Posted on 07/01/2017 5:31:11 PM PDT by marshmallow
It would be impossible to assert that such errors were part of Sacred Tradition, because there would be no proof, nothing in the history of the Church to justify it.
Whom would the heresiarchs cite? What sources would they quote? Gay” “marriage” is not to be found in any of the Church Fathers or the practice of any ancient Church.
Lacking any evidence, you can’t invent a history for it.
So this is an error which is sheer innovation. There is no precedent anyone can point to. On the contrary, there’s a ton of precedent condemning sodomy. Even just looking at it historically, opposition to sodomy has been an exceptionless norm.
You are quite mistaken if you think Sacred Tradition can be founded on anything but ancient practice. We look to millennia of continuity, not novelty.
We absolutely agree here regarding Romans 1. I was referring to the other verses that the other poster mentioned. Granted, I didn't go back to read those verses specifically, but based on past reading, my recollection was that they focus on the sinfulness of the acts only.
OTOH, Romans 1 does not focus just on the act, but makes it clear that their so-called "homosexual orientation" is not God's fault. He did not create them this way.
Perhaps the way I worded my post also made things confusing for you. I had hoped my follow up post would have cleared that up...
There were other similar changes right after Vatican II as well. For example, I am fairly certain that they also removed “wives be subject to your husbands” verse.
This idiot was a priest when the horrible scandals broke in Newfoundland in the 1980s about sexual abuse by priests and the Christian Brothers at Mount Cashel.
Would he like a repeat?
Yet I've already shown you where the RCC has indeed done this very thing with some of its "Sacred Tradition". Not on this topic but on others.
You’ve shown me no such thing. You’ve tried, of course: but just that you’ve “made an argument” doesn’t mean you’ve made a persuasive argument.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3563504/posts
Or this exchange.
To: Mrs. Don-o; metmom
Context really helps you here.
Yes it does and you're off with your interpretation.
Oh, but the word "Lord" does mean "God" in this context, because Jesus, not being Elizabeth's father, husband, or master --- was her "Lord" precisely by being her God.
No...it means Lord in this context. The Greek word is Κυρίου.
The Greek word for God is θεός.
In the NT Mary is never referred to as the Mother of θεός. < We've already explained several times on this thread alone why.
First of all, you don't know "why" a term like "Theotokos" does not appear in the NT, any more than you know "why" a term like "Sola Scriptura" or "Sola Fide" does not appear.
"Other children of Mary" and "sons of Mary" --- these terms are absent as well.
Bottom line, nothing can be dispositively proven, one way or the other, merely by the lack of a later term in an earlier text.
"Mother of God" means nothing more than "Mother of Jesus who is God." It has no demigoddess implications whatsoever
Any reasonable person would know this, and wouldn't have to have it explained to them over and over again, if they would be so good as to look up the actual historic context --- the Council of Ephesus.
Ephesus' definition of "Mother of God" ("Theotokos") was essentially Christological: it clarified and confirmed that Jesus Christ is One Divine Person, not two. And it was accepted with gratitude by the entire Christian Church: the churches now known as Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, Eritrean, etc.
It was only considered controversial by the Nestorians, because they taught, erroneously, that Jesus is two separate Persons, one Divine and one Human.
That's why the Nestorians, alone, could not agree that Mary is the Mother of God. They did not believe that Jesus, all through His existence, and even in his mother's womb, was God.
You could look it up. That's not too much to ask.
First of all, you don't know "why" a term like "Theotokos" does not appear in the NT, any more than you know "why" a term like "Sola Scriptura" or "Sola Fide" does not appear.
"Other children of Mary" and "sons of Mary" --- these terms are absent as well.
Bottom line, nothing can be dispositively proven, one way or the other, merely by the lack of a later term in an earlier text.
"Mother of God" means nothing more than "Mother of Jesus who is God." It has no demigoddess implications whatsoever
Any reasonable person would know this, and wouldn't have to have it explained to them over and over again, if they would be so good as to look up the actual historic context --- the Council of Ephesus.
Ephesus' definition of "Mother of God" ("Theotokos") was essentially Christological: it clarified and confirmed that Jesus Christ is One Divine Person, not two. And it was accepted with gratitude by the entire Christian Church: the churches now known as Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, Eritrean, etc.
It was only considered controversial by the Nestorians, because they taught, erroneously, that Jesus is two separate Persons, one Divine and one Human.
That's why the Nestorians, alone, could not agree that Mary is the Mother of God. They did not believe that Jesus, all through His existence, and even in his mother's womb, was God.
You could look it up. That's not too much to ask.
+1
14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 NASB
"Mother of God" means nothing more than "Mother of Jesus who is God." It has no demigoddess implications whatsoever
If Mother of God means only Mother of Jesus Who is God why do you have provide the clarification?
That you have to include the part especially about not being a demigoddess is revealing.
For that is exactly what Roman Catholicism has done with Mary.
The emphasis of the council was on the nature of Jesus...not Mary.
The RCC has flipped that and placed the emphasis on Mary, as it does with so much of its theology, and not Jesus.
Read the Hail Mary, “...and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus”. It comes immediately before “Holy Mary, Mother of God...”
There is nothing in the text to indicate that Jesus is the limitation you want it to be in "Holy Mary Mother of God".
But prayer has no problem in using the term Lord as it does so at the beginning of the prayer to Mary.
What limitation is there in referring to Jesus as God?
No problem with that for Jesus is God.
The problem becomes when Mary is accorded something not found in Scripture.
It sure is found in Scripture:
... [26] And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, ... [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. ... [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. ... [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. ... [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
... [31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. ... [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. ... [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end. ... [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? ... [35] And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke, Chapter 1
It does not support your claim....Luke, moved by the Holy Spirit, does not refer to Mary as Mother of God.
Sure he does. So did St. Gabriel.
Nope. Mother of God is not in the text.
We do see mother of my Lord as used by Elizabeth.
Why did the the angel Gabriel tell Mary the son she would bear would be called the Son of God? Who was the mother? Not the virgin was he was addressing?
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.