Comon sense will tell you why Virgin Mary had no other Child but Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter ufamtobie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
raumzeitmc2:

As for your questions a) and b), I have no response. I received only CCD as a youngster, never read either the Old or New Testaments with the exception of the Book of Job, which was a never-ending downer. At 18 I left the Church and have had no desire to go back. Does my church have any consecrated virgins? I have no church. I suppose that answer would be “no”.
You don’t have a church? Do you consider yourself a Christian?
“‘And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.’ Matt. 19:29” So now should I understand that those who do have homes and families will not be entitled to everlasting life?
Of course not! God will ultimately judge us all. But God also wants His Church to be one. Heresy and schism are diametrically opposed to unity. Listen to the saintly Augustine addressing his congregation:
All the heresies, which you people also condemn of course, they all say, Jesus is Lord, And he’s not, of course, going to eliminate from the Kingdom of heaven those whom he finds to be in the Holy Spirit; and yet he did say, Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mt 7:21). But: Nobody can say: Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit; nobody at all, evidently; but in the sense in which it was meant, that is in deeds.
Which is why the Lord went on to add, But the one who does the will of my Father, who is in heaven, that is the one who will enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt 7:21). The same apostle, you see, also says of some people, They claim to know the Lord, but deny it by their deeds (Ti 1:16). As it can be denied by deeds, so it can be said by deeds. In this manner of saying things, Nobody can say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.”
So if you don’t accede to the unity, but continue to set yourselves apart, you will be worldly, not having the Spirit (Jude 19). If though, you accede under false pretenses, The Holy Spirit of discipline will put to flight false pretenses (Wisdom 1:5).
Sermon 269.

Sermons: 230-272B (Works of Saint Augustine, a Translation for the 21st Century: Part 3 - Sermons ISBN 1565480597
If your answer is “no”, then of what value is the consecrated virgin or eunuch if just any old soul can get into heaven if he lives a life of humility and obedience?
But where is the humility and obedience when one refuses to “hear the Church?”

“And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church:* but if he neglect to hear the church*, let him be to you as an heathen man and a publican.” Matt. 18:17

But certainly celibacy is not required for eternal life; but, contrary to the insane ravings of Luther, Calvin and all the rest of the so-called “reformers,” celibacy does indeed come most highly praised and recommended from the Creator and Redeemer Himself! That in and of itself ought to have been enough to silence those “apostles of the flesh” as Fr. Denifle so rightly terms them, along with their benighted followers.

And are you unaware that from the very beginning of the Church, there have been those set apart exclusively for the love and service of God, again, contrary to the teachings of the reformers? As a matter of fact, there was even an official “list” of celibate widows mentioned in the Bible.

St. Paul, writing to St. Timothy, says:

“Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.” 1 Tim. 5:9

The phrase, “taken into the number” (KJV) or, “put on the list” (NAS), is derived from a single Greek word,

"katalego."

This is our English word, "catalog!"

So you see, the Church, even from the beginning, had an official “catalog” of an “order of widows” who were to form an integral part of the New Testament Church! And from the seeds of this early “order of widows” (“proto-nuns” as Jimmy Akin calls them), {1} sprang all future orders of celibate nuns.

Needless to say, Protestants, despite their claiming to go by the Bible, never mention this important New Testament practice or its historic development. And this is how they show their “love” for the Word of God??!
As for Luther, well, nobody’s perfect.
But why follow his teachings rather than those of the great Doctors, Saints, Martyrs etc of both the Eastern and Western Church?
  1. See Jimmy akin, “Doctrines of Demons,” This Rock, March 1994.
 
raumzeitmc2:

Let it not be said that I failed to address your questions:

I do not have a church; I subscribe to no organized religion. I distanced myself from the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church with deliberate intent nearly forty years ago but still practice the following principles to the best of my ability every day:

FAITH
HOPE
GENEROSITY / CHARITY
ASPIRATION
PATIENCE
SYMPATHY
NON-INTERFERENCE
KINDNESS
COURAGE
FORGIVENESS
DUTY
LOVE

Most of these principles can be considered Christian in nature.

*“But where is the humility and obedience when one refuses to 'hear the Church?”’ *

I do not believe there is one Church, one path to redemption, one legitimate interpretation of scripture, one singular belief system which will ultimately deliver one to see the face of God. Lives of humility and obedience are being lived daily around the world by those who are practicing principles of their individual faiths.

*“So you see, the Church, even from the beginning, had an official ‘catalog’ of an ‘order of widows’ who were to form an integral part of the New Testament Church! And from the seeds of this early ‘order of widows’ (‘proto-nuns’ as Jimmy Akin calls them), . . . sprang all future orders of celibate nuns.” *

It doesn’t surprise me that the Church has an “official ‘catalog’” of an “order of widows” - the tone of it just leaves me cold, like the “tally sheet” for good and bad behavior we were force-fed in CCD classes as very young children.

“An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs; Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world–how she can please her husband.” (NIV)

What about the celibate, divorced woman? Does she have a place in this equation?

“But why follow his teachings rather than those of the great Doctors, Saints, Martyrs etc of both the Eastern and Western Church?”

This question should be addressed, I suppose, by a Lutheran.

marietta
 
And now for a little prophecy regarding the Holy Family - This is from the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapter 44 to be exact. Read it and try to stay focused.

In it the Prophet speaks for God about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Chastity of Saint Josepeh. In it is shown a gate that *no man shall enter *through but only God will use it. A “prince” will sit near it but will not use it. The gate is Mary and the prince is Joseph. And of course Jesus is God Who will use the gate to come to us. Joesph the prince surely ate with the Lord in his own household as the Child grew.

Ezekiel Chapter 44

1 And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. 2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut 3 For the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.

As for Saint Joseph being the “prince” in the passage, need I point out the recent acceptance of Saint Joseph as the Patron of the Universal Church? Hmmmmmm…perhaps a more complete fulfillment of this Prophecy in Christ…but those are my own thoughts on the matter.

I guess if you don’t want to see, you won’t but as for me and my household, we serve the Lord…

Peace,

Gail
 
P.S. Marietta, I am going to pray for you. I hope you lose your doubts.

Peace,

Gail
 
And now for a little prophecy regarding the Holy Family - This is from the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapter 44 to be exact. Read it and try to stay focused.

In it the Prophet speaks for God about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Chastity of Saint Josepeh. In it is shown a gate that *no man shall enter *through but only God will use it. A “prince” will sit near it but will not use it. The gate is Mary and the prince is Joseph. And of course Jesus is God Who will use the gate to come to us. Joesph the prince surely ate with the Lord in his own household as the Child grew.

Ezekiel Chapter 44

1 And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. 2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut 3 For the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.

As for Saint Joseph being the “prince” in the passage, need I point out the recent acceptance of Saint Joseph as the Patron of the Universal Church? Hmmmmmm…perhaps a more complete fulfillment of this Prophecy in Christ…but those are my own thoughts on the matter.

I guess if you don’t want to see, you won’t but as for me and my household, we serve the Lord…

Peace,

Gail
There seems to be a problem with: “and shall go out by the same way” in your interpretation of the gate.
 
There seems to be a problem with: “and shall go out by the same way” in your interpretation of the gate.
If we are reading this with a Catholic mindset, the Holy Spirit came into the BVM womb, and came out, as explained, as like a beam of light. We Catholics believe that her hymen remained in tact, both before and after pregnancy,
 
Dear Broken1 - What is the problem? I don’t think I gave a specific “interpretation” to the part of the Prophecy you call my attention to. Is there something I am missing?

Perhaps I should say something about the Passage I cited.

Ezekiel 44: 1-3

1 And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. 2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut 3 For the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.

As for the gate representing Mary it is easy to see. The prince would be Saint Joseph and he sits in the gate.

Perhaps you have a problem visualizing a closed gate. Imagine a large wall, like those they had surrounding the city of Jerusalem back then - high and imposing, the entrances guarded and secured by gates that were opened and shut at specific times of day and for specific reasons. Persons would gather at the gates to talk, to watch who was coming and going in the city, to trade, etc. It was not uncommon for certain types of persons to post themselves at the gates for various reasons like a begger or such. This was an image that would have been easily evoked for the Isrealites. Perhaps if you lived in a walled city and depended on those walls for protection you’d have an easier time visualizing what a closed gate looked like. Here we have Ezekiel talking for God about a gate that NO MAN shall enter for the LORD God would have entered by it. EVEN THE PRINCE wouldn’t use it, he’d sit by it eating his bread, near enough to it to see it is kept shut, but not opening it himself. Saint Joseph did exactly that - guarded Mary, the gate and the Holy Child. He ate with the Lord near the gate. But he never used it. Simple. But if you want to spend your days insisting that Mary and Joseph were just like ordinary folks, you won’t see this and will insist it is a stretch.

Peace,

Gail
 
B]raumzeitmc2:
“But why follow his teachings rather than those of the great Doctors, Saints, Martyrs etc of both the Eastern and Western Church?”
This question should be addressed, I suppose, by a Lutheran.
Augsburg Confession:
5] Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.
 
When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant with child he did not want anything to do with her. Joseph thinking that Mary was with another man.

But later in a dream an angel came to him and said Joseph, do not be afraid to take Mary as wife, for she has concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Protestant, here use your common sense…For Common Sense tells us… if Joseph did not want anything to do with Mary because he thought Mary was with another man, Now even more so now that he Found out that Mary had concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit… After the Dream Joseph knew his ROLE and that would be one such as a protector of the family as well to stop gossip regarding Virgin Mary having a Child without a Husband in thoses days having a child without being married many were stoned to death.

Let me address it this way…Lets say we were Joseph, a good man waiting for the coming Savior. and we were engaged to Mary.
Now we find out that Mary is with Child:o Now we don’t want anything to do with her… we want to put her away FOR OBVIOUSLY she was with another Man, we think… but then we have a dream and angel came to us and told us not to be affraid to take Mary as Wife, for Mary has concieved by the Power of the Holy Spirit and will have the Savior of the World…we all would be in AWE of MARY as was Elizabeth and the child John in her womb… I tell you right there and then we would know our ROLE… If we wanted to put her away for thinking she was with another man… Now Joseph finding out that the Child True Father was The HOLY SPIRIT the TRUE SPOUSE of Mary he would never have intercourse with her… Would YOU? …NO WE WOULD NOT …DEFINITELY WE WOULD KNOW OUR ROLE AS JOSEPH DID. Common sense should tell us all this.

Yes the bible does mentioned that Jesus had Brothers and Sisters but the custom of those days Cousins were also considered brothers. But common sense wins here.

As Mary looked for her Son may she look for you and bring you all HOME.

Ufamtobie
Actually you’re asking that we ignore our common sense? 😃 😃 😃 😃

:knight2:
 
**Marietta **wrote:
I do not believe there is one Church, one path to redemption, one legitimate interpretation of scripture, one singular belief system which will ultimately deliver one to see the face of God.
But by such a statement you are saying that all the approved Doctors of the Church, all the saints, martyrs etc, have been wrong for two thousand years and you alone right!
It doesn’t surprise me that the Church has an “official ‘catalog’” of an “order of widows” - the tone of it just leaves me cold.
Why should that leave you “cold?” Because the Church had an organization, a structure about it from the beginning? But again, how is it the Church is wrong, the Scriptures are wrong, and you only are right?
What about the celibate, divorced woman? Does she have a place in this equation?
Of course she does; I never meant to suggest otherwise. And with regard to marriage, you may be interested to know that Augustine also said,

“Better is a virgin humble, than a married woman humble: but better is a married woman humble, than a virgin proud”

Exposition on the Psalms, 76:11

newadvent.org/fathers/1801076.htm

And,

“Humble wedlock is better than proud virginity.”

Ex. On the Psalms, 100:13

A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church Anterior to the Divisions of the East and West, Six Volumes, vol. 4 Expositions on the Book of Psalms (76-101), psalm 100, p. 476. Oxford, John Henry Parker, F. and J. Rivington, London, (1850)
books.google.com/books?id=nigMAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA476&dq=augustine+%22than+proud+virginity%22&as_brr=0

JonNC posted this from the Augsburg Confession:
Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.
But when did the Church go wrong?

I mean, is it really conceivable that the many holy Fathers cared not enough about truth to prevent “new and ungodly doctrine” from ‘creeping’ into Church?

Also, speaking of “ungodly doctrine,” the reformers, particularly Luther, held that celibacy was practically a sin. Yet this notion so contradicts the Scriptural data that one wonders how anyone could accept as a “reformer” anyone who espoused such a teaching!

And besides, such view is more akin to Judaism than to Christianity. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
In post-Biblical literature Jewish opinion stands out clear and simple: marriage is a duty, and celibacy a sin….
"He who is without a wife is without joy, without blessing, without happiness, without learning, without protection, without peace; indeed, he is no man; for it is written (Gen. v. 2), 'Male and female created He them, and called their name Man … "He who is not married is, as it were, guilty of bloodshed and deserves death: he causes the image of God to be diminished and the divine presence to withdraw from Israel.”
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=289&letter=C

But getting back now to the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I thought the following comment by Erasmus, as he disputes with Luther, was relevant:
I also do not agree with you [Luther] when you make all the articles of faith equal. For some are so evident that it would be wrong to argue about them, such as these: that Christ was born of a virgin, that he suffered under Pontius Pilate. Some are such that only after long investigation were they finally approved by public authority.
Concerning some there is not sufficient agreement even now. Some had doubts about the perpetual virginity of Mary until their mouths were shut by arguments from Scripture rightly interpreted.
Some ancient Fathers had doubts about whether the bishop of Rome is the universal pastor of the Church, and it was permissible to do so until the Church made a decision. And there is still controversy in the schools about whether the authority of the bishop Rome is greater than that of a general council.
Erasmus, Hyperaspistes (A.D. 1526), Bk. I, Works, vol. 76, pp. 227-228.

Controversies, Desiderius Erasmus, Charles Trinkaus, University of Toronto Press, 1993
ISBN 0802043178, 9780802043177
amazon.com/Controversies-…/dp/0802043178

“So what can remaining in God’s word mean, but not giving in to any temptations?”

St. Augustine, sermon 134:2:1

Works of Saint Augustine, VOLUME 4, PART 3, SERMONS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT (94A-147A), 1992, ISBN 1565480007, p. 342.
amazon.com/Sermons-94a-150-Works-Saint-Augustine/dp/1565480007
 
raumzeitmc2:

I’m not going to beat you up with sophisticated quotations from antiquated texts or make absurd judgments about your beliefs.

All I’m sharing is what I believe. If you don’t believe as I do, that’s cool. But because I don’t believe as you do, I ask you with all due respect to take your knees off my chest and think about charity and tolerance.

I can’t thank you enough.

marietta
 
**Marietta **wrote:

But by such a statement you are saying that all the approved Doctors of the Church, all the saints, martyrs etc, have been wrong for two thousand years and you alone right!
He’s far from alone – let’s see: mainline protestants number about half a billion, and evangelicals anywhere between 400 million and a billion adherents worldwide. So I’m thinking we’re not as “alone” as you say.

:knight2:
 
raumzeitmc2:

I’m not going to beat you up with sophisticated quotations from antiquated texts or make absurd judgments about your beliefs.

All I’m sharing is what I believe. If you don’t believe as I do, that’s cool. But because I don’t believe as you do, I ask you with all due respect to take your knees off my chest and think about charity and tolerance.

I can’t thank you enough.

marietta
Well, I certainly wasn’t trying to “beat you up” with “sophisticated quotations from antiquated texts” or with any other method!

Believe me, as far as I’m concerned, you’re as free as can be to believe whatever you please. 🙂

All I’m saying is that, from the standpoint of reason and common sense, it makes no sense whatsoever to reject the teaching of the *whole of Christendom *based on the personal views of any individual or group of individuals, regardless of how honestly and sincerely such beliefs may be held. Now what’s so “absurd” about that?

Now if I did somehow offend you, well, all I can say is that it was not intentional. Besides, as you yourself said elsewhere in this thread: “Nobody’s perfect.”😉
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4127452&postcount=120

And “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Galatians 4:16
 
He’s far from alone – let’s see: mainline protestants number about half a billion, and evangelicals anywhere between 400 million and a billion adherents worldwide. So I’m thinking we’re not as “alone” as you say.

:knight2:
But The Faith, was handed down from the Father, to Christ, to the apostles, to the Church and then to the early Fathers in an unbroken succession!

I can assure you, The Faith, was not handed down to “mainline Protestants!” :rolleyes:

And there can be only one Church.

Protestantism, on the other hand, from its very inception, has been nothing but chaos and division! So much so in fact, that Calvin wanted very much to hide this embarrassing fact by attempting to deceive, if possible, the whole world (hmmm, deceive the whole world. Reminds me of another “deceiver of the whole world!” Rev. 12:9)

But I digress. 😉

So now on to the quotes!!!
Nor, in truth, is it of little importance to ***prevent the suspicion of any difference ***having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to our posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world.
John Calvin to Philip Melanchthon, November 28, 1552.

Letters of John Calvin, Jules Bonnet, ed., 1857, vol. 2, p. 361.
books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA361&dq=calvin++%22Nor+in+truth+is+it+of+little+importance%22&lr=&ei=z1G0SPmhIYHqiQHhyO3VDA#PPA361,M1

But ironically, having rejected the faith handed down by the Fathers, and seeing the abominable chaos resulting from such a reckless abandonment, the reformers were forced to fall back on a method of transmitting the faith to future generations uncannily similar to that which the Church had used for fifteen hundred years! Read on!

Thomas Cranmer to John Calvin: March 20, 1552:
As nothing tends more injuriously to the separation of the Churches than heresies and disputes respecting the doctrines of religion, so nothing tends more effectually to unite the Churches of God, and more powerfully to defend the fold of Christ, than the pure teaching of the Gospel and harmony of doctrine. Wherefore I have often wished, and still continue to do so, that learned and godly men, who are eminent for erudition and judgment, might meet together, and, comparing their respective opinions, might handle all the heads of ecclesiastical doctrine, and hand down to posterity
Letters of John Calvin, Compiled from the Original Manuscripts and Edited with Historical Notes: by Jules Bonnet, ed.,Vol. II, edited by Jules Bonnet and translated from Latin and French by David Constable, Edinburgh: Thomas Constable & Co., 1857, pp. 330-331
archive.org/details/lettersofjohncal00calvuoft

books.google.com/books?id=tlUYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA331&dq=%22hand+down+to+posterity,+under+the+weight+of+their+authority%22&lr=

Calvin to Cranmer: April 1552
And would that it were attainable to bring together into some place, from various Churches, men eminent for their learning, and that after having carefully discussed the main points of belief one by one, they should, from their united judgments, hand down to posterity the true doctrine of Scripture. This other thing also is to be ranked among the chief evils of our time, viz., that the Churches are so divided, that human fellowship is scarcely now in any repute amongst us…
John Calvin, Ibid., pp. 330-333

And again:

Philip Melanchthon to Elector Frederick (Friedrich) III of the Palatinate,
November 1, 1559:
Moreover, I desire that with the plan of the wise rulers and with their authority, pious and learned men at some time be called together both from our own churches and the churches of other nations in order that there might be a deliberation about all these controversies, and that one consenting form of doctrine, true and clear and without any ambiguity, might be handed down to posterity.
Melanchthon in English: new translations into English with a registry of previous translations: a memorial to William Hammer (1909-1976) By Lowell C. Green, Charles D. Froehlich, Center for Reformation Research, p. 24.

books.google.com/books?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=one+consenting+form+of+doctrine,+true+and+clear+and+without+any+ambiguity&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22one%20consenting%20form%20of%20doctrine%2C%20true%20and%20clear%20and%20without%20any%20ambiguity%22

Latin letter in Melanchthon’s Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, vol., 9:960
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Reformatorum

books.google.com/books?id=qBERAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA959&lpg=RA2-PA959&dq=%22Friderico+Palatino%22+corpus&source=web&ots=82KYTdevZa&sig=KqH2vvu5Bf0-cqiCURDqJ16M9m4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PRA2-PA959,M1

But oh well, you’ll probably just dismiss all this and / or laugh it off!! 😃 😃 😃 😃
 
Dear Sola - You stated:" He’s far from alone – let’s see: mainline protestants number about half a billion, and evangelicals anywhere between 400 million and a billion adherents worldwide. So I’m thinking we’re not as “alone” as you say." You left out the part about all these millions never quite agreeing on what is truth and what isn’t and they continue to get more splintered every day. That fact alone is testimony enough for some.

God said He would build a Church and that the gates of the nether world wouldn’t prevail against it! He has done just that.

As far as I know the thread is about Mary and using common sense to find that she remained a perpetual Virgin. Some have stated the Scripture supports the notion that Jesus had brothers and sisters which is false.

Another common sense approach to the disparaging remarks about the virtues of the Blessed Virgin and her most chaste spouse, Saint Joseph might be this - you’re invitied to a king’s court. He is very proud of his family heritage and loves to talk about them at court. You arrive at his court for the appointed visit. You spend your time there telling everyone he isn’t the legitimate King and his mother has other children he never speaks about and the princes of his people aren’t so princely after all, but you know of another place where anyone who wants leave his kingdom can reside in peace, etc…how long do you suppose you could go on before this King decided your fate? How many sins would you have committed against this King and his court by your actions? And what do you think you deserve for your efforts?

Now, suppose the king is merciful and spares your life and sends you off into the wilderness to return from whence you came. On your way back to your home, your horse throws you and you lie injured by the side of the road, hopeless and helpless for days. Along comes a few of the kings guards and they see you lying there injured and broken. What do they do?

If they were like you, they would pull out their Bibles and find reasons for ignoring your injury and go off comfortable that one more enemy of the king has been lost and there is one less detractor to worry about. But they are guards of the true king, so they minister to your needs and do so respectfully, not minding your calumnious assaults on their king and his court while you are on the mend. They even invite you to renouce your old hometown and enter into the kingdom of the rightful king.

Amazing ain’t it? Want to become a Catholic? You could trade all your arguments for some real peace that lasts forever! And for all that you also get a Mother whose love for you is perfect.

Peace,

Gail
 
I’ve discussed Mary in depth – if you’re interested I expressed my views in another thread on Mary (link here).

You can start toward the end of the thread (at page 22) – I engage in a long discourse on this topic.

I’m not going to rehash this debate over and over – the truth regarding this matter is plain enough & I am confident in my position. I’ve heard all these arguments before – the reformers said this, Luther did that, etc. etc. etc. Not persuasive. Beyond that I have little interest in a spit for spat argument, been there done that, I find it unproductive frankly.
 
**
But when** did the Church go wrong?

I mean, is it really conceivable that the many holy Fathers cared not enough about truth to prevent “new and ungodly doctrine” from ‘creeping’ into Church?

The CC never went totally wrong. In most areas, the CC has remained true to scripture.

Luther’s 95 theses brought to light teachings that, at least, needed to be challenged, as does the Augsburg Confession. And as for holy Fathers caring “not enough about the truth”, humans of all kinds, including good godly men, make errors. I certainly would never question the integrity, energy, and motives of Catholics of the 1400 and 1500’s. I think they were just mistaken about things like indulgences.

On your quote from Erasmus: forgive me for not understanding your point.​

On your quotes from Calvin and Melanchton: I think they reflect the position we should all take. That Christ wants a unitfied Church, and we should discuss and strive to resolve, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the disputes between us.​

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top