True.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mother of God
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
True.
It is the opinion of Benedict XVI, and I think he is aware of what the Church teaches.
Luckily, I think I have not said so.
But Christians, disciples of Jesus, should not do things that are against God’s orders.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Then why did the apostles do what was against the Mosaic law?Luckily, I think I have not said so.
But Christians, disciples of Jesus, should not do things that are against God’s orders.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Can you give examples of things the apostles did that was against Mosaic law?
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Acts chapter 15.... No need for Christians to be circumcised or follow the law of Moses
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
And a lot more, with just one more example being the abandonment of the kosher Laws.
Here are the 613 Commandments as found in Torah: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
OK I am sure a number of sick people have said the Rosary and the next day were healed. Does that prove the Rosary caused the healing? Some other sick person read a play by Shakespeare and was healed. Does that prove Shakespeare can perform miracles? Maybe these are just a coincidence. The placebo effect is well documented. A person will feel better when given a sugar pill if he really thinks he is going to feel better. It is all in the mind.
Yes, he is reflecting his opinion and interpretation unless he specifies otherwise.
His interpretation as head of the Catholic church, regarding the official teaching of the church.
What do you understand 'literally' to mean?
Unless he makes his pronouncements 'Official' as in defining dogma of the Roman Church, which in this case he is not, these remains his opinions,
Example the liberal statements by Pope Francis which have upset many believers are hot 'Official' and define the dogma of the Roman Church.
Exactly what it says, the literal dogma of the Roman Church as it actual states.
Last edited:
I find it interesting that when the whole circumcision thing came up, not one man stood up and said, "Now hold on a minute. God told you He wants us to cut off what, as a sign of covenant with him? Cant we just get a tattoo or something?"
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Reminds me of a cartoon I saw that shows Moses with his hands reaching out to heaven while saying "Lord, did I hear you right, that the Arabs get all the oil and we have to cut off the ends of our what???".
Dogma is not written in stone. It is official Catholic teaching (Mysterium Ecclesiae) that frequently doctrine has been phrased in "the changeable conceptions of a given epoch" and that one must distinguish between the 'literal' truth infallibly taught and the way that truth had been phrased.
"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration, with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and portions of a magisterium which is predominately pastoral in character.
The meaning of the pronouncement of faith depends partly on the expressive power of the language used at a certain point in time and in particular circumstances.
Sometimes dogmatic truth is first expressed incompletely (but not falsely), and at a later date receives a fuller and more perfect expression.
The church usually has the intention of solving certain questions or removing certain errors, and these things have to be taken into account in order that the pronouncements may be properly interpreted.
Sometimes the truths enunciated by the church magisterium are in terms that bear the traces of the changeable conceptions of a given epic. Some doctrinal formulas may give way to new expressions which, proposed and approved by the sacred magisterium, present more clearly or more completely the same meaning.
As far as the infancy narratives are concerned, the 'literal' truth, that Jesus is the unique Son of God from creation, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.
There is no dogma concerning the 'how'.
reference; Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine which carries the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which are official declarations that a book is free of doctrinal error. Just in case you are inclined to question its Catholicity.
Last edited:
Man that is funny!, If you can find that cartoon, I would love to see it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry, but it was sent to me via e-mail about 15 years ago, and I long deleted it.
Too bad. But something that good has got to make its way back around eventually.
Found it! Here is a link to it;
NOW LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, THE ARABS GET THE OIL, AND WE HAVE TO CUT OFF THE ENDS OF OUR WHAT?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep, that's the one. Congrats on finding it!
I know that is a cartoon and all, but I've often wondered why no one questioned that at all. I'm sure that when Paul stated that circumcision was not necessary to be a Christian there was an audible sigh of relief. Can you imagine the effect on Christianity today if there was a requirement for any male convert to be circumcised? I do believe that the faith would shrink.(no pun intended)