Posted on 12/02/2011 12:29:22 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Christian theologians should help the world to understand the “Trinitarian monotheism shows the true face of God,” Pope Benedict XVI said in a December 2 address to the International Theological Commission.
The Pope acknowledged that Christian monotheism builds on the faith of Judaism. But with the incarnation of Jesus, this faith “came to be illuminated with a completely new light: the light of the Trinity, a mystery which also illuminates brotherhood among men.”
Pope Benedict next addressed the question of how scholars can identify authentically Catholic thought. He observed that many Christians take the Bible as the ultimate source of authority, but said that reliance on Scripture, while necessary, is not sufficient. “The Bible is always necessarily read in a certain context,” the Pope said, “and the only context in which the believer can be in full communion with Christ is the Church and her living Tradition.”
Finally, speaking on Catholic social thought, the Holy Father said that Church teaching in that real should be recognized not merely as another social theory, but as an outgrowth of the faith. When Catholics join with others to promote social causes, he said, “we must make present the true and profound religious motivations of our social commitment, just as we expect of others that they manifest their own motivations, so that our work together can be carried out in clarity.”
John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.
Boring.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
The greatest book on the Trinity since Augustine (and a much more entertaining read): http://tinyurl.com/mindofthemaker
Amen.
Steve Ray says it thus: "Hey, didn't you know that as Jesus was ascending into heaven He yelled back to the Apostles: READ MY BOOK!" Jesus didn't leave us anything written down, no momentos, no structures, no rosaries, just twelve men, one being the Rock.
Boy, could He ever pick'em.
I always remember that He chose Judas Escariot too. I like to think that it was a template for the religious, that is, there WILL be a lemon every once in a while.
Every person born of the flesh has sinned there are non no not one who's own righteousness can stand before God the Father. To say that any person is without sin and spotless other than Jesus is calling God and His word a lier!
LOL!
Just everything we need to know and are capable of understanding.
Every person born of the flesh has sinned there are non no not one who's own righteousness can stand before God the Father. To say that any person is without sin and spotless other than Jesus is calling God and His word a lier!
So are you saying that Jesus was not born of the flesh? I am a little confused with your statement, To say that any person is without sin and spotless other than Jesus… That seems inconsistent with the annotated quote (bolding) you gave from Romans 3:23.
The other, related, question is this: can you please elucidate exactly how a newborn infant personally sins immediately upon emerging from his/her mother's womb? Did the infant sin while in the mother's womb? Are you saying that the infant will immediately go to Hell if he/she dies before accepting Christ as his/her personal savior? If all means all, then all includes infants and children in the womb. No exceptions means no exceptions.
Not trying to get into an argument...just trying to understand your very interesting interpretation of Sacred Scripture.
And as long as we are looking at absolutes in Romans 3, perhaps you could provide your interpretation of Romans 3:11 (KJV) …there is none that seeketh after God.
Does none mean none? Does that none mean before, during, and after the time of St Paul? So how does that work with Enoch? Or Elijah?
Thanks.
Overrated democrat politician who told a LOT of lies in his day. Protestant too.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Oooh. Maybe you’ll do the exorcism prayer next!!!
I’m excited! I can’t wait!
Boring.
Hoss
“Christian theologians should help the world to understand the “Trinitarian monotheism shows the true face of God”
John 14:28:
“for my Father is greater than I”
1 Corinthians 15:28:
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all”
The clearly established biblical doctrine is Jesus Christ the son, the father being greater and above all.
I’m not Hoss, but I’ll give an answer:
“So all the traditions that Paul taught were recorded in the Scriptures?”
The essential ones, yes, most definitely—WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN.
The Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, holds many of the characteristics of a covenant or contract (why they are called TESTAMENTS), and one of those is the written nature of covenants, and the authority of that written nature.
If you sell real estate (or a car, or anything highly valuable) you will have a written contract—as well as a new deed, proving title to that property. Why? The English Parliament in the 1660s...after many (many) disputes after the great fire of London, established that real property ownership HAD to be backed up IN WRITING, or else the courts would not bother to defend ownership. This means at least written title must exist—recorded and stored by the government (usually in your local courthouse). In contract law too, this means that there is no legally enforceable agreement for conveyance of real property—unless it is in writing—signed by all relevant parties.
All successful countries today have similar rules—that things be in writing—for contracts and property ownership. In real estate—even though we’re talking about transactions that take place in usually just a matter of days or weeks—the principle is: If’s it not in writing....it cannot be required.
The reason for this is obvious—even persons of good will, forget, and mix up the details of property lines, sale price, dates, etc...and of course the world doesn’t even have that many persons of good will. Therefore, sinful, error-prone, humans NEED to back up important promises in writing.
So too with God’s covenants. The earliest one of any detail...was WRITTEN, BY Moses...in the 10 Commandments and the Torah. That way, foibles in institutional memory, or leaders or persons of influence who had flawed memory, or were not necessarily of good will—would not confuse, contradict, or add to, the Law of God, and give traditions of men (Jesus’ term) equal weight, to the Word of God.
The testimony of the Apostles, that is the New Testament, continued in that Old Testament tradition—namely of writing down what was essential, and what was enforceable.
One of the funny things I find about Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox)idea of hidden “tradition” passed on from the Apostles (besides it being a Gnostic idea)... is the total implausibility of it...
Just play a game of “telephone” with kids (or adults) where you whisper a simple story in one person’s ear, and have them whisper it to the next person—down through 8 or 10 persons. Invariably, the story told by the last person will bear little if any resemblance to the original. Were people TRYING to mess up? No...but to err is human.
Many of the doctrines of Rome or Constantinople based solely on tradition—don’t show UP in history—until HUNDREDS of years AFTER the Apostles were gone. Is their source being the Apostles at all plausible? NO!
And no, its not enough for the Church to tell me—it is because we say so. That’s putting your brain on a shelf.
If a story cropped up today—with no identifiable history or provenance—of George Washington visiting France, would we regard it as credible? We know from the records that Jefferson and Franklin visited France, but not Washington. Suppose a powerful scholar, and University president (and advocate of France) with many untenured scholars directly under his control, insisted that Washington visited France? Is it possible that those under his control....whose UNTENURED career and very livelihood was in that University president’s hands...would go along with his zany idea of Washington-in-France? Of course they would. Then suddenly you have a powerful source—with impeccable credentials...advocating this novel theory as fact—backed up by numerous scholars.
This is the kind of atmosphere (in spades) found in the Middle Ages. With a strict hierarchy of leadership in the Church—if the Pope or a powerful Cardinal or Bishop supported a particular “tradition” (no matter how shaky its historic foundation), particularly if it were a popular story (take the Assumption of Mary for example...)than by golly—his priests, his monks, his University...his underlings—at all levels...would be supporting it too (if by nothing else than silence...). It’s easy to see how down through the years, all kinds of extraneous ideas and pseudo-histories were added to the facts of the testimony of the Apostles (the New Testament) through the back-door of “Tradition,” combined with the abuse (whether intentional or not...) of power.
My issue is I just do not understand why the bogus nature of unwritten tradition (like unwritten promises in a contract...)....after 2000 years...isn’t obvious to everyone.
I’m not saying chuck out all tradition, as there are many “neutral” traditions...but, if you cannot back up a tradition in the Word of the Apostles, the New Testament—which is, simultaneously, the Word of God, it cannot be required—because, after all, it’s not in writing.
Ping to my reply above...since I mentioned your handle.
Great reply!
Hoss
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.