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 ...
or the apostle Paul, must be very much mistaken.
1 Cor 4:15
For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.
English Standard Version
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Yes, the apostle can be very much mistaken.
You didn’t answer the question.
If it’s not officially defined, then what is the option?
The person’s own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Unless you have other options?
A distinction needs to be made between "your own personal interpretation" in the sense of "up for grabs" (unlimited license to say whatever you feel it says) vs. a legitimate liberty of opinion --- within limits --- for Scriptures whose meaning has not been officially defined.
I want you to look at the words "legitimate liberty." And then, the words, "within limits."
"Legitimate liberty" would mean, any of the faithful can in all humility ask the Holy Spirit for, and receive, enlightenment about a Scripture passage; scholars can conduct their textual evaluations and give their conclusions; theologians can dialog back and forth about disputed questions. In all this, we are striving to "have the mind of Christ," striving to "think with the Church" --- for it is the Church which has received the promise that hell and its deviations from the truth shall not prevail.
"Within limits" would mean, without violation of the doctrines and morals which are already a part of the deposit of faith. No matter whether you are one of the sincere faithful, or a scholar/specialist, or an esteemed theologian, you can't obstinately hold and advance opinions contrary to the Faith.
An example from Christology: say you're looking at the verse from Luke 3:52 - "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man." Ponder and speculate as you will about the complexities of Jesus' humanity, whether or if His childish and adolescent ignorance interacted with his Divine omniscience, etc. --- but you cannot say He was *not* an adolescent or *not* a man. Nor that He was *only* a man. A lot of Christology has already been defined as dogma: that is, it is required to believed.
An example from Moral Law: "Thou shalt not kill (commit murder)". Ponder and speculate as you will about whether an advanced, synthetically-produced android zygote with artificial DNA--- and with no human parents -- is human or not, and whether it may or may not be experimented with. That's hasn't been fully defined yet. But any zygote with human parents is a human being; producing it outside of a marital sexual union is unethical; destructive experimentation on it ought to be illegal; and killing it is murder. That part is not negotiable at all.
So there are areas you can freely speculate about, form personal opinions, come to scholarly conclusions, etc. --- and areas where you may not.
Is that a tad clearer?
You might want to change your tagline, since the Catholic dogma on eating and drinking Christs body and blood is contradictory to what GOD commanded against. The god of Catholiciism appears ... duplicitous.’
Is this another copy and paste?
No.
Your interpretation of what “God” said vs what “Jesus” said would be an excellent topic for a panel discussion.
We’re still waiting on you to tell us how to be saved.
"Believe in the One He has sent."
!!
And later in the very same chapter:
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
We believe that..BECAUSE it was taught by the Holy One of God: we believe in the One He sent.
This was taught by Him in whom we believe, and in the Church which is His Body. As He said to His 72 disciples, the nucleus of His Church: “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Berean Study Bible
She says no to your question so all of that post must be her opinions, thoughts, interpretations and “facts”
I find it very interesting that she calls Jesus ignorant.
How very arrogant.
I’m sure no Catholic would call the Catholic Mary ignorant.
Mrs. Don-o,
The reason these discussions never get anywhere is because Catholics and Evangelicals start from different places, argue with different methods, and inevitably arrive at vastly differing conclusions. No amount of arguing is going allow either side to arrive at the same happy conclusion.
What is the difference? [See St. Francis de Sales “rules of Faith” in his book the Catholic Controversies]
Evangelicals’ use human reason as a POSITIVE rule of Faith. Their interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures proceeds from their human reason, which informs them of what they must must believe. Thus their faith is very reasonable, rational.
Catholics never use human reason as a POSITIVE rule of Faith. They only use human reason as a NEGATIVE rule of Faith [using reason to rule out what does not belong to the Faith]. For example, Catholics can look upon a man made religion like Mormonism and rule it out based upon some of the absurdities of that human tradition.
Catholics, when they read the Bible, interpret the Sacred Scriptures in the light of Faith, which is the gift we all receive in the Sacrament of Baptism. Thus when we who believe in the True Presence as well as the other six Sacraments that Jesus Christ Himself established, we have no problem believing Jesus at his word when he says ‘you must eat my flesh and drink my blood”. We do not have to wrestle with it or explain it away, because we take Him at His Word. It is not because we are vastly superior in our erudition or understanding of the written word or many languages, it is because we have simple Faith in everything that He taught. His is a crazy love, and some of His doctrines are the result of this boundless love. When some of His disciples said the doctrine of the True Presence was too hard and walked away, He did not stop them. The yoke of Faith is indeed very light, but it does contain mysteries that are beyond the grasp of human reason. For a Catholic this is no big deal. But for an Evangelical, whose Faith proceeds from the use of his human reason as a positive rule of Faith, some of the doctrines that Jesus or the Holy Spirit have taught are troublesome.
Catholics are blamed for this trouble. But it is Jesus Christ Himself who is the “troublemaker”, as the late ancient Belgian monk Fr. Eleutherius used to say. The difficulties of the Catholic Faith are not ours to simplify or water down. They are what they are down through the centuries, and many Catholics have driven pagans and heretics absolutely batty by their insistence on following and holding fast to every article of Faith taught by the Apostles and not flinching from believing every mystery that Jesus told us we must believe. How many martyrs have been asked to renounce their Catholic Faith so that they might live or escape punishment? It is the lack of rationality that bothers human wisdom. But this craziness is also very humbling, and proud man finds much of the Faith “beneath” his dignity to accept.
So, a Catholic can pick up the Biblia and quite easily see the meaning of it unfold before his simple childlike Faith. While an Evangelical, with all his years of toil to learn multiple languages and study multitudes of rational commentaries will wrestle with the Sacred Scriptures and come to completely different conclusions.
I think Jesus put it like this, “Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Peace!
So I have the right to interpret the Scriptures in a Catholic sense?
So what do you measure someone’s theological position against to determine if it is true?
There is heavenly headship, and earthly headship. Peter was the head of the Apostles *on earth*.
http://www.biblesprout.com/articles/salvation/peter-keys-heaven/
Does the Holy Spirit discipline heretics? Cast them out of membership? Preside over synods? Confirm doctrinal formulations?
Of course nothing Peter said or did could ever contradict or usurp the Divine Authority. But Christ gave him the keys over the earthly government of the church, and no mortal man has any right to revoke that.
Says who? You?
I've looked at this issue in depth, in Scripture, in Greek, and in the early Christian writers. The Holy Eucharist was always, always regarded as exactly what Christ said it was: "This is my body, this is my blood", and anyone who said otherwise was condemned as a heretic, from St. Paul on. Period.
You have no historical leg to stand on with this.
So I have the right to interpret the Scriptures in a Catholic sense?
As I said....you have that right. However, based on what you've claimed about your understanding and positions on the Scriptures and understanding them.....why would you?
And as has been duly noted, Rome has not provided a verse by verse understanding of the texts. It leaves Roman Catholics like you in a bit of a lurch does it not? My understanding doesn't matter a hill of beans.
My positions are completely fallible. That’s why I NEVER rely on them. 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*.
Impenetrable? that’s what Joseph found out
Says who? You?
I've looked at this issue in depth, in Scripture, in Greek, and in the early Christian writers.
Is this based on your admitted fallible review or someone elses?
The Holy Eucharist was always, always regarded as exactly what Christ said it was: "This is my body, this is my blood", and anyone who said otherwise was condemned as a heretic, from St. Paul on. Period.
Roman Catholics love to quote "this is my body, this is my blood", yet rarely finish out the remainder. I provide for context what Paul and Matthew and Luke wrote about this.
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NASB
26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:26-29 NASB
14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
Luke 22:14-21
You can tell us four corners is a metaphor or an allegory and then can insist that drink my blood is actual and real yeah sure
Where did you get this from?
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.