itsjustdave1988:
Biblereader,
With all due respect to Mr. Akin, he’s not vested with magisterial authority… Mr. Akin is not vested with magisterial authority, whereas, Cardinal Ratzinger is.
Or, could it be that your view of the way the Magisterium operates is too magical, too ordered?
First, I don’t care that Mr. Akin wrote the article. What I care about is that the Council of Vienna *supports *him. And Cardinal Ratzinger is vested with authority, and not mistaken, only if the Holy Father agrees with him. So, YOU may turn out to be the “heretic” on this one, too, anathema-thrower.
Did you know that Pope Liberius, the first pope to not be canonized, articulated a “conditional approval” of the great Arian Heresy, against Athanasius, so that the saying arose, “athanasius against the world,” and then, when Liberius was saved from the custody of Araian soldiers, Liberius*** condemned his own questionable proclamation, and affirmed Athanasius’ analysis.***
There are actually several contradictory expressions of theology, because Magisterial expressions sometimes “mutate” from a “garbled” state.
In my opinion, the Magisterium’s initial blank check approval of Aquinas’ nonsense about the soul is “garble.” The Council of Vienna’s proclamation, and the implications, are the “garble” beginning to be straightened out.
Your in-between non-commitment on ensoulment will ultimately be struck down, and anathematized, in my opinion.
Today, you condemn me, and Father Brown.
Tomorrow, you will. be anathematized, you poor, unrelaxed guy.
Here’s another one of the bits of “garbled” truth, still not straightened out: Jesus’ birth.
The Biblical canon is
clearly an expression of the Magisterium. By affirming canonicity and inspiration, the Magisterium made the Biblical canon its own teaching to us.
Now, the Biblical canon affirms in various ways that Mary giving birth to Jesus was like any other birth.
For example, Luke 2:24 infallibly and clearly affirms that Mary and Joseph “came to offer in sacrifice ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,’ in accord with the dictate of the law of the Lord.”
What does that mean?
That means that because Mary was afflicted with a “flow of blood” in giving birth to Jesus, she needed purifying. See Leviticus 12:6-8.
Luke is affirming that because Mary BLED in giving birth, the law of the Lord dictated that that sacrifice of two birds be made.
If Mary had not bled, her actions would have NOT been dictated by the law of the Lord.
She DID BLEED, so the sacrifice WAS DICTATED.
Lo and behold, Luke uses the same two Greek terms used by him to describe John the Baptist’s NON-miraculous birth, gennao and tikto, to describe Jesus’ birth.
And, Jesus describes Jesus’ birth as that of a “first-born male to open the womb.” Technically, probably “open the womb” means that not only was Jesus Mary’s first male, but also Mary’s first child, girl or boy.
But that “first-ness” was described as a child “opening” the womb to describe that “first-ness” with the concept that the first-born was the “womb opener” – the womb “separator” or “burster.”
It is not possible that if Jesus was miraculously born by somehow “beaming down” out of Mary without cutting through her tissues, the Early Church would not have noticed that He failed to fulfill Luke’s description of Jesus’ birth, by not physically “opening” Mary’s womb.
Despite the plainness of these inspired expressions in the unchangeable Biblical canon, the Magisterium has said
several times that Mary’s virginity was preserved
in partu.
Apparently, to try to escape the consequences of the Magisterium seeming to squarely contradict it’s own inspired, Magisterium-canonized Scriptures in a most alarming way, theologians insist that the Magisterium’s pronouncement be limited to its words – i.e., don’t draw any pictures in your head of how those words were play-out in reality, thus stripping the words of meaningful somatic content.
Because Luke says what he says, in my opinion the Magisterium is going to reverse itself on this one, too.
