H
HailMary
Guest
Just for the record that is untrue. If you honestly believe that, then I can see why it would be so hard for you to be a Catholic.
- Status
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Who told you this? Catholics are free to interpret what they will out of the Bible unless is goes AGAINST Catholic teaching and as long as they don’t deny what Catholics Teach.
Now, the Church has taught that the woman represents:
Mary, Israel, AND the Church all at the same time. There has been no dogmatic statements to this effect.
You must understand, the Church doesn’t declare something dogmatic until there is such a dispute about it, that it cause an uproar. That’s why Transubstantiation and Purgatory were so late in the Church’s History - There was no argument against these teachings.
Just because they teach one thing, does not deny that it can ALSO be another.
Remember, the Church teaches that Mary is a type of Israel, and Mary is a type of the Church (or is it Israel and the Church are types of Mary). These case that the woman is Mary does not deny that the woman is the Church.
There are multiple fulfillments to numerous Scriptures. Take a look at Isaiah 7:14. This prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah’s time, and then later fulfilled in Jesus.
C
cleargospel99
Guest
This is fascinating. If I’m wrong I stand corrected. I read your apologists (james akin, art sippo, robert sungenis, gerry matatics, patrick madrid…etc). They condemn Protestants for engaging in private speculation (re: sola scriptura), but now you say that you are free to engage in it for yourselves.
Let me be sure I understand you: Would it be correct to say, that since the “Queen of Heaven” title for Mary is not a dogmatic article of faith, then a member of your church who is constrained by his conscience (re: Jer 7&44) is free to refrain from honoring Mary with that title?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Even if it were a Dogmatic Article of Faith, I do not have to call Mary, “Queen of Heaven”. I could NOT, though, condemn the teaching that Mary is Queen of Heaven (if it had been dogmatically defined).
I can be against the prohibition of priests getting married or women priests. But I can’t condemn the teaching. (I know I’m mixing disciplines and dogmas, fellow Catholics, but bear with me).
I can interpret the Woman to be a pre-carnation of Shirley McClaine, for all that matters. But I can’t condemn the church’s teachings that the woman represents Mary, Israel, AND the NT Church.
For that matter, I am not sinning if I don’t say the “Hail Mary” with everyone else. I could say my own prayers in silence if it made me more comfortable, and I would encourage anyone uncomfortable with the “Hail Mary” to say their own prayers in silence.
BTW, would any fellow Catholics tell me if I’ve crossed over on this one?
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
The difference might seem rather nuanced to you, but Catholics read scripture in the light of tradition, yet we are allowed greater freedom than many realize. It’s certainly not “sola scriptura.” I compare our way of reading the Bible to children who can play in a playground that is surrounded by a fence to keep them safe from heavy traffic or other dangers. The doctines of the Church help protect us from misinterpreting scriptures, which I think allows *greater *freedom, not less.
We don’t have to constantly question the basics of the faith, so we can learn and meditate on the specifics that interest us or that are relevant to our situation. Yet in knowing and holding to the basics of the faith, we can avoid some misinterpretations that one might otherwise make. The Church makes declarations later than the apostolic era to address new questions or heresies that arrive over time. For instance, if NotWorthy’s “Shirley McClaine theory” ever gained significant following, the Church might eventually correct it.
That is my understanding of it.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I gotta admit, I loved that statement. I was hoping somebody got the joke!!!For instance, if NotWorthy’s “Shirley McClaine theory” ever gained significant following, the Church might eventually correct it.
- Status