. You can take the view that this warning applies to one book only; we’re free to add to or subtract from the words of all the other 65 books as it should suit us. I say that’s playing with fire. I will neither add to nor subtract from any of the words that God has revealed to us. Better safe than eternally sorry.
This gets back to what constitutes God’s revelation. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura limit God’s revelation to written communication. Catholics recognizes that He also speaks to us through Sacred Tradition..by word of mouth.
apparently not , based on the behavior of some priests and the bishops covering up for such a long time
When Jesus disputed with the Pharisees He never, ever, not even once, based His arguments on the traditions that had been built up around the Scriptures. Rather, Jesus quoted the Scriptures every single time—often precisely to dispute and discredit extra-Scriptural traditions. You can point to no higher authority, nor any better example, than that.
All I know is there are a lot of places today that if God doesn’t destroy, he would owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.
Indeed.
He also told Peter that whatever he binds on Earth is bound in Heaven.
True. In Matthew 16 Jesus says this to Peter, and in Matthew 18 He repeats it to all the disciples. However, when given a wide open, golden opportunity to designate Rome as anything special, Jesus took the opposite tack:
John 4:
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
I’m not going to play Bible back and forth with you. I just don’t bother to do the so-called debate with FR non-Catholics because quite frankly it is a waste of my time.
You believe that the only revelation given by God to His Church was through the written word. You limit God and deny oral teachings that He has given to His Church through His apostles and disciples via Sacred Tradition.
Sola Scriptura is heretical.
If God had wanted us to add to His revealed Word, He would not have included such dire, catastrophic warnings against doing so.
If Jesus had intended for Rome to replace Jerusalem as a physical place central to worship, He would have answered the Samaritan woman entirely differently than He did.
These are Biblical facts. Throwing out a couple of Latin words doesn’t change them.
Blessings to you.
That’s just it. Nothing was “added”. It is all part of Divine Revelation.
Blessings to you as well.
Well either words have been added to God’s divine revelation or they haven’t. Please note again Jesus’s words in John 4. He is asked directly, point blank, where people are to worship God. It is a physical location question: in this mountain, or at Jerusalem.
Jesus pointedly rejects the proposition of a physically located focal point of worship. Rather, He says the time has come when worship turns on the state of the heart—in spirit and in truth—as opposed to physical location.
To say that what Jesus REALLY meant was that worship should center in, or have any special relationship, with Rome, is to twist the Lord’s words out of all recognition. In effect, it’s saying Jesus didn’t know what He was talking about—which is blasphemy. Jesus ALWAYS knew what He was talking about.
Claiming additional, Spirit-breathed revelation is problematic enough, but claiming revelation that contradicts Jesus’s own words is mind boggling. Had Jesus intended Rome to be the next iteration of Jerusalem, He’d have given some indication of that. But He put physical locations completely out of the picture when He stated that the new center of worship would be spiritual: I.e.: in spirit and truth.
If you know of any Biblical passage that suggests Jesus’s teachings were incomplete or inadequate, and would need additional divine revelation to be accurate, I’ll take such passages to heart. If not, then Jesus’s words must take absolute precedence over any others.
Are you done now? Because I am.
If you have no reply, then obviously the discussion cannot continue. I’ll leave you with this thought. Not everyone who rejects additional revelation that contradicts God’s Word embraces sola scriptura. From what I have seen, some Catholics throw those words out like a hex, so that they can ignore anything the person thus hexed might be saying. That’s an invalid approach, and does the practitioner no credit.
Blessings.
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.