Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 26 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Sincerely wanting to know
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:33 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 592
:duel I opened this topic not to debate but to check out for myself regarding our salvation being dependent on Mary's free will of saying "yes" or "no' at the Annunciation. I was a Catholic for many years and never heard of this until now. Where is the official Church teaching on this matter? Maybe I missed it when I was in catechism :sleep:

I'm looking forward to any direction on the subject.

Thanks!

Christ's Peace be with you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:52 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:49 am
Posts: 5306
Location: Hell
Religion: Apostate
According to Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 213, "Mary gave the redeemer, the Source of all graces to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces." (Sent. Certa)

This, while not defined dogma, is held to certain theological opinion (sententia ad fidem pertinens, theologice certa) whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the teachings of divine revelation.

Ott goes on: "Mary freely and deliberately co-operated in giving the Redeemer to the world.... The Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Redemption of mankind by the vicarious atonement of Christ were dependent on her assent."

Justin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:54 am 
Offline
Board Administrator
Board Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 12:38 pm
Posts: 9415
Location: Detroit
Religion: Catholic
The teaching is that Mary had Free Will. She could have said 'No'.

This is apparent in Luke 1. The Angel comes to Mary for her consent. If God did not care about Free Will, He could have overshadowed Mary without her knowledge.

Why bother sending an Angel to ask a question if you don't care about the answer. The same would be true of Mary was somehow controlled, like a robot.

Eve brought sin into the world by of her own Free Will, Mary brought redemption into the world by her Free 'fiat'.

The correct CCC entry:

973 By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.

_________________
-----------------------------------------------

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:17 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:28 am
Posts: 2139
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Rome Sweet Home
Quote:
At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140


As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."

CCC 494

Quote:
By pronouncing her "fiat" at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.
CCC 973

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:05 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 592
Thank you all for your supplying the references. I did my homework but only raises more questions.


Brendan wrote:
The teaching is that Mary had Free Will. She could have said 'No'.

This is apparent in Luke 1. The Angel comes to Mary for her consent. If God did not care about Free Will, He could have overshadowed Mary without her knowledge.

Why bother sending an Angel to ask a question if you don't care about the answer. The same would be true of Mary was somehow controlled, like a robot.

Eve brought sin into the world by of her own Free Will, Mary brought redemption into the world by her Free 'fiat'.


I fail to see how the Annunciation by the angel Gabriel is seeking Mary's consent. My Catholic bible even says the Annunciation, when you say the Joyful Mysteries it's the Annunciation not "Permission" :) Gabriel announced that she is highly favored and choosen to concieve. Also, she was full of grace. She was part of God's plan for salvation and choose her since the time sin entered the world. It was predestined to happen for all things are possible with God. Right?

Quote:

At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140


As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."


CCC 494

Part of the above quote said "Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a (single sin) to restrain her" This is talking about her Immaculate Conception. However the following quote from St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." So why would she need to be the cause of salvation for herself if she is free from original sin?



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:17 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:40 am
Posts: 8529
Location: Tennessee
Religion: Catholic
I'm not sure I follow your problem, spootz. Yes, she could have said no. God is not a rapist. Fortunately she said yes to God's announcement. Again, it was not predestined in that God would deny her free will. God knows everything (His eternal present) in our past, present, and future. He did choose (though 'choose' is only relevant as a tensed verb to us who fully live in a world where time has real meaning) Mary but then he also knew exactly how Mary would respond (and of course, supplying her any graces which might be needed). There is nothing conflicting about Mary's obedience and her free will.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:52 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:28 am
Posts: 2139
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Rome Sweet Home
Quote:
I fail to see how the Annunciation by the angel Gabriel is seeking Mary's consent. My Catholic bible even says the Annunciation, when you say the Joyful Mysteries it's the Annunciation not "Permission" Gabriel announced that she is highly favored and choosen to concieve. Also, she was full of grace. She was part of God's plan for salvation and choose her since the time sin entered the world. It was predestined to happen for all things are possible with God. Right?


Not sure where you're going with this but it seems that you are saying that every human in creation has been given free will but Mary. Here's what The Catechism says about this 'predestination':

Quote:
To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
CCC 600


CCC 1702 says that the divine image is in every man. 1705 says that through our intellect and will, we are given a freedom. This freedom is explained in 1731:

Quote:
Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.


When in Union with God (which Mary was) humans attain the 'perfection of charity'. She was not a Stepford wife. She was given intellect and will and the necessary grace to make her decision. Granted, the deck was stacked in favor of her fiat but she was still subject to all the temporal temptations and stumbling blocks as we all are and ALWAYS within the context of the 'freedom' given every human.

Look at Luke 1:34. Mary is troubled and asks how it all shall be. The angel answers her (Holy Spirit shall overshadow...') and she still must choose/obey God's will, just as we all must choose in our lives. Humans cooperate with God to create life. God can, but chooses not to create life 'by force'. Some human openness must be present. And so in Mary's case, she had to cooperate with God to incarnate God. She did so and the rest is salvation history.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:29 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 592
:brick:
Student wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your problem, spootz.
The "problem" that I have student is that you guys are not opening your Bibles to see what it says. Gabriel ANNOUNCES NOT SEEKING PERMISSION that Mary is to concieve the Savior. How hard is that to understand? :roll: If our salvation depended on her saying "no" or "yes" then we would be doomed. Thank God that He knew what he was doing and the woman He SELECTED before she was even born to be the mother of our Messiah. I'm not disputing her free will in fact Jesus had free will too but His Will is in union with the Father's like Mary's.

Let's stop beating the :deadhorse



Christ's Peace be with you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:54 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 592
GoodSamaritan wrote:
She was given intellect and will and the necessary grace to make her decision. Granted, the deck was stacked in favor of her fiat but she was still subject to all the temporal temptations and stumbling blocks as we all are and ALWAYS within the context of the 'freedom' given every human.
Thank you! I think we are getting closer to an understanding of each other PTL.

GoodSamaritan wrote:
And so in Mary's case, she had to cooperate with God to incarnate God. She did so and the rest is salvation history.
I agree whole :heart: ly. She may have free will but she was such a role model of total humilty to the Lord that in my opinion "no" never crossed her mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:57 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:49 am
Posts: 5306
Location: Hell
Religion: Apostate
Spootz wrote:
GoodSamaritan wrote:
She was given intellect and will and the necessary grace to make her decision. Granted, the deck was stacked in favor of her fiat but she was still subject to all the temporal temptations and stumbling blocks as we all are and ALWAYS within the context of the 'freedom' given every human.
Thank you! I think we are getting closer to an understanding of each other PTL.

GoodSamaritan wrote:
And so in Mary's case, she had to cooperate with God to incarnate God. She did so and the rest is salvation history.
I agree whole :heart: ly. She may have free will but she was such a role model of total humilty to the Lord that in my opinion "no" never crossed her mind.


As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

Quote:
Many holy fathers (Sts. Jerome, Cyril, Ephrem, Augustine) say that the consent of Mary was essential to the redemption. It was the will of God, St. Thomas says (Summa III:30), that the redemption of mankind should depend upon the consent of the Virgin Mary. This does not mean that God in His plans was bound by the will of a creature, and that man would not have been redeemed, if Mary had not consented. It only means that the consent of Mary was foreseen from all eternity, and therefore was received as essential into the design of God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01541c.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:00 pm 
Offline
Highness
Highness
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:53 pm
Posts: 6656
Location: Twin Cities MN
Spootz wrote:
:brick:
Student wrote:
I'm not sure I follow your problem, spootz.
The "problem" that I have student is that you guys are not opening your Bibles to see what it says. Gabriel ANNOUNCES NOT SEEKING PERMISSION that Mary is to concieve the Savior. How hard is that to understand? :roll: If our salvation depended on her saying "no" or "yes" then we would be doomed. Thank God that He knew what he was doing and the woman He SELECTED before she was even born to be the mother of our Messiah. I'm not disputing her free will in fact Jesus had free will too but His Will is in union with the Father's like Mary's.

Let's stop beating the :deadhorse



Christ's Peace be with you.


And what you don't seem to understand is that personal interpretation of the Bible is not in line with Catholic/biblical teaching. It is not up to you or me to decide what this verse or that means. That is the job of the Magisterium, the teaching branch of the Church, which is the bishops together with the pope. Just because the word annunciation is used to describe the event doesn't equate to Mary being robbed of her free will. Both are in operation here. God's will and Mary's free will. That is how God works with the people he choses.

No one is a puppet who must obey without a thought of their own or without making the decision to do so of their own free will. It may be scary to think that Mary might have said no and so there would have been no Incarnation, but it is possible that that might have happened. I agree that it was pretty darned improbable but not impossible.

If Mary had said no I rather imagine God would have known in advance and made provision for that. But, since she did say yes all we can know is what happened not what might have happened nor extrapolate theories about predestination based on our personal level of discomfort or misunderstanding of how God's will operates.

_________________
"God...rewards those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6c)

Della--with many stars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:00 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:49 am
Posts: 5306
Location: Hell
Religion: Apostate
Spootz wrote:
Part of the above quote said "Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a (single sin) to restrain her" This is talking about her Immaculate Conception. However the following quote from St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race." So why would she need to be the cause of salvation for herself if she is free from original sin?


From the dogmatic defintion of the IC of the BVM:

the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

She was preserved free of sin by anticipation of the Merits of Chirst, whose redeeming sacrifice God foreknew would be made possible by her free consent to the Incarnation.

Justin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:09 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 592
Thank you 1962Missal :clap: for the quote from New Advent. This was what I was trying to get but somehow it wasn't getting conveyed that way. I hope this settles this issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:47 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 592
Della wrote:
And what you don't seem to understand is that personal interpretation of the Bible is not in line with Catholic/biblical teaching.
I thought this teaching went out with Vatican II and Catholics are allowed to read the Bible? At least this is what I always thought. Besides if I don't understand what I'm reading I use Bible study guides or my Pastor.
Della wrote:
It is not up to you or me to decide what this verse or that means. That is the job of the Magisterium, the teaching branch of the Church, which is the bishops together with the pope.
What if you are in a country that forbids Christians from going to church or there is none nearby? What if there is no electicity, computers, or a Church body but the only thing you have is the Bible that you can read in secret?. Is the Holy Spirit bound only through the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium and it can not inspire that Christian who is hungery to hear the Word of God--Bible?
Della wrote:
Just because the word annunciation is used to describe the event doesn't equate to Mary being robbed of her free will. Both are in operation here. God's will and Mary's free will. That is how God works with the people he choses.
This has already been addressed and is now a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Della wrote:
No one is a puppet who must obey without a thought of their own or without making the decision to do so of their own free will.
Um, what did you tell me above about we can't be left to read the Bible for ourselves? Isn't it my free will to read the Bible without the permission of the Church and it's teachings to interpret it for me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:55 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:49 am
Posts: 5306
Location: Hell
Religion: Apostate
Spootz wrote:
Della wrote:
And what you don't seem to understand is that personal interpretation of the Bible is not in line with Catholic/biblical teaching.
I thought this teaching went out with Vatican II and Catholics are allowed to read the Bible? At least this is what I always thought.


How about letting Vatican II speak for itself:

Quote:
The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.


and:

Quote:
22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation; of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them...

It devolves on sacred bishops "who have the apostolic teaching" to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels. This can be done through translations of the sacred texts, which are to be provided with the necessary and really adequate explanations so that the children of the Church may safely and profitably become conversant with the Sacred Scriptures and be penetrated with their spirit.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION

Justin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:04 pm 
Offline
Highness
Highness
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:53 pm
Posts: 6656
Location: Twin Cities MN
Della wrote:
Quote:
And what you don't seem to understand is that personal interpretation of the Bible is not in line with Catholic/biblical teaching.


I thought this teaching went out with Vatican II and Catholics are allowed to read the Bible? At least this is what I always thought. Besides if I don't understand what I'm reading I use Bible study guides or my Pastor.

No, this teaching didn't go out with Vatican II. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough--not unusual for me nor in this medium of communication. What I probably should have added is that private interpretation of the Bible for formulating doctrine is not Catholic nor biblical. That is the job of the Magisterium. Of course we can read the Bible and understand a good deal without difficulty but when we do run into trouble or begin to think we know better than the Church what a passage means, we are to bow to the decision of the Magisterium in all matters of faith and morals.

Della wrote:
It is not up to you or me to decide what this verse or that means. That is the job of the Magisterium, the teaching branch of the Church, which is the bishops together with the pope.


What if you are in a country that forbids Christians from going to church or there is none nearby? What if there is no electicity, computers, or a Church body but the only thing you have is the Bible that you can read in secret?. Is the Holy Spirit bound only through the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium and it can not inspire that Christian who is hungery to hear the Word of God--Bible?

The Catholic Magisterium (is there any other?) decides matters of faith and morals not the individual believer or reader of the Bible. We can certainly draw inspiration from it, but we cannot disagree with the Church because of our own interpretation of it.

Della wrote:
Just because the word annunciation is used to describe the event doesn't equate to Mary being robbed of her free will. Both are in operation here. God's will and Mary's free will. That is how God works with the people he choses.


This has already been addressed and is now a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Just because you think you've settled in your own mind what Mary could and couldn't have done doesn't mean that you are right. The Magisterium is certainly right. But as for you or me......

Della wrote:
No one is a puppet who must obey without a thought of their own or without making the decision to do so of their own free will.


Um, what did you tell me above about we can't be left to read the Bible for ourselves? Isn't it my free will to read the Bible without the permission of the Church and it's teachings to interpret it for me?[/quote]

We can't decide what is a true doctrine or what is morally right just from reading the Bible. That is what we trust the Magisterium to do because Christ gave the Apostles and their successors the power to do that, not you or me. This is evident from the many denominations all reading the Bible and many of them deeply deivided on doctrinal and moral issues. We don't have that in the Church. People can disagree with the Church but that doesn't make them right, whether they read the Bible or not.

_________________
"God...rewards those who seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6c)

Della--with many stars.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:40 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 9:24 am
Posts: 9279
Spootz wrote:
I thought this teaching went out with Vatican II and Catholics are allowed to read the Bible? At least this is what I always thought.

No, you are wrong. There is and never has been a teaching that prohibits the reading of the Bible. So nothing was "allowed" by Vatican II that was not already allowed. In fact, Gregory XVI, repeating the councils and his predecessors, reiterates the authorization for the people to read the Bible in the vernacular. This is in 1844, from the encyclical Inter praecipuas:
Quote:
We have documents clearly detailing the singular zeal which the Supreme Pontiffs and bishops in recent times have used to instruct the Catholic people more thoroughly in the word of God, both as it exists in writing and in tradition. The decrees of the Council of Trent even commanded the bishops to see to it that "the sacred Scriptures and the divine law" are preached more frequently in the dioceses. . . . [I]n the rules written by the fathers chosen by the Council of Trent, approved by Pius IV, and placed in the Index of forbidden books, we read the statute declaring that vernacular Bibles are forbidden except to those for whom it is judged that the reading will contribute "to the increase of faith and piety." Because of the continued deceptions of heretics, this rule was further restricted and supplemented by a declaration of Benedict XIV: for the future the only vernacular translations which may be read are those which "are approved by the Apostolic See" or at least were published "with annotations taken from the holy Fathers of the Church, or from learned and Catholic authors."

You will find that this teaching is also the teaching of Vatican II which Justin posted above: that the Church is ultimately responsible for proclaiming and teaching the scriptures to the people and that the vernacular Bible is to be read only in light of the Magesterial authority of the Church as its rightful interpreter, and in approved versions or those prepared by learned Catholics.

Also, it is Catholic teaching that the reading of sacred scriptures is not necessary for everyone. It is not necessary for salvation, nor is it feasible that everyone should read the Bible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:13 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:40 am
Posts: 8529
Location: Tennessee
Religion: Catholic
Spootz wrote:
Della wrote:
And what you don't seem to understand is that personal interpretation of the Bible is not in line with Catholic/biblical teaching.
I thought this teaching went out with Vatican II and Catholics are allowed to read the Bible? At least this is what I always thought. Besides if I don't understand what I'm reading I use Bible study guides or my Pastor.


Spootz, you can't be serious can you? I thought you had studied (at least partially) what God's Church teaches. How could you make so glaring an error as this one? I mean, c'mon. If you were 'always' taught that, you sure weren't taught it by a Catholic. As far as using 'Bible Study Guides' or your 'pastor', why would you think they have any more authority than, say, a Muslim or a Buddhist? As far as authority goes, none of these would have any more than you do yourself. None has been given any authority by God nor by His Church...

Quote:
Della wrote:
It is not up to you or me to decide what this verse or that means. That is the job of the Magisterium, the teaching branch of the Church, which is the bishops together with the pope.
What if you are in a country that forbids Christians from going to church or there is none nearby? What if there is no electicity, computers, or a Church body but the only thing you have is the Bible that you can read in secret?. Is the Holy Spirit bound only through the teachings of the Catholic Magisterium and it can not inspire that Christian who is hungery to hear the Word of God--Bible?


You are aware, I'd assume, that the Word of God is Jesus - not some book that the Catholic Church gave you, right? The Word of God does not stop with some pages in a book - it is His revelation - the Word made flesh. The Holy Spirit is what guides the Church to prevent error from being taught. That does not mean that you can't read the Catholic Church's writings (that God has given Her) to gain some insight into His revelation. But the Holy Spirit has made it clear to you - both in the Catholic Church's written revelation (the Bible) and her Tradition which both flow from the same source and are protected by that source - that you can easily arrive at error by doing so. That is why God gave us His Church.

Quote:
Della wrote:
Just because the word annunciation is used to describe the event doesn't equate to Mary being robbed of her free will. Both are in operation here. God's will and Mary's free will. That is how God works with the people he choses.
This has already been addressed and is now a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.


I'd agree. This is a non-issue and has been more than adequately cleared up in this thread.

Quote:
Della wrote:
No one is a puppet who must obey without a thought of their own or without making the decision to do so of their own free will.
Um, what did you tell me above about we can't be left to read the Bible for ourselves? Isn't it my free will to read the Bible without the permission of the Church and it's teachings to interpret it for me?


Yes, it is most certainly your free will that would allow you to do so. It is also your free will to read the Koran and interpret it as you will. Or any occult books you desire or, heck, even 'The Illiad' as well. You can choose to interpret any of them and even claim that they will lead you whatever interpretation you get from them for any future hope of life after this one. BY doing so though, you reject much of Jesus the Christ's revelation to mankind. SO if you desire to or claim to be a follower of this Christ, it isn't wise to do so.

BTW - I am glad to see you are reading people like St Iraneous, etc, as you mentioned him in an earlier post. There is nothing as effective as returning people to God's One and Only Church (and the subsequent rejection of their false religions) by reading the ECFs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:43 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 592
Della wrote:
What I probably should have added is that private interpretation of the Bible for formulating doctrine is not Catholic nor biblical.


What I meant by personal interpretation of the Bible I wasn't saying one should formulate new doctrines. But, for my own personal use to read the Bible trying to apply Scripture to my life...like love thy neighbor, etc..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:30 am 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 592
Student wrote:
Spootz, you can't be serious can you? I thought you had studied (at least partially) what God's Church teaches. How could you make so glaring an error as this one? I mean, c'mon. If you were 'always' taught that, you sure weren't taught it by a Catholic.
Please clarify 'what my error' is, student. I want to make sure what you are specifically referring to before I answer.
Student wrote:
As far as using 'Bible Study Guides' or your 'pastor', why would you think they have any more authority than, say, a Muslim or a Buddhist? As far as authority goes, none of these would have any more than you do yourself. None has been given any authority by God nor by His Church...
Well, at least my pastor didn't kiss the Muslims Koran like Pope John Paul did. Hey if JPII approved the Koran by kissing it then you should have no problem with what I read.
Student wrote:
Yes, it is most certainly your free will that would allow you to do so. It is also your free will to read the Koran and interpret it as you will. Or any occult books you desire or, heck, even 'The Illiad' as well. You can choose to interpret any of them and even claim that they will lead you whatever interpretation you get from them for any future hope of life after this one. BY doing so though, you reject much of Jesus the Christ's revelation to mankind. SO if you desire to or claim to be a follower of this Christ, it isn't wise to do so.
Thank you for that kind warning but be aware yourself of the Unicorn in the Sactuary.

Student wrote:
BTW - I am glad to see you are reading people like St Iraneous, etc, as you mentioned him in an earlier post. There is nothing as effective as returning people to God's One and Only Church (and the subsequent rejection of their false religions) by reading the ECFs.


I didn't read Iraneous and I stopped reading Catholic saints reading...takes too much away my time to read the Bible.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 2   [ 26 posts ]   Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: