B
Bill_Pick
Guest
It look like this person know as much about the Orthorox church as he/she does the Cathloic Church
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You know, I have a lot of respect for people who want to worship God. I have a lot of respect for people who want to be sure that they are worshipping correctly.
Many of my own relatives are Episcopalians and one grandmother was originally Lutheran but converted to Catholicism, so it’s not like I don’t ‘know’ at least about my own relatives and their beliefs (have been to their churches etc. many times in my 53 years).
Here’s the thing, though. . .While I can understand people who say (I think incorrectly but we’ll let that pass for now) that Catholics ‘changed’ a teaching or practice from an ‘older’ one, what I can’t understand are those who change an ‘older’ teaching, or ignore the older teaching, and present a ‘newer’ one as the ‘real one’ and then try to claim that “it” is really the older teaching.
You did that, Justy, in your earlier posts where you claimed that the people ‘long ago’ just ‘knew’ that Mary and Joseph had sex and therefore they didn’t have to go ‘into detail.’
When it is brought up to you that not only Catholics but Orthodox as well consistently taught the Perpetual Virginity, you try to change the subject into “Well, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on other things” --as though pointing that out would somehow invalidate their consistent teaching on the Perpetual Virginity. That’s a rather shoddy kind of tactic and it’s not going to work.
Why DID Protestants presume to change this particular teaching when their own founders never thought of doing so?
Many of my own relatives are Episcopalians and one grandmother was originally Lutheran but converted to Catholicism, so it’s not like I don’t ‘know’ at least about my own relatives and their beliefs (have been to their churches etc. many times in my 53 years).
Here’s the thing, though. . .While I can understand people who say (I think incorrectly but we’ll let that pass for now) that Catholics ‘changed’ a teaching or practice from an ‘older’ one, what I can’t understand are those who change an ‘older’ teaching, or ignore the older teaching, and present a ‘newer’ one as the ‘real one’ and then try to claim that “it” is really the older teaching.
You did that, Justy, in your earlier posts where you claimed that the people ‘long ago’ just ‘knew’ that Mary and Joseph had sex and therefore they didn’t have to go ‘into detail.’
When it is brought up to you that not only Catholics but Orthodox as well consistently taught the Perpetual Virginity, you try to change the subject into “Well, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on other things” --as though pointing that out would somehow invalidate their consistent teaching on the Perpetual Virginity. That’s a rather shoddy kind of tactic and it’s not going to work.
Why DID Protestants presume to change this particular teaching when their own founders never thought of doing so?
J
Justy90
Guest
It’s a relavent question that has everything to do with this topic. Why is your Canon different from the that which was derrived from the Holy Spirit in the 4th century?Mind sticking to the topic? Why should I accept your ‘interpretation’ of various Scripture when Martin Luther and your own Henry VIII didn’t accept them?
J
Justy90
Guest
And my response is that NOT everyone held to what Catholicism teaches regarding Mary. Why does the Orthodox church (which was the Early Church as well before 1086AD) not agree with Rome on all that it teaches regarding Mary?You know, I have a lot of respect for people who want to worship God. I have a lot of respect for people who want to be sure that they are worshipping correctly.
Many of my own relatives are Episcopalians and one grandmother was originally Lutheran but converted to Catholicism, so it’s not like I don’t ‘know’ at least about my own relatives and their beliefs (have been to their churches etc. many times in my 53 years).
Here’s the thing, though. . .While I can understand people who say (I think incorrectly but we’ll let that pass for now) that Catholics ‘changed’ a teaching or practice from an ‘older’ one, what I can’t understand are those who change an ‘older’ teaching, or ignore the older teaching, and present a ‘newer’ one as the ‘real one’ and then try to claim that “it” is really the older teaching.
You did that, Justy, in your earlier posts where you claimed that the people ‘long ago’ just ‘knew’ that Mary and Joseph had sex and therefore they didn’t have to go ‘into detail.’
When it is brought up to you that not only Catholics but Orthodox as well consistently taught the Perpetual Virginity, you try to change the subject into “Well, Catholics and Orthodox disagree on other things” --as though pointing that out would somehow invalidate their consistent teaching on the Perpetual Virginity. That’s a rather shoddy kind of tactic and it’s not going to work.
Why DID Protestants presume to change this particular teaching when their own founders never thought of doing so?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I believe I asked FIRST. Why not answer my question and please stop trying to imply that superficial, I repeat superficial differences in certain Marian devotions etc. between Catholics and Orthodox have anything whatsoever to do with ‘invalidating’ the consistent CHRISTIAN teaching that you as a Protestant ‘changed’ and which your own founders did not question.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Let’s make this crystal clear.
A. Prior to the mid 16th century, all Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
B. The first Protestant leaders taught this too.
C. At some point, some men began to teach a different doctrine.
D. Now today some of those ‘dissenters’ are trying to present the ‘different’ doctrine as being the ‘original’ doctrine, and that first doctrine in A as being a ‘later’ one.
Does anybody else find such an attempt to be rather. . .questionable in practice?
A. Prior to the mid 16th century, all Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
B. The first Protestant leaders taught this too.
C. At some point, some men began to teach a different doctrine.
D. Now today some of those ‘dissenters’ are trying to present the ‘different’ doctrine as being the ‘original’ doctrine, and that first doctrine in A as being a ‘later’ one.
Does anybody else find such an attempt to be rather. . .questionable in practice?
J
Justy90
Guest
Ok, let’s handle your claim here first. You claim that Martin Luther held exaclty to the same beliefs as Catholicsm regarding Mary. That is not true. Martin Luther had no problem regarding Mary as foremost of the saints and honoring her as the Mother of Christ. No problem there. However, Luther did Not ever profess in the same fashion as Catholics do that Mary Never had other children and that she was immaculately conceived etc. There is nothing “new” here in what the Scriptures say and what they don’t say.I believe I asked FIRST. Why not answer my question and please stop trying to imply that superficial, I repeat superficial differences in certain Marian devotions etc. between Catholics and Orthodox have anything whatsoever to do with ‘invalidating’ the consistent CHRISTIAN teaching that you as a Protestant ‘changed’ and which your own founders did not question.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
What difference would it make if Mary had other children or not? By her having other children would it make her less then who she is? Would it change your outlook on what she stands for? Does it change the fact that she is the mother of Jesus? Would you look down at her because she had other children? Would it make her less holy and therefore unworthy of your praise? Would it change anything except the teachings that she never had other children? Would it mean that the teachings are wrong about her? Who decided to teach that Mary never had other children? What evidence is there that she did or didn’t have other children?
I guess what I’m trying to say is, “does it really matter, she is who she is eather way you look at it.”
I guess what I’m trying to say is, “does it really matter, she is who she is eather way you look at it.”
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Martin Luther spoke extensively of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. We’ve shown quotes. Where are your quotes showing that he spoke of her having other children?Ok, let’s handle your claim here first. You claim that Martin Luther held exaclty to the same beliefs as Catholicsm regarding Mary. That is not true. Martin Luther had no problem regarding Mary as foremost of the saints and honoring her as the Mother of Christ. No problem there. However, Luther did Not ever profess in the same fashion as Catholics do that Mary Never had other children and that she was immaculately conceived etc. There is nothing “new” here in what the Scriptures say and what they don’t say.
J
Justy90
Guest
The real question is what is correct? Scripture doesn’t tell us that Mary didn’t have other children and in fact it names Jesus’ brothers in several verses. Scripture never leads us to believe that Mary stayed a virgin her whole life and in fact it speaks to the contrary. This is the point. You are trying to claim that whatever is believed all along must be correct. This is problematic because even your church doesn’t hold to what the Early Church believed. Why the different Canon from the Orthodox? Why many different versions of the Canon circulated shortly after it was compiled? Catholicism isn’t this bulletproof flawless entity that you are trying to profess here. You cannot prove what you claim.Let’s make this crystal clear.
A. Prior to the mid 16th century, all Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
B. The first Protestant leaders taught this too.
C. At some point, some men began to teach a different doctrine.
D. Now today some of those ‘dissenters’ are trying to present the ‘different’ doctrine as being the ‘original’ doctrine, and that first doctrine in A as being a ‘later’ one.
Does anybody else find such an attempt to be rather. . .questionable in practice?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
We’re not indifferentists. Yes, it makes a difference. Either the Holy Spirit, through Scripture and Tradition, says authoritatively that she is. . .or she isn’t. No middle ground.What difference would it make if Mary had other children or not? By her having other children would it make her less then who she is? Would it change your outlook on what she stands for? Does it change the fact that she is the mother of Jesus? Would you look down at her because she had other children? Would it make her less holy and therefore unworthy of your praise? Would it change anything except the teachings that she never had other children? Would it mean that the teachings are wrong about her? Who decided to teach that Mary never had other children? What evidence is there that she did or didn’t have other children?
I guess what I’m trying to say is, “does it really matter, she is who she is eather way you look at it.”
The truth is the truth. If Catholic teaching is the truth, then the non-Catholic teaching which ‘contradicts it’ is falsehood, no matter how you might try to explain it away.
This is not ‘about Mary’. It’s about JESUS.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Scripture NEVER says Mary had other children. Ever. The brothers of Jesus are shown, conclusively, in Scripture, not to be children OF MARY.The real question is what is correct? Scripture doesn’t tell us that Mary didn’t have other children and in fact it names Jesus’ brothers in several verses. Scripture never leads us to believe that Mary stayed a virgin her whole life and in fact it speaks to the contrary. This is the point. You are trying to claim that whatever is believed all along must be correct. This is problematic because even your church doesn’t hold to what the Early Church believed. Why the different Canon from the Orthodox? Why many different versions of the Canon circulated shortly after it was compiled? Catholicism isn’t this bulletproof flawless entity that you are trying to profess here. You cannot prove what you claim.
Hey, I speak the truth. Also, a lot of what you think I’m ‘saying’ is you putting words in my mouth with your ‘bulletproof flawless entity’ and your earlier assertion that I claimed Luther was in lockstep with all the Catholic Church teachings. . .I never said anything of the sort. Nor am I claiming you must believe ‘what is believed all along is correct.’ I am saying that one must believe truth.
And I ask again, WHERE did you get the teaching that contradicts the continued consistent teaching of Christianity for 2000 years?
J
Justy90
Guest
It seems to me this perpetual virginity of Mary has to be sustained to be able to live into the other claims of Mary. Without this perpetual virginity, the other claims and interpretations of Scripture that Rome has would collapse like a house of cards. The problem with the whole thing is that none of it is consistent with what the Scriptures teach. The Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology do not parallel one another.What difference would it make if Mary had other children or not? By her having other children would it make her less then who she is? Would it change your outlook on what she stands for? Does it change the fact that she is the mother of Jesus? Would you look down at her because she had other children? Would it make her less holy and therefore unworthy of your praise? Would it change anything except the teachings that she never had other children? Would it mean that the teachings are wrong about her? Who decided to teach that Mary never had other children? What evidence is there that she did or didn’t have other children?
I guess what I’m trying to say is, “does it really matter, she is who she is eather way you look at it.”
R
rev_kevin
Guest
True, it would collapse and all their teachings would be in question.It seems to me this perpetual virginity of Mary has to be sustained to be able to live into the other claims of Mary. Without this perpetual virginity, the other claims and interpretations of Scripture that Rome has would collapse like a house of cards. The problem with the whole thing is that none of it is consistent with what the Scriptures teach. The Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology do not parallel one another.
J
Justy90
Guest
The Orthodox church and your church do NOT agree on much doctrine Tantum! This is the point. If the Early Church was given the correct discernment of the Holy Spirit then why do you both have different Canons, different doctrines and different views on things such as the sacrements, the saints and traditions?? You can’t claim to be correct for 2,000 years and have these profound differences. That horse won’t pull the sled anymore my freind.Scripture NEVER says Mary had other children. Ever. The brothers of Jesus are shown, conclusively, in Scripture, not to be children OF MARY.
Hey, I speak the truth. Also, a lot of what you think I’m ‘saying’ is you putting words in my mouth with your ‘bulletproof flawless entity’ and your earlier assertion that I claimed Luther was in lockstep with all the Catholic Church teachings. . .I never said anything of the sort. Nor am I claiming you must believe ‘what is believed all along is correct.’ I am saying that one must believe truth.
And I ask again, WHERE did you get the teaching that contradicts the continued consistent teaching of Christianity for 2000 years?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
There is no ‘disconnect’ between the Mary of Scripture and the Mary of Catholic teaching. Please do give me chapter and verse which specifically state that Mary had other children. You can’t find it because it isn’t there. The only child listed as a child of Mary is Jesus Christ Himself. You can’t find it taught consistently in Christianity that Mary had other children. . .not from AD 33 until the mid 16th century. . .to this day neither the ORTHODOX nor the Catholics teach anything other than that Mary had no children other than Jesus. Scripture bears this out. Your false teaching that she had other children is a ‘new’ and ‘different’ Scripture.
We won’t ‘collapse’ because our teachings aren’t changeable and made by men.
We won’t ‘collapse’ because our teachings aren’t changeable and made by men.
J
Justy90
Guest
Show me by Scripture where she had no other children besides Jesus. Who are the brothers shown by name in several verses? Firstborn child? Did not have relations UNTIL Jesus was born? You can’t continue to explain away Scripture.There is no ‘disconnect’ between the Mary of Scripture and the Mary of Catholic teaching. Please do give me chapter and verse which specifically state that Mary had other children. You can’t find it because it isn’t there. The only child listed as a child of Mary is Jesus Christ Himself. You can’t find it taught consistently in Christianity that Mary had other children. . .not from AD 33 until the mid 16th century. . .to this day neither the ORTHODOX nor the Catholics teach anything other than that Mary had no children other than Jesus. Scripture bears this out. Your false teaching that she had other children is a ‘new’ and ‘different’ Scripture.
We won’t ‘collapse’ because our teachings aren’t changeable and made by men.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Trivial differences based on culture and superficialities, especially those prior to 1054. I wonder what you’ll say when Catholics and Orthodox reunite. . .because it’s going to happen.The Orthodox church and your church do NOT agree on much doctrine Tantum! This is the point. If the Early Church was given the correct discernment of the Holy Spirit then why do you both have different Canons, different doctrines and different views on things such as the sacrements, the saints and traditions?? You can’t claim to be correct for 2,000 years and have these profound differences. That horse won’t pull the sled anymore my freind.
J
Justy90
Guest
Trivial differences?? The Orthodox church doesn’t celebrate the 7 Sacrements as Catholics do, they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. Trivial differences? What about the pope? Your dillusional if you truly believe that you will reunite with them. AND, they have a different set of books in their Canon. HUGE differences.Trivial differences based on culture and superficialities, especially those prior to 1054. I wonder what you’ll say when Catholics and Orthodox reunite. . .because it’s going to happen.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Ok, but can you please answer my questions?We’re not indifferentists. Yes, it makes a difference. Either the Holy Spirit, through Scripture and Tradition, says authoritatively that she is. . .or she isn’t. No middle ground.
The truth is the truth. If Catholic teaching is the truth, then the non-Catholic teaching which ‘contradicts it’ is falsehood, no matter how you might try to explain it away.
This is not ‘about Mary’. It’s about JESUS.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.