Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

Are All Statements from the Ecumenical Councils Infallible Pronouncements? Michal Hunt [1/3] The truth is not every pronouncement at an ecumenical council is infallible, but there is no short answer to this question. I will do my best to provide the shortest long answer I can give. Some pronouncements of Ecumenical Councils deal with matters of faith and morals while others may be of a disciplinary or prudential nature and are not infallible statements. If you refer to the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium 25, you will find that this document carefully points out exactly when and where the voice of the Magisterium speaks with the great voice of infallibility. Let's first consider the places, according to Lumen Gentium 25, where the Magisterium speaks infallibly. To begin with many moral norms are taught infallibly but it is necessary to distinguish between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium. "Extraordinary" and "ordinary" refer to the manner in which a truth is stated by the Church whether that truth is infallible or whether it is not. Using the parent-child relationship as a model – when you correct or remind your children about good manners, say for example, that they should remember to say "thank you" when a waiter in a restaurant brings them their meal, that is an "ordinary" exercise of your authority as a parent. But, if you were to write up a set of rules for proper behavior when going out to eat and you were to announce these rules officially at a special family meeting that would be an "extraordinary" exercise of your parental authority. It is in this way that the Magisterium – which consists of both a papal and an episcopal dimension –, can exercise authority over the Church. When the Pope speaks "ex cathedra", or "from the chair" (of St. Peter), as Christ's Vicar of the Kingdom of Heaven in a papal statement, or when an ecumenical council at which many bishops – the successors of the Apostles – are gathered issue an official statement, this would be an example of the Magisterium (mother Church) teaching in an "extraordinary" manner. It might be a little clearer if I broke down the two components into the Extraordinary Papal Magisterium and the Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium... notice the difference between the technical terms "define" and "teach". I. THE EXTRAORDINARY PAPAL MAGISTERIUM: A. In the Extraordinary Papal Magisterium the Pope acts alone and speaks ex cathedra in defending a dogma (truth) of the Church. This has only happened twice in the 2,000 year history of the Church: > The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was defined in 1854 by Pius IX; and > The Assumption of the Virgin Mary was defined in 1950 by Pius XII. Notice I said "defined" – this was not a new truth but a truth that had been taught since the earliest years of the Church but which had not been defined as an article of Catholic faith. When dogma is taught infallibly it is required that the faithful in an "assent of faith" accept the truth of the Church's teaching. B. In the Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium the bishops gather in ecumenical councils and in their role as the successors of the Apostles can: Define dogmas: There have been 21 ecumenical councils held throughout the history of the Church at which certain truths have been defined. Probably the most familiar to us the Nicene-Constantinople Creed we recite at Mass which is an infallible definition which came from the Great Councils of Nicaea in 325 AD and Constantinople in 381 AD. Other examples would be the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which defined the two natures of Christ or the Council of Trent (a really long one) ending in 1561 which defined the seven sacraments. These councils can also define dogmas by renouncing heresy like the Council of Ephesus in 431 which proclaimed against a heresy called Nestorianism and declared the Virgin Mary not just the mother of a man named Jesus but the Mother of God! 🔗[2/3] 🔗[3/3] 🔗source

Confession - A Little Book for the Reluctant (1989) Fr. Louis-Gaston de Ségur #penance

Charity demands penance 'As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith, and mercy do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his friend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his sins through the power of Christ's Passion which operates in the sacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates that man should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into which sin has brought him, according to Proverbs 14:34: "Sin maketh nations miserable"; wherefore it is written (Sirach 30:24): "Have pity on thy own soul, pleasing God."' Source: Aquinas, ST III., Q84, A5, ad. 2. #penance

Judaism at the time of Jesus expected a divine Messiah Roy Schoeman [1/2] Based on the work done by the Rabbi Paul Drach, a Jewish convert in his book "De l'harmonie entre l'Eglise et la Synagogue" A Historical Perspective In the middle of the 19th century, a significant Jewish rabbi and multilingual biblical scholar penned an insightful book that sheds light on the intricate relationship between the synagogue and the church. This work delves into the theological understanding of the Messiah within Judaism during the era of Jesus and asserts the fundamental points which have largely been disregarded by modern interpretations. This analysis will explore the historical Jewish perspective on the Messiah, specifically focusing on the concepts of the "Son of God" and the preexistence of the Messiah as part of the divine. Two Main Points 1. The Messiah as the "Son of God" At the time of Jesus, Jewish scholars and theologians recognized "Son of God" as a Messianic title. This meant that when anyone referred to Jesus as the "Son of God", they were exploring the possibility of Him being the Messiah. This title suggested that the Messiah was not a mere human but bore a divine aspect. 2. The Preexistence and Divinity of the Messiah Another critical point is the belief that the Messiah existed before creation, sharing in the uncreated light, and fully participating in the Divinity of Jehovah. This concept is often denied by modern interpretations but is evident in historical Jewish writings. Revisiting Jewish Teachings of the Era Judaism at the time of Jesus (1st Century BC to 1st Century AD) and even today in principle, acknowledged that the "Son of God" was a title for the Messiah. Whenever Jesus was called the "Son of God", it implied that He could be the Messiah. Additionally, Jewish theology taught that the Messiah was the true light of the world that existed before creation and that illuminated creation. It also held that the Messiah was either God Himself (Jehovah) or a part of Jehovah, sharing the same substance. New Testament and Jewish Beliefs The New Testament, written by Jews, often refers to Jesus as the "Son of God". For instance, during Jesus' trial, the high priest asks Jesus if He is the Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 26:63, Mark 14:61, Luke 22:70, Matthew 27:54). Modern myths suggest that Jews at the time of Jesus were expecting a political leader rather than a divine Messiah. However, historical Jewish teachings anticipated a divine, supernatural Messiah, not just a secular leader. Jewish Writings Affirming Messianic Divinity Midrashim and the Messiah Midrashim are authoritative interpretations of the Torah found within the Talmud. These writings make it clear that the Messiah was expected to be divine. For example, Midrash on Psalm 21:2 describes God granting the King Messiah the glory of Heaven. Similarly, interpretations of Isaiah 52:13 and Leviticus 25:25 reflect the divine nature of the Messiah, placing Him above human beings and even angels. a) Psalm 21:2 - God grants the King Messiah the glory of Heaven. 2. Isaiah 52:13 - "Behold, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and raised high and shall be Sublime". This verse is interpreted to mean that the Messiah will be exalted above Abraham and the angels. 3. Leviticus 25:25 - The word "redeemer" (goel) is used to refer to the Messiah, indicating that the Messiah would be the one to redeem humanity. Sanhedrin and Redeemer Concept The Talmudic book Sanhedrin explicitly states that Jehovah Himself would be the Messiah. This interpretation reinforces the belief in the divine nature of the Messiah. The Messiah as the Uncreated Light Jewish theology taught that the Messiah was the uncreated light that illumined creation. This is reflected in the Genesis account of creation and is aligned with the New Testament concept of Jesus being the light of the world. In John 1, the description of the light coming into the world directly corresponds with the Talmudic interpretation of the Messiah as the preexistent light. 🔗[2/2]

Thorleif Boman - Hebrew Thought Compared With Greek (2021), p. 69

Mary, the Mother of Jesus (1909) Cardinal John Henry Newman

The view on the Immaculate Conception is bound up in the doctrine of the Fathers, that Mary is the Second Eve John Henry Newman 🔗source:Mary, the Mother of Jesus (1909), pg. 53-56