- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Much Needed Clarity Regarding the Pope and the Recent Document Regarding Blessings
Posted on 1/1/24 at 11:47 am to MemphisGuy
Posted on 1/1/24 at 11:47 am to MemphisGuy
quote:
she also had other children by Joseph and did not live a sinless life.
As to the former, there's an easy explanation why you're wrong and it's already been explained to you.
As for the latter, it is much more subtle to find the Truth about this topic. It is not a matter of Mortal Sin or Salvation to misunderstand that Mary's life was Sinless.
Those who would like to more deeply understand can read these brief articles on Catholic Answers.
LINK
0
Posted on 1/1/24 at 11:50 am to FooManChoo
quote:
"Some support...from time to time". That doesn't sound like consistent and authoritative interpretation to me.
Because it's not. There has been no authoritative interpretation made by the Magisterium on that particular title. There have been certain members within the Magisterium who from time to time have used that title to describe our Blessed Mother, but that is very different from the Magisterium as a whole declaring in one voice that something is or isn't so.
Nice try though.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 11:54 am to RollTide1987
quote:
If this were true then Christ would not have entrusted St. John the Apostle with her care in his final moments on the cross.
Were Jesus' brothers believers at that time? Were they present at the crucifixion? No and No. Was John Jesus' closest friend and the person, at that point, whom he would most entrust the care of his mother? Yes. Jesus' brothers didn't become believers until after the resurrection... and weren't present at the crucifixion... therefore Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to his closest friend, John.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 11:59 am to Champagne
quote:I'm glad you confirmed I have a right understanding of what you believe. However, you missed my point. Clarification goes one way, however it seems like in this case, the Magisterium has gone from more clarity to less clarity, which I didn't think would be possible given what the Catholic church teaches about the Magisterium's authority over interpretation.
Yes, it's been clarified. Thanks for helping us to deepen our understanding of the how the Catholic teaching authority works.
quote:Not at all. I don't feel "the same way" at all. I believe whole-heartedly that Mary was blessed by God, but so was all those in the line of Christ who were called out in the genealogies of the Gospels. Ruth had an entire book of the Bible written about her, and she was in that line. Sarah was mentioned in the "hall of faith" in Hebrews 11:11 because of her faith that she could conceive a child at her old age. Her pregnancy was also miraculous, and she was one of great faith, yet Catholics don't esteem her to anywhere near the same degree as Mary, though Mary's mention in the New Testament disappears after the first part of the book of Acts. The very Scriptures do not focus on Mary to the degree that Tradition does, though only the Scriptures are said to be God breathed.
Catholics have a special love for the Mother of God, Mary, who gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity. She was a wonderful mother and suffered much to see her Son abused and Crucified. She will always be loved and blessed by us Catholics.
Do you not feel the same way towards Mary, Mother of God?
I recognize that Mary was blessed due to her being chosen by God, but there was nothing good in herself that led her to be chosen by God.
Jesus Christ is the center of my faith and to God alone gets the glory.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:00 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
Were Jesus' brothers believers at that time?
So now you are denying Christ's divinity by refusing His omniscience? If Christ was who He said He was, one must assume that He would have seen the conversion of His brethren just like He saw Peter redeeming himself after his denial of Him.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:05 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
So now you are denying Christ's divinity by refusing His omniscience?
No, not at all.
quote:
If Christ was who He said He was, one must assume that He would have seen the conversion of His brethren just like He saw Peter redeeming himself after his denial of Him.
100% accurate. He knew His brothers would eventually come to be believers.
I just don't think you can make the jump to Mary lived a chaste life and never "knew" Joseph and certainly never had any other children because Jesus, on the cross, entrusted her care to the apostle John. You, however, in my humble opinion, are making all kinds of leaps and jumps based upon that one action.
Neither of us knows why Jesus made that choice. I explain it my way and you explain it your way.
Will it keep either of us out of an eternal fellowship with God based upon our salvation? I don't think so.
This post was edited on 1/1/24 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:09 pm to RollTide1987
quote:This only highlights the problem Catholics have when relying on the Magisterium. There are several ways of understanding what the Magisterium actually is, including who can exercise its authority and when, and what level of authority is attached to particular teachings. That hardly helps your case against us heretical Protestants who believe in the ultimate authority of the Bible.
Because it's not. There has been no authoritative interpretation made by the Magisterium on that particular title. There have been certain members within the Magisterium who from time to time have used that title to describe our Blessed Mother, but that is very different from the Magisterium as a whole declaring in one voice that something is or isn't so.
Nice try though.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:13 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
I just don't think you can make the jump to Mary lived a chaste life and never "knew" Joseph and certainly never had any other children because Jesus, on the cross, entrusted her care to the apostle John.
This is why Protestants always fail. They don't understand the culture of Judaism. You absolutely HAVE to make that jump because that was the CULTURE of the time. Jesus was a Jew and when you read the New Testament you can't help but notice that he might have been the Jewiest Jew who ever lived. "Honor Your Father and Mother" is one of the Ten Commandments. In our present day we think that commandment merely means to obey them but that is NOT what it meant to a first century Jew. It meant that they should care for their parents in their old age just as their parents had cared for them when they were children. Multiple generations of families lived and died in the households of first century Judea. As an example we know from the gospels that Peter's mother-in-law lived with him at his house.
So even if for argument's sake Jesus's supposed siblings didn't believe in Christ as the Son of God, they wouldn't have let a total stranger take care of their mother. Especially not the disciple of a man who was crucified. That would have been the ultimate shame for their family. They'd never be allowed to worship in the Temple or the synagogue ever again.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:20 pm to RollTide1987
We can agree to disagree on this point.
I do like this statement, though:
I simply think that His brothers weren't present... they were traveling or in another city or somewhere else... and weren't there to take care of Mary, and since Jesus had to entrust her care to someone, He chose John, who most certainly wasn't a total stranger. He was one of Jesus' closest friends and certainly therefore a close friend of Mary. It's not as if Jesus simply picked some no name Joe out of the crowd...
I do like this statement, though:
quote:
he might have been the Jewiest Jew who ever lived.
I simply think that His brothers weren't present... they were traveling or in another city or somewhere else... and weren't there to take care of Mary, and since Jesus had to entrust her care to someone, He chose John, who most certainly wasn't a total stranger. He was one of Jesus' closest friends and certainly therefore a close friend of Mary. It's not as if Jesus simply picked some no name Joe out of the crowd...
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:21 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
There are several ways of understanding what the Magisterium actually is, including who can exercise its authority and when, and what level of authority is attached to particular teachings.
No, there really aren't. When the Pope or the Magisterium as a whole declare something as doctrine or dogma, the words "We" and "Us" are thrown around liberally.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
2 Tim. 3:16.
quote:
The passage that "Scripture" (by itself, because nothing else is added to the word in this passage) is sufficient for what the task.
It doesn't. See point B. You're engaging in eisegesis here. You're starting with the presupposition that scripture alone is true, and then when you see a passage that says "scripture is God-breathed", you twist it to say that ONLY scripture is God-breathed"
In reference to point B, you said
quote:
Read the passage again, in particular verse 17. Scripture is what is sufficient for making the man of God "complete, equipped for every good work".
The passage literally says that scripture is USEFUL, not solely sufficient. The man of God is made thoroughly equipped through teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Scripture is stated to aid in those things, but the verse literally does not say it's the only thing that does this, or that it's sufficient at doing these things.
Again, you're twisting scripture to make it read the way you want it to read.
quote:
It should be noted that only Scripture is stated to be "God breathed", because it is the very word of God. Nothing else has that descriptor.
He told Timothy in verse 15 that the scriptures he was referring to, Timothy had read from infancy. This would be the Old Testament. Are you saying the Old Testament alone is able to sufficiently equip a man for every good work?
quote:
How can you claim this passage supports any kind of "sufficiency" (material sufficiency) when just before, you say "the passage doesn't say that scripture is "'sufficient'"? In one breath you say that the passage doesn't say "sufficient" while in another, you say it teaches some form of sufficiency.
I was referring to sola scriptura as a whole, not that specific passage.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:33 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Jesus didn't come to uphold the traditions of the culture, but the word of God. Jesus frequently got in trouble by the leaders of the Jews for His bucking of tradition and cultural norms for the sake of the Kingdom.
This is why Protestants always fail. They don't understand the culture of Judaism. You absolutely HAVE to make that jump because that was the CULTURE of the time. Jesus was a Jew and when you read the New Testament you can't help but notice that he might have been the Jewiest Jew who ever lived. "Honor Your Father and Mother" is one of the Ten Commandments. In our present day we think that commandment merely means to obey them but that is NOT what it meant to a first century Jew. It meant that they should care for their parents in their old age just as their parents had cared for them when they were children. Multiple generations of families lived and died in the households of first century Judea. As an example we know from the gospels that Peter's mother-in-law lived with him at his house.
So even if for argument's sake Jesus's supposed siblings didn't believe in Christ as the Son of God, they wouldn't have let a total stranger take care of their mother. Especially not the disciple of a man who was crucified. That would have been the ultimate shame for their family. They'd never be allowed to worship in the Temple or the synagogue ever again.
I don't think it's a very compelling argument to say that Jesus was bound to follow the cultural traditions of the day regarding the care for His mother.
This post was edited on 1/1/24 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:38 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
I simply think that His brothers weren't present... they were traveling or in another city or somewhere else... and weren't there to take care of Mary, and since Jesus had to entrust her care to someone, He chose John, who most certainly wasn't a total stranger. He was one of Jesus' closest friends and certainly therefore a close friend of Mary. It's not as if Jesus simply picked some no name Joe out of the crowd...
Or it could be as simple as Christ had no other siblings and John was entrusted with caring for Mary because Christ loved him more than his other disciples. You don't give your mother to a person for the rest of her life just because they happen to be standing nearby. Assuming of course they were indeed Christ's siblings, we know for a fact that James and Jude came to believe right after the Resurrection and were leading members in the early Church. One would assume that they would have come up to John at some point and said, "Hey, man. We got her." But they didn't. We are told that Mary lived with him in Ephesus until her Dormition.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus didn't come to uphold the traditions of the culture, but the word of God.
The fifth commandment is the Word of God.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:47 pm to Champagne
quote:
I notice that Revelator never talks about his own particular religious congregation
I go to a great Baptist church that is very fundamental, has an older congregation and a great pastor. What else do you want to know?
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:48 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
No longer". I thought the Magisterium never changed or contradicted itself.
Only until it does
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:49 pm to Revelator
And when it does the Second Coming won't be too far away.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:50 pm to RollTide1987
quote:I'm confused. I read this article (I hope Champagne is proud) from Catholic Answers that lays it all out for me.
No, there really aren't. When the Pope or the Magisterium as a whole declare something as doctrine or dogma, the words "We" and "Us" are thrown around liberally.
To summarize, the Magisterium can refer to:
1. The teaching authority of the Church, itself
2. The exercise of the teaching authority of the Church
3. The body of teachings
In addition, it is further divided or described as:
1. The ordinary magisterium
2. The extraordinary magisterium
The extraordinary magisterium can further be understood as either:
1. All teachings from Ecumenical Councils, or
2. Only infallible definitions of teaching from Ecumenical Councils
Also in addition, recent documents use a different term for extraordinary magisterium called "universal magisterium", which refers to "the bishops of the world teaching in union with the pope outside of an ecumenical council".
Also again, there is a term used called the "authentic magisterium", which refers to any doctrine that has been "authoritatively taught."
Lastly, the article talks about how the Magesterium can exercise its authority in "many ways" and in "different degrees".
The article concludes with a very interesting set of statements: "A particular mistake to be avoided is thinking that, just because something has not been taught infallibly, it is optional. This is not the case, and the degree of authority with which the Magisterium has taught must be recognized.
When considering the authority that statements in magisterial documents have, one must make a careful assessment. The degree of authority “becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed” "
For one, it's interesting that the magisterium is not optional even though there are different ways and degrees of expressing that authority. Secondly, it's interesting that the level of authority the Magisterium provides a given doctrine is up for interpretation and requires "careful assessment". That sounds an awful lot like what Protestants say about Scripture, and yet the Magisterium is supposed to be even better (in a sense) than Scripture because it provides the right interpretation and understanding.
This post was edited on 1/1/24 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:56 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
they wouldn't have let a total stranger take care of their mother.
John the beloved disciple was a total stranger? Surely you are kidding.
Posted on 1/1/24 at 12:59 pm to CatholicLSUDude
AKSHULLY
Page 14 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News