Infallible, you say?

[LittleLes]

I'm afraid that your going to have to give me that Psalm prophecizing the Assumption again. I didn't see any. Aren't you using a very fertile imagination here? But you should see the prophecies I can claim are implicitly in the Psalms.

Little les

[Guest Eremite]

"Arise, O Lord, and go into Thy resting place, Thou and the ark of Thy might." (Psalm 132:8)

That association of Our Lady with the Ark is drawn from, among other places, the Books of Samuel and Luke. St. Luke parallels the narrative in the book of Samuel, to indicate that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. I'll let Scott Hahn explain:

"Luke was a meticulous literary artist who could claim the additional benefit of having the Holy Spirit as his coauthor. Down through the centuries, scholars have marveled at the way Luke's gospel sublty parallels key texts of the Old Testament. One of the early examples in his narrative is the story of Mary's visitation to Elizabeth. Luke's language seems to echo the account, in the second book of Samuel, of David's travels as he brough the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. The story begins as David "arose and went" (2Samuel 6:2). Luke's account of the visitation begins with the same words: Mary "arose and went" (1:39). In their journeys, then, both Mary and David proceeded to the hill country of Judah. David acknowledges his unworthiness with the words "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2Samuel 6:9)--words we find echoed as Mary approaches her kinswoman Elizabeth: "Why is this granted me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). Note here that the sentence is almost verbatim, except that "ark" is replaced by "mother". We read further that David "danced" for joy in the presence of the ark (2Samuel 6:14,16), and we find a similar expression used to describe the leaping of the child within Elizabeth's womb as Mary approached (Luke 1:44). Finally, the ark remained in the hill country for three months (2 Samuel 6:11), the same amount of time Mary spent with Elizabeth (Luke 1:56)." (Hail Holy Queen, pp.63-64).

Edited March 11, 2005 by Eremite

[LittleLes]

B the furtherest stretch of the imagination, how do you get anything about an assumption out of this psalm? Let me check the Apostolic Constitution in question and see how Pius XII deals with it.

LittleLes

[Archangel]

Don't forget to read Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 for biblical proof of Mary's Assumption.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 11 2005, 08:54 AM']Sorry Apotheoun,

You are attempting the old "apologetic two-step" claiming that Boniface really didn't mean to include in his pronouncement those invincably ignorant of the need to be subject to the Roman pontiff.

Please note the plain meaning of Boniface's words "every human being." He didn't make any exceptions at all. But, of course, to avoid an admission of error, apologists have to reform what he said. But the fly in the ointment is that you can't reform an infallible statement! 

And I'm afraid that you, like CAM, are not going to have your questions answered for the same reason.

But I will tell you this. Most people who do quite well driving automobiles don't have Ph.D's in automotive design. Do you think we should pull their driving licenses? 

LittleLes [/quote]
No Magisterial document stands alone, and if you had even the slightest knowledge about the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium you would know that. Magisterial documents must be read in the light of the living Tradition of the Church, and that includes her tradition in both moral and dogmatic theology.

Now of course in this thread you have presented yourself as a person who knows what he is talking about as far as the theology of the Magisterium concerned; and I have presented ten questions in order for you to show that you really do know what you're talking about. The first three questions deal with your own educational background, and although they are not vital to the topic, the answers given would reveal something about your expertise in this field of study, or lack thereof; while the remaining seven questions concern specific elements of the doctrine of the Magisterium and how it was worked out at the two Vatican Councils. That fact that you haven't answered any of the questions that I've put to you, along with your own comments on this topic within this thread, it is apparent that you lack any familiarity with the history of the development of this doctrine over time (especially as it has developed over the last two centuries), and makes it quite clear that you are not qualified to discuss this theological issue. Now, if you answer the questions I've posted it will go along way to showing that you have done some study, albeit to a limited degree, and that your assertions are not merely a matter of your private opinion. But until you answer the questions your assertions about the Magisterium have no foundation either in Catholic doctrine or in objective reality.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 11 2005, 08:54 AM']But I will tell you this. Most people who do quite well driving automobiles don't have Ph.D's in automotive design. Do you think we should pull their driving licenses?[/quote]
This is simply a poor analogy on your part, and so it is better to think of it this way:

In order to legally drive a car in the California one must pass a written examination and drive with an instructor from the DMV, and once the person has done that, and has passed both elements of the State's driving examination, he will be given a license to drive a motor vehicle in the Golden State.

Now in the case at hand, I am simply asking for the presentation of some evidence that shows that you know what you are talking about (i.e., the equivalent of the exam and driving test) before I will believe your assertions about the Magisterium. Based on your comments and assertions about the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium up to this point, it is clear to me that you do not know what you are talking about. Furthermore, since you are presenting yourself as someone who is qualified to talk about this theological topic, it follows that the burden of proof is upon you to show that you have the required knowledge.

Answering the ten questions I presented earlier in this thread would help in proving that you have done at least some study on this topic.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Mar 11 2005, 05:45 PM']
What it is is blunt honesty. I mean no malice toward dairy. Would you rather I quoted some verse like "cast pearls" or "brood of vipers". Blunt honesty is neccessary sometimes. It is charity.

God bless [/quote]
"Your honesty is refreshing but lace it well with tact."

In a discussion comparing someone to a fourth grader and telling them that they are horrible at something is no way to make a point. If you think that send them a private message instead of blaring it on a board.

'He who throws dirt looses much ground."

I would rather you stick to the topic and leave the person alone. Please.

[jessinoelw]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 11 2005, 07:25 AM'] This is a statement that is clear.  Simply put, the civil execution type of burning is not of the will of the Holy Spirit.  Pope Leo X was making a statement about the injustice of burning at the stake.  You are misreading the statement. [/quote]

Actually, this document is listing various errors. The list of items, numbered one to forty-one, is a list of erroneous beliefs. Therefore, Pope Leo X is saying that those who claim that burning heretics is against the will of the Spirit are in error.

[quote]In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.

24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

26. The word of Christ to Peter: "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," etc., is extended merely to those things bound by Peter himself.

27. It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or the pope to decide upon the articles of faith, and much less concerning the laws for morals or for good works.

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

29. A way has been made for us for weakening the authority of councils, and for freely contradicting their actions, and judging their decrees, and boldly confessing whatever seems true, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council whatsoever.

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.

31. In every good work the just man sins.

32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

34. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them.

35. No one is certain that he is not always sinning mortally, because of the most hidden vice of pride.

36. Free will after sin is a matter of title only; and as long as one does what is in him, one sins mortally.

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

38. The souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation, at least not all; nor is it proved by any arguments or by the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of meriting or of increasing in charity.

39. The souls in purgatory sin without intermission, as long as they seek rest and abhor punishment.

40. The souls freed from purgatory by the suffrages of the living are less happy than if they had made satisfactions by themselves.

41. Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would not act badly if they destroyed all of the money bags of beggary.

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.[/quote]

--Jessica

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]how do you get anything about an assumption out of this psalm[/quote]

It is a prophesy, first and foremost, of the ascension of Christ. The secondary prophesy, of course, is that "the ark of [his] might" joins him in his ascension into Heaven. This ark is the Mother of God, who as I explained above, is acknowledged as the ark of the New Covenant.

Edited March 12, 2005 by Eremite

[Cam42]

[quote]I'm afraid that Pius XII does not claim that a scriptural passage supports the Assumption.[/quote]

Have you read Munificentissimus Deus? There is scripture everywhere. Let's see...

[quote]Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified"; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. (MD 26)[/quote]

[i]Cf. St. John Damascene, op. cit., Hom. II, n. 11; and also the Encomium attributed to St. Modestus[/i]
[i]Ps 131:8[/i]

[quote]Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos. Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women," since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve. (MD 27)[/quote]

[i]Rv 12:1ff[/i]
[i]Lk 1:28[/i]

[quote]Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages. (MD 40)[/quote]

[i]The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, loc. cit., p. 599[/i]
[i]I Tm 1:17[/i]

[quote]Since the universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths, has expressed its own belief many times over the course of the centuries, and since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith-this truth which is based on the Sacred Writings, which is thoroughly rooted in the minds of the faithful, which has been approved in ecclesiastical worship from the most remote times, which is completely in harmony with the other revealed truths, and which has been expounded and explained magnificently in the work, the science, and the wisdom of the theologians-we believe that the moment appointed in the plan of divine providence for the solemn proclamation of this outstanding privilege of the Virgin Mary has already arrived. (MD 41)[/quote]

The Italics are citations and the quotes are, well, quotes. Here is the deal. Munificentissimus Deus promotes the dogma of the Assumption. There is more than enough bibilical proof given in the document, 19 instances to be exact. So it would seem, quite accurately that you are mistaken, Littleles.

Here is the document:

[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM"]Munificentissimus Deus [/url]

Cam

Edited March 12, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

Thank you for calling to my attention Pius XII's admission that some have been "rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain belief in the assumption."

He vastly understated the case! Some make use of a vivid imagination. Some Elvis fans might even find passages (they can say) prophecise Elvis's returning in a UFO.

But lets look at the three that have been posted.

Psalm 132 has to do with the Covenant between David and God. The ark referred to is clearly the ark of the covenant in its procession to its resting place in the Temple. Nothing about a physical assumption of Mary.

Rev 11:19 Again refers to the ark of the covenant as it specifically mentions. "The ark of his covant could be seen in the Temple."

Rev 12:1 This is the famous "woman clothed with the sun" passage which says nothing about the death and alleged assumption of Mary.

But a vivid imagination rather than the plain meaning of words allows would be apologists (and possibly Elvis fans) to read anything they want into Psalms and especially Revelation.

There is no scriptural passage about the assumption of Mary. This legend began in the 4th or early 5th century and developed since then; the chronology of which I'll outline.

Little Les

[Cam42]

[quote]Some Elvis fans might even find passages (they can say) prophecise Elvis's returning in a UFO.[/quote]

I think that more than a few Elvis fans may be upset with your analogy.

[quote]Psalm 132 has to do with the Covenant between David and God. The ark referred to is clearly the ark of the covenant in its procession to its resting place in the Temple.[/quote]

Pre-figurement. The whole of the OT is a prefigurement to the Life of Christ. Mary plays a unique role in that life, insofar as she is the new Ark of the Covenant.

[quote]Rev 11:19 Again refers to the ark of the covenant as it specifically mentions. "The ark of his covant could be seen in the Temple."

Rev 12:1 This is the famous "woman clothed with the sun" passage which says nothing about the death and alleged assumption of Mary.[/quote]

Again, this is support to Psalm 131:8. There is no disharmony...it clearly speaks when taking the last verse of chapter 11 and all of chapter 12, it becomes quite clear that John is speaking of the Blessed Virgin. There is a clear allusion to her and to her role in the salvific action of her Son.

Remember that separation by verses is a rather modern invention. I mean it didn't happen until the middle ages. According to you logic, that was like, yesterday.

Most Catholic commentaries speak of this. Now, that it is implicit. John never uses the name Mary, even in the gospels. So even there, when it is clear that Mary is the subject, the name is not mentioned. Likewise, in Revelation 11:19-12 we see the same implict understanding of who Mary is.

Cardinal Newman considers two difficulties against the foregoing interpretation of the vision of the woman and child: first, it is said to be poorly supported by the Fathers; secondly, it is an anachronism to ascribe such a picture of the Madonna to the apostolic age. As to the first exception, the eminent writer says:

Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines, till there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy; if in those times the Blessed Virgin's dignity was unchallenged on all hands, as a matter of doctrine, Scripture, as far as its argumentative matter was concerned, was likely to remain a sealed book to them.

After developing this answer at length, the cardinal continues:

As to the second objection which I have supposed, so far from allowing it, I consider that it is built upon a mere imaginary fact, and that the truth of the matter lies in the very contrary direction. The Virgin and Child is not a mere modern idea; on the contrary, it is represented again and again, as every visitor to Rome is aware, in the paintings of the Catacombs. Mary is there drawn with the Divine Infant in her lap, she with hands extended in prayer, he with his hand in the attitude of blessing.

[i]In connection with this controversy, see Le Camus, Les sept Eglises de l'Apocalypse, Paris, 1896, pp. 133-135; Nirschl, Das Grab der hl. Jungfrau, Mainz, 1900; P. Barnabé, Le tombeau de la Sainte Vierge a Jérusalem, Jerusalem, 1903; Gabriélovich, Le tombeau de la Sainte Vierge à Ephése, réponse au P. Barnabé, Paris, 1905[/i]

[quote]But since it has pleased God not to manifest solemnly the mystery cf the salvation of the human race before He would pour forth the Spirit promised by Christ, we see the apostles before the day of Pentecost "persevering with one mind in prayer with the women and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren", and Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation. Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully confimed to her Son, the Lord of lords and the conqueror of sin and death. (Lumen Gentium no. 59)[/quote]

[i]Acts 1, 14
Cf Apoc. 19. 16[/i]

With all this being said, and with biblical support for the position that the Church has taken, Littleles, it is imperative that you provide proofs and docuemtation that refutes this position. You cannot make assumptions and presume that you are authoratative. You are not. Neither am I. That is why I provide support for my position. I have provided support, ad nauseam, to support your fancy. You, thus far have refused the same courtesy to me and others. We ask you to start providing a scholarly position and not simply your unsupported opinion on the matter. If you disagree with the Church's position, it is not upon the Church to prove to you that she is correct, but rather you need to disprove her.

(N.B. Merely commenting on a Catholic position, or on scripture is not a citation of your position. You need to show through doucmentation and citation that the Church is incorrect.)

Cam

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 12 2005, 05:43 AM']But lets look at the three that have been posted.

Psalm 132 has to do with the Covenant between David and God. The ark referred to is clearly the ark of the covenant in its procession to its resting place in the Temple. Nothing about a physical assumption of Mary.

Rev 11:19 Again refers to the ark of the covenant as it specifically mentions. "The ark of his covant could be seen in the Temple."

Rev 12:1 This is the famous "woman clothed with the sun" passage which says nothing about the death and alleged assumption of Mary.
[/quote]
Scripture is polyvalent and so there are many meanings inherent in the sacred writings; moreover, it is vital to remember that sacred scripture must be read in the light of the Church's living Tradition. It is after all the Church that delineated the extent of the canon of scripture, and so it is the Church's Magisterium alone that authentically interprets the sacred texts, but I'm sure that you are already aware of this fact, since you present yourself as an expert on the Catholic doctrine of the Magisterium.

That being said, I want to thank you for your personal interpretations of the various texts of scripture quoted recently in this thread. Sadly, since you have not shown that the Marian interpretations of the texts quoted are excluded as valid meanings implicitly present within the sacred writings as understood within the stream of the Church's living Tradition; it follows that no one is required to assent to your restricted understanding of the verses quoted. Your views, interesting as they are, remain simply your own personal opinions as to the meaning of the texts in question.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Psalm 132 has to do with the Covenant between David and God. The ark referred to is clearly the ark of the covenant in its procession to its resting place in the Temple. Nothing about a physical assumption of Mary.[/quote]

I agree that the ark is referring, in its immediate sense, to the Ark of the Old Covenant. As Scripture is wont to do, however, it has many layers, and prophecies are usually hidden in typologies and obscure passages. Psalm 132:8 is a prophecy of the Ascension of Christ (and by extension, the Ark of the New Covenant, who joins him in his dwelling place). Psalm 132 does not need to spell out that it is about Christ and his Mother anymore than Psalm 22 needs to spell out it is about the Messiah. Abiding by your literalism, Psalm 22 cannot be about the Messiah because it doesn't explicitly make the connection.

[quote]Rev 11:19 Again refers to the ark of the covenant as it specifically mentions. "The ark of his covant could be seen in the Temple."[/quote]

Yes, it is referring to the Ark of the Old Covenant:

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm."

What's interesting is that the Ark of the Covenant had been lost to the Jews for quite some time, and all of a sudden, there is a vision of it. What happens immediately after this vision? There is great chaos in weather, and a new vision is seen:

"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth"

It is quite interesting that the Ark of the Old Covenant and the vision of the woman are simultaneous. The reason, of course, is that the woman was the Ark of the New Covenant, as I layed out in my previous post, and St. John once more verified this in his apocalyptic vision.

[quote]But a vivid imagination rather than the plain meaning of words allows would be apologists (and possibly Elvis fans) to read anything they want into Psalms and especially Revelation.[/quote]

I have already dealt with your flawed conception of biblical exegesis and typology. I don't want to rehash it all again; as I said before, we're going in circles.

[quote]There is no scriptural passage about the assumption of Mary.[/quote]

Not only have we abundantly made our case from Scripture, but explained in some detail the method by which this doctrine was handed down from the Apostles, and eventually drawn out by the Church fathers. Suffice it to say, this discussion on the Assumption is bound to fail because it rests upon more fundamental differences, such as exegetical principles and the methods by which Divine Revelation comes to be known.

Edited March 12, 2005 by Eremite

[LittleLes]

Hi Apotheoum,

"...and so it is the Church's Magisterium alone that authentically interpretes the sacred test."

And does this apply to the ruling by the Holy Office that the earth really doesn't move at all, and the sun revolves around the earth? What about the Church's teaching about the moral legitimacy of slavery based on Leviticus 25? Or the Church's condemnation of charging any interest on money loaned?

Your assertion is not supported by the facts of history.

Hi Exemite,

So scripture can be read at many layers (especially the one the apologist wants to to prove). So one can legitimately argue that Revelation or Psalms says Elvis will return in a UFO if the reader wants to find that, is that it?

Did you know that scripture supports the assumption of St. Joseph, too? The early church lost track of his grave also, so during the next pontificate it's going to be infallibly declared that he too was assumed. Actually, it's been an apostolic tradition all along, but nobody wrote it down until this year. Do you believe that too?

LittleLes

Edited March 12, 2005 by LittleLes