| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Back To The Future | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 27. August 2010, 17:12 (917 Views) | |
| OsullivanB | Monday, 30. August 2010, 11:09 Post #61 |
|
I'm just trying to understand your post, not yet to respond to it. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 30. August 2010, 11:11 Post #62 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Against the Heresies by St Irenaeus.
Edited by Clare, Monday, 30. August 2010, 11:12.
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 30. August 2010, 11:19 Post #63 |
|
Not that post, the one before. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 30. August 2010, 11:36 Post #64 |
|
I am conscious of three major changes made since the election of Pope Benedict: 1.The motu proprio about the EF of the Mass. 2. The reversal of the excommunications of certain members of the SSPX. 3. The new translation of the Mass. The first two are generally understood to be entirely his own work. The third had been started before his Papacy and I have seen nothing to suggest that he has had much to do with it. Whatever people's hopes and fears about the impact of this Papacy, it seems to me that Pope Benedict is in reality a caretaker Pope. And I see nothing wrong with that. If he has any radical agenda, it remains very well concealed (at least from me). As he was 78 when he was elected, and is now 83, one would expect him at least to have embarked on any major changes he feels are necessary. Whatever his thoughts (and his career has been largely that of a thinker and wordsmith), his actions for change have been negligible. I see no reason to hope or fear that that will change. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 30. August 2010, 12:04 Post #65 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Eh? You've lost me, OsB. Why am I suggesting the Church started in 365ish? Oh, I see, it's my maths! No, I was considering the approximately first 400 years of the Church to be the era of the Early Church Fathers (365, because that happens to be 1600 years before 1965, when VII ended). 1600 was a rounded up figure. I could have been more exact and pedantic, but I didn't see the need. So, I wasn't saying 1600 years from the start of the Church, but from (roughly) the end of the era of the Early Church Fathers. I'm not entirely sure when that era ended, but I'd guess it was approximately 1600 years ago. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 30. August 2010, 12:07 Post #66 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Just to clarify, that does not mean that everyone else associated with the SSPX is "excommunicated", but only that those "certain members" were included in the "excommunication" in the first place. No one else was. Sorry... |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Monday, 30. August 2010, 12:20 Post #67 |
|
Clare Seeing that we are talking about the early Church here, are you aware of anything that the early Church Fathers wrote that suggested Mary should be given the level of prominence that we do give her? They were, of course, unequivocal about her position as Mother of God with both Irenaeus and Hippolytus explicitly stating that but as far as I can make out, none of them, for example, described her as mediatrix until St. Jerome in the fourth century and the concept of her as co-redemptrix really only came with Aquinas. |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 30. August 2010, 12:23 Post #68 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
That's development of doctrine for you, Mairtin! It would be a retrograde step to disregard the progress made in this area. (I'll look into what the Fathers said later.) |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Monday, 30. August 2010, 15:31 Post #69 |
|
![]()
Why this area more than any other? |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 30. August 2010, 15:54 Post #70 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
This is different from various other areas, in that it is a genuine development. It does not contradict what was taught before. The Church did not teach that Our Lady was not assumed into Heaven one minute, and then start teaching that she was. The Church did not teach that Our Lady was not conceived immaculate one minute, and then start teaching that she was. That is the difference. Any "development" which contradicts what went before is not a genuine development. Edited by Clare, Monday, 30. August 2010, 15:55.
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Monday, 30. August 2010, 16:36 Post #71 |
|
The Assumption of Our Lady was declared a Doctrine in the middle of the 20th Century. |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| CARLO | Monday, 30. August 2010, 17:12 Post #72 |
|
Quite right Derek - by Pope Pius XII in 1950. These links are useful to demonstrate the much older history of belief in the Assumption. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary Ave Maria CARLO Edited by CARLO, Monday, 30. August 2010, 17:15.
|
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Monday, 30. August 2010, 18:20 Post #73 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Yes, I know. But the point is it did not contradict what the Church had been teaching before, because the Church had never taught, definitively or otherwise, that she had not been assumed into Heaven. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| CARLO | Monday, 30. August 2010, 21:21 Post #74 |
|
Yes Clara and my links posted above I think show that quite clearly. Pax CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Monday, 30. August 2010, 21:49 Post #75 |
|
I know, but I was just reminding that The Assumption was declared a Doctrine about 2,000 years after the event. |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:53 PM Jul 11