Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17
Sonja Corbitt came to our parish and spoke about her bible study Fulfilled. Fulfilled helps Catholics understand Scripture and how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament promises. You can listen to her talk here, the audio was started about 30 seconds after she opened so pardon that please;
And if you would like to purchase her bible study you can do that here.
Veil of Veronica 
Sue,
Mrs. Corbitt’s work on the Magnificat was refreshingly different. She certainly is on fire with the love of God! I was startled at how good it was, though I was surprised to see her quote Luther. I think both she and you would benefit from this little book published by the Franciscans of the Immaculate, A Primer on the Absolute Primacy of Christ: Blessed John Duns Scotus and the Franciscan Thesis. Why? You both write starting from positive points, not negative. The Franciscan Thesis is the source for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
A.) What is God’s Motive for the Incarnation?
B.) Was Mary immaculately conceived?
C.) Would Christ have come even if there had been no fall?
Aquinas, who denied the immaculate conception stated that the motive for the Incarnation was man’s redemption and Christ would not have come but for the fall. His intellectual source ultimately is Augustine. Scotus who demonstrated the immaculate conception (and was blessed with two visits from our Lady) stated that the motive for the Incarnations was salvation/God’s glory) and that Christ would have come even if there was no fall. His intellectual source was Maximus the Confessor.
I think sometimes we forget that salvation and redemption are two different things. In any event, this small cheap book perfectly blends with what you and she are writing.
You, your husband, children, parents, and yours are in my prayers! Septemgesima begins for you on Sunday!
it’s funny you wrote all that. We have been talking a lot lately about Richard Rohr who basically concludes the cross isn’t necessary and uses Duns Scotus as his defense. He thinks he has been revealed a Consmic Christ that is separate from an the incarnate Jesus. Scotus I believe to be very holy – Rohr I believe twists what he says…
Rohr – uggh. Shades of Matthew Fox! What Rohr does not understand is that Scotus understood there was a need for redemption after the fall. No cross, no redemption. Let us pray for Fox and Rohr. I would not recommend them to anybody as spiritual teachers.
Unfortunately one of our parishes in our area is using a Rohr study for Lent. It’s mind boggling to me. Rohr describes syncretism in his morning routine and is worshiping idols of other religions – everything Israel got in trouble for! I don’t think I have heard of Matthew Fox, which from the sounds of it is probably a good thing. Is he a Priest like Rohr?
Fox is a former Dominican Priest who wa all the rage in the 1980s. He wrote the infamous “Whee! We, Wee all the way Home: A Guide to Sensual Prophecy.” He became involved with witches and took people like St. Hidegard of Bingen and made them into new age characters.
Is he still a Catholic Priest? What the heck is sensual prophecy???
God was launched in the 1990s. Sensual Prophecy is the concept that things of the flesh can explain happenings of the spirit. On the surface of it, it makes sense, as we humans work through matter. However, Fox’s concepts flow into pantheism, as well as opens the door to sins of the flesh. Like Rohr, Christ’s redemptive work becomes unnecessary. If you look the book up, it comes across as a terrible fusion of truth with falsehoods. Even many of my liberal priest friends back in the 1980s thought God has gone off the deep end.
ugh
Fox was laicized in the 1990s. Sorry about the first sentence! Fox had the Institute of Culture and Creation Spirituality in California and had a witch named Starhawk on the Staff. Fox was expelled from the Dominicans in 1993 and joined the Episcopalians in 1994.
well at least the Dominicans helped him be honest about his beliefs. Can’t say the same about the Franciscans and Rohr. I think that’s what bothers me so much is the dishonesty. Rohr doesn’t have to believe church teaching, but he calls himself Catholic while teaching against the church.