Woman, behold they son, and the Co-Redemptrix

[Jayne]

I have already posted this quote but I will try again:

Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
in matters of faith and morals,
belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine,
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Trent taught against personal interpretation of Scripture with the intention of constraining rash speculation.   You seem to have made rash speculation your hobby.  Please stop making up theories.  Put that energy into studying what the Church teaches and accepting it.

[Philip G.]

I have already posted this quote but I will try again:

Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
in matters of faith and morals,
belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine,
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Trent taught against personal interpretation of Scripture with the intention of constraining rash speculation.   You seem to have made rash speculation your hobby.  Please stop making up theories.  Put that energy into studying what the Church teaches and accepting it.

"Which holy mother church held and holds".  200-300 years of recent papal teaching I argue doesn't constitute what the church "held and holds".  It doesn't even come close.  Your 3rd century prayer implies nothing of Mary being the mother of all men.  You already stormed out of that debate.  Cite me the unanimous consent of the fathers regarding Mary as the mother of all men.  Particularly in the west, the church fathers can date some 400+ years after the death of Christ.  And, you want me to accept your 200-300 year old un-saintly popes as constituting what the church has "held" and "holds"?  I will take those odds any day. 

It is really people like you, and reasoning like yours that frightens people away from reading the scriptures, and benefiting from their riches.  Instead we restrict ourselves to anything but the scriptures and become malnourished.  "The wicked fleeth when no man pursueth."

The fact that the first and last book of the bible are entirely sourced from a vision is telling us something.  I think it is saying that the tradition of men is not the guiding principle in the interpretation of the scriptures.  You act as if I am some near sighted deaf man raised by wolves interpreting the scriptures. 

[Melkor]

And, if you know me well enough

Enough to know that you have some wacko personal interpretations on some of the key beliefs of the Faith.

[Philip G.]

And, if you know me well enough

Enough to know that you have some wacko personal interpretations on some of the key beliefs of the Faith.

Says the man that nourishes his fAITH with gnostic fantasy novels and occult fiction. 

[Melkor]

And, if you know me well enough

Enough to know that you have some wacko personal interpretations on some of the key beliefs of the Faith.

You won't learn the faith from gnostic fantasy novels and occult fiction.

I am assuming you are referencing the Silmarillion for the former and Raven's Mark for the latter accusation, but who knows with you. Judge me all you want to my friend, if it makes you happy. Myself I couldn't give a rat's hindquarters what you think about me.

[Melkor]

How many edits your last post go through? Lol

[Philip G.]

How many edits your last post go through? Lol

You always seem to have such a hard time understanding me, I figure it would be better to make it stick. 

[Melkor]

How many edits your last post go through? Lol

You always seem to have such a hard time understanding me, I figure it would be better to make it stick.

It ain't just me pal....

[Jayne]

I have already posted this quote but I will try again:

Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
in matters of faith and morals,
belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine,
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Trent taught against personal interpretation of Scripture with the intention of constraining rash speculation.   You seem to have made rash speculation your hobby.  Please stop making up theories.  Put that energy into studying what the Church teaches and accepting it.

"Which holy mother church held and holds".  200-300 years of recent papal teaching I argue doesn't constitute what the church "held and holds".  It doesn't even come close.  Your 3rd century prayer implies nothing of Mary being the mother of all men.  You already stormed out of that debate.  Cite me the unanimous consent of the fathers regarding Mary as the mother of all men.  Particularly in the west, the church fathers can date some 400+ years after the death of Christ.  And, you want me to accept your 200-300 year old un-saintly popes as constituting what the church has "held" and "holds"?  I will take those odds any day. 

It is really people like you, and reasoning like yours that frightens people away from reading the scriptures, and benefiting from their riches.  Instead we restrict ourselves to anything but the scriptures and become malnourished.  "The wicked fleeth when no man pursueth."

The fact that the first and last book of the bible are entirely sourced from a vision is telling us something.  I think it is saying that the tradition of men is not the guiding principle in the interpretation of the scriptures.  You act as if I am some near sighted deaf man raised by wolves interpreting the scriptures.

I understand that the post-Conciliar period has raised questions and doubts about papal authority, but dismissing 300 years of clear papal teaching as "the tradition of men" is simply not a Catholic position.  You are reasoning exactly as Protestants do, even using the same slogans.

You are rejecting a dogma decreed at the Council of Trent.  Accepting the Magisterium of the Church is the guiding principle in the interpretation of Scripture and you clearly reject this principle.  It has nothing to with your personal qualifications to interpret Scripture; nobody is qualified to adopt interpretations contrary to the Magisterium.  This was decreed with anathema sit.  in other words, you are embracing a heresy that separates one from the Church.  I am not insulting you; I'm telling you that you are imperilling your soul.

[Philip G.]

I have already posted this quote but I will try again:

Now since the decree on the interpretation of holy scripture, profitably made by the council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
in matters of faith and morals,
belonging as they do to the establishing of christian doctrine,
that meaning of holy scripture must be held to be the true one,
which holy mother church held and holds,
since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Trent taught against personal interpretation of Scripture with the intention of constraining rash speculation.   You seem to have made rash speculation your hobby.  Please stop making up theories.  Put that energy into studying what the Church teaches and accepting it.

"Which holy mother church held and holds".  200-300 years of recent papal teaching I argue doesn't constitute what the church "held and holds".  It doesn't even come close.  Your 3rd century prayer implies nothing of Mary being the mother of all men.  You already stormed out of that debate.  Cite me the unanimous consent of the fathers regarding Mary as the mother of all men.  Particularly in the west, the church fathers can date some 400+ years after the death of Christ.  And, you want me to accept your 200-300 year old un-saintly popes as constituting what the church has "held" and "holds"?  I will take those odds any day. 

It is really people like you, and reasoning like yours that frightens people away from reading the scriptures, and benefiting from their riches.  Instead we restrict ourselves to anything but the scriptures and become malnourished.  "The wicked fleeth when no man pursueth."

The fact that the first and last book of the bible are entirely sourced from a vision is telling us something.  I think it is saying that the tradition of men is not the guiding principle in the interpretation of the scriptures.  You act as if I am some near sighted deaf man raised by wolves interpreting the scriptures.

I understand that the post-Conciliar period has raised questions and doubts about papal authority, but dismissing 300 years of clear papal teaching as "the tradition of men" is simply not a Catholic position.  You are reasoning exactly as Protestants do, even using the same slogans.

You are rejecting a dogma decreed at the Council of Trent.  Accepting the Magisterium of the Church is the guiding principle in the interpretation of Scripture and you clearly reject this principle.  It has nothing to with your personal qualifications to interpret Scripture; nobody is qualified to adopt interpretations contrary to the Magisterium.  This was decreed with anathema sit.  in other words, you are embracing a heresy that separates one from the Church.  I am not insulting you; I'm telling you that you are imperilling your soul.

Correction, you do not have 300 years of papal teaching on your side against me, that Mary is the mother of all men/mankind.  You don't even have 150 years of papal teaching on your side.  If you read your first two references carefully, you cannot argue there is any contradiction between my position, and that of those statements.  My position can and is to be interpreted faithfully.

From 1748,"With great care and attention the Church strives to love her with filial piety. From the lips of her divine Bridegroom, as he was dying, the Church received her (Mary) as her very own most beloved Mother".  I agree with this, "the church" received Mary when St. John in a singular manner received her.  Because, St. John is an apostle, St. John represents the church.  No conflict with my position. 

1829 - "because she is our Mother, Mother of piety and grace, Mother of mercy, to whom Christ, as he was dying on the Cross, entrusted us, so that she might intercede for us before her Son".  Christ entrusted us, the church, with the virgin mary, through St. John, because st. John represents the church in a unique way as the last apostle to die.  The deposit of faith was not sealed until St. John died.  That means that St. John, while the last apostle living, impacted the deposit of faith in a singular manner that is binding on all of the catholic church.  And, my objecting to Mary being the mother of all mankind isn't synonymous with her not interceding for us.  Therefore, I am in no way contradicting that statement.  Is St. Monica the mother of all mankind?  She can intercede for us.  No, she is not, because the two are not synonymous.

What you have is Leo xiii to the present, none of which contains any anathema or defined language or decree.  It is all encyclicals no different authoritatively from our current encyclicals, that you likely also do not consider binding.

In the early church, there was a heresy that mary was not a virgin/she had many sons.  In 392 "surely we cannot deny that regarding the sons of mary the statement is justly censured, and your holiness has rightly abhorred it."  So, the early church abhorred the statement that mary has many sons.  Of course the context is literal, but since when does God only separate heaven and hell by one degree?  Since when do we use figurative symbolism of the dark side?  We don't say things like, "like the devil Jesus descended into hell".  No, we use holy language for holy beliefs.  We are not loose with our speech.  Mary as the mother of all men is in my opinion an abstract angle to accomplish the same end, which is to steal her perpetual virginity.  Name me a traditional male religious congregation that calls themselves the "sons" of the virgin Mary.  It has a ring to it that is not welcome to pious ears.  It is a dogma that Mary is the Mother of God.  If Mary is the mother of all men/mankind.  Then it follows that men/mankind is synonymous with God.  Mary as the mother of all men/mankind is a gnostic and likely freemasonic concept.  It is a doctrine that Mary is the queen of heaven.  If Mary is the queen of heaven, and the mother of all men, then you basically are talking about an occult fantasy.  One has got to give, and it is not Mary's Queenship, or her perpetual virginity. 

[Melkor]

Mary is the spiritual mother of mankind. Obviously not literally. She is the second Eve in this sense, where Eve failed the Blessed Virgin triumphed.

[Philip G.]

Mary is the spiritual mother of mankind. Obviously not literally. She is the second Eve in this sense, where Eve failed the Blessed Virgin triumphed.

Eve did not have children in the garden of Paradise.  If Eve did not have a child in the garden of Paradise, where Mary now is, which is synonymous with heaven, why should Mary not be considered woman/mother in a more singular fashion, like Eve originally was?  I believe it is a doctrine that Jesus descended into hell to gather the pre new testament faithful, Adam and Eve included.  Eve in heaven would fit more the "mother of all mankind" title. 

[Jayne]

You are rejecting a dogma decreed at the Council of Trent.  Accepting the Magisterium of the Church is the guiding principle in the interpretation of Scripture and you clearly reject this principle.  It has nothing to with your personal qualifications to interpret Scripture; nobody is qualified to adopt interpretations contrary to the Magisterium.  This was decreed with anathema sit.  in other words, you are embracing a heresy that separates one from the Church.  I am not insulting you; I'm telling you that you are imperilling your soul.

Correction, you do not have 300 years of papal teaching on your side against me, that Mary is the mother of all men/mankind.  You don't even have 150 years of papal teaching on your side.  If you read your first two references carefully, you cannot argue there is any contradiction between my position, and that of those statements.  My position can and is to be interpreted faithfully.

You are changing your position.  You said earlier: "200-300 years of recent papal teaching I argue doesn't constitute what the church "held and holds""  You denied the authority of the last 300 years of popes to interpret Scripture. Now you are back-tracking and saying that your rash speculation is compatible with that teaching.  You are probably wrong about this but I am not interested in discussing it with you.  (Your ideas do not make enough sense to discuss.) I'm fine as long as you stop denying basic Catholic dogmas about interpretation of Scripture. 

[Philip G.]

You are rejecting a dogma decreed at the Council of Trent.  Accepting the Magisterium of the Church is the guiding principle in the interpretation of Scripture and you clearly reject this principle.  It has nothing to with your personal qualifications to interpret Scripture; nobody is qualified to adopt interpretations contrary to the Magisterium.  This was decreed with anathema sit.  in other words, you are embracing a heresy that separates one from the Church.  I am not insulting you; I'm telling you that you are imperilling your soul.

Correction, you do not have 300 years of papal teaching on your side against me, that Mary is the mother of all men/mankind.  You don't even have 150 years of papal teaching on your side.  If you read your first two references carefully, you cannot argue there is any contradiction between my position, and that of those statements.  My position can and is to be interpreted faithfully.

You are changing your position.  You said earlier: "200-300 years of recent papal teaching I argue doesn't constitute what the church "held and holds""  You denied the authority of the last 300 years of popes to interpret Scripture. Now you are back-tracking and saying that your rash speculation is compatible with that teaching.  You are probably wrong about this but I am not interested in discussing it with you.  (Your ideas do not make enough sense to discuss.) I'm fine as long as you stop denying basic Catholic dogmas about interpretation of Scripture.

Jayne, I am not changing that position.  I reject papal teaching that is a lot older than 300 years.  That aspect of my comment hasn't changed.  What has changed is the amount of credit I give you and your argument.  That has changed, for the worse in your regard.  You can't just copy and paste from some 5th marian dogma website and expect to carry weight.  Words on a paper cannot argue them self.  They must be argued by a competent agent, which, you are not. 

[Melkor]

You are rejecting a dogma decreed at the Council of Trent.  Accepting the Magisterium of the Church is the guiding principle in the interpretation of Scripture and you clearly reject this principle.  It has nothing to with your personal qualifications to interpret Scripture; nobody is qualified to adopt interpretations contrary to the Magisterium.  This was decreed with anathema sit.  in other words, you are embracing a heresy that separates one from the Church.  I am not insulting you; I'm telling you that you are imperilling your soul.

Correction, you do not have 300 years of papal teaching on your side against me, that Mary is the mother of all men/mankind.  You don't even have 150 years of papal teaching on your side.  If you read your first two references carefully, you cannot argue there is any contradiction between my position, and that of those statements.  My position can and is to be interpreted faithfully.

You are changing your position.  You said earlier: "200-300 years of recent papal teaching I argue doesn't constitute what the church "held and holds""  You denied the authority of the last 300 years of popes to interpret Scripture. Now you are back-tracking and saying that your rash speculation is compatible with that teaching.  You are probably wrong about this but I am not interested in discussing it with you.  (Your ideas do not make enough sense to discuss.) I'm fine as long as you stop denying basic Catholic dogmas about interpretation of Scripture.

Jayne, I am not changing that position.  I reject papal teaching that is a lot older than 300 years.  That aspect of my comment hasn't changed.  What has changed is the amount of credit I give you and your argument.  That has changed, for the worse in your regard.  You can't just copy and paste from some 5th marian dogma website and expect to carry weight.  Words on a paper cannot argue them self.  They must be argued by a competent agent, which, you are not.

You had me at "I reject papal authority...." You are taking a heretical stance, Philip G.