K
KathleenGee
Guest
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church does not control the world money system.
What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?
- Status
B
byeveryword
Guest
Neither does it control the legalization of abortion, but she does not fail to speak out on this moral issue. There is no reason why the Catholic church could not encourage a year of jubilee, especially in the countries that have a majority Catholic population.
A
adrift
Guest
Jesus did not say anything about money. I really don’t agree that what you have presented is usury. Perhaps you can present evidence of what you think the Church teaches.
B
byeveryword
Guest
My comments on interest or usury on non-productive loans such as for medical services, housing, or transportation to work were taken from one of your previous posts:
"Usury involves interest taken on a non-productive loan. (Example: a loan to a friend so he can have an operation.) Since medievals believed money as such to be non-productive and sterile (which in fact it generally was in the Middle Ages), they thought any interest taken immoral. (It’s still immoral to take interest on a non-productive loan, since such a loan violates the virtue of charity.) Only things which were productive could be loaned out with the expectation of compensation for the loss of productivity. For example, it would not have been usurious for a medieval farmer to loan out his cow and expect compensation for the milk lost during the time of the loan. "
A
adrift
Guest
Yes I thought that might be the case but you can’t just take part of what I said. The article I quoted also said
The concept of money has changed. Money today is a commodity in itself which was not the case in the Middle Ages. In the second example of the farmer loaning out his cow is comparative to the bank loaning out money. My mother in law loaned us money to buy a house. This was money that would earn her interest in the bank. It was not just to take the money and repay only the loan amount because that would not repay her for what she would loose. Just like it wouldn’t be just for the farmer not to be compensated for his milk. Note that it is talking about medieval times. The use of money has changed.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
So then does Thomas Aquinas burn in the fires of hell for his rejection of the Immaculate Conception? It’s an unnecessary development of doctrine—a theologoumenon at best—and elevating it to the level of a dogma, such that rejecting it condemns one to hell, is downright irresponsible.And I love you Mickey but how could Christ be without original sin if original sin is inherited from the Mother?
And it IS necessary to believe that the Blessed Mother was saved from Original sin. It really is. It is more important then you can ever know.
I am going to bed right now, had a long day, but do me a favor my friend. PLEASE pray to God tonight and ask him to give you the grace to see how Important this really is.
You do not understand what you are saying. IF the Blessed Mother had original sin and she could not be saved from it by GodDo you see the insanity of this statement you are making?
Sure, the Immaculate Conception is possible, since with God’s will, anything is possible, but then to turn around and say that God must have done it (in other words, saying that Christ could not be brought into the world by the blessed Virgin Mary without the Immaculate Conception) is placing an unnecessary limit upon the power of God.
R
rinnie
Guest
How could God saving Mary free from O.S. at the moment of her conception take away her free will here on earth
So then you are saying that when we are saved from Original Sin at the moment of our Baptsim it would take away our free will also then right?
R
rinnie
Guest
Why he never said she sinned, Here is what he said.
He said God endows those he chooses and he choose for some a particular office that they are RENDERED CAPABLE of FULLFILLING it. 2 Cor 3:6
He said she WOULD NOT be worthy of the MOTHER of GOD IF she sinned. Because of the honor of Parents reflets on the Child. Proverbs.
He said the shame would have been reflected on her SON.
He also said becouse of her singular affinity between her and Christ who took flesh from her BODY AND SOUL. 2:cor6:15
The Singular manner of which God who is the DIVINE WISDOM DWELT in her womb AS IT IS WRITTEN, WISDOM will not ENTER into a Malicious SOUL nor DWELL in a body SUBJECT to sins. Wis.:4.
Now please explain to me how that is saying she had sin
R
rinnie
Guest
He also said:
We MUST therefore confess simply that the Blessed Mother commed NO actual sin neither mortal nor venial so that what is written is fulfilled.
Song of Songs4:7 Thou art all fair O my Love ther is not a SPOT on thee, etc
He never ever denied that she was sineless, he just never understood how she was rendered sinless was all.]
He did not understand the I C is all. He never denied it, it never understood it.
We MUST therefore confess simply that the Blessed Mother commed NO actual sin neither mortal nor venial so that what is written is fulfilled.
Song of Songs4:7 Thou art all fair O my Love ther is not a SPOT on thee, etc
He never ever denied that she was sineless, he just never understood how she was rendered sinless was all.]
He did not understand the I C is all. He never denied it, it never understood it.
R
rinnie
Guest
Mickey what ST Thomas said about Mary had to be untouched by sin in order for her son to be untouched is what I was trying to explain to you.
Read the previous scripture and you will see that ST Thomas was saying exactly what I was trying to say.
M
Mickey
Guest
But it does not mean she was conceived without original sin.
I think the big one is papal infallibility (1870).
M
Mickey
Guest
Christ saved us all. Eve was about disobedience…St Mary was about obedience—her affirmative response to the angel Gabriel.
Indeed she was blessed amongst women and Christ is the fruit of her womb…but this had nothing to do with the innovation of the immaculate conception…you are not making any sense.
M
Mickey
Guest
For you it is…it is a doctrine of the RCC.
Sorry rinnie. It is not insanity to believe that St Mary was born with original sin like you and I…but through the grace of God and her own free will, through great ascetism, she remained sinless in preparation for the Anunciation! This is a glorious example to the entire human race that we can choose (by grace) to be free from the passions…like our mother…the Most Holy Theotokos.
B
byeveryword
Guest
These changes brought about the economic turmoil we have today in the world. Who can say what may have happened if the Catholic church had stayed her ground.
M
Mickey
Guest
He was also completely divine…remember? This is a great mystery.
rinnie and Mickey,
I see points in each of your arguments. I also believe that God could have prepared the Blessed Virgin in the ways described by both of you, because as has been said, nothing is impossible for Him.
So, from a Lutheran perspective, I offer 2 thoughts, and a question;
Jon
I see points in each of your arguments. I also believe that God could have prepared the Blessed Virgin in the ways described by both of you, because as has been said, nothing is impossible for Him.
So, from a Lutheran perspective, I offer 2 thoughts, and a question;
- this is a small example of the problem caused by dogmatic statements from councils that are not truly ecumenical, and from popes who do not benefit from them
- it seems intuitive that the Schism is at the root of the Reformation, and the advent of the use of Sola Scriptura.
Jon
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
No “you” are saying that, what is accurate in stating is the fact the early fathers were referrenced in the IC. Thats what I’m saying.
Listen, there are some very simple facts here you chose to ignore.
Irenaeus is a perfect example in this thread. Did he specifically speak on the IC? Of course not and no-one said that in this thread. The “point” is…
Irenaeus really wrote Against Heresies.
He really made the connection with Mary/Eve thus Genesis!
It really happened in 2-AD
And the second part of the IC really relates Mary to Eve to Genesis.
Mickey these are FACTS which really are not up for debate.
And this is just “one” of the early church fathers I referrenced.
M
Mickey
Guest
Wrong. I have stated that it is not patristic or part of the ancient Church. You say otherwise. Prove it.
Agreed.
Can you show this to us patristically?
M
Mickey
Guest
Good points, Jon. Could the Orthodox accept the idea of the IC as theologoumena? I do not know. But Rome went ahead and declared it to be doctrine (something that RC’s are bound to believe). This is a problem. Rome cannot go back retroactively and say that the IC is theologoumena-----to do so would also render their doctrine of papal infallibility as null and void.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Regarding the IC dogma, my personal opinion is that it came about as a bug fix.
The prevailing concept of Original Sin in the west is fundamentally flawed. There is a sense of total depravity in humanity. A symptom of this is all the agnst over justification, which divides Christians today.
The traditional early high regard for the Holy Theotokos cannot be sustained in an environment like this unless she is made an exception and not born like the rest of us. So the IC dogma was declared as a kind of ‘patch’, a ‘bug fix’ to western theological programming to preserve both the western notion of deparavity and the older traditional notion of the Holy Theotokos’ purity.
So that’s what we have now. Westerners arguing over whether she is as depraved as the rest of us from birth, or whether she is not.
This explains why Eastern Christians often have a hard time answering the question of whether they believe in the IC. Maybe yes, maybe no.
It depends on what one thinks about original sin. Roman Catholics often try to claim that they believe the same things about original sin that the Orthodox do, but their need to preserve the Holy Theotokos from original sin clearly shows that they do not see it the same way, regardless of how they describe it.
The prevailing concept of Original Sin in the west is fundamentally flawed. There is a sense of total depravity in humanity. A symptom of this is all the agnst over justification, which divides Christians today.
The traditional early high regard for the Holy Theotokos cannot be sustained in an environment like this unless she is made an exception and not born like the rest of us. So the IC dogma was declared as a kind of ‘patch’, a ‘bug fix’ to western theological programming to preserve both the western notion of deparavity and the older traditional notion of the Holy Theotokos’ purity.
So that’s what we have now. Westerners arguing over whether she is as depraved as the rest of us from birth, or whether she is not.
This explains why Eastern Christians often have a hard time answering the question of whether they believe in the IC. Maybe yes, maybe no.
It depends on what one thinks about original sin. Roman Catholics often try to claim that they believe the same things about original sin that the Orthodox do, but their need to preserve the Holy Theotokos from original sin clearly shows that they do not see it the same way, regardless of how they describe it.
- Status