Posted on 08/02/2017 2:07:44 PM PDT by detective
The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference (CEV) has publicly invoked the intercession of the Virgin Mary to free the nation “from the claws of communism,” in a clear reference to the regime of President Nicolás Maduro.
“Blessed Virgin, Mother of Coromoto, heavenly Patron of Venezuela, free our country from the claws of communism and socialism,” the CEV posted on Twitter this Sunday, complete with an image of Santa Maria and a Venezuelan flag.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Do not neglect to distinguish between different kinds of tradition. You will note that the Apostle Paul disparages some kinds of tradition, and praises -— insists upon -— other kinds. (He can’t be disparaging and insisting upon, the selfsame thing, so there must be at least two kinds.) The kind called Sacred Tradition has exactly the same origin (the teaching of Our Lord and of His Apostles) whether it is conveyed by preaching, or teaching, or example, or the texts of letters and Gospels.
St Paul taught exactly that: that Sacred Tradition has the same authority whether oral or written:
(2 These 2:15)
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”>p> So either the historically recent (in the last 500 years) man-made tradition called "Sola Scriptura," or the apostle Paul, must be very much mistaken.
It may seem paradoxical, but since the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, and does teach adherence to Paul's kind of Sacred Tradition, Bible+Tradition is the more Biblically-faithful approach.
OK. So Catholics claim both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Correct. But Bodleian Girl is claiming Scripture is her "source", as if that solves all disputes. It does not. Every disputant on this Forum will quote Scripture, and even if there were no Catholics here, all the rest of the usual disputants would still be going after each other, hammer and tongs, over interpretation.
Is such controversy endemic within the many denominations of Christians? Of course. That's the very reason there are many denominations.
Yes. This is one of three places where Paul noted tradition in the affirmative. 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thess 2:15 and 3:15
He gave clarification as to what those traditions of 2 Thess 2:15 were in 2 Thess 3:6-15:
6Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.
7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you,
8nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you;
9not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.
10For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.
11For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies.
12Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.
13But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.
14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.
15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
But again...as previously noted, much of Roman Catholic "Tradition" originated well after the Apostles and is often in contradiction of the NT.
What the Roman Catholic cannot produce, and they've been asked, are clear examples of the other teachings of Paul.
We will keep asking.
Trick question. You mean in the same way Roman Catholicism claims ex cathedra declarations of whomever is the current Pope at the time are said to be infallible? Who says that everyone must see that as acceptable or valid? What matters - and what everyone should be looking at - is are ones theological positions the TRUTH? Truth is not relative but absolute and is found, theologically speaking, in God's own infallible word. It doesn't change and remains true regardless if someone believes it or not.
Roman Catholics have told us on these threads that all Tradition is found in Scripture or will not contradict Scripture.
Yet, as just shown from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Immaculate Conception is not fully substantiated in "Tradition."
The same can be said for the Assumption. The CE on Fact of the Assumption:
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae.
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.
As for the Feast of the Assumption
Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady's death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
I think you have to admit, that's pretty shaky (and that's being very generous) ground to establish one of the known "ex cathedra" statements of the Roman Catholic Church.
Bodleian Girl is wise to stand on Scripture.
It is the only inspired record we have and all agree upon...well, at least the NT.
Where is Rome's exegesis on the verses of the NT?
Has it produced a verse by verse explanation of the texts?
I mean, come on....ya'll only been around ~1400-1700 years. Surely, someone in Roman Catholicism has taken the time to explain the meaning of each text.
Every disputant on this Forum will quote Scripture, and even if there were no Catholics here, all the rest of the usual disputants would still be going after each other, hammer and tongs, over interpretation.
The problem with interpretation usually stems from the how the text is viewed. Roman Catholicism uses three views of the texts.
The allegorical, moral or anagogical (CCC 117).
And this is where Rome errors.
The allegorical allows one to "read into" the text things not there. Much of Mariology is founded upon this.
How should we interpret the Bible?
A proper way to understand the Bible would follow these:
The most important law of biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should be interpreted literally. We are to understand the Bible in its normal or plain meaning, unless the passage is obviously intended to be symbolic or if figures of speech are employed.
A second crucial law of biblical hermeneutics is that passages must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. [I would add a working knowledge of the original languages is most beneficial as well] interpreting a passage historically means we must seek to understand the culture, background, and situation that prompted the text.
A third law of biblical hermeneutics is that Scripture is always the best interpreter of Scripture. For this reason, we always compare Scripture with Scripture when trying to determine the meaning of a passage. [This is why you've seen me say context is key in understanding the Word.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-hermeneutics.html
Again, you presume too much. I do not "refuse to believe" in the Bible. The Bible directs us to believe also in Sacred Tradition. Oral Tradition. I could ask, if I wish to copy a certain tone of insolence, "Why do you refuse to believe that?"
The Bible says if we have a dispute we should take it to the Church. Adopting, in imitation, the insolent tone, "Why do you refuse to believe that?"
2 These 2:15
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
We could volley back and forth like this til we die of exhaustion or the Lord comes again, whichever comes first, but it will not solve the problem of interpretation. And the Lord would be grieved, I think, by our lack of charity.
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
"Time and time again, for years even, you've gone to the mat over the words of sinful men, claiming, 'Tradition!'"
Tradition? That's not just what I said. That's what Paul said. Read your Bible.
"And time and time again you reject out of hand what God's word says."
That is a falsehood. And it is offensive because it assumes obstinate bad faith ('reject out of hand") rather than a difference in interpretation.
I think this is rash judgment; at least, it is a judgment I have not made about you. I don't think you're obstinately rejecting out of hand what our Lord and St. Paul said about the authority of the Church and the authority of Tradition. I think you may be lacking in certain interpretive points, and I think this is remediable. For both of us.
It does require slowness to fall into ire and accuse, and a quickness to listen.
nd we know the Catholic interpretation of that verse, and the twist Catholics put on it, trying to say ‘She will bruise your heel.’ I pray you will awaken soon and come out of that ‘other’ religion so that after the rapture you won’t need prepper supplies.
No. Do you think it ought to? There are all kinds of commentaries out there --- I rather like Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition --- but I think it unwise to expect 30,000+ authoritative interpretations for 30,000+ verses.
Historically speaking, definitions of doctrine are not worked out in the Church unless they are demanded, and they are not demanded unless there is some sort of dispute, and people are asking urgent questions which threaten to tear the church apart.
In other words, the Church does not act preemptively or pro-actively to answer every conceivable question. The Church's main role is the conservation and handing-on of the deposit of faith which was handed down to us from the Apostles. Some have called it a "theology of repetition."
Development/interpretation comes along later, often at times of challenge and controversy, so as to prevent disputes from leading people into error and damaging the unity of Christ's flock.
When you parrot made-up doctrine, man-imagined tradition (”Mary’s sinlessness”) as truth, well you are spewing specious dogma. Without spiritual senses you cannot comprehend how offensive such is.
You asserted: “ I rely on what has been taught since the beginning, by the great majority of churches, everywhere around the world, and confirmed by the successor to St. Peter, the head of the Apostles. The minute I find my position wrong, I *change my position*.” Two maybe three presumptions not provable in the inference that you *might* be found in error someday! LOL, you have not a clue how led by a deceit-ring in your spiritual nose you are. {HINT: the ‘head of the Apostles was The Holy Spirit, as Jesus tried to teach you. But then as a Catholic you probably believe the Catholic Mary was the head of Jesus for some undefined period of time in His ministry mission, and continues to prod Him to get prayers answered!}
No. Do you think it ought to?
Yes...if Rome is claiming to have "the" knowledge of the Scriptures.
There are all kinds of commentaries out there --- I rather like Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition ---
Haydock's is but one of many commentaries....an opinion.
A better series of commentaries are the Word Biblical Commentaries.
The authors break down the Greek, use historical background information, etc. They are very scholarly oriented.
If you want a serious commentary, I'd recommend those.
...but I think it unwise to expect 30,000+ authoritative interpretations for 30,000+ verses.
Say what....?? It is unwise to explain what the texts mean??
Sounds like Rome is afraid of taking a stand.
In other words, the Church does not act preemptively or pro-actively to answer every conceivable question. The Church's main role is the conservation and handing-on of the deposit of faith which was handed down to us from the Apostles. Some have called it a "theology of repetition."
Development/interpretation comes along later, often at times of challenge and controversy, so as to prevent disputes from leading people into error and damaging the unity of Christ's flock.
In other words...eisegesis....reading into the text something you want to see.
Your real self is oozing forth ...
Tradition? That's not just what I said. That's what Paul said. Read your Bible.
Ok...please produce all that Paul taught orally.
It mus be verifiable.
At this point I'd take a link to a website.
If God kept her from sinning, she had no choice.
And if she did not have a sin nature and had never sinned, she did not need a Savior nor was she capable of being a recipient of grace. Grace is only in effect when sin is present.
If there is no sin, there is no need for grace.
And grace does not mean sinlessness on our part. God giving us grace is Him giving us what we don’t deserve.
If Mary had no sin nature and did not sin, then she did deserve everything God did for her and what she had was NOT from grace but what God owed her.
Nor was she capable of experiencing the mercy of God.
It is amazing to see so clearly that your imaginings are so real to you, as if truth. Yet THE standard for Truth contradicts your unending assertions from the imaginings of men. The amazing thing is that you are completely unable to see it!
OK, so just what are those oral traditions that Paul passed down what we are to adhere to?
How do you know they are from HIM?
How do you know they have been passed down faithfully, without corruption for these almost 2,000 years?
So if there is no official, sanctioned by the Catholic church, verse by verse interpretation of Scripture, then whatever has not been officially defined is up for grabs.
Any Catholic can use their own personal interpretation of Scripture for understanding. Right?
You know, the very thing we non-Catholics are continually being told we cannot depend on?
So you all get to do what you prohibit in others.
What a racket.
Okay, hypothetical question, then. If Mary had the free will to both sin and refuse the purpose of God for her life, would her "preservation" from original sin (having an inherent sin nature) be revoked? I can't help but see some logical disconnects here not to mention the contradiction of Scripture that tells us clearly ALL humans have sinned and fall short of God's perfect holiness - the ONLY exception being the God/man, Jesus Christ.
When we have NO Scriptural verification for these Marian dogmas developed by the Roman Catholic church, it seems there has been a virtual free-for-all through the years by those devoted to the Virgin Mary to outdo each other in their ecstatic praise, imagination and hyperbole. I've even read statements that say one can NOT honor or praise her too much. Are there any limits? Can you understand why many Christians are taken aback by what clearly comes across as unscriptural and anti-scriptural doctrines where Mary is concerned and the appearance of the "sharing" of glory that belongs to God alone?
I do honor Mary and respect her faith and example. She is truly blessed among women and will be for eternity. Just because the Marian dogmas are rejected it doesn't mean the true Mary is hated, dishonored or insulted. I certainly don't and I have yet to read any comments from others that they do, yet, that is the impression many have communicated when any disagreement is expressed by non-Catholics. I sincerely hope that we can avoid offending each other over doctrinal differences in the future.
Peter can’t be the first Pope, he was married!
Oh wait, that’s Bible, not tradition.
Metmom, honest to God. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth.
It’s past 10:00. I’ll have to deal with this tomorrow.
Here’s the foundational erroneous assumption: “Whatever has not been officially defined is up for grabs.”
Is that how your religion works? No? Then why do you attribute it to me, or to the Catholic Church?
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.