One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: Doc110
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 560 next>>
Dec 10, 2018 14:57:02   #
11/20/2012 Further details about “Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives”

Carl E. Olson
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/11/20/further-details-about-jesus-of-nazareth-the-infancy-narratives/

The Vatican Information Service provides further details about the third Jesus of Nazareth book by Pope Benedict XVI, The Infancy Narratives

Vatican City, 20 November 2012 (VIS) – “L’infanzia di Gesu” (“The Infancy Narratives”),
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/muller/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20130430_infanzia-gesu-muller_it.html

The third volume of Benedict XVI’s trilogy dedicated to Jesus of Nazareth, will be available in Italian bookshops tomorrow, 21 November.

The book, published in Italy by Rizzoli and the Vatican Publishing House, will be released simultaneously in several languages (Italian, German, Croatian, French, English, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish) and in fifty countries;

The worldwide print run of the first edition will be more than a million copies. In the coming months, the book will be translated into twenty languages for publication in seventy-two countries.

This morning, in the Vatican’s Sala Pio X, the book was presented to the press.

The speakers were Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture; Maria Clara Bingemer, professor of theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro; Fr. Giuseppe Costa, director of the Vatican Publishing House; Paolo Mieli, president of Rizzoli (RCS) Publications, and Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J., director of the Holy See Press Office.


The book, defined by its author as a “small antechamber” to the trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth, is 176 pages long and comprises four chapters, an Epilogue and a brief Foreword.

A summary of the book is given below:

“The first chapter is dedicated to the genealogies of the Saviour in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are very different, although both have the same theological and symbolic meaning:

The placing of Jesus in history and his true origin as a new beginning of world history.

“The theme of chapter two is the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist and that of Jesus.

Rereading the dialogue between Mary and the Archangel Gabriel in the Gospel of Luke, Joseph Ratzinger explains that, through a woman, God ‘seeks to enter the world anew’.

In order to liberate man from sin, he writes, quoting Bernard of Clairvaux, God needs ‘free obedience’ to his will.

‘In creating freedom, he made himself in a certain sense dependent upon man.

His power is tied to the unenforceable yes of a human being’.

Thus, only thanks to Mary’s assent can the history of salvation begin.



“Chapter three is centred on the event in Bethlehem and the historical context of the birth of Jesus, the Roman Empire under Augustus, which extends from East to West and whose universal dimension allows for the entry into the world of ‘a universal Saviour’;

‘It is indeed the fullness of time’. The single elements of the story of the birth are dense with meaning:

The poverty in which ‘he who is truly the first-born of all that is’ chooses to reveal himself, and therefore ‘the cosmic glory’ that envelopes the manger;

God’s special love for the poor, which manifests itself in the annunciation to the shepherds; and the words of the Gloria, whose translation is controversial.



“The fourth chapter is dedicated to the three Magi;

Who saw the star of the ‘King of the Jews’ and who had come to adore the child, and to the flight into Egypt.

Here the figures of the ‘magoi’;

Reconstructed through a rich range of historical, linguistic and scientific information, are outlined as a fascinating emblem of the inner unrest and search for truth of the human spirit.


The momentous third and final volume in the Pope’s international bestselling Jesus of Nazareth series details the stories of Jesus’ infancy and boyhood, and how they are relevant today in the modern world.

As the Pope wrote in volume two of this series, he attempts to “develop a way of observing and listening to the Jesus of the Gospels that can indeed lead to the personal encounter and that.

Through collective listening with Jesus’ disciples across the ages, can indeed attain sure knowledge of the real historical figure of Jesus.”

Now, the Pope focuses exclusively on the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as a child.

The root of these stories is the experience of hope found in the birth of Jesus and the affirmations of surrender and service embodied in his parents, Joseph and Mary.

This is a story of longing and seeking, as demonstrated by the Magi searching for the redemption offered by the birth of a new king.

Ultimately, Jesus’ life and message is a story for today, one that speaks to the restlessness of the human heart searching for the sole truth which alone leads to profound joy.


“I can at last consign to the reader the long promised little book on the narratives of Jesus’ childhood . . .

Here I have sought to interpret, in dialogue with exegetes of the past and of the present, what Matthew and Luke recount at the beginning of their Gospels about the infancy of Jesus.”
Pope Benedict XVI
 
Dec 10, 2018 14:46:59   #
“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation.”
(CCC 116).
www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study.

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis.


a. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.”
b. That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading.

The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.


Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text.

1. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation.

2. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

3. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting.




Second Timothy 2:15
Commands us to use exegetical methods:

“Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself.


Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions.

Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible;

Eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.


The process of Exegesis involves;

1. Observation: what does the passage say ?

2. Interpretation: what does the passage mean ?

3. Correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible ?

4. Application: how should this passage affect my life ?



Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves;

1, Imagination: what idea do I want to present?

2. Exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea ?

3. Application: what does my idea mean?

Notice that, in Eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning.

Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.


To illustrate, let’s use both approaches in the treatment of one passage:

2 Chronicles 27:1-2
“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . .

He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.”


EISEGESIS

First, the interpreter decides on a topic.

Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.”

The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple!

This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it.

The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next.

Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice.

In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off.

The sermon ends with a question:

“How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?”



Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values.

And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 Seems to support that passage as an apt illustration.

However, the above interpretation is totally wrong.

For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show.


Exegesis;

First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham.
(2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38).

In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20).

Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died.”
(2 Chronicles 26:21).


Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy.

Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as.
2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15.

By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.

The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

Of course, Exegesis takes more time than Eisegesis.

But if we are to be those unashamed workmen “who correctly handle the word of truth,” then we must take the time to truly understand the text. Exegesis is the only way.


Hermeneutics is the field of study concerned with the philosophy and science of interpretation.

For Catholics, “the literal sense” literally just means trying to understand what the authors, both the Divine Author and the human authors, meant to communicate.

Often the authors clearly did intend to report a historical event, such as our Lord’s passion:

“He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.”
John 19:35

Any interpretation of the Gospels which tries to avoid their literal historical claims is literally missing the point.

However, the literal sense isn’t limited to history.

Sometimes an underlying purpose is identified:

“That you also may believe.”
John 19:35

Often, a theological truth is expressed through metaphor:

For instance, “God’s mighty arm” for God’s power.


We can also be confident that, since God is the primary author of all Scripture, the true literal senses of any two passages can never be contradictory.

When there is an apparent contradiction, it is a good hint that the point of contention isn’t the literal senses’ points.


Thus when we see two creation accounts that disagree about whether man or animals were created first, we can safely conclude that the authors were not concerned with telling us which came first.

They had other things on their minds.

Trusting in the guidance of the Church, in which resides the ultimate authority to determine the literal sense of Scripture.

We can literally read the best book in the world, the book that literally reveals to us God Himself, the God who literally entered our history when He became man.

“All divine Scripture is one book, and this one book is Christ, speaks of Christ and finds its fulfillment in Christ.”

(Hugh of St. Victor, cited in Verbum Domini 39).
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
Dec 10, 2018 14:41:34   #
04/07/2013 8 things to know and share about the Annunciation

Jimmy Akin
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/8-things-to-know-and-share-about-the-annunciation


Article main image This Monday we're going to be celebrating the solemnity of the Annunciation.

This day celebrates the appearance of the Angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary to announce of the birth of Christ.

What's going on and why is this day important?



Here are 8 things you need to know.

1. What does the word "Annunciation" mean?

It's derived from the same root as the word "announce."

Gabriel is announcing the birth of Christ in advance.

"Annunciation" is simply an old-fashioned way of saying "announcement."


Although we are most familiar with this term being applied to the announcement of Christ's birth, it can be applied in other ways also.

For example, in his book Jesus of Nazareth 3:
The Infancy Narratives, Benedict XVI has sections on both;

1 "The � Annunciation of the birth of John" and "The annunciation to Mary," because John the Baptist's birth was also announced in advance.



2. When is the Annunciation normally celebrated and why does it sometimes move ?

Normally the Solemnity of the Annunciation is celebrated on March 25th.

This date is used because it is nine months before Christmas (December 25th), and it is assumed that Jesus spent the normal nine months in the womb.

However, March 25th sometimes falls during Holy Week, and the days of Holy Week have a higher liturgical rank than this solemnity.
(Weekdays of Holy Week have rank I:2, while this solemnity has a rank of I:3; see here for the Table of Liturgical Days by their ranks).

Still, the Annunciation is an important solemnity, and so it doesn't just vanish from the calendar.

Instead, as the rubrics in the Catholic Missal note:

Whenever this Solemnity occurs during Holy Week, it is transferred to the Monday after the Second Sunday of Easter.

�It is thus celebrated on the first available day after Holy Week and the Octave of Easter (which ends on the Second Sunday of Easter).



3. How does this story parallel the birth of John the Baptist?

As noted above, John the Baptist's birth was announced in advance also. In both stories there are multiple parallels:

The Angel Gabriel makes the announcement.

He announces to a single individual: Zechariah in John the Baptist's case and Mary in Jesus' case.

He announces the miraculous birth of an individual who has a prominent place in God's plan.

He is met with a question in both cases (Zechariah asks how he can know this will happen; Mary asks how it will happen)

A miraculous sign is offered as evidence (Zechariah is struck dumb; Mary is told of Elizabeth's miraculous pregnancy, which is in its sixth month)�

Gabriel departs.



4. How is Mary's reaction different than Zechariah's?

At first glance, Mary's reaction to Gabriel could appear like Zechariah's unbelieving reaction, but it is fundamentally different.

Like Zechariah, she asks a question, but it is a question of a different sort:

Zechariah asked how he could
� know,
� What the angel says would be true. His attitude was one of skepticism.

Mary does not ask for proof. Instead, she asks;
� How
� The angel's words will be fulfilled.

He accepts what he says and wants to understand specifically how it will take place. �

Her attitude is thus one of faith seeking understanding, not a lack of faith.



5. What does Mary's reaction say about her perpetual virginity?

Mary's question is translated in the RSV:CE as
� "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

This is not a good translation, because she;
� Does, in fact, have a husband:

Joseph in Luke has already told us that she is betrothed to Joseph, which means that they were legally married (thus Joseph would have had to divorce her, not just "break the engagement" as one might today.
cf. Matt. 1:19).

What the text literally says in Greek is "since I do not know man."


This relies on the common biblical euphemism of "knowing" for sexual relations.

Mary's question indicates that she understands the facts of life, and it is surprising since she is legally married and awaiting the time that she and Joseph would begin to cohabit.

If she were planning on an ordinary marriage then the most natural interpretation of the angel's statement would be that, after she and Joseph begin to cohabit, they will together conceive a child, who the angel is now telling her about.

The fact that she asks the question indicates that this is not her understanding, and it has often been taken as a sign that she was not planning on an ordinary marriage.

Early Christian writings from the second century onward, beginning with the;

� Protoevangelium of James,
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

� Indicate that Mary was a consecrated virgin who was entrusted to the care of Joseph.



6. How does Gabriel respond to Mary's question?

Gabriel informs her:
� "The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
� And the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
� Therefore the child to be born will be called holy,
� The Son of God."

Here Gabriel indicates the involvement of all three Persons of the Trinity:

Through the action of the Holy Spirit, the Father causes the Son to be conceived in human form.

There will be no human father, making clear the fact that the child will be the Son of God.

As a further illustration of God's power, he points to the fact that Elizabeth, though old and apparently barren, has miraculously conceived a son and is in her sixth month of pregnancy. "For with God nothing will be impossible."



7. Is Elizabeth Mary's "Cousin"?

This question sometimes comes up in discussions of Mary's perpetual virginity, because it is sometimes thought that the "brothers" of the Lord were his cousins and that they are described as brothers because Aramaic has no word for "cousin."

Yet the New American Bible described Elizabeth as Mary's cousin.

Who Jesus "brothers" were has been understood in different ways.

The earliest sources that comment on the question (including the second century;
� Protoevangelium of James) say that they were step-brothers through Joseph.

They also, hypothetically, could have been adopted (adoption was very common in the ancient world since people often died early).

So they need not have been cousins.

While it's true that Aramaic does not have a word for cousin, Greek does (anepsios), but that is not the word used here.

Despite the well-known mistranslation in the NAB (later corrected in the NAB:RE),

Elizabeth is not described as Mary's "cousin."

The Greek word in this passage (sungenis) indicates a female relative--a kinswoman--not a cousin in particular.



8. Why is Mary's "Fiat" (Latin, "Let it be") important?

Mary's acceptance of this role is momentous and will entail suffering.

It is momentous because she will be the mother of the Son of God himself. It will entail suffering in ways that she cannot yet foresee.

(e.g., witnessing the Crucifixion), but some she could foresee.

In particular, she will be regarded as having been unfaithful to Joseph, and that would involve not only public shame but, as Matthew records, endangered her relationship with Joseph and her future livelihood and social position.

Yet she placed herself completely at the service of God's will.



Commenting on this, Pope Benedict writes:

"In one of his Advent homilies, Bernard of Clairvaux offers a stirring presentation of the drama of this moment.

After the error of our first parents, the whole world was shrouded in darkness, under the dominion of death.

Now God seeks to enter the world anew.

He knocks at Mary �s door.

He needs human freedom.

The only way he can redeem man, who was created free, is by means of a free 'yes' to his will.

In creating freedom, he made himself in a certain sense dependent upon man.

His power is tied to the unenforceable 'yes' of a human being.

So Bernard portrays heaven and earth as it were holding its breath at this moment of the question addressed to Mary.

Will she say yes?

She hesitates � will her humility hold her back?
Just this once � Bernard tells her
� do not be humble but daring!

Give us your 'yes'!

This is the crucial moment when, from her lips, from her heart, the answer comes:

'Let it be to me according to your word.'

It is the moment of free, humble yet magnanimous obedience in which the loftiest choice of human freedom is made."

(Jesus of Nazareth 3: The Infancy Narratives, ch. 2).
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2012/11/20/further-details-about-jesus-of-nazareth-the-infancy-narratives/


What Now?

If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
http://www.secretinfoclub.com
Dec 10, 2018 13:21:51   #
08/14/2018 Literally the Best Book You Will Ever Read. And how to read the Bible . . . The two conflicting approaches of interrupting Hermeneutics; the Bible Exegesis and Eisegesis . . .

Br. Isidore Rice, O.P.
https://www.dominicanajournal.org/literally-the-best-book-you-will-ever-read/

Warning:
This paragraph may cause grammar-conscious readers to literally explode.

In contemporary speech, many people use the word “literally” merely for emphasis.

But those who hold fast to the word’s meaning know that this usage is literally barking up the wrong tree.

Yet, confusion over the word “literally” has more serious implications than literally getting the goat of every high school English teacher:

It can lead to confusion about how we read the Bible.


Are we supposed to read the Bible literally ?

We may have an impulse to say no.


Isn’t taking the Bible literally something that only Fundamentalist Protestants do?

Since we hold to both faith and reason, how could we take the Bible literally, when some parts seem to contradict confident findings of science and perhaps even other parts of the Bible itself?


Thus, it may come as a surprise that St. Thomas Aquinas, a man of great faith and great reason, makes the literal reading of Scripture foundational to all interpretation:

“All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal” (ST I.1.10).
www.dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FP/FP001.html#FPQ1A10THEP1

He even literally throws down the gauntlet:

“It is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.”

"Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?


St. Thomas Aquinas;

Objection 1:

It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical.

For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument.

Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions.

But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy.

Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word.


Objection 2:

Further, Augustine says
(De util. cred. iii)

That "the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory."

Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection.

Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.


Objection 3:

Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1):
"Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery."

I answer that;

The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves.

So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification.

Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal.

That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.

Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division.

Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All, For as the Apostle says; Hebrews 10:1
10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
The Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says.
(Coel. Hier. i)

"The New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do.

Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense.

But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the analogical sense.

Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as

Augustine says (Confess. xii);
If, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.


Reply to Objection 1:

The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things.

Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one—the literal—from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48).

Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.


Reply to Objection 2:

These three—history, etiology, analogy—are grouped under the literal sense.

For it is called history, as Augustine expounds (Epis. 48), whenever anything is simply related;

It is called etiology when its cause is assigned, as when Our Lord gave the reason why Moses allowed the putting away of wives—namely, on account of the hardness of men's hearts; it is called analogy whenever the truth of one text of Scripture is shown not to contradict the truth of another.

Of these four, allegory alone stands for the three spiritual senses.

Thus Hugh of St. Victor (Sacram. iv, 4 Prolog.)

Includes the anagogical under the allegorical sense, laying down three senses only—the historical, the allegorical, and the tropological.


Reply to Objection 3:

The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively.

Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense.

When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power.

Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.


St. Thomas Aquinas says, We literally need to make sense of this.

St. Thomas Aquinas says, What is this literal sense ?


For St. Thomas, the literal sense means much more than taking the words at face value.

If we were forced to do that, the creation narratives would be the least of our worries.

For instance, Scripture often speaks of God’s “mighty arm.”
Psalms 89:10, Psalms 98:1

Surely we don’t have to literally think that there is a divine bicep floating around in the heavens!

Rather, according to St. Thomas, “The literal sense is that which the author intends.”



Or as the Catechism puts it;

“The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation.”
(CCC 116).
www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study.

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis.


a. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.”
b. That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading.

The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.


Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text.

1. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation.

2. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

3. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting.




Second Timothy 2:15
Commands us to use exegetical methods:

“Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself.


Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions.

Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible;

Eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.


The process of Exegesis involves;

1. Observation: what does the passage say ?

2. Interpretation: what does the passage mean ?

3. Correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible ?

4. Application: how should this passage affect my life ?



Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves;

1, Imagination: what idea do I want to present?

2. Exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea ?

3. Application: what does my idea mean?

Notice that, in Eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning.

Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.


To illustrate, let’s use both approaches in the treatment of one passage:

2 Chronicles 27:1-2
“Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . .

He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.”


EISEGESIS

First, the interpreter decides on a topic.

Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.”

The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple!

This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it.

The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next.

Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice.

In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off.

The sermon ends with a question:

“How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?”



Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values.

And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 Seems to support that passage as an apt illustration.

However, the above interpretation is totally wrong.

For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show.


Exegesis;

First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham.
(2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38).

In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20).

Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died.”
(2 Chronicles 26:21).


Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy.

Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as.
2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15.

By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.

The resulting sermon might deal with the Lord’s discipline of His children, with the blessing of total obedience, or with our need to learn from the mistakes of the past rather than repeat them.

Of course, Exegesis takes more time than Eisegesis.

But if we are to be those unashamed workmen “who correctly handle the word of truth,” then we must take the time to truly understand the text. Exegesis is the only way.


Hermeneutics is the field of study concerned with the philosophy and science of interpretation.

For Catholics, “the literal sense” literally just means trying to understand what the authors, both the Divine Author and the human authors, meant to communicate.

Often the authors clearly did intend to report a historical event, such as our Lord’s passion:

“He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.”
John 19:35

Any interpretation of the Gospels which tries to avoid their literal historical claims is literally missing the point.

However, the literal sense isn’t limited to history.

Sometimes an underlying purpose is identified:

“That you also may believe.”
John 19:35

Often, a theological truth is expressed through metaphor:

For instance, “God’s mighty arm” for God’s power.


We can also be confident that, since God is the primary author of all Scripture, the true literal senses of any two passages can never be contradictory.

When there is an apparent contradiction, it is a good hint that the point of contention isn’t the literal senses’ points.


Thus when we see two creation accounts that disagree about whether man or animals were created first, we can safely conclude that the authors were not concerned with telling us which came first.

They had other things on their minds.

Trusting in the guidance of the Church, in which resides the ultimate authority to determine the literal sense of Scripture.

We can literally read the best book in the world, the book that literally reveals to us God Himself, the God who literally entered our history when He became man.

“All divine Scripture is one book, and this one book is Christ, speaks of Christ and finds its fulfillment in Christ.”

(Hugh of St. Victor, cited in Verbum Domini 39).
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html
Dec 8, 2018 17:39:41   #
Zemirah,

Love your deflection and continued ignorance

Happy reading, or ignorance on your behalf . . .

I know you will never take the time to read any of the 25 article posts.



Was the Third Secret Revealed?

I. Was the Third Secret Revealed? - Part 1
Confirming the deciphered Third Secret published on the TIA website
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g45_Secret_1.htm


II. A ‘Bishop Dressed in White’- Part 2
Strong evidence that the Vatican-released ‘Secret’ was bogus
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g46_Secret_2.htm


III. Like the Mission of Elias the Prophet - Part 3
Our Lady of Fatima warns of dire consequences to ignoring her message
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g47_Secret_3.htm


IV. Fatima & Similar Warnings - Part 4
A series of Popes disregard warnings of an apostasy inside the Church
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g48_Secret_4.htm



‘Third Secret’ of Fatima Released in April 2010


The Text
From Portugal, the supposed manuscript of Sister Lucy
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B352_Secret.html

More Data Shed Light on the ‘Third Secret’
The cornerstone of St. Peter's grave was sent to Fatima
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B354_Data3sec.html

Three Different Third Secrets
Readers offer other possible documents
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B355_3ThirdSec.html

‘Third Secret’: Opinions & Questions
Discussion about the probable source of this document
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B357_OnSecret.html

Objections & Answers on the ‘Third Secret’
‘Evil eyes’ can symbolize a heterodox notion of the papacy
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B359_Obj-Secret.html

What Does the ‘Ugly Church’ Mean?
It could well represent the Conciliar Reform
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B362_UglyChurch.html

A Pope with Devilish Eyes
Is Benedict XVI the Pope described in the message?
https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A363rcDevilEyesi.html

The Churches of Hell
Pictures of some churches that correspond to the revelation
https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A364rcChurchHell.html

Advocating the Authenticity of the ‘Third Secret’
Five reasons that speak in favor of the released text
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B367_Advocating.html

It is Fake! It Is Authentic!
Objections answered; support received
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B372_FakeSecret.html

Eight Objections to the ‘Third Secret’
The editor responds to ‘juridical’ doubts of a reader
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B379_8Objections.htm

Forensics vs. Photoshop
Concerns and hopes regarding the supposed Third Secret
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g22htForensic.html

Mystic Fr. Malachi Martin on the Third Secret - I
Harmony between a description of Fr. Martin and the released document
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B386_Malachi.html

Mystic Fr. Malachi on the Third Secret - II
Comparing the words of M.M. with those of the April ‘Secret’
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B391_Malachi02.html

The Alleged Third Secret
A reader from Portugal: It is basically authentic, but with falsified parts
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B397_Photoshop.html

Discussion Continues on the ‘Third Secret’
Miscellaneous commentaries by readers
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B405_3secret.html

The Secret Best Kept of Fatima
Spanish writer bases a book on TIA's Third Secret
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B955_Secret.html

Our ‘Third Secret’ Was Written by Sr. Lucy, Handwriting Expert Affirms
Strong new evidence re-opens the questioi
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g32ht_Analyst.htm

Expert Speaks on the Third Secret
The text is definitively the handwriting of Sister Lucy
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B965_Begona.htm

Trying to Decipher a Scrambled Message
A text of the Third Secret that removes the inconsistencies
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm

Finally, the Truth!
A text in Sister Lucy's handwriting that no one wants to consider...
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g34hht_truth.htm



"To be deep in history, is to cease to be Protestant."
Venerable, Cardinal Henry Newman, former Episcopal Bishop convert
Dec 8, 2018 17:37:52   #
BLESSED VIRGIN WAS FILLED WITH GOD'S GRACE
Pope John Paul II
General Audience given 8 May 1996.
1. In the account of the Annunciation, the first word of the Angel's greeting, "Rejoice", is an invitation to joy which recalls the oracles of the Old Testament addressed to the "daughter of Zion". We pointed this out in our previous catecheses and also explained the reasons for this invitation: God's presence among his people, the coming of the messianic king and maternal fruitfulness. These reasons are fulfilled in Mary.

The Angel Gabriel, addressing the Virgin of Nazareth after the greeting, chaire, "Rejoice", calls her Kecharitomene, "full of grace". The words of the Greek text, chaire and Kecharitomene, are deeply interconnected: Mary is invited to rejoice primarily because God loves her and has filled her with grace in view of her divine motherhood!

The Church's faith and the experience of the saints teach us that grace is a source of joy, and that true joy comes from God. In Mary, as in Christians, the divine gift produces deep joy.

2. Kecharitomene: this term addressed to Mary seems to be the proper way to describe the woman destined to become the mother of Jesus. Lumen gentium appropriately recalls this when it affirms: "The Virgin of Nazareth is hailed by the heralding angel, by divine command, as 'full of grace'" (Lumen gentium, n. 56).

The fact that the heavenly messenger addresses her in this way enhances the value of the angelic greeting: it is a manifestation of God's mysterious saving plan in Mary's regard. As I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "'The fullness of grace' indicates all the supernatural munificence from which Mary benefits by being chosen and destined to be the Mother of Christ" (n 9).

God granted Mary the fullness of grace

"Full of grace" is the name Mary possesses in the eyes of God. Indeed, the angel, according to the Evangelist Luke's account, uses this expression even before he speaks the name "Mary", and thus emphasizes the predominant aspect which the Lord perceived in the Virgin of Nazareth's personality.

The expression "Full of grace" is the translation of the Greek word Kecharitomene, which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely "full of grace", but "made full of grace", or even "filled with grace", which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness. The same verb, in the sense of "to bestow grace", is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in his beloved Son (Eph 1:6), and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (cf. Redemptoris Mater, n. 10).

3. In the Virgin's case, God's action certainly seems surprising. Mary has no human claim to receiving the announcement of the Messiah's coming. She is not the high priest, official representative of the Hebrew religion, nor even a man, but a young woman without any influence in the society of her time. In addition, she is a native of Nazareth, a village which is never mentioned in the Old Testament. It must not have enjoyed a good reputation, as Nathanael's question, recorded in John's Gospel makes clear: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (Jn 1:46).

The extraordinary and gratuitous nature of God's intervention becomes even clearer in comparison with Luke's text which recounts what happened to Zechariah. The latter's priestly status is highlighted as well as his exemplary life which make him and his wife Elizabeth models of Old Testament righteousness: they walked "blameless in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord" (Lk 1:6)

But we are not informed of Mary's origins either: the expression "of the house of David" (Lk 1:27) in fact refers only to Joseph. No mention is made then of Mary's behaviour. With this literary choice, Luke stresses that everything in Mary derives from a sovereign grace. All that is granted to her is not due to any claim of merit, but only to God's free and gratuitous choice.

God's mercy reaches the highest degree in Mary

4. In so doing, the Evangelist does not of course intend to downplay the outstanding personal value of the Blessed Virgin. Rather, he wishes to present Mary as the pure fruit of God's goodwill: he has so taken possession of her as to make her, according to the title used by the Angel, "full of grace". The abundance of grace itself is the basis of Mary's hidden spiritual richness.

In the Old Testament, Yahweh expresses the superabundance of his love in many ways and on many occasions. At the dawn of the New Testament, the gratuitousness of God's mercy reaches the highest degree in Mary. In her, God's predilection, shown to the chosen people and in particular to the humble and the poor, reaches its culmination.

Nourished by the Word of the Lord and the experience of the saints, the Church urges believers to keep their gaze fixed on the Mother of the Redeemer and to consider themselves, like her, loved by God. She invites them to share Our Lady's humility and poverty, so that, after her example and through her intercession, they may persevere in the grace of God who sanctifies and transforms hearts.
 
Dec 8, 2018 17:37:13   #
BLESSED VIRGIN WAS FILLED WITH GOD'S GRACE
Pope John Paul II
General Audience given 8 May 1996.
1. In the account of the Annunciation, the first word of the Angel's greeting, "Rejoice", is an invitation to joy which recalls the oracles of the Old Testament addressed to the "daughter of Zion". We pointed this out in our previous catecheses and also explained the reasons for this invitation: God's presence among his people, the coming of the messianic king and maternal fruitfulness. These reasons are fulfilled in Mary.

The Angel Gabriel, addressing the Virgin of Nazareth after the greeting, chaire, "Rejoice", calls her Kecharitomene, "full of grace". The words of the Greek text, chaire and Kecharitomene, are deeply interconnected: Mary is invited to rejoice primarily because God loves her and has filled her with grace in view of her divine motherhood!

The Church's faith and the experience of the saints teach us that grace is a source of joy, and that true joy comes from God. In Mary, as in Christians, the divine gift produces deep joy.

2. Kecharitomene: this term addressed to Mary seems to be the proper way to describe the woman destined to become the mother of Jesus. Lumen gentium appropriately recalls this when it affirms: "The Virgin of Nazareth is hailed by the heralding angel, by divine command, as 'full of grace'" (Lumen gentium, n. 56).

The fact that the heavenly messenger addresses her in this way enhances the value of the angelic greeting: it is a manifestation of God's mysterious saving plan in Mary's regard. As I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: "'The fullness of grace' indicates all the supernatural munificence from which Mary benefits by being chosen and destined to be the Mother of Christ" (n 9).

God granted Mary the fullness of grace

"Full of grace" is the name Mary possesses in the eyes of God. Indeed, the angel, according to the Evangelist Luke's account, uses this expression even before he speaks the name "Mary", and thus emphasizes the predominant aspect which the Lord perceived in the Virgin of Nazareth's personality.

The expression "Full of grace" is the translation of the Greek word Kecharitomene, which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely "full of grace", but "made full of grace", or even "filled with grace", which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness. The same verb, in the sense of "to bestow grace", is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in his beloved Son (Eph 1:6), and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (cf. Redemptoris Mater, n. 10).

3. In the Virgin's case, God's action certainly seems surprising. Mary has no human claim to receiving the announcement of the Messiah's coming. She is not the high priest, official representative of the Hebrew religion, nor even a man, but a young woman without any influence in the society of her time. In addition, she is a native of Nazareth, a village which is never mentioned in the Old Testament. It must not have enjoyed a good reputation, as Nathanael's question, recorded in John's Gospel makes clear: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (Jn 1:46).

The extraordinary and gratuitous nature of God's intervention becomes even clearer in comparison with Luke's text which recounts what happened to Zechariah. The latter's priestly status is highlighted as well as his exemplary life which make him and his wife Elizabeth models of Old Testament righteousness: they walked "blameless in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord" (Lk 1:6)

But we are not informed of Mary's origins either: the expression "of the house of David" (Lk 1:27) in fact refers only to Joseph. No mention is made then of Mary's behaviour. With this literary choice, Luke stresses that everything in Mary derives from a sovereign grace. All that is granted to her is not due to any claim of merit, but only to God's free and gratuitous choice.

God's mercy reaches the highest degree in Mary

4. In so doing, the Evangelist does not of course intend to downplay the outstanding personal value of the Blessed Virgin. Rather, he wishes to present Mary as the pure fruit of God's goodwill: he has so taken possession of her as to make her, according to the title used by the Angel, "full of grace". The abundance of grace itself is the basis of Mary's hidden spiritual richness.

In the Old Testament, Yahweh expresses the superabundance of his love in many ways and on many occasions. At the dawn of the New Testament, the gratuitousness of God's mercy reaches the highest degree in Mary. In her, God's predilection, shown to the chosen people and in particular to the humble and the poor, reaches its culmination.

Nourished by the Word of the Lord and the experience of the saints, the Church urges believers to keep their gaze fixed on the Mother of the Redeemer and to consider themselves, like her, loved by God. She invites them to share Our Lady's humility and poverty, so that, after her example and through her intercession, they may persevere in the grace of God who sanctifies and transforms hearts.
Dec 8, 2018 17:33:13   #
Both you nincompoops can't answer the salacious straw-man question on the Bible.

Mary: Ark of the New Covenant (Biblical Evidences)

Prove what you say Biblically
Dec 8, 2018 17:25:52   #
What a bunch of snot-mouth garbage compost

Prove things with facts balmer . . .

other than that you are a lapdog sycophant stooge.

Anyone can make a straw-man comment.

But can you back them up with facts.

Respond with facts, Facts, FACTs, no Supposition's, Innuendo's, Exaggeration's of your own Personal Emotional Belief's, Hypocritical Truth's, Empty Rhetoric devoid of Real Factual Substance and full of Regurgitated Dendrite Compost Opinions
Dec 8, 2018 17:22:10   #
Something for you to ponder and read before you completely make an ass out of yourself.

Is Newman’s Essa On The Development Of Christian Doctrine A Theory Of The Development of Dogma ? Suggestions For An Alternative Interpretation
https://www.communio-icr.com/files/2MartinBr.pdf

“At the heart of Newman’s Essay is a discovery of the historicity of faith that avoids at every turn the temptation both of an idealistic philosophy of history and of a relativist historicism . . . while holding fast to
the historicity of faith.”

The aim of this essay is very straightforward. It intends no more—but certainly no less—than to urge the reading of Newman’s book. I hope to spell out why a careful, penetrating study of this work is now more than ever worthwhile for each of us; emphatically for each of us, and particularly for the so-called “theological layman” as well. This is meant precisely in the sense of Newman’s major concern for the formation of theological competency and sound theological judgment. Over and above mere encouragement, the present essay intends to provide an introduction to, and guidance

Communio 28 (Winter 2001). © 2001 by Communio: International Catholic Review



Rose42 wrote:


Notice how none of this is in God's word but there is a very weak attempt at trying to justify one of Satan's lies.

The "immaculate conception" was made up by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

Why would this have been left out of the Bible? Because its not true.
Dec 8, 2018 17:17:43   #
Rose42

Rose42 now your calling Paul the apostle a lier ?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.


Rose42 you are nothing more than a Biblical blasphemer

End of story


How much more do you take the Bible out of context.

Stand Firm, 2 Thessalonians 2:15

14 To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and cling to the traditions we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.

16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God our Father, who by grace has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope,…


Doc110


Rose42 wrote:


Apostolic tradition debunked - biblically

-snip

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Cannot be used to support the claim that extrabiblical, spiritually binding “apostolic tradition” is passed down verbally through popes and bishops.

Paul’s whole point was that the Thessalonians should treat as authoritative only what they had heard from his own mouth or received from his own pen. That body of truth—the Word of God—was to be the measuring stick they used to examine all things. Two other verses confirm this.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Paul writes, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.”

And in verse 14 he adds, “If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.”

Therefore, Paul is affirming that the Bible is the only reliable criterion by which believers in this age can evaluate messages claiming to be truth from God.


https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-146458-1.html
br br Apostolic tradition debunked - biblically ... (show quote)
 
Dec 8, 2018 17:11:49   #
“Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the dreadful mysteries”
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 3,4 (c. A.D. 392).

“It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true.”
Augustine, Sermon 117:6 (c. A.D. 397).

“If therefore, I am going to believe things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?”
Augustine, Letter called Fundamentals 14:18 (A.D. 397).

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age.

The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?”
Augustine, Epistle of Manichaeus 5,6 (A.D. 397).

“The authority of our Scriptures, strengthened by the consent of so may nations, and confirmed by the succession of the Apostles, bishops and councils, is against you.”
Augustine, Letter to Faustus 8:5 (c. A.D. 406)

“No sensible person will go contrary to reason, no Christian will contradict the Scriptures, no lover of peace will go against the Church.” Augustine, Trinitas 4,6,10 (c. A.D. 410).

“Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it.”
Augustine, Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis (A.D. 414).

“Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?”
Augustine, Letter to Juliana 1:7,34 (A.D. 416).

‘When anyone asks one of these heretics who presents arguments: Where are the proofs of your teaching that I should leave behind the world-wide and ancient faith of the Catholic Church? He will jump in before you have finished with the question: “It is written” He follows up immediately with thousands of texts and examples…’
Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith 1,26 (A.D. 434).

“Here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense.

The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius;

Finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.”
Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith 2 (A.D. 434).

‘This teaching has been handed down to us not only by the Apostles and prophets but also by those who have interpreted their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory…and other lights of the world and before them, by the holy Fathers gathered at Nicea whose confession of faith we have kept intact, as the inheritance from a Father, while those who dare to violate their teachings, we call corrupt and enemies of truth.’
Theodoret of Cyrus, Epistles 89 (c. A.D. 436).


‘We confess that (we) hold and declare the faith given from the beginning by the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ to the Holy Apostles, and preached by them in the whole world; which the sacred Fathers confessed and explained, and handed down to the holy churches, and especially (those fathers) who assembled in the four sacred Synods, whom we follow and accept through all things and in all things…

Judging as at odds with piety all things, indeed, which are not in accord with what has been defined as right faith by the same four holy Councils, we condemn and anathematize.’ Council of Constantinople II (A.D. 553).

‘I have no private opinion, but only agree with the Catholic Church.’
Maximus the Confessor (c. A.D. 638).

‘So, then in expectation of His coming we worship toward the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten.’
John Damascus, Orthodox Faith 4,12,16 (c. A.D. 745).

‘Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or epistle” And to the Corinthians he writes,

“Now I praise your brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you.’
John Damascus, Orthodox Faith 4,16 (c. A.D. 745).

‘He who does not believe according to the tradition of the Catholic Church is an unbeliever.’
John Damascus, Letter to the Nestorians (c. A.D. 745).

‘If anyone rejects all ecclesiastical tradition either written or not written…let him be anathema.’
Council of Nicea II, (A.D. 787).
Dec 8, 2018 17:07:44   #
“The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself, for the subversion of all irreligious heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church.” Athanasius, Ad Afros 1 (c. A.D. 369).

“But the Word of the Lord which came through the Ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever.” Athanasius, Ad Afros 2 (c. A.D. 369).

“Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture as well those which have been gathered concerning it as those which we have received from the unwritten tradition of the Fathers.” Basil, Holy Spirit 22 (c. A.D. 370).

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the Apostles by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.” Basil, Holy Spirit 27 (c. A.D. 370).

“The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370).

“While the unwritten traditions are so many and their bearing on ‘the mystery of godliness’ is so important, can they refuse us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;–which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;–a word for which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery.” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370).

“In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form ‘with the Spirit’ has no written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide by the unwritten traditions.

‘I praise you,’ it is said, ‘that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you;’ and ‘Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.’

One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.” Basil, Holy Spirit 71 (c. A.D. 370).

“…and I have not allowed my judgment concerning them to rest wholly with myself, but have followed the decisions given about them by our Fathers.” Basil, Epistles 204,6 (c. A.D. 370).

“…considering myself bound to follow the high authority of such a man and of those who made the rule, and with every desire on my part to win the reward promised peacemakers, did enroll in the lists of communicants all who accepted that creed. The fair thing would be to judge of me, not from one or two who do not walk uprightly in the truth, but from the multitude of bishops throughout the world, connected with me by the grace of the Lord… you may learn that we are all of one mind and of one opinion. Whoso shuns communion with me, it cannot escape your accuracy, cuts himself off from the whole Church.” Basil, Epistles 204,6-7 (c. A.D. 370).

‘Not to accept the voice of the Fathers as being of more authority than their opinion deserves reproof as something filled with pride!’ Basil, Epistle to Canonicas (c. A.D. 370).

‘But for all the divine words, there is no need of allegory to grasp the meaning; what is necessary is study and understanding to know the meaning of each statement. We must have recourse to tradition, for all cannot be received from the divine Scriptures.

That is why the holy Apostles handed down certain things in writings but others by traditions. As Paul said:” Just as I handed them on to you.”‘ Ephiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 61, 6 (A.D. 377)
.
‘Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of the Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of command…’ Jerome, Dialogue Luciferians 8 (c. A.D. 379).

‘And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have Scripture authority sinc the devil himself has quoted Scripture texts…we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine.’ Jerome, Dialogue Luciferians 28 (c. A.D. 379).

“It suffices for proof of our statement that we have a tradition coming down from the Fathers, an inheritance as it were, by succession from the Apostles through the saints who came after them.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

“…I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion?” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

“They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of their arguments in abundance, if they were to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness:

But so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish ad so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).

“My sheep hear my voice, which I heard from the oracles of God, which I have been taught by the Holy Fathers, which I have taught alike on all occasions, not conforming myself to the opportune, and which I will never cease to teach; in which I was born, and in which I will depart.” Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations 33,15 (c. A.D. 385).

“I desire to learn what is this fashion of innovation in things concerning the Church. But since our faith has been proclaimed, both in writing and without writing, here and in distant parts, in times of danger and of safety, how comes it that some make such attempts, and that others keep silence?” Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistles 101 (c. A.D. 385).

“But if they will not believe the doctrines of the priests, let them believe Christ’s oracles, let them believe the admonitions of angels who say, “For with God nothing is impossible”. Let them believe the Apostles Creed which the Roman Church as always kept undefiled.” Ambrose, Letter to Sircius (c. A.D. 387).

“To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you.”
Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390).

‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by our epistle of ours’. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians (c. A.D. 392).

“We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themselves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at that time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which have been delivered by unwritten tradition.

Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they chiefly dwell is that pertains to Christ as man.

For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoke little concerning His Godhead: it was mostly of the manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascension.”
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 1,1 (c. A.D. 392).
Dec 8, 2018 17:04:29   #
‘It is not by drawing on the Holy Scriptures nor by guarding the tradition of some holy person that the heretics have formulated these doctrines.’ Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies 1, Preface (c. A.D. 230).

‘After all this, they yet in addition, having had a false bishop ordained for them by heretics, dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the Chair of Peter, and the principle Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise. They fail to reflect that those Romans are the same as those who faith was publicly praised by the apostle, to whom unbelief cannot have access” Cyprian, Letter to Pope Cornelius, Epistle 59:14 (c. A.D. 252).

‘We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Council of Nicea I, Nicene Creed, (A.D. 325).

‘But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures.’ Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 5,12 (c. A.D. 347).

‘Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what are the books of the New.’ Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 5,33 (c. A.D. 347).

“Forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense.” Athanasius, Orations 1,37 (c. A.D. 350).

“However here too they (the Arians) introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise ‘one,’ or ‘like,’ as the Church preaches, but as they themselves would have it” Athanasius, Orations 3,10 (c. A.D. 350).

“If we now consider the object of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this object, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.” Athanasius, Orations 3,28 (c. A.D. 350).

“Had Christ enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope and an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith…” Athanasius, Orations 3,58 (c. A.D. 350).

“But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power” Athanasius, Festal Letter 2 (c. A.D. 350).

‘Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith…

And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterward subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church’s faith and the Tradition of the Fathers.’ Athanasius, De Decretis 3, (c. A.D. 350).

‘Are they not then committing a crime in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council’? Athanasius, De Decretis 4 (c. A.D. 350).

‘For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their Fathers…

Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the same doctrines, but quarreling one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable heralds of truth agree together, and do not differ…preaching the same Word harmoniously.’ Athanasius, De Decretis 4 (c. A.D. 350).

‘…and it is seemingly and most irreligious when Scripture contains such images, to form ideas concerning our Lord from others which are neither in Scripture, nor have any religious bearing. Therefore let them tell us from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Saviour?…

But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory.’ Athanasius, De Decretis 13 (c. A.D. 350).

‘…and in dizziness about truth, are full set upon accusing the Council, let them tell us what are the Scriptures from what they have learned , or who is the saint by whom they have been taught…’ Athanasius, De Decretis 18 (c. A.D. 350).

‘Must needs hold and intend the decisions of the Council, suitably regarding them to signify the relation of the radiance to the light, and from thence gaining the illustration to the truth.’ Athanasius, De Decretis 20 (c. A.D. 350).

‘Of course, the holy Scriptures, divinely inspired are self-sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. But there are also numerous works composed for this purpose by blessed teachers. The one who reads them will understand the interpretation of the Scriptures and will be able to gain knowledge he desrires.’ Athanasius, Gentes 1 (c. A.D. 350).

‘But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the faith.’ Athanasius, Gentes 6 (c. A.D. 350).
‘But that the soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church’s teaching which you must know…’ Athanasius, Gentes 33 (c. A.D. 350).

‘But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.’ Athanasius, Ad Serapion 1,28 (c. A.D. 350).

“Wherefore keep yourselves all the more untainted by them, and observe the traditions of the Fathers, and chiefly the holy faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, which you have learned from the Scripture, and of which you have often been put in mind by me.” Anthony of Egypt, Vita S. Antoni 89, (c. A.D. 350).

‘We are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases?

Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us.

For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy…’ Athanasius, De Decretis 27 (c. A.D. 350).

“We are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold this.” Athanasius, Epistles 59 ( A.D. 356).

“But our faith is right, and starts from the teaching of the Apostles and tradition of the fathers, being confirmed both by the NT and the Old.” Athanasius, Epistles 60 (A.D. 356).
‘…For they dissent from each other, and , whereas they have revolted from their Fathers, are not of one and the same mind, but float about with various and discordant changes’ Athanasius, De Synodis 13 (A.D. 359).

‘For it is right and meet thus to feel, and to maintain a good conscience toward the fathers, if we be not spurious children, but have received the traditions from them, and the lessons of religion at their hands.’ Athanasius, De Synodis 47 (A.D. 359).

‘Such then, as we confess and believe, being the sense of the Fathers…’ Athanasius, De Synodis 48 (A.D. 359).

‘…but do you, remaining on the foundation of the Apostles, and holding fast the traditions of the Fathers, pray that now at length all strife and rivalry may cease and the futile questions of the heretics may be condemned…’ Athanasius, De Synodis 54 (A.D. 359).

‘It behooves us not to withdraw from the Creed which we have received…nor to back off from the faith which we have received from through the prophets … or to back-slide from the Gospels. Once laid down, it continues even to this day through the tradition of the Fathers.’
Hilary of Poitiers, Ex. Oper. Hist. Fragment 7,3 (c. A.D. 365).
Dec 8, 2018 17:02:21   #
Tradition / Church Fathers

I. The Word of God in Oral Apostolic Tradition


‘If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled monuments of antiquity…’ Ignatius ofAntioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2 (c. A.D. 110).

‘Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.’ Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).

‘The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).
‘Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith…But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3, 4:1 (inter A.D. 180/199).
“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church…those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies 26:2 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,3:3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from which the Church, receiving, and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons. Then also-having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables…that they may preserve steadfast the faith which they have received, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way perverted by those who endeavor to teach them false doctrine…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface V (inter A.D. 180/199).

“Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed to the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition of the Apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same …And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world…For the Church preaches the truth everywhere…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface V 20, 1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters…It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Preface V 20, 1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown, possess succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession of the succession, and assemble themselves…But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, shall recieve from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 26:2 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“Heretics assent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3,2,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

“We do not take our scriptural teaching from the parables but we interpret the parables according to our teaching.” Tertullian, Purity 9,1 (c. A.D. 200).

‘Let them show the origins of their churches, let them unroll the list of their bishops, through a succession coming down from the very beginning that their first bishop had his authority and predecessor someone from among the number of Apostles or apostolic men and, further, that he did not stray from the Apostles. In this way the apostolic churches present their earliest records.

The church of Smyrna, for example, records that Polycarp was named by John; the Romans, that Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way, the other churches show who were made bishops by the Apostles and who transmitted the apostolic seed to them. Let the heretics invent something like that. ‘ Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 32 (c. A.D. 200).

‘But they, safeguarding the true tradition of the blessed teaching, which comes straight from the Apostles Peter, James, John and Paul and transmitted from father to son have come down to us with the help of God to deposit in us those ancestral and apostolic seeds’ Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1,11 (c. A.D. 205).

‘For us…having grown old in the Scriptures, preserving the Apostolic and ecclesiastical correctness of doctrine, living a life according to the Gospel, is led by the Lord to discover the proofs from the Law and the prophets which he seeks.’ Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7,104 (c. A.D. 205).

“The Church’s preaching has been handed down through an orderly succession from the Apostles and remains in the Church until the present. That alone is to be believed as the truth which in no way departs from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” Origen, First Principles 1,2 (c. A.D. 230).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 560 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.