P
- Status
J
J_C
Guest
I’m sorry, Paul, but i was reaching around you to make a larger point, which I fear you overlooked.
your purpose is to show that Catholic teaching is defective, which you must, or else you would be hard pressed to show why being a mormon is a good idea.
we don’t get our doctrines from snippets of quotes from ancient theologians, we get them from the Magesterium, all 2000 years of it.
that is what I mean by context.
as for interpretation, it seems clear to most of us that there are varying interpretations of scripture between mormoans and Catholics. So the question becomes who gives you your authority in this matter? if the answer is visions claimed by a new yorker less than 200 years ago, then what does it matter (to you) what I think Justin meant about anything?
P
Paul_G
Guest
If you re-read my post you will find no comparison or reference, what so ever, with Catholic teaching. You are speculating as to my motives. The topic of this thread deals with the thoughts of Irenaeus sounding like a Mormon in places.
Some have said that his writings in no way can be compared to LDS thought. I have no idea what the Catholic position is on these writings or how they are interpreted, although it would welcomed, What I have commented on here is that there are some ideas in his writing that are very similar to LDS thought, this also extends to other early Christian writers.
The writing of Irenaeus, I agree, are not scripture however they do give us a glimpse into the thinking of that time. I don’t know why you would bring up Joseph Smith; this thread is about the thoughts of Irenaeus, and I don’t believe there is an issue of authority of interpretation here; I am simply a reader who sees ideas that are familiar, to me, in the writings of earlier Christians. Perhaps you do not recognise them in the same way.
You mentioned things taken out of context and “strange interpretations” applied to them. I just wondered if there is a Catholic position, or if you had any personal ideas on some of the thoughts of Irenaeus or Justin I quoted… Other wise no worries.
Paul
J
J_C
Guest
yes Paul, no worries
I have observed that you usually come from a moromon point of view which since you are one that is understandable. hense the proposition of the Op as to whether Irenaeus was a mormon. it seems to me that mormons i know, and those that come to this furum, are on a mission so to speak, and i have assumed you to be on the same mission, forgive me if I have assumed wrongly.
i am not qualified to speak with authority about Irenaeus, or Justin, as I have not studied these men much.
but no, i seriously doubt that Irenaeus was a mromon, and in fact i believe that any searching of the early Christian writers for signs of mormonism except to the extent that certain heresies existed then, and have reappeared under the banner of that religion, are a waste of time. while there have always been these heresies, and though suppressed they managed to morph and reappear in different guises over the centuries, so if certain people were having these hertical thoughts in those days, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these were the thoughts of the universal Chruch. but i am not referring to any specific writing of any specific person, but only of a general idea of why you might find something of a mormon taste encased in the writing of an ancient thinker.
I have observed that you usually come from a moromon point of view which since you are one that is understandable. hense the proposition of the Op as to whether Irenaeus was a mormon. it seems to me that mormons i know, and those that come to this furum, are on a mission so to speak, and i have assumed you to be on the same mission, forgive me if I have assumed wrongly.
i am not qualified to speak with authority about Irenaeus, or Justin, as I have not studied these men much.
but no, i seriously doubt that Irenaeus was a mromon, and in fact i believe that any searching of the early Christian writers for signs of mormonism except to the extent that certain heresies existed then, and have reappeared under the banner of that religion, are a waste of time. while there have always been these heresies, and though suppressed they managed to morph and reappear in different guises over the centuries, so if certain people were having these hertical thoughts in those days, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these were the thoughts of the universal Chruch. but i am not referring to any specific writing of any specific person, but only of a general idea of why you might find something of a mormon taste encased in the writing of an ancient thinker.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I’m uncertain what St. Paul may have said or done, but I heard it said that he was a Marxist.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Now come on, LaMar. You know full well that this is not remotely close to Catholic teaching.
Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not by Jesus. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, nor is he the Father.
Mary is Jesus’ queen, not his bride. The Church is the bride of Christ as the bible says.
In Ancient Israel the queen (the Gibera) was the mother of the king, not his wife. Beginning with Bathsheba (Solomon’s mom) the Gibera wore a crown and sat on a throne at the king’s right hand. She was recognized as the advocate of the poor and disenfranchised, and would plead their cause to the king. Who can say no to his mom? Not me.
In the book of Jeremiah, God recognizes the queen mother’s authority, and tells Jeremiah that the king and the queen mother will lose their crowns and their authority.
People get messed up by thinking of Jesus’ kingship and Mary’s queenship in terms of European royalty, rather than Israelite royalty.
Check it out in the OT.
God bless,
Paul
L
LaMar
Guest
Veni sponsa Christi accipe coronam quam tibi dominus preparavit in aeternum.
That’s circa the 12th or 13th century…long before Mary was officially declared sponsa Christi by a pope in the 20th.
Now, we can disagree about many things, but we can’t disagree about the plain message of this prayer/hymn. We’re both educated people. We know what sponsa Christi means.
Why obfuscate anyway? It’s Oedipus Rex writ large, projected into the fabric of the universe. I think it’s cool. You’re not like Mormons and Jews, who have to hide and lie when they want to approach “Heavenly Mother” or “G-d the feminine”. You can talk about it openly. It’s one of the aspects of Catholicism that makes psychological sense (even if it’s not reflective of reality). Be proud of it.
(ETA: You’re right, I don’t cross my mother either
)
J
J_C
Guest
the Church is the Bride of Christ. Mary being part of the Church, in fact its first member, and the Mother of the Church, is also the Bride of Christ in that same sense, as well as being the Mother of God in that she was the mother of Jesus, who was both fully God and fully man. But not the Bride of Christ in the sense that a man and a woman are husband and wife. Mary could be considered the spouse of the Holy Spirit. the three persons of the Trinity are disctinct persons, so don’t confuse the Son with either the Father or the Holy Spirit.
see how much you are learning!
- Status