L
Lapell
Guest
…That is, except with the term Theotokos applied to her, of course! Some thought that would mean she gave birth to God the Father as well as to the Son! In which it would be a problem, of course!
- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
Back when? Perhaps you put the cart before the horse on this one. You are certainly telescoping your Marian theology back into the past where it sits very uncomfortably with the facts.
The woman of Revelations is NOT Saint Mary of Nazareth, the Theotokos, the Mother of Jesus Christ Our Lord.
The burden of proof rests upon you who make such a claim.
C
churchcamefirst
Guest
How do you know it isn’t the Blessed Mother? It points specifically to her in Revelation. Who else can the woman be? No one else. It is the blessed Mother, the Mother of Jesus Christ.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I think it is stating the obvious. If a person is Roman Catholic, and doesn’t believe the Pope is divinely lead by the Holy Spirit…well, why would a person remain Roman Catholic?
H
Hesychios
Guest
What do you mean by “divinely lead by the Holy Spirit” exactly? Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.
Do you suppose the Holy Ghost whispers to him in his dreams? Is he inspired in his actions?
The dogma of Papal Infallibility makes no such claim. It states that (essentially) he will not make a mistake WHEN he makes an Ex Cathedra declaration of dogma, nothing more. That is a far cry from assuming he is divinely lead.
There does not seem to be a clear cut reasoning out of how this infallibility works in practice.
Some have suggested that a Pope who is about to make an Ex Cathedra error will be struck down first. Although that to me is not an example of being divinely lead, as hideous as it is to contemplate, it could work.
Why not?
C
churchcamefirst
Guest
How do you know her childbirth was not painful? Were you there?
P
Peter_J
Guest
If the Pope made a false statement, it would not be an ex cathedra statement. You don’t need Vatican I to tell you that, but just simple logic: a false statement can’t be defined as a dogma, and hence it can’t be an ex cathedra statement.There does not seem to be a clear cut reasoning out of how this infallibility works in practice.
Some have suggested that a Pope who is about to make an Ex Cathedra error will be struck down first. Although that to me is not an example of being divinely lead, as hideous as it is to contemplate, it could work.
Why not?
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Someone might ask how do I know she was a virgin. I don’t pursue such lines of questioning.
As the New Eve she was to under Eve’s curse, which included birth pains Genesis 3:16, in fullfillment of prophey Isaish 66:7
Before she travailed, she brought forth; Before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy.
Your Aquinas said:
“Painlessly, and without change in Mary’s virgin body, her Son emerged from the tabernacle of her spotless womb, as He was later to emerge from the tomb, without moving the stone or breaking the seal of Pilate.” --Summa Theologica, III, Q. 28, a. 2.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
C
churchcamefirst
Guest
Because her virginity was in the Gospels. It still doesn’t mean it is not her in Revelation. You can interpret it any way you like.
P
Peter_J
Guest
H
Hesychios
Guest
It looks like circular reasoning.
Which is invalid logic, so it cannot be a trick question. It is no question whatsoever, an invalid proposition.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t think makes too much difference whether we focus on the statement that Vatican I dogmatically defined, or whether we focus on the question “Do you believe in Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I?”
I happen to disagree with you in that I don’t consider P.I. (as defined by Vatican I) to be an invalid proposition. That is to say, I do believe that every ex cathedra statement is an exercise of infallibility.
However, the corollary to this, namely “every ex cathedra statement is true” really isn’t much a claim at all, it’s basically just a reflexive statement. Every ex cathedra statement has to be true, because if it wasn’t it wouldn’t be a dogmatic definition (as Cardinal Newman wrote " … the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum"), and therefore it would fail at least one of the 3 conditions entailed in the phrase “ex cathedra”. We don’t need Vatican I to tell us that.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
OK. I choose to interpret it according to the Fathers.
P
Peter_J
Guest
By the way, I find it a little ironic that you use the phrase “circular reasoning”, because a couple months ago a had a discussion with Protestants about the Catholic and Orthodox ideas of “infallibility” (Orthodoxy, Lutheranism … and schism?), the end result of which was that I was told that the Orthodox position is “circular”.
L
Lapell
Guest
Well, later, the woman is said to give birth to the one who will be the shepherd of all nations, and then she had to flee away from the Dragon’s wrath in the desert where she and her son would be fed for some time. Then they were taken away into heaven, and then the Dragon turned its wrath toward the other children of the woman, those who keep faithfully the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ… The wording may be different, but this is what I remember from it, (I don’t have it right in front of me at the present time.)
I heard some priests and at least a bishop interpret the reference to the woman as being at the same time the Blessed Virgin Mary (who did physically give birth to our Lord Jesus the Messiah) AND our Mother Church.
I now am surprised you speak to me as though I were the first person to say that the woman in Apocalypse 12 is the Blessed Virgin Mary. I suppose that you will tell me that none of the early Fathers of the Church at any time ever said a single thing on the Woman in Apocalypse 12 (among those who accepted the book of the Apocalypse among the inspired books of the NT, at any rate!)??
L
Lapell
Guest
To your question “Back when”, I meant in the times of the Early Fathers of the Church. My understanding is that saint Ephrem the Syrian wrote a lot of hymns to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that the Fathers of the Church did say many good things about her… Do you disagree, Hesychios?
M
Mickey
Guest
Then where does this fit in?
LUMEN GENTIUM
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”
~Dogmatic Constitution on the church #25
P
prodigal-sun
Guest
I personally find it interesting to see many people discount and argue against papal infallibillity while at the same time trying to have everyone believe there interpretation of the bible is the correct one. I’m mean really, if the figure of the pope who was left in charge of the church which can clearly follow it’s lineage back to the apostles, can not be believed to be infallible how can anyone claim or even trust what they believe to be true.
- Status