How do I reconcile this doctrine with Aquinas?

[hope]

The church attempt to get all follow uniform format was started by Constantine, who used religion for political purpose. Before that, from Moses to the Prophets to Jesus to the Apostles, they were full of diversity .

Suggestion to you, get a good history of the Church, Warren Carroll is one. I don’t know what you mean by diversity but they didn’t teach different truths. Moses taught the Commandments, I don’t recall him saying that you could decide which ones to follow nor did the Prophets and if I recall Jesus also said that they were to be followed hardly diversity there. In fact, your statement is confusing as to what you mean by diversity and how that was changed by Constantine.

 

[Vico]

Another way to reconcile the doctrine with Aquinas is to make an appointment with him once you get to heaven, and discuss it with him.

 

[hope]

To translate it as she is not incorrect as the she refers to her seed.
These are the notes from past translations
Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin Mary. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, than in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Pope Sixtus V. and others, by Pope Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction:

 

[hope]

Part II
but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est. ) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)
You are incorrect to say the Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire.

 

[hope]

Part III
The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin Mary. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, than in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Pope Sixtus V. and others, by Pope Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. (St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est. ) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)
It is incorrect to say that the translation was in error.

 

[Jshy]

Another way to reconcile the doctrine with Aquinas is to make an appointment with him once you get to heaven, and discuss it with him

Yes indeed lol

 

[francisca.chapter3]

In fact, your statement is confusing as to what you mean by diversity and how that was changed by Constantine.

What I meant by “diversity had always been there until Constantine changed it”, for example:

Acts 23:8
(The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things.)

Despite the Pharisees and the Sadducees taught different teachings, they all worshipped in the same temple. And the people listened to their teachings which sourced from the same scriptures they read to the people in the temple by the firstborn of each family who happened to have their turn to do so.

1 Corinthians 1:12
12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Despite there were different opinions among the leaders, which sometimes caused people to have heated debate, I’m sure, but there was no war neither definitive schisms, because nobody seek to define what **formal **schisms was. Instead, they taught "to have no division, despite there were disagreements"

In other words, they allowed debates & diverse opinions as long as it were sourced in scriptures. Thus, scripture quotes were thrown freely in synagouges and in the open spaces anywhere any inspired teacher taught, as long as they could attract an audience.

Jesus was able to teach at the synagouges at the time, because of this climate of freedom of religion enforced politically by the romans.

Paradoxically, the same empire, under converted Constantine, he decided to use religion for politics, to unite the Kingdom. And under him, despite his intent was to unite the kingdom, in doing so, he had successfully define what formal schism was/ is.

Probably it was good to define errors. However, the use of weapons & political power, I’m sure had presented great challenge for those who wanted to speak the truth.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Continue

What humans think as the most powerful & authoritative, actually is the weakest link in search for the truth.

And after all those efforts defining errors, we now still have diverse doctrines among the churches. This is because, just as in Judaism, our Church cannot shake off the nature of our religion, that is, the need for discussions, debate, and scriptures study.

There is no point to move from church to church in search for which one is the most accurate in teachings. Humanity was too proud since the Tower of Babel. We think we could somehow “acheive heaven”. Each of us convinced we are the most correct and owns the fullness of Truth.

But the truth is revealed to each of us only according to our portion. Nobody owns the truth. The Church (with capital letters) owns the truth, that is, God’s Love among us despite differences.

Genesis 11 Tower of Babel
4Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building.
6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.
7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.

Isn’t it funny that in the above passage, Babel had uniformity in language. They could understand each other before God scattered them. Now, one of the big effort to understand the bible, is through the study of languages

Psalms 91
11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
12 they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread on the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent

Psalms 91:11&12 are what Satan quoted to Jesus when he was tempted in the dessert.

The “it” in Gen 3:15 refers to The Seed who is Jesus.

The Vulgate needs translation correction.

 

[hope]

Paradoxically, the same empire, under converted Constantine, he decided to use religion for politics, to unite the Kingdom. And under him, despite his intent was to unite the kingdom, in doing so, he had successfully define what formal schism was/ is.

You need to document this.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

francisca.chapter3:

Paradoxically, the same empire, under converted Constantine, he decided to use religion for politics, to unite the Kingdom. And under him, despite his intent was to unite the kingdom, in doing so, he had successfully define what formal schism was/ is.

You need to document this.

References are all over church history.

Btw, if we ever become one uniform church which merely follow "authoritative teaching without any critical thinking allowed", if this will ever happen, by then, we will become a religion that will punish whoever ask questions, and murders whoever disagree, brand people with “heretics & blesphemers”. And this is not merely my opinion: it is for a visible fact that spreading a teaching of a mercyful God using sword has given us harvest of bitter fruits of political religion which teach the paradox of mercilessness despite merciful God. And this kind of religions do exist for real. And from which tree these bitter fruits bloomed from? Re read the church history, and you will know why they exists.

Just because humans claim a teaching to be “authoritative” it does not prove a teaching to be from God. It should be allowed to test these teachings: if it is really from God, it will come out intact when tested.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

To translate it as she is not incorrect as the she refers to her seed.

The seed is Jesus and not Mary.

The Vulgate is mistaken in this translation. And so, the claim that Vulgate is the most authoritative bible translation turns out to be not true.

Now, our church advise that we use translations translated directly from original texts, not solely from Vulgate anymore. And cooperation with other churches in colaborative work of translation is advised too (Reference: Dei Verbum, paragraph 22)

 

[hope]

References are all over church history.

This is not citing a source. It is a non-answer. it is like me saying all over Church History it is disputed.

 

[hope]

The Vulgate is mistaken in this translation.

Post 126 -128 is and explanation of why the Vulgate is not a mistaken translation that is your erroneous conclusion.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

The Vulgate is mistaken in this translation.

Post 126 -128 is and explanation of why the Vulgate is not a mistaken translation that is your erroneous conclusion.

Could you explain to me your take on your own post 126-128 ?

I cannot know what you mean by merely reading those quotes.

 

[hope]

The seed is Jesus and not Mary .

Here is the verse
Genesis Chapter 3

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
Here is another translation

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

I hope you can see that when the seed is being spoken about it refers to the offspring. Jesus is not His own off spring.

What I posted was basically a discussion on the translation of words which discussed that the verse in question is ambiguous but not about the seed.
Now how about giving me a source about Constantine? Or should I conclude that you have none?