By the way, Peter, Pope Benedict reigned from 1740 to 1758. In 1677 our Pontiff was Innocent Xl. He wrote only two encyclicals, Coelestis Pastor and Sollictudo pastoralis, neither of which condemn belief in the miraculous conception of Mary nor even touch the subject of Mary. I have a list of all papal encyclicals ever issued to the Church, but *De Festis *is not among them in my Catholic sources for some reason.
I think this is nicely put. And re-enforces the beauty of Our Mother The Church in guiding us in Faith. For Just as a “Babe” on milk needs a Mother to care for and help it grow so do we in our growth in faith, lest we grow, not in faith and discipline, but as wild and undisciplined children making error afer error due to either ignoring or never having the guidance of our Mother in faith.
These are nice, and you have written pretty well. Although it is not which version of the Bible that was being discussed, but all the different interpretations of the same exact text as written in the Holy Scriptures. Different people make their own interpretations, and therefore all can’t be correct! The terribly irony here is that you’re doing exactly what you described the problem is, in making interpretations (gleaning meanings) that are opposed to what the early Church taught.
Jesus does NOT say divorce is allowed if there is unfaithfulness. In fact, He clarified that “in the beginning, it was not so”. The Apostles taugth that, if a spouse is left, the faithful spouse should remain single. It is through the prayers and faithfulness of this believing spouse that the sinning one can be saved.
This is a reference to the preached word of God, the kerygma. This is what was afterward written and became the NT. At that time, the NT did not exist.
There is no record that most of the Apostles ever wrote anything. There was also great dispute in the Church as to whether or not some of the writings were, in fact, inspired. What kept the churches in the order of God and Spiritually nourished was the Teaching of the Apostles, also referred to as Sacred Tradition.
This is true, but it happened prior to any writing being done.
This is certainly true, but the Church was not dependent upon the letters, and not all the communities had them.
You are taking liberties with a concession God gave to Moses because of the hardness of people’s hearts, over the teaching of Jesus, who gives us His Spirit to soften our hearts. Why would any devoted Christian do such a thing? It is like saying, “oh, yes, I believe that Jesus’ blood is more effective than that of bulls and goats, but I am still going to go back and sacrifice a goat, because that is the way it used to be done.”
So, then, heiscoming, do you believe that the early Church Fathers’ writings would be a true representation of how the gospel of Jesus Christ was understood? Have you read their writings?
All of these Churches were united with the office of chief Bishop established by Christ to keep His Church correct, keep her from teaching error.
Yes, there were a heretics along the way, but the Reformation (deformation actually) did great deal of harm to the faithful. Out of this, the idea that men could determine what their own truth is, was born. The effects today are scandalous and intolerable.
Alright, as long as you mean that in the sense of “unity in essentials”. Clearly they didn’t agree on every single detail of what was revealed.
I’d say that’s easy in the case of the New Testament – seeing as Christians have agreed for about 1600 years on which books are in the NT – although not so easy with regard to the Old Testament.
This problem (and others) only exists for non Catholics, and those Catholics who act like non Catholics. It is not up to democratic vote to see which Scripture texts belong in the Bible, and many get into error believing in false authority. Beyond which Scriptures belong, it is also possible to attribute false meanings to the words and phrases in the Scriptures by those who believe in false authority. Faithful Catholics do know without error the books of the NT and OT. So, for those who genuinely believe in Christ and listen to those He sent it is very easy, to know which Scriptures belong in the New as well as Old Testament. Thankfully, we who believe in true Authority listening to those who Christ sent to continue His mission, also know the teachings of the Scriptures without error in matters of faith and morals.
Thank you for pointing that out, Good Fella.
This is why Christ established the office of Head Bishop, now called the Papacy. This is how matters are settled, so that all know the teachings without error. When Peter spoke authoritatively (protected from error by the Holy Spirit), the matter was settled. It is no different today, when the Pope settles matters.
You know what - It seems to me that this whole discussion misses a very basic point, That being that May’s parents, (in the protoevangeleam) laments being Childless. I assume that they are lamenting this in spite of their best efforts. In other words Anne was not a virgin Long before Mary’s conception. So regardless of the details of Mary’s conception, she was not born of a virgin.
Right. That’s why I put “virgin birth” in quotation marks. I.e. the question isn’t whether Anne was still a virgin at the time of Mary’s birth; the question is the details of Mary’s conception.So regardless of the details of Mary’s conception, she was not born of a virgin.
Peace
James
You’re welcome, Peter. Unfortunately, there are sources of information that are somewhat irresponsible to sincere people who consult them. I contacted a theologian with whom I’m acquainted, and he told me that De festis is a private theological work written by the Pontiff. So as a private work, it isn’t even a non-infallible document of the Ordinary Magisterium, but fallible. This explains why (and I suspected as much) De Festis isn’t counted among Pope Benedict’s encyclicals. As I said, the Church has never taken an official position on whether Mary’s conception was natural or miraculous. It appears the Magisterium hasn’t even given the idea much thought. It still remains only a matter of private theological speculation. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was initially just that for many centuries in the Patristic period.
Yes, 1beleevr, in your theological system–sola Scriptura–you are correct in saying that the best we can hope for in this Scriptural dispute is a “tie”. Your Bible-believing church provides no system for a “tie-breaker”. You have no person, no authority by which you can appeal.
Yes, and the fruits of sola scriptura include moral relativism, where each individual can decide their own truth about morality, right and wrong. It’s their version that matters. What God taught is actually not really the issue, as they have no way of knowing. The idea of deciding what is morally right and wrong is to act in God’s place, being like God in things that only He has the Divine Right to do. This is the sin of pride of our first parents. Have we as a society learned nothing since then?
I hope what MDK said, isn’t true; that if you honestly seek the truth, or is it TRUTH(Jesus)myou will become Roman catholic And we hear the voice of our Shepherd, He speaks to me every day! And not all of us non-catholics celebrate he Sabbath on Saturday; I for one celebrate it on Sunday!
Exactly my point 1beleevr! There’s Bible-believing folks out there who are adamant that their interpretation of Scripture is right and that Saturday is what Scripture says is when you should celebrate!! And not all of us non-catholics celebrate he Sabbath on Saturday; I for one celebrate it on Sunday!