All I Want Is Evidence

[guanophore]

Spouse only applies for human marrages earthly ones

No, because the Church is the Bride of Christ, and He has betrothed her to Himself. This it spiritual, not physical.

,its like saying Jesus has one earthly step father and two hevenly one’s…

I am sorry, I cannot make any sense out of this at all.

God the Father and God The Holy Spirit… By The Power Of God Jesus was concieved,a mystery…anything else said is blasphemy…

I agree on the mystery part…

Christ was Human and Divine ,he has a right to say it…The Most Holy Spirit God never incarnated… .

This is why we say it is a mystery…

When the Spirit overshadowed Mary, Jesus was conceived. Jesus was the one incarnated, by the work of the HS in Mary.

 

[rad]

No, because the Church is the Bride of Christ, and He has betrothed her to Himself. This it spiritual, not physical.

I am sorry, I cannot make any sense out of this at all.

I agree on the mystery part…

This is why we say it is a mystery…

When the Spirit overshadowed Mary, Jesus was conceived. Jesus was the one incarnated, by the work of the HS in Mary.

But Jesus calls God the Father, Not the Holy Spirit Father…
Jesus is the eternal word made flesh ,who created everything including us…but we don’t call jesus father …also the Holy Spirit is The Giver Of Life who Gave us the Breath of life ,we don’t call the Holy Spirit Father now do we …God reveled in holy scripture only what he wanted us to know about the incarnation …everything else is speculation and will remain a mystery,and that is that…

 

[JMJ_coder]

But Jesus calls God the Father, Not the Holy Spirit Father…
Jesus is the eternal word made flesh ,who created everything including us…but we don’t call jesus father …also the Holy Spirit is The Giver Of Life who Gave us the Breath of life ,we don’t call the Holy Spirit Father now do we …God reveled in holy scripture only what he wanted us to know about the incarnation …everything else is speculation and will remain a mystery,and that is that…

God begot Jesus from all eternity. But it was the Holy Spirit how incarnated Christ by overshadowing the Theotokos. Mary is the Mother of God and the Holy Spirit who incarnated Christ within her is her spouse. We don’t say this as though they had carnal relations, but it is a mystery - just as their mystical marriage is a mystery - just as the mystical marriage of Christ and His Mystical Body the Church is a mystery.

 

[JMJ_coder]

You will have to show me that …i never read anything like that…they never even defined holy communion when the change takes place,they have faith that it just happens… thats why its called a Holy Mystery in the orthodox churches…once the aaw is removed thru disecting the mysterys whats left…no more aww or anything.

Neither do we ‘define’ when it happens, though the mind of the Latin Church points to the Words of Institution.

Here is what some Fathers of the Church had to say:

St Godfrey of Admont wrote that each member of the Godhead is Mary’s lover, though it is most common to refer only to her as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. (quoted in Michael O’Carroll, “Spouse of God”)

Saint Germanus of Constantinople said that Mary was the Theonymphos (God-wed). (quoted in Michael O’Carroll, “Spouse of God”)

Saint Euthymius of Constantiople said of Mary "“the pure, unsullied, untouched, most immaculate and most beautiful spouse of the invisible and unfathomable God.” (Patrologia Orientalium, Vol. 16, 3, p. 508-9)

Saint Neophytus the Recluse (the Chrysostom of Cyprus) said “Thou certainly, O illustrious Lady, have no need for praise from mortal lips, Thou who dwell in the heavenly kingdom, Spouse of the Father, Mother of the Son, Receptacle of the Holy Spirit, because Thou art immaculate.” (Marianum, Vol. 36, 1974)

Saint Augustine wrote that “Mary was the only one who merited to be called the Mother as Spouse of God” (Sermons 208)

Saint John Damascene, writing on the Assumption declares that “the place of the bride whom the Father had espoused, was in the heavenly courts.” (On th Assumption)

There are more…

 

[sambos671]

Well, we read it differently. Actually, we call her the spouse, because the** consummation occurred**, resulting in conception.

That sounds heretical. That sounds gnostic. Which is why I made the statement. I find that kind of thing to be reprohensable. As you state Mary is a created being and does not have *that kind * of relationship with God. Which is what Valentinus and others were getting at allowing their immoral behavior. This is the kind of thing that throws me off the RCC. I don’t want my kids to hear that and think it is appropiate. We might as well be pagan. Fortunately, I don’t believe this is the magisterium of the church and goes beyond its teaching. But this is the issue. How many other Catholics believe this? Many I would guess.

 

[ralphinal]

That sounds heretical. That sounds gnostic. Which is why I made the statement. I find that kind of thing to be reprohensable. As you state Mary is a created being and does not have *that kind * of relationship with God. Which is what Valentinus and others were getting at allowing their immoral behavior. This is the kind of thing that throws me off the RCC. I don’t want my kids to hear that and think it is appropiate. We might as well be pagan. Fortunately, I don’t believe this is the magisterium of the church and goes beyond its teaching. But this is the issue. How many other Catholics believe this? Many I would guess.

AS a life-long Catholic, I have seen and heard her called spouse of the Holy Spirit. I have never seen mention of a consummation.

On that, until I get some clarification, i agree that it seems heretical and gnostic. And Mormon.

 

[guanophore]

But Jesus calls God the Father, Not the Holy Spirit Father…
Jesus is the eternal word made flesh ,who created everything including us…but we don’t call jesus father …also the Holy Spirit is The Giver Of Life who Gave us the Breath of life ,we don’t call the Holy Spirit Father now do we …

This is all very Catholic.

God reveled in holy scripture only what he wanted us to know about the incarnation

This statement is based upon the error of Sola scriptura, and therefore, is false. God’s revelation has never been confined to the Holy Writings.

…everything else is speculation and will remain a mystery,and that is that…

I agree that there are many mysteries that remain, but God has revealed to us a great deal about His mysteries,a nd to call God’s disclosure about Himself “speculation” is an insult to the HS of grace.

 

[rad]

We can’t impune gender upon the Trinity - that would be limiting the Entire Godhead into a categorization of the created world… God is beyond Gender, a mere division of our existence as creatures. The Son took on Male flesh in His self-limiting Incarnation, and thus we can call the Son a male in the person of Jesus Christ… but to impune real gender on the Spirit and the Father gets one close to heresy…

Anyway, in Greek the Father is a masculine noun, the Son is a masuline noun, the Spirit is a neuter noun, but God (the all-encompasing word) is masculine… does that really prove anything?

 

[sambos671]

We can’t impune gender upon the Trinity - that would be limiting the Entire Godhead into a categorization of the created world… God is beyond Gender, a mere division of our existence as creatures. The Son took on Male flesh in His self-limiting Incarnation, and thus we can call the Son a male in the person of Jesus Christ… but to impune real gender on the Spirit and the Father gets one close to heresy…

Anyway, in Greek the Father is a masculine noun, the Son is a masuline noun, the Spirit is a neuter noun, but God (the all-encompasing word) is masculine… does that really prove anything?

This is true a fundemental christian believe is that God is a Spirit and cannot be fully comprehended. This would include being beyond Gender or gender neutral himself. Our languages limit what we say and think.

 

[guanophore]

This is true a fundemental christian believe is that God is a Spirit and cannot be fully comprehended. This would include being beyond Gender or gender neutral himself. Our languages limit what we say and think.

Indeed. And in Genesis, He says “let us make mankind in our image…and in the image of God, created He them…” which seems to indicate that the image of God is most clearly expressed in both male and female together.

 

[sambos671]

You will have to show me that …i never read anything like that…they never even defined holy communion when the change takes place,they have faith that it just happens… thats why its called a Holy Mystery in the orthodox churches…once the aaw is removed thru disecting the mysterys whats left…no more aww or anything.

I agree. To be wedded to God and then to say they consumated their relationship and resulted in the incarnation is Antichrist in the greek sence which is another Christ. I was considering returning to the Church but now I wonder if this is what the church teaches. Mary is overthought. Mystery is exactly that because it is incomprehensable that God should be incarnate and save us. That he used a faithful maiden to bring about his purpose is also a mystery on how it was done. We know the HS did it but not the Mechanics of it. To go beyond that and say consumated relationship is no beter than the gnostics.

 

[sambos671]

963 Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503
Wholly united with her Son . . .

964 Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”;504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505

965 After her Son’s Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."506 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."507
also in her Assumption
966 "**Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: **
**. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace **
967 **By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church. **
969 **she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512 **

• II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN

971 “All generations will call me blessed”: "The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an “epitome of the whole Gospel,” express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517
In the meantime the Mother of Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth until the day of the Lord shall come, a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God.519
IN BRIEF
973 By pronouncing her “fiat” at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish. She is mother wherever he is Savior and head of the Mystical Body.
974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body.
975 “We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ” (Paul VI, CPG § 15

I read this in the Catachism. No where does it say she consumated her relationship with the Holy Spirit in order for the resulting incarnation. It talks about **queen of heaven **and mediatrix(which I am unsure of) and participation with Christ and Mothering the church but not any of that other stuff. So it is outside the teaching of the Church and must be dismissed. This is what I find to be problematic with the RCC. Much misinformation by its own members.

 

[tGette]

**+Come, Holy Spirit+
**
By the grace of God I am starting this thread and it is a sincere request…so…I am seeking honest answers. Because of that I ask that everyone, please, pray for the gift of charity before responding!

This is directed mostly for Non-Catholics. Anyone can join in!

We see great evidence (historical) of division anytime a theology and/or belief is challenged. We see evidence of this in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox schism. We see this in the Protestant Reformation. (Well at the time it was political but turned theological). We see this in all the Protestant churches splitting amongst each other. Regardless, we see great uproars in certain times of history of great changes occurring in the Christian community.

So onto my question(s): (Sorry if there are too many questions on this thread)

If, indeed, as non-Catholics tell us, the Catholic Church did adopt false doctrines down the line, then where is the evidence for this? Can anyone give me any specific dates?

Why are there not churches splitting when these “false doctrines” were being introduced? Do you not think people would try to refute what they once believed as they were now being told they had to adopt a new belief?

Was the Catholic Church that good at creating new doctrines that the churches that existed everywhere through out the world other than Rome were somehow able to adopt these changes? It is not like they had the internet or cell phones to just call up the local Bishops and tell them “We are deciding to say that Mary is a perpetual virgin now.” I mean, if Rome did make changes and then you traveled to a church in a different country, you would expect them to believe something different, right?
*
The point I am trying to get at is that if the Church was making changes there would be people/churches at those times who would disagree and there would have been many churches/beliefs WAY before the Protestant Reformation. There would be an historical event of people arguing over new doctrines being introduced to the Christian faith.*

I hope I explained myself well enough. Please let me know if clarity is needed.

Thanks!

May His Peace be with us all!

 

[sambos671]

**+Come, Holy Spirit+
**
By the grace of God I am starting this thread and it is a sincere request…so…I am seeking honest answers. Because of that I ask that everyone, please, pray for the gift of charity before responding!

This is directed mostly for Non-Catholics. Anyone can join in!

We see great evidence (historical) of division anytime a theology and/or belief is challenged. We see evidence of this in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox schism. We see this in the Protestant Reformation. (Well at the time it was political but turned theological). We see this in all the Protestant churches splitting amongst each other. Regardless, we see great uproars in certain times of history of great changes occurring in the Christian community.

So onto my question(s): (Sorry if there are too many questions on this thread)

If, indeed, as non-Catholics tell us, the Catholic Church did adopt false doctrines down the line, then where is the evidence for this? Can anyone give me any specific dates?

Why are there not churches splitting when these “false doctrines” were being introduced? Do you not think people would try to refute what they once believed as they were now being told they had to adopt a new belief?

Was the Catholic Church that good at creating new doctrines that the churches that existed everywhere through out the world other than Rome were somehow able to adopt these changes? It is not like they had the internet or cell phones to just call up the local Bishops and tell them “We are deciding to say that Mary is a perpetual virgin now.” I mean, if Rome did make changes and then you traveled to a church in a different country, you would expect them to believe something different, right?
*
The point I am trying to get at is that if the Church was making changes there would be people/churches at those times who would disagree and there would have been many churches/beliefs WAY before the Protestant Reformation. There would be an historical event of people arguing over new doctrines being introduced to the Christian faith.*

I hope I explained myself well enough. Please let me know if clarity is needed.

Thanks!

May His Peace be with us all!

Based on my previous statements on this thread I’ll give the date of 1854. Ususally, a doctrine in on the finge of beliefs but isn’t challenged because people don’t see a need to do so but then after many years for some reason it becomes an issue then gets argued over and finally adapted. Like Marian dogma.

 

[tGette]

Based on my previous statements on this thread I’ll give the date of 1854. Ususally, a doctrine in on the finge of beliefs but isn’t challenged because people don’t see a need to do so but then after many years for some reason it becomes an issue then gets argued over and finally adapted. Like Marian dogma.

I am not sure what you meant…I kind of stopped following the thread because it tended to veer off topic. If you did mention something I apologize.

It is not that they get adapted, they are defined dogmatically because they are being challenged.

Anyways…please see the title of the thread.

Thanks!
Peace

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

**+Come, Holy Spirit+
**
By the grace of God I am starting this thread and it is a sincere request…so…I am seeking honest answers. Because of that I ask that everyone, please, pray for the gift of charity before responding!

This is directed mostly for Non-Catholics. Anyone can join in!

We see great evidence (historical) of division anytime a theology and/or belief is challenged. We see evidence of this in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox schism. We see this in the Protestant Reformation. (Well at the time it was political but turned theological). We see this in all the Protestant churches splitting amongst each other. Regardless, we see great uproars in certain times of history of great changes occurring in the Christian community.

So onto my question(s): (Sorry if there are too many questions on this thread)

If, indeed, as non-Catholics tell us, the Catholic Church did adopt false doctrines down the line, then where is the evidence for this? Can anyone give me any specific dates?

Why are there not churches splitting when these “false doctrines” were being introduced? Do you not think people would try to refute what they once believed as they were now being told they had to adopt a new belief?

Was the Catholic Church that good at creating new doctrines that the churches that existed everywhere through out the world other than Rome were somehow able to adopt these changes? It is not like they had the internet or cell phones to just call up the local Bishops and tell them “We are deciding to say that Mary is a perpetual virgin now.” I mean, if Rome did make changes and then you traveled to a church in a different country, you would expect them to believe something different, right?
*
The point I am trying to get at is that if the Church was making changes there would be people/churches at those times who would disagree and there would have been many churches/beliefs WAY before the Protestant Reformation. There would be an historical event of people arguing over new doctrines being introduced to the Christian faith.*

I hope I explained myself well enough. Please let me know if clarity is needed.

Thanks!

May His Peace be with us all!

The best example of the splits in the Church and the false doctines being taught and objected to, long before Martin Luther, can be found in Fox’s book of martyrs, it is a heavy read and requires a strong stomach, he documents Christian persecutions from the very beginning of the Church up until recent history.

 

[guanophore]

The best example of the splits in the Church and the false doctines being taught and objected to, long before Martin Luther, can be found in Fox’s book of martyrs, it is a heavy read and requires a strong stomach, he documents Christian persecutions from the very beginning of the Church up until recent history.

Gracious! If this is your “best example” of history, no wonder you are so against Cathlicism!

 

[tGette]

The best example of the splits in the Church and the false doctines being taught and objected to, long before Martin Luther, can be found in Fox’s book of martyrs, it is a heavy read and requires a strong stomach, he documents Christian persecutions from the very beginning of the Church up until recent history.

Thanks, I might have to add that to my collection. Though, this book does not address what I am asking in this thread.

This book addresses Christianity from the Protestant Reformation time period, which is an example of historical evidence of when Christianity became split (which is what I am asking for in the original post).

What I am trying to figure out, for example, is if there is some historical evidence of when Christianity went from having no Marian beliefs (insert any Catholic belief people feel is erroneous) to suddenly having them. Certainly there would be historical evidence of a Christianity before and after. And certainly there would be historical evidence of Christianity being splintered over these issues and going different directions because of it.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Thanks, I might have to add that to my collection. Though, this book does not address what I am asking in this thread.

This book addresses Christianity from the Protestant Reformation time period, which is an example of historical evidence of when Christianity became split (which is what I am asking for in the original post).

What I am trying to figure out, for example, is if there is some historical evidence of when Christianity went from having no Marian beliefs (insert any Catholic belief people feel is erroneous) to suddenly having them. Certainly there would be historical evidence of a Christianity before and after. And certainly there would be historical evidence of Christianity being splintered over these issues and going different directions because of it.

Might I also suggest a book that contains the Documents of the Early churchs. In it you will find letters both from Non-Christian Leaders and Christian Leaders wherein they converse back and forth concerning verious issues. It also contains corrispondence between Non-Christian leaders and advisors concerning the Christian “propblem”, “delema”. It was published in 1965, I don’t have it with me at the moment, but I will get the full information to was as well.

And Guanophore you should already know from my previous posts in other threads that I have taken the advice of many RCs here to study the RCC concerning it’s beliefs and its history, currently I am reading “The Keys of This Blood.” So please, give me more credit than the snide comments you insist on producing… It’s an embrassment.

 

[guanophore]

Might I also suggest a book that contains the Documents of the Early churchs. In it you will find letters both from Non-Christian Leaders and Christian Leaders wherein they converse back and forth concerning verious issues. It also contains corrispondence between Non-Christian leaders and advisors concerning the Christian “propblem”, “delema”. It was published in 1965, I don’t have it with me at the moment, but I will get the full information to was as well.

And Guanophore you should already know from my previous posts in other threads that I have taken the advice of many RCs here to study the RCC concerning it’s beliefs and its history, currently I am reading “The Keys of This Blood.” So please, give me more credit than the snide comments you insist on producing… It’s an embrassment.

I am glad you are willing to study the history of the Church. I cannot help but be snide when a person profers Fox’s book as authoritative history.