Posted on 07/07/2014 2:47:06 AM PDT by piusv
Oops, I said working. INCOMING.
Duck and cover!
We are made in God’s image and likeness, so we couldn’t have a sense of humor if He doesn’t.
True, but I think, no I know we are much stupider then He probably would like. :). Almost time to go home. So I will pick this up after I get home. :)
I’m sort of in the process of making a casserole.
Why not? Is the concept of Biblical inerrancy or Divine inspiration alien to you?
Why do so many who doubt the Hebrew Bible get down on their knees and become fundamentalists when it comes to the "new testament's" claims about J*sus? What's the difference between Jonah in the fish and the virgin birth?
I do not want to become a Church member because i do not want to give my all to the church and for that reason am not fit to be a member.
I’ve never heard of this before about not being fit to be a member. Interesting. My attendance has slacked off — mainly weariness, I have a lot on my plate right now and feeling drained by life in general. I feel a need to go to church which is why I attend as regularly as I can. There are some in the church who give a lot of time and effort and some who don’t appear to do as much (but there’s no telling where they are spending their time — they could be helping in the community.)
Take care FRiend!
Why are you so freaking hostile? Seek help my friend.
Take care FRiend!>>>>>>
Thank you.
I suppose for the same reason you're so freaking inconsistent.
Because he has a valid point...a point that most modern Catholics do not answer. Those of us who still follow Traditional Catholic teaching regarding the Creation story see his point. Likewise, those of us who still follow Traditional Catholic teaching about the Creation story also see Francis’ “joke” regarding it as pathetic at best.
Francis shouldn’t be apologizing for bringing up the truth in the Creation story. He shouldn’t be joking about it. He should be telling the truth boldly. Who cares whether the poor feminists don’t like what he has to say.
He (and the rest of New Church) worries way too much about offending others than speaking Catholic Truth. Or perhaps they aren’t sure they believe it either.
Zionist:
the Council of Trent is a council that I uphold, as I uphold Vatican 1 and Vatican 2, even though there is nothing dogmatic about it and it has been misinterpreted.
When I use the term Catholic Fundamentalist, I am referring to those Catholics who are more Catholic than the Pope and lean towards at minimum, SSPX or at worse Sedevacantist ideas. So yes, there are indeed Catholic Fundamentalist but I use that word in a different context than Protestant fundamentalist. So maybe I should have used a different word.
I wish you would explain to me why John Chapter 6 is allegory, and why John 20: 20-21 is allegory.
He should’ve begun patting down his trunk, looking around on the table and floor as though he had misplaced his wallet, then remark,...”I seem to be missing a rib”, then look surprised when he looks at the female reporter and resumes by saying, “Oh! There we are!”...
Yes, because some protestants are giving him slack that automatically means they're right.
Since I reject the "new testament," you're really asking the wrong person. However, as a former Fundamentalist Protestant I will be glad to tell you why that community abandons its literalism on that occasion and that occasion alone. There are two reasons and they're both quite simple really.
1)In order to change the bread and wine into the body and blood, one must have a sacerdotal order with the power to do this. As you are quite aware, Fundamentalist Protestants do not have this priesthood and they of course cannot create one out of whole cloth. And if they were to accept the priesthoods of the ancient liturgical churches they would ipso facto have to accept all the doctrines of those churches without exception. So because they don't have a sacerdotal priesthood and can't accept the baggage of those that exist, they reject the literal meaning.
2)Feeding on such a sacrament over the course of a lifetime implies that salvation is a lifelong process, with progress and regress along the way. This lifelong process of salvation contradicts the soteriology of Fundamentalist Protestants so, once again, they reject the literal meaning.
Now since I have been kind enough to answer your question, perhaps you will consider telling me why the Catholic Church rejects the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-11. Just what "baggage" does that section have that in antithetical to Catholicism? Is it the perspecuity of scripture? Does it imply sola scriptura? If so, why? Why did the church fathers almost solidly accept the literal interpretation (and yes, I know about Augustine, so please let's net get into that)? Perhaps such an interpretation is no longer so benign at a time when advocates of the two doctrines above are loud in their condemnation of Catholicism? Does higher criticism somehow "vindicate" the authority of the Church's oral tradition? Or is it merely because Genesis 1-11 is associated with "white trash?"
As you perhaps know (though probably not), I believe in neither perspecuity nor sola scriptura, nor in the adage that "the scripture hath but one sense and that is the plain sense." And yet despite all this I'm the only non-Protestant on this board who defends the absolute veracity and inerrancy of the Bible.
piusv:
Do you have a problem with Saint Augustine, he believed in Genesis but did not believe in a literal 6 day 24 Hour creation either. He is a Doctor of the Catholic Church, btw.
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/st-agustine-explains-genesis.html
Zionist:
So you are no longer even a Protestant Christian, so why concern yourself what the Catholic Church does, I would expect you should care less about what is going us with us than your former Protestant church.
And Saint Augustine was not the only one to reject literalism for every bible passage. Origen of Alexandria, and I for the record am not someone who is anti-Origen, stated the Bible is to be interpreted 3 ways, Literally, Allegorically and spiritually, and from this we get what today is the different sense of Scripture. His mentor, Saint Clement of Alexandria would also be in the camp of the “Allegorical” interpretation of Genesis as would Saint Hillary of Potiers.
There were Fathers such as Saint Basil the Great, Saint Ambrose of Milan who favored a literal day by day interpretation. Regardless, this was never an issue that any Pope of Ecumenical council excommunicated anyone as a heretic over.
In addition, I do believe there was a Jewish Philosophical school that came about in the 1st/2nd century to counter Christianity and in that movement we also see some allegorical interpretation of Genesis. But I am in no way a scholar of Jewish 1st and 2nd century philosophy.
I love reading the Doctors of the Church on these commentaries and debates. I hesitate to share that on here because the absolutist and other detractors slice, dice and parse every word. I appreciate your efforts, I can see you are very knowledgeable.
Your source does not support that Augustine did not believe in the literal Creation. Augustine believed in the literal, but liked to add symbolic meanings to it as well. When people talk about a symbolic/allegory creation stories they are not speaking of what Augustine spoke of.
This book review seems to explain his position very well. It also makes it very clear that traditional Catholic teaching was always a literal interpretation.
http://creation.com/review-doctrines-of-genesis-1-11-warkulwiz
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.