tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post7918318861575044430..comments2023-08-19T23:23:19.849+10:00Comments on Sentire cum Ecclesia: Scripture and Tradition in the teaching of the Catholic ChurchSchützhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-79707917837448159952009-06-10T03:21:05.126+10:002009-06-10T03:21:05.126+10:00hello there my dear friend the name is graeme cabr...hello there my dear friend the name is graeme cabral berkerly gaskin from georgetown guyana i am a scripture wirtter i am writting the koran the bible the egyptian book of the dead the egyptian book of shadows as well as scripture on life love and peace and the promise of god for iverlasting life the reason i am writting you is to share some of this knowldge with you for you to use on your journey in a wise manner for the love of god ... there is a passage that i like to say many are choosen and many are selected for the lord does love many to come to his name ...... so for the sake of simplicity as that is the key to survival to be simple and not get caught up in the complexities of life i say ... i shall mix a little biblical ... hinduism and bhuddism and egyptain book of the dead and life and a little bahai and a little zoarastrainism so that you may find a solid foundation in your religious beleiefs ... please note a man that stands for nothing falls for anything .......<br /><br />ok with all note to the satr of david and the holi trinity ... and all angles related ..... <br />please pray and ask for the overstanding of this knowledge and you shall surely get it ..... to overstand is to be over the knowledge to be under it menas that someone has power and control over you with regards the knowledge ... this knowledge is to set you free not imprison thee ....<br /><br />ok... now the glory be-ath of god is the glory to be had for kings to live the glorry of the kings is to be had for the glory of the people the glory of the people is to be had for the glory of gods creation .... the glory of gods creation is to be had for thw love and thanks to god for making us ... all mankind .... all womankind ..... all children kind ... all forms of objects both in-animate and animate owe there existance to god ... for that god must be praised and thanks for the granting of iverlasting life ......<br /><br />ok thats that i have to go now .... i am a poor beggar man living on the streets of guyana ..... i am trying to gain financial independance .... i have two parents who hate god and the scriptures ..... gregory delmar gaskin and aine marie theresa gaskin ... i am now living in the slavation army rehabilitation centre in kingston georgetown guyana south america i have been persecuted ... imprisoned and isolated for my beleiefs in guyana south america ... i have written people all over the world , the pope in rome ... bbc news abc ....news ... cnn news ..... i have written the dalai lama and the knights templar and the freemasons and the essenes and many people all over the world ... asking to help me gain financial independance so that i could live a normal life ... i have outlined all of mine enemies who are responsible for the things that happened to me ...eg dr frank beckles and dr bhiro harry from georgetown public hospital .... and still to this day after six years of writting all over the world i have not been able to get assistance ... please help<br />tel number 011-592-6624523 ... graeme cabral berkerly gaskin<br />aka jhemakie ...... they sing about me in the music all over the world now .....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-40027030384762708382009-06-10T03:20:10.298+10:002009-06-10T03:20:10.298+10:00hello there my dear friend the name is graeme cabr...hello there my dear friend the name is graeme cabral berkerly gaskin from georgetown guyana i am a scripture wirtter i am writting the koran the bible the egyptian book of the dead the egyptian book of shadows as well as scripture on life love and peace and the promise of god for iverlasting life the reason i am writting you is to share some of this knowldge with you for you to use on your journey in a wise manner for the love of god ... there is a passage that i like to say many are choosen and many are selected for the lord does love many to come to his name ...... so for the sake of simplicity as that is the key to survival to be simple and not get caught up in the complexities of life i say ... i shall mix a little biblical ... hinduism and bhuddism and egyptain book of the dead and life and a little bahai and a little zoarastrainism so that you may find a solid foundation in your religious beleiefs ... please note a man that stands for nothing falls for anything .......<br /><br />ok with all note to the satr of david and the holi trinity ... and all angles related ..... <br />please pray and ask for the overstanding of this knowledge and you shall surely get it ..... to overstand is to be over the knowledge to be under it menas that someone has power and control over you with regards the knowledge ... this knowledge is to set you free not imprison thee ....<br /><br />ok... now the glory be-ath of god is the glory to be had for kings to live the glorry of the kings is to be had for the glory of the people the glory of the people is to be had for the glory of gods creation .... the glory of gods creation is to be had for thw love and thanks to god for making us ... all mankind .... all womankind ..... all children kind ... all forms of objects both in-animate and animate owe there existance to god ... for that god must be praised and thanks for the granting of iverlasting life ......<br /><br />ok thats that i have to go now .... i am a poor beggar man living on the streets of guyana ..... i am trying to gain financial independance .... i have two parents who hate god and the scriptures ..... gregory delmar gaskin and aine marie theresa gaskin ... i am now living in the slavation army rehabilitation centre in kingston georgetown guyana south america i have been persecuted ... imprisoned and isolated for my beleiefs in guyana south america ... i have written people all over the world , the pope in rome ... bbc news abc ....news ... cnn news ..... i have written the dalai lama and the knights templar and the freemasons and the essenes and many people all over the world ... asking to help me gain financial independance so that i could live a normal life ... i have outlined all of mine enemies who are responsible for the things that happened to me ...eg dr frank beckles and dr bhiro harry from georgetown public hospital .... and still to this day after six years of writting all over the world i have not been able to get assistance ... please help<br />tel number 011-592-6624523 ... graeme cabral berkerly gaskin<br />aka jhemakie ...... they sing about me in the music all over the world now .....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-37952917700776400062009-03-15T14:16:00.000+11:002009-03-15T14:16:00.000+11:00I think I'll post it here as well. It might be of...I think I'll post it here as well. It might be of some use to others (and hopefully the Forum folks won't yell at me):<BR/><BR/>Ever-Virgin? But We’re LUTHERANS!<BR/><BR/>Because Lutherans are not immune to the historical amnesia that characterizes so much of our world, it is not surprising that they react with shock when they read in the Lutheran Symbols such words as these:<BR/><BR/>“The Son became man in this manner: He was conceived, without cooperation of man, by the Holy Spirit and was born of the pure, holy [Latin: and ever-]Virgin Mary.” SA I 1:4<BR/><BR/>“Therefore, she is truly the mother of God and yet has remained a virgin.” FC SD VIII:24<BR/><BR/>What was rather a commonplace to earlier generations of Lutherans has become all but a novelty among them in this day and age: the notion that Blessed Mary remained a virgin until her death. <BR/><BR/>Now, note the use of the word “until” in the previous sentence. Quite obviously I did not mean that AFTER her death she ceased to be a virgin! The word “until” doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t necessarily say diddly about what comes afterwards. It’s attention is fixed on “up to that point.” So St. Jerome and the Lutheran Reformers argued we must understand the “until” in Matt 1. “He did not know her until she had given birth to a son.” The “until” there – eos – says nothing about what happened next.<BR/><BR/>But doesn’t the Bible teach that Jesus had brothers and sisters? Indeed it does. But a brother or sister does not mean, necessarily, a son or daughter of Mary. In fact, it is rather striking that they are never called Mary’s children in the Sacred Scriptures and that at the cross our omniscient Lord (who realized that St. James, at least, among his brothers would shortly be a believer and leader of the Church) entrusted the Blessed Mother into the care and keeping of St. John. For century upon century, Christians understood this as a clear indication that Mary had no other offspring to look after her. <BR/><BR/>How did the early Lutherans speak of this? Luther was well known for saying we ought not make too much of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother. In this he was not innovating, but following the wisdom of St. Basil the Great. In a Christmas homily, that great father once observed: <BR/><BR/>For "he did not know her" - it says - "until she gave birth to a Son, her firstborn." But this could make one suppose that Mary, after having offered in all her purity her own service in giving birth to the Lord, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, did not subsequently refrain from normal conjugal relations. That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary's virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery. But since the lovers of Christ [that is, the faithful] do not allow themselves to hear that the Mother of God ceased at a given moment to be a virgin, we consider their testimony sufficient. Homily [PG 31, 1468]<BR/><BR/>Yet Luther similarly had no truck for those who denied her ever-virginity. He wrote, quite scathingly: <BR/><BR/>Helvidius, that fool, was also willing to credit Mary with more sons after Christ’s birth because of the words of the Evangelist: ‘And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ This had to be understood, so he thought, as though she had more sons after the first-born Son. How stupid he was! He received a fitting answer from Jerome. [St. Louis XX:2098, cited in Pieper II:308]<BR/><BR/>Thus, though Luther was opposed to making a great issue of the topic, he certainly believed it and not only wrote about it, but preached it. In his homily delivered on the Eve of the Day of Circumcision in 1541, only a few short years before his death, he proclaimed:<BR/>Now, although Mary was not required to do this – the Law of Moses having no claim over her, for she had given birth without pain and her virginity remained unsullied – nevertheless, she kept quiet and submitted herself to the common law of all women, and let herself be accounted unclean. She was, without doubt, a pure, chaste virgin before the birth, in the birth, and after the birth, and could certainly have gone out of the house after giving birth, not only because of her exemption from the Law, but because of the interrupted soundness of her body. For her son did not detract from her virginity, but actually strengthened it…. [House Postils III:256]<BR/><BR/>Nor may we suppose this a bit of medieval catholic leftovers that the fervor of the Gospel had not yet cleansed from the great Reformer. A century after the Reformation, Johann Gerhard’s Sacred Meditations announce:<BR/><BR/>He is the first and only-begotten of His mother here on earth, who according to His divine nature is the first and only-begotten of His Father in heaven. [Sacred Meditations XIV]<BR/><BR/>And in his Christmas homilies, the perpetual virginity remained a recurring theme. For example, using typology he sees the mystery of the perpetual virginity hidden in the account of Gideon’s fleece:<BR/><BR/>Thus, in Jud. 6:38,40 God performs a sign before Gideon so that the dew fell on his spread-out fleece, but the entire ground remained dry; the next morning, the fleece remained dry and the ground was wet. Thus the pure virgin Mary alone among all women, through the working of the Holy Spirit, received the Christ-dew, about which Isaiah 45:8 states: Drip down you heavens from above. Later, this dew came upon the entire earth, that is, the fruits of this birth pertain to all mankind; however, Mary once more became a dry pelt, that is, she remained a pure virgin after the birth, just as she was before the birth. [Postilla I:51]<BR/><BR/>The examples could be multiplied, but these will suffice to demonstrate that our Lutheran forebears both assumed, meditated upon, and publicly taught the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary. While rightly noting that no doctrine hinges upon confessing this, they nevertheless clung to it. Why?<BR/><BR/>It was how they were taught to read the Sacred Scriptures. They firmly believed that the entirety of the Sacred Scriptures were a testimony to the Savior, and their read was typological. Thus, they found figures of Mary’s perpetual virginity in the Old Testament. Not just Gideon’s fleece, but Ezekiel’s vision of the closed door through which none may pass but the Lord (Ez. 44:2) and Aaron’s rod that budded and numerous others. Their focus was not so much upon Mary in all of this, as upon her Son, and the popular belief that being born of a virgin without violating her virginity demonstrated clearly that her Son was not only man, but truly the Logos enfleshed. <BR/><BR/>How do we read the Scriptures? Do we read them the same way our Lutheran forebears did? If so, we’d not be quite so shocked to discover that the Lutherans could joyfully hold to a quite old and established tradition which, while not explicit in the Sacred Scriptures, they held to be consonant with them and certainly not contradictory to them. I would humbly suggest that what matters about the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother is not so much the doctrinal freight of the teaching itself as the light it casts upon how we receive tradition in the Lutheran Church. <BR/><BR/>Luther once addressed the topic – not in the context of perpetual virginity, but of the baptism of infants. His words are instructive:<BR/><BR/>I did not invent it [infant baptism]. It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong. [AE 40:254]<BR/><BR/>Such words could equally well apply to the attitude of the great teachers in our Churches during the 16th and 17th centuries regarding, among other things, the perpetual virginity.<BR/> <BR/>At work here is what Krauth once observed about the difference between a Lutheran and a Reformed approach to Scripture: <BR/><BR/>In the former [the Reformed tradition], Scripture is regarded more exclusively as sole source; in the latter [the Lutheran], more as a norm of a doctrine which is evolved from the analogy of faith, and to which, consequently, the pure exegetical and confessional tradition of the Church possesses more value. [Conservative Reformation, p. 123]<BR/><BR/>Blessed Mary, Ever-Virgin, then, was what they received from the Church in ages before them and which no Scripture convinced them was in error. For myself, I believe we were richer in those days before a hermeneutic of suspicion about tradition [show me where the Bible says THAT] became so prevalent in our Churches.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-70503759884099641402009-03-15T13:31:00.000+11:002009-03-15T13:31:00.000+11:00Thanks, Pastor W.I have 'Asked Pastor'Hopefully it...Thanks, Pastor W.<BR/>I have 'Asked Pastor'<BR/>Hopefully it's worked.<BR/><BR/>V.Viccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06828645618267960171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-71648240003792645752009-03-15T02:09:00.000+11:002009-03-15T02:09:00.000+11:00Oh, dear. So much...Well, a beginning:Dear David,...Oh, dear. So much...<BR/><BR/>Well, a beginning:<BR/><BR/>Dear David, I do not see a contradiction at all. Sacred Scripture teaches us the value of Tradition (and also teaches us to distinguish between mere human traditions and apostolic ones); Tradition teaches us that the sacred Scriptures are the sole source for the foundations of Christian dogma because our faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets and not on any other revelations made to men, regardless of their sanctity. The Scriptures do not derive their authority from Tradition's witness about them; they derive their authority from being incontrovertibly the Word of God. <BR/><BR/>Vicci,<BR/><BR/>This Lutheran holds with Dr. Luther and the entire Lutheran Church for centuries that the Blessed Virgin Mother remained Virgin her whole life through. The Lutheran Symbols state this as well: "So she is truly the Mother of God and yet has remained a Virgin." SD VII:24 I wrote an article about this that Forum Letter published at Christmas. If you email me, I'd be happy to share a copy of the article with you.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-15337743226572625362009-03-14T02:25:00.000+11:002009-03-14T02:25:00.000+11:00As to the Hebraic original nature of the Greek Mat...As to the Hebraic original nature of the Greek Matthew, evidence of this starts from Word One, I was taught before the Revolution. Matthew offers a genealogy of Jesus back to Abraham; Luke back to Adam. For the Jewish audience of the original Matthew, Abraham is what counts and all that is needed to establish Jesus' pedigree so to speak; for the Gentile audience of Luke, desecent from Adam is shown to connect him with all men, not just Jews.<BR/><BR/>As to how Luther handled it, I am not a German but will have to do until one comes along, though I grew up among the bleeders, was taught by them, speak a Bavarian dialect, can outlast the heartiest grandmother doing the polka at a wedding reception, and will not have Christmas unless stollen and sausage are served for breakfast, the true test of Germanicity, Germanitude, Germanness, and Germanhood.<BR/><BR/>So for starters, Luther in John 7:5 uses Brueder, in Mark 3:21 uses die Seinen and Brueder.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-60131200652176373422009-03-13T20:02:00.000+11:002009-03-13T20:02:00.000+11:00I am not convinced!(but I must admit a certain all...I am not convinced!<BR/>(but I must admit a certain allure in all of this..)<BR/><BR/>The chat has been, in the main, a joy. I've been led to get out the Books, and have a good read. No bad thing! As the discussion has developed, a sense of people being really nice.. (but sticking to their guns..as they should) has pervaded Schutz's 'com-box'.<BR/>Not unique..but refreshing!<BR/><BR/>I like the invoking of the 'authority of Luther' in all of this. Nice touch! Not so much because he's Luther..but because he's a <B>Doctor</B> !!<BR/>I'm sure that similar invocation of his thoughts on veneration of Mary, or praying to her (or the saints) will also feature!<BR/>My sources suggest strongly that the Greek Matthew shows a form which repudiates the suggestion of translation. I'm no scholar, so I defer to such scholarly opinion. (how they 'know' such stuff is hard to grasp!). <BR/>Clearly, there is no extant Hebrew (Aramaic) version.<BR/><BR/>Any Germans present?<BR/>I am wondering if Luther translated the troublesome 'brother' as 'cousin'?<BR/>( or 'friend, relative, mate'..whatever.)??<BR/><BR/>Now, I am taking my (2nd!) glass of Barossa Semillon, and leaving the discussion for folk more learned..and less cheeky.<BR/><BR/>yum!<BR/><BR/>Clearly God is a Lutheran!!Viccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06828645618267960171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-68659206692735628432009-03-13T19:09:00.000+11:002009-03-13T19:09:00.000+11:00Schutz, thankyou very much for the welcome. And fo...Schutz, thankyou very much for the welcome. And for those links. Most interesting and pertinent.<BR/><BR/>A couple of comments to other posters:<BR/><BR/>There is very good reason for believing that Matthew as we have it now was either translated directly or substantially based upon an Aramaic original. Eusebius explicitly says that Matthew wrote a gospel in the Hebrew tongue (ie. Aramaic) first and that this was later rendered into Greek to give it wider distribution. Furthermore, though I know no Hebrew whatsoever and only a very little Greek, people I know who do have more than a passing acquaintance with these languages inform me that one can clearly detect a number of Hebraic/Aramaic idioms and words lying beneath the Greek in Matthew. Granted, I am taking their word for it, but still...<BR/><BR/>Secondly, Vicci, I get what you mean when you talk about the Incarnation seeming to be inconsistent with Mary being ever-virgin. If I'm not mistaken, the problem is to do with the kenosis. God, when He becomes Man, should not be given any advantage or special treatment but should be, as Paul says (and you quoted), like us in all but sin. To suggest that His family life was something out of the ordinary seems to impinge upon that. I recall feeling something similar when I first thought seriously about the Immaculate Conception. I still feel it when certain people suggest Mary had a painless delivery. In answer I can only say that, for my part, I don't see why Mary's perpetual virginity should be a necessary truth (ie. had to happen) only that it is true. Christ wasn't the first to be an only child. Quite apart from Jerome's arguments (which I, for one, find convincing scripturally- it makes no sense to me why James and Joses, etc. should have two mothers), if there had been other blood relatives from Christ's immediate family, the same thing would have happened to them as happened to Mary- they would have been accorded special honour. The fact that Mary alone was accorded special honour as time went on is significant. Or, at the very least, vaguely suspicious.<BR/><BR/>Vicci said: "She was picked by God -gosh, as if any earthly veneration could add to that!" It doesn't seek to add to it (as you rightly point out, how could it?), merely to recognise it.<BR/><BR/>Vicci said: "It's a pity so much effort is spent in 'fighting' this POV, when<BR/>there's so much work to do.<BR/>I'm sure you're busy!<BR/><BR/>Blessings to you as yu go about it." Well put.GABhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10431348330548240949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-87166825849716770792009-03-13T17:37:00.000+11:002009-03-13T17:37:00.000+11:00Vicci, I too as a rule always favour what you call...Vicci, I too as a rule always favour what you call the "plain" meaning of the text. (eg. "This is my body"). <BR/><BR/>But of course, it is always tricky to assume what the plain meaning is - especially in ancient writings from another culture that have been through several translations (once from Aramaic tradition to Koine Greek writing and thence into 21st Century English). <BR/><BR/>1) "Brothers" can have two (or more) meanings<BR/>2) No where do the scriptures explicity say that "Jesus' brothers" were "Mary's sons"<BR/>3) there is enough scriptural evidence to call the so-called "plain" meaning into doubt.<BR/><BR/>So we get a case where Scritpure seems to indicate that Mary had other children, but does not categorically say so, and also contains other evidence that Jesus was an only child.<BR/><BR/>For me then, the clinching factor must be: How were the scriptures understood on this matter by those interpreters who were closest in time and culture to the original text? The answer is that they understood Jesus to be the only child of Mary.<BR/><BR/>This, incidentally, is not an argument that invokes the Church's authority. It is a sound argument of hermeneutic of any ancient text.<BR/><BR/>The Church's authority is icing on the cake of an interpretation that is fundamentally historical and textual.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-11607421591542827602009-03-13T15:40:00.000+11:002009-03-13T15:40:00.000+11:00Now, someone else might contradict me here, but di...Now, someone else might contradict me here, but didn't Luther say it was ridiculous/insane to question the Perpetual Virginity? (I looked this up, so I am willing to be told why I shouldn't pay attention to it.) <BR/><BR/>"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." Weimer, The Works of Luther, Pelikan, Concordia, vol. 11, pp. 319-20<BR/><BR/>"I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean cousins here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers." (Ibid, vol. 22-23, pp. 214-15)<BR/><BR/>Likewise Zwingli, I am told:<BR/><BR/>"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure Virgin."<BR/><BR/>Vicci, I wonder if you can find me a passage in scriptures to contradict modalism.<BR/><BR/>Also, I am inclined to accept that we should call a donkey a donkey. It just so happens however, that the balance of the rest of humanity seems to think that you are wrong in thinking that the beast does walk on four legs, a tail, pointy ears, and lives in a stable.Kiranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15869694933362233326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-61343321263669634492009-03-13T08:41:00.000+11:002009-03-13T08:41:00.000+11:00David posted:"No, Vicci, the usual meaning of "bro...David posted:<BR/>"No, Vicci, the usual meaning of "brother" in the NT is spiritual brother. Paul uses it all the time in this sense. That <B>isn't the sense</B> that Jesus' "brothers" are spoken of, but it does show that the term is not at all restricted to immediate siblings."<BR/><BR/><B>Agree. </B><BR/><BR/>'Brothers' is used several ways -here are two:<BR/>Andrew, brother of Simon<BR/>James, brother of Jesus<BR/><BR/>-go figure.<BR/><BR/>(or as the old joke goes:<BR/>Pastor: what has four legs, a tail,<BR/>pointy ears and was found in the stable?<BR/>Child: well, it <I>sounds</I> like a donkey... but I guess the answer must be Jesus)<BR/><BR/>Usually, the obvious IS just that.Viccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06828645618267960171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-50433756372196333382009-03-13T06:25:00.000+11:002009-03-13T06:25:00.000+11:00(I'll be back on Monday.)(I'll be back on Monday.)Cardinal Polehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15606972767215157799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-18957901903832353622009-03-13T04:32:00.000+11:002009-03-13T04:32:00.000+11:00Thank you, everyone, for your answers to/comments ...Thank you, everyone, for your answers to/comments on what I said earlier.<BR/><BR/>Since Mr. Schütz has indicated that it's relevant to this discussion, I'll repeat my earlier question:<BR/><BR/>"Does the non-infallibility of the Church as conceived of by Lutherans mean that a believer can only ever have a moral certainty, not the certainty of Faith, about the veracity of any given dogma?"<BR/><BR/>Whereabouts in the Book of Concord does it deal with this question, and, more generally, the question of why Lutherans don't think that the Church teaches infallibly through her Bishops (or, in Lutheran terminology, members of the Office of Holy Ministry), whether dispersed throughout the world or gathered in a Council, or her Pope. Or, to put it another way: could one of our Lutheran (or former Lutheran) readers explain how Lutherans go about proving propositions 27 and 29 of <I>Exsurge Domine</I> (1520), and with what kind of certainty Lutherans regard them as true?Cardinal Polehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15606972767215157799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-47710858944522636832009-03-13T01:13:00.000+11:002009-03-13T01:13:00.000+11:00I'll get into the gale force winds of Vatican II n...I'll get into the gale force winds of Vatican II newspeak posturing above as Catholicism later.<BR/><BR/>But first, re Mary, brothers, Matthew etc, here's something (one of thousands) I was taught by the RCC before the Revolution that I don't hear nay more:<BR/><BR/>Matthew is in Greek as we have it, but unlike the rest of the NT is actually essentially a translation of an earlier Aramaic text we no longer have. Because of its earlier nature, and having first been in the language of Jesus, it has pride of place in the lectionary (that would be the one tracing back to St Jerome serving the church for a millennia and a half until being dumped in the Revolution for its new one) and also placed first among the Gospel accounts though not the first written as we have it, thus, as the Gospel, primarily Matthew, takes over the place of Torah in the readings at divine services, so also the Gospels take the place of Torah in the NT, coming first, and among them Matthew coming first.<BR/><BR/>Which would also give a context to the Aramaic/Greek thing in Matthew. Perhaps this is all under the ban from the Intergalactic Congregation (congregations no longer being "sacred", man they got that right) for the Observance of Vatican II.<BR/><BR/>Since when did a supporting reference prove anything, but rather offer support from that to which it refers. Which was exactly my point. The "magisterium" supports itself by reference to -- the "magisterium"! fMy history with this stuff didn't start in 2001. <BR/><BR/>Finally for now, if I were, and when I was, a Catholic I should worry less about whether the "Lutheran church" could produce soomething like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and more that the Catholic Church has produced exactly the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it being neither a catechism nor Catholic.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-22320578750849586102009-03-12T23:38:00.000+11:002009-03-12T23:38:00.000+11:00Vicci,Of course you may ask me questions... But, I...Vicci,<BR/><BR/>Of course you may ask me questions... But, I'm not sure I understand your question or the following allusion to the Lutherans.<BR/><BR/>Are you asking if the statement re "ordination of men only" was an infallible declaration according to the definition of Vatican I? It's not - and then Cardinal Ratzinger said as much. <BR/><BR/>Shifting back subjects - as to too much energy being spent on Marian issues - I don't think too many people really spend much time on this... It's not my experience. Further, from the days when I studied the ecumenical dialogues (back in the early 90s), I remember mostly positive outcomes from scholars and bishops/pastors (not necessarily exclusive) engaging in discussion of such issues. More unites us than separates us both!<BR/><BR/>God Bless<BR/>DamianUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00123729422140010455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-50494007159327080132009-03-12T23:23:00.000+11:002009-03-12T23:23:00.000+11:00"Why ought we assume that Matthew's Greek was not ..."Why ought we assume that Matthew's Greek was not hebraicised or aramaicised?"<BR/><BR/>-why indeed!<BR/>(unless one accepts a Divine Hand in the Gospels..)<BR/><BR/>(that Greek ref. was simply in response to (naughty) Mr Schutz<BR/>inserting yet another red herring)<BR/><BR/>Now, a qn for you Father (if I may?)<BR/>Is it true that 'ordination of men only' is not <I>ex cathedra</I> ?<BR/><BR/>(..and if not, should someone tell the Lutherans? )Viccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06828645618267960171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-10663586988854554452009-03-12T23:17:00.000+11:002009-03-12T23:17:00.000+11:00Hello again, FatherMary having other kids is not g...Hello again, Father<BR/><BR/>Mary having other kids is not germaine to saving faith; agreed.<BR/>(If) Mary was taken up to heaven, or not, also is not.<BR/><BR/>I just don't see the point of some of the traditions of the CC being pushed beyond a fair reading of scripture. In a way, it's the church doing Mary a disservice.<BR/>She was picked by God -gosh, as if any earthly veneration could add to that! <BR/>It's a pity so much effort is spent in 'fighting' this POV, when<BR/>there's so much <I>work</I> to do.<BR/>I'm sure you're busy!<BR/><BR/>Blessings to you as yu go about it.Viccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06828645618267960171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-46746605780202714522009-03-12T23:07:00.000+11:002009-03-12T23:07:00.000+11:00Vicci,just noticed your last comment. Does the fac...Vicci,<BR/><BR/>just noticed your last comment. Does the fact (?) that Matthew was written in Greek necessarily mean that he used every word as those trained in classical Greek would have used it. Having lived and breathed Italian and German for a number of years, I'm aware of how much I "englished" my Italian and German. <BR/><BR/>Speaking Italian here the other day with a long term immigrant to Australia (here since 1962), I couldn't help but laugh when she used the words "handicappati" for "handicapped" and "trustare" for "to trust." Her italian was also anglicised.<BR/><BR/>Why ought we assume that Matthew's Greek was not hebraicised or aramaicised?<BR/><BR/>DamianUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00123729422140010455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-19570300747456958592009-03-12T23:05:00.000+11:002009-03-12T23:05:00.000+11:00"Your interpretation is that of an individual man ..."Your interpretation is that of an individual man whose views were rejected as heretical by the Church, and with whom not even Dr Luther agreed.<BR/><BR/>Go figure."<BR/><BR/>That is incorrect. Please <I>read</I> my post. <BR/>(it took long enough to write it)<BR/><BR/>I suggest that the CCs position is: (as PE has repeated said) that it starts with a conclusion, and works backwards to try to substantiate it.<BR/>Jerome clearly does this. He is trying to justify a hypothesis.Viccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06828645618267960171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-55573580099043971992009-03-12T23:01:00.000+11:002009-03-12T23:01:00.000+11:00Vicci,Honestly, I don't care one way or the other ...Vicci,<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I don't care one way or the other - I don't have a particular POV onto which I need to hold. Whilst I give my assent to the longstanding belief of all Christians (with but few exceptions) until the late 1800s, it would not phase me one way or another if a document was found that said Mary had other children.<BR/><BR/>The simple reality - that all scholars which I know of agree on - is that you can't prove one way or another whether Mary had other children based on the data we have in the New Testament. If I remember correctly, that was about the only point of substantial agreement in the 1990 Lutheran / Roman Catholic dialogue on Mary in the United States.<BR/><BR/>I'm a bit confused about the God of Order - God of Chaos thing... Surely, there are many difficult passages in Scripture - confusing ones even? Or does a belief in a God who creates Order out of Chaos entail a belief that all which comes from him must be crystal clear and not open to the confusion that arises from using limited human speech to relay his word?<BR/><BR/>DamianUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00123729422140010455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-50438675983045718242009-03-12T22:56:00.000+11:002009-03-12T22:56:00.000+11:00"There is no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. Paul wa..."There is no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. Paul was writing in a Greek context. The Gospel writers were writing in an Aramaic context."<BR/><BR/>Matthew's Gospel was written in Greek. (as you well know)<BR/><BR/>(I'll get the Lutherans to reply to the Lutheran Question)Viccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06828645618267960171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-3012788571496342009-03-12T22:54:00.000+11:002009-03-12T22:54:00.000+11:00However, when 'beliefs' are based on error, or on ...<I>However, when 'beliefs' are based on error, or on things contrary to Scripture, they cannot be expected to be 'believed'.</I><BR/><BR/>Here then is the problem, illustrated by this discussion about the "brothers" of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>You say that to teach Mary as "ever Virgin" is contrary to Scripture. We say it isn't. You show us your verses, and we show you ours. You are not convinced. Fair enough. <BR/><BR/>The point is, either interpretation is possible. We choose the interpretation that has the weight of the authority of the Church behind it. Your interpretation is that of an individual man whose views were rejected as heretical by the Church, and with whom not even Dr Luther agreed.<BR/><BR/>Go figure.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-45584085606723360042009-03-12T22:51:00.000+11:002009-03-12T22:51:00.000+11:00Finally, the Lutheran Reformers were okay with the...Finally, the Lutheran Reformers were okay with the idea of an "ever Virgin" Mary - cf. the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles (Part One, 4).Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-67125399987309809062009-03-12T22:47:00.000+11:002009-03-12T22:47:00.000+11:00Further Jesus' brothers are only ever associated w...<I>Further Jesus' brothers are only ever associated with Mary and Joseph..not with Mary of Clopas (assumed by Jerome et al to be the wife of Alphaeus) in the Gospels.</I><BR/><BR/>Mark 15:40?<BR/>Mark 16:1?<BR/>Matt 27:26?<BR/>Luke 24:10?<BR/><BR/>Who was the "James" spoken of here, if not the James who was the bishop of Jerusalem and author of the Epistle, ie. the Brother of the Lord? And can it be said that this James' mother was also Jesus' mother?Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21487528.post-77498367911870607532009-03-12T22:42:00.000+11:002009-03-12T22:42:00.000+11:00If the Writers had meant 'cousin', then they could...<I>If the Writers had meant 'cousin', then they could (-would!) have used the customary word for cousin' (cf: Col 4:10 ) for this relationship.</I><BR/><BR/>There is no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. Paul was writing in a Greek context. The Gospel writers were writing in an Aramaic context.<BR/><BR/>In fact, as one priest I know pointed out recently, the whole of Nazareth would have been full of Jesus' "brothers".<BR/><BR/>But you overlook the fact, Vicci, that the person against who Jerome is writing was being renounced as having introduced a "novel idea" - that Mary had other children. Such an idea is simply unknown in the early Church. This is not something the Catholic Church invented. It is the oldest tradition. DESPITE the mentions of "brothers" in the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>Which makes it a perfect illustration of why the Catholic Church does not embrace "sola Scripture" - as if you could interpret the Scriptures absolutely apart from the way that Christians have always read them.Schützhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05026181010471282505noreply@blogger.com