Perhaps, the only reason the connections are forced is that we do not trust allegorical/typological interpretation as much as our forefathers. So, in answer to your question, I feel that when the Fathers who are skilled at this type of interpretation promote these “forced connections” you should answer why it is not the case, and do it on their terms and not our modernist sensibilities.
you are right, I don’t trust their typological interpretation….it is obviously an extremely subjective approach that can be manipulated to obtain a desired result. With that being the case, I can only wonder why anyone would trust that approach. Perhaps it could be of some limited use for the edification of oneself in a private study, but it surely shouldn’t be a required interpretation for others.
Two things: First, it is one thing to say that the Ark had these qualities/characteristics and Mary had these very similar qualities/characteristics and so Mary could be viewed as the New Ark….and it is quite another to then continue and say, b/c Mary is the New Ark and b/c the old Ark had these other qualities (qualities B), we shall attribute to Mary these further qualities (ie sinlessness) being what we deem to be the appropriate counterpart to qualities B.
Fair enough, as long as you extend this mistrust to all forms of subjective interpretation, all forms of interpretation that can be manipulated to obtained a desired result. Of course that is a little tongue in cheek because all interpretation can be tweaked to say what we want it to say. Maybe not all to the same level, but I don’t know if history has shown that modern interpretation techniques give us any more consistency than allegory did. I would say that we really shouldn’t pre-judge an interpretation based on the form but the execution and result. (like you just did)
I disagree. Metaphors and other analogies should be explored to see how far they can be stretched. If Mary and the Ark share qualities A, B, and C and the Ark has quality D as a logical extension of B, then there is no reason not to ascribe D to Mary as well even if D was never explicitly attributed to Mary. How far the analogy stretches is an issue that can be debated, and some issues may be more or less convincing. Yet there is no reason why it cannot be done.
Aside from the fact that morality and interpretation techniques are quite different beasts, you might want to pick a better example. I could argue against the actions of the Christians you mention using examples and arguments common in their day and on their terms. I cannot do the same with allegorical interpretation (although the Antioch School might be a big help if I tried).
Hi Rebecca. Allow me be the first to welcome you to CAF (Catholic Answer Forums)
I’m a Christian because I think the Catholic Church has added doctrines not taught by the apostles over the centuries. Doctrines I think may be additions to the faith once for all delivered to the saints are:
Long list. Long debates all of them. You can always start a tread on a topic, or use the search engine to see whats being discussed or was recently.
In order for you to receive satisfactory answers to your questions you might wish to ask them one by one. It is easy for one to make an accusation in a few sentences which may take pages to adequateley refute or explain. Truthfully, each of the subjects you brought up could be their own thread and if I were you I would start a new thread for those you think are the most important.
Yes I am now aware. And thank you =] And I see your point about the views. But what I mean is that as you say the changes help you to stay faithful to true Christianity, doesn’t quite make sense to me. The reason I believe in Catholicism, is because it was never changed (with the exception of Vatican II in the Nova Dsuardo Mass, however the Mass I go to is Pre-Vatican II). So this is the actual religion Jesus Christ intended to be celebrated. So why change it? How is changing the religion He started going to get you closer to it? I’ve heard of pro-choice Christians, gay friendly churches, now of course I don’t mean Protestant in general (there are many Protestants I respect very much) but there are churches that are allowing things that they shouldn’t.Hi Rebecca. Allow me be the first to welcome you to CAF (Catholic Answer Forums)
If you are not aware, you have just jumped into one of the most debated aspect of Protestantism vs. Catholicism, so welcome to the deep end:thumbsup:. Some important things to note about us Protestants: we tend to disagree with the Catholic analysis on the things I bolded in your above quote. We don’t view the changes we made to Christianity as anything but trying to be more faithful to true Christianity. Also, we don’t claim that the men and women who “started” our denominations were creating new churches. We claim that the we still belong to the one Church that Jesus Christ started. Now, whether we can truly and reasonably claim that is a different story. Perhaps you might provide us with reasons why you think it is incorrect.
Let me assure that I and Catholics here are everybit as Christian as yourself.
You have me confused
However, I wish to make it clear that the Gospel of Thomas is not approved. When I say approved, I mean that it is not regarded as being anything but a fiction.Seriously? Please tell me the year and who invented purgatory? Names please… If you are 100% certain the above were added,then kindly provide me the sources showing when purpgatory was invented?
Loraine Boettner…? Is that you?
Very funny… it does full under the “gunshot” approach where you try shooting everything, hoping that something must stick. Counter to Boettner is of course Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism. I think every gunshot subject is covered.
:yawn:So I’m still confused as to whether or not you are still standing behind this statement. And if you are, I’m curious how/where the Catholic Church decided to declare the Gospel of Thomas to be private revelation.
KG already addressed this in post #206.