Do Non-Catholics Worship the Bible?

[ClamDigger]

I disagree, it certainly can be interpreted in different ways. It could very well depend on the interpretation of the word virginal. Does it mean she was physically ever virgin? It can be argued that this is medically impossible as we know that she delivered Jesus naturally, as that is part of the mystery of Christ. Of course, the most realistic interpretation of the word is that Mary never had relations with a man, and remained ever devoted to God. You can laugh the first interpretation off as silly (which is is), but it’s still a valid question.

Sorry, I suppose I should have re-phrased what I said. The Church states that Mary is a virgin before giving birth to Jesus, in giving birth to Jesus, and after giving birth to Jesus. She would not need to specify that Mary is virginal *in giving birth *to Jesus if Mary’s hymen were ruptured in the birth. I mean, I really don’t think the Church would need to specify that Mary wasn’t having sexual intercourse while she was giving birth to Jesus…

Really? I don’t know if you did the math, but that’s 200%! If there wasn’t room for interpretation there, then this wouldn’t be something many disparage as completely impossible. Now I believe this, 200%, but I can’t explain it and I can’t totally understand it. I’ve been trying to rationalize it for decades and it’s just something beyond the scope of the human mind, I think. This is something I have to take on faith. There is a lot of that in our religion, you know, and that’s OK.

I can’t explain it either, but it is what the Church teaches. The Hypostatic Union. And there really is no room for a different interpretation. We can’t believe that he is 50/50 or 49/51 or any other combination. He is 100/100, and that is that. The Church has spoken and there is no room for disagreement.

I don’t mean to be contrary, I’m just proving a point. Everything is open to interpretation. The problem is that sometimes we get caught up in the note by note interpretation of a subject rather than looking at why the issue is important. Then we start trying to interpret things the way that best fits the outcome we desire, rather than the truth which is revealed through prayerful meditation.

I really haven’t seen how either of those things are open to interpretation.

When I started RCIA I told my priest that the one answer I wouldn’t accept when I questioned something was “because that’s what the church has said we believe and that’s the way it is.” I NEEDED to know why the church decreed that, how did it discern the truth behind that statement and why? To his credit he relished the challenge and ALWAYS had an answer. What this taught me is that nothing the church decrees is without without discernment and justification. Where protestants often have trouble though is that those justifications are not always scriptural.

How would he answer questions about the mysteries of the Trinity, Transubstantiation, Mary’s virginity in giving birth, the Hypostatic Union, etc.? The only answer I can think of is, “Well, that is the ancient tradition of our Church, which has been guided by God.” Of course, we can use parables to explain these things (Mary is like a window penetrated by sunlight, yet the sun does not rupture the window. The Three Members of the Trinity are like the sun, sunlight, and heat from the sun. They are indistinguishable, but they are seperate realities.), but we cannot ever fully explain them.

 

[MarianKnight]

Wow this blew up fast! I’m not trying to be accusative but it seems Protestants I’ve talked to and Protestant preachers I’ve seen are not just “giving you the Gospel” but are instead using the Bible to prop up their own interpretation of what it means to be Christian.

Actually, the Catholic Church is the only one I’ve been in that actually just reads straight from the Bible without any spin.

Part of this is truth, part is perception. With the forms of worship looser in Protestant churches, often preachers will intermingle scripture in the midst their sermons. This gives the impression you are referring to AND does tend to encourage forceful interpretation of selected passages. Interestingly enough, I grew up in a 1st Baptist church, and our pastors have always said a reading as a whole before their sermon, then referenced back to it throughout. That seems to give a more pure interpretation to me.

It just made me wonder when you see evangelical Protestants who will press a 66 booked Bible to their forehead with their eyes closed in prayer but refuse to have a cross or a crucifix or a statue of Christ in their church because it would lead to idolatry.

This is extremism, and that almost always is accompanied by a distortion of truth, regardless of the faith in question. Most Protestants aren’t this extreme and almost all have a cross somewhere in the church.

I once asked my mom how come we didn’t have a cross int he house even though we were a very devout family. Her response, after a moment of surprise, was that she’d never thought about it. I mean we had pictures of Jesus all over the place, but no crosses. I had a Catholic girlfriend in High School who once bought me a crucifix and my mother was unenthusiastic, but not really disapproving. I asked why she didn’t like it and she told me because it made her sad to see Jesus on the cross. She wanted to focus on the cross without Jesus as a symbol of victory and redemption.

I told those stories to illustrate a point. Just as Protestants misunderstand us, I think very often Catholics misunderstand Protestants.

 

[ClamDigger]

Again, it’s lack of understanding caused by centuries of misrepresentation. It’s no different than politicians of today spinning a story to their ends. Early protestants spun the story to make us out to be worshiping idols.

Agreed. It’s really just simple mud-slinging. They said the pope was the antichrist, we said the reformers were little antichrists. Really just comes down to politics.

You’re missing what I mean, I think. I’m talking about on a person to person basis and what a particular person believes, not what the church officially teaches. I know it happens where people believe that a statue or a set of beads, or some other such symbol becomes the source of the graces and is more important than what it represents.

You really think that there are Catholics who think that the wood or clay that constitutes statue of Mary is more important than Mary herself? Or that the Rosary beads that represent the prayers to Mary and Jesus are more important than the prayers themselves? I don’t think I’ve ever heard any Catholic, even the least educated, interpret our sacramentals in this way. I don’t mean to be argumentative, I’m merely wondering what Catholics you have met that really feel this way.

This is because the person puts too much emphasis on the symbol and not enough on what it symbolizes. Such a person is obviously missing the true teaching of the church and has gone a bit astray, and is flirting with dangerous ground.

Such a person would be on dangerous ground, because that truly would be idolatry. However, I can’t think of any Catholic who feels this way.

It goes deeper though. Remember that most protestant churches don’t recognize anyone anyone as a mediator between us and Jesus. They point to “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” They don’t realize that nowhere did he say no one comes to me except through themselves. We pray for each other all the time, yet they just can’t conceive of asking Mary to pray for them.

So sad. They really miss out on a relationship with a great friend and benefactor.

But that again is the spin machine working. Our detractors say we pray to Mary to do things for us, when in fact we are asking Mary simply to add her prayers to her son to reinforce our own. For who would have more clout with the Son than his beloved mother?

Absolutely!

I know this well because when I came into the Church, I had NO point of reference for how the Church revered Mary. It was one of the few things that was a problem point for me, not because I didn’t believe it, but because I didn’t understand it. It took me a lot of discernment to come to grips with the mystery of Mary and why she is so central to our faith. My screen name kinda says it all as to where that discernment has taken me. It’s that difference between reverence and worship that many can not see, and as someone who’s been on both sides, I understand the confusion and how easily it can be spun.

Hyperdulia forever! Hahaha

 

[Alix1912]

They say we worship statues I’m gonna return the favor and say they worship a book…

And we wonder why Chirstians ca’t ever get to common ground. “If some of you say something not true about us, I’m gonna say something not true about all of you” Real Mature.

Well, I’m not one to say “Protestants do …” or “Protestants believe…” because you just can’t generalize like that. There are TOO many denominations and pop-up church groups out there to make a blanket statement other than they reject Catholicism (obviously).

Thank you for recognizing this.

Wow this blew up fast! I’m not trying to be accusative but it seems Protestants I’ve talked to and Protestant preachers I’ve seen are not just “giving you the Gospel” but are instead using the Bible to prop up their own interpretation of what it means to be Christian. Actually, the Catholic Church is the only one I’ve been in that actually just reads straight from the Bible without any spin. It just made me wonder when you see evangelical Protestants who will press a 66 booked Bible to their forehead with their eyes closed in prayer but refuse to have a cross or a crucifix or a statue of Christ in their church because it would lead to idolatry.

The Catholic Church interprets the Bible to suit their own needs as well. It is something inherent to each denomination, and person reading the Bible, we will interpret it in some manner. Isn’t that exactly what a sermon or homily is? If you are Catholic then you are going to interpret the Catholic Spin on the Bible as right, If you are another denomination their spin is going to be right.

I’ve never understood the idolatry claims against the Catholic Church. They are plain silly. As for holding a bible, or cross when you pray…if it helps you focus on your prayers more…I see no problem with that.

The same can be said of Mary. Protestants don’t really have any reference for our reverence of Mary, let alone her role as an interceder to her son Jesus.

Actually many of the High Litergical Church’s hold Mary in great regard. We don’t necessarily see her as a intercessor per see, but she is a hugely important figure, she is after all the Mother of God. I personally look to her as a great example of strength, and have a new found honor for her now that I am a mother myself. She was asked so many difficult things by God, and she did everyone.

She had to be unmarried and pregnant in a culture that was not accepting of this. She had to ride 9 months pregnant on a donkey to Bethaleham, deliver a baby in a barn (which was essentially a dingy cave), had to deal with all the normal anxiety that comes with being a parent along with the added pressure of raiseing the son of God. Then she had to standby and watch her son die a horrific death, knowing that even if she had the power to save him she could not or the whole world would suffer. I think if any mortal in the history of the world deserved to be assumed body and soul into heaven, and to have statues the world over in her honor…it was Mary.

I believe the Word of God…The Bible in written form should be respected, you don’t use it as a prop for a table leg or tear it up etc. As for worshipping the actual book…I’ve never met a protestant that actually does that. I’m sure there are a few out there I just haven’t encountered them.

 

[ClamDigger]

And we wonder why Chirstians ca’t ever get to common ground. “If some of you say something not true about us, I’m gonna say something not true about all of you” Real Mature.

Agreed. :sad_yes:

She had to be unmarried and pregnant in a culture that was not accepting of this. She had to ride 9 months pregnant on a donkey to Bethaleham, deliver a baby in a barn (which was essentially a dingy cave), had to deal with all the normal anxiety that comes with being a parent along with the added pressure of raiseing the son of God. Then she had to standby and watch her son die a horrific death, knowing that even if she had the power to save him she could not or the whole world would suffer. I think if any mortal in the history of the world deserved to be assumed body and soul into heaven, and to have statues the world over in her honor…it was Mary.

This was absolutely beautiful! :clapping:

 

[MarianKnight]

Sorry, I suppose I should have re-phrased what I said. The Church states that Mary is a virgin before giving birth to Jesus, in giving birth to Jesus, and after giving birth to Jesus. She would not need to specify that Mary is virginal *in giving birth *to Jesus if Mary’s hymen were ruptured in the birth. I mean, I really don’t think the Church would need to specify that Mary wasn’t having sexual intercourse while she was giving birth to Jesus…

Ah but could that not be interpreted to say that the fact of her bearing a child has bearing upon her virginity? The fact is that a girl’s hymen can be torn through a hundred different mundane activities that have nothing to do with sexual intercourse. That has no bearing on her virginity, her purity. In an ancient culture though, that was not always the case. So the question becomes why was there a need to word the decree like that? Probably because someone at some point tried to disparage the fact of Mary’s perpetual virginity by the fact that she bore a child, thus could not be medically virgin. Note that the church never says specifically Mary’s hymen didn’t break, and I can’t recall such a statement in scripture anywhere.

I’m sure I could be wrong, but the simple fact is that really it doesn’t matter. Whether her hymen was ruptured in birth and grew back after, was ruptured and didn’t or just never ruptured at all and the birth was somehow supernatural, it makes no difference. Again I say it matters how you interpret the word VIRGINITY. What is more important, her physical intactness or her spiritual purity? What would the church put more stock in?

Again, I’m nitpicking here just to prove that there is always room for interpretation. Whichever interpretation is right, the result remains the same: Mary is ever virgin.

I can’t explain it either, but it is what the Church teaches. The Hypostatic Union. And there really is no room for a different interpretation. We can’t believe that he is 50/50 or 49/51 or any other combination. He is 100/100, and that is that. The Church has spoken and there is no room for disagreement.

Again, I guess I was more pointing to the fact of how protestants who do not believe in the trueness of that union could pull different interpretations of that teaching. You’re right in that there’s no wiggle room in this teaching, unless you can’t accept the truth of it. Then you can point to there being no rational explanation for such duality. Well as I’ve said before, I can’t explain it, but I have no problem believing it. This is one of those things that you have to want to not believe in order to dispute it. In fact it shocks me that some Protestants don’t believe it. I think it shows a lack of faith.

How would he answer questions about the mysteries of the Trinity, Transubstantiation, Mary’s virginity in giving birth, the Hypostatic Union, etc.?

I can tell you exactly. His answer was simply that some things he could not fully explain, that some things had to be taken on faith and that part of that faith had to be given to that fact that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit. For me that was an appropriate answer, because I wasn’t a serial doubter looking to refute every church teaching. I was a someone deeply connected to his God trying to decide if those things that were different from what I had been taught growing up would be roadblocks to my faith. I didn’t want “because that’s what the church teaches” because I think often that is a lazy man’s answer. That said, there are, as you aptly stated, somethings that can not be explained any other way and must be taken on faith. When that answer was given to me by my priest I was willing to accept it, because I knew he wasn’t just giving me the easy brush off answer and because that was the best he could do. That was good enough for me.

Interestingly enough, transubstantiation was a little different answer, My wife and I had gotten married outside the church, so part of my journey was for us to have our wedding blessed. He has us need right at the foot of the altar as he consecrated the host for the Eucharist. I have never had a shred of doubt since. He never came out and said that was his motivation for placing us so close during the ceremony, but I’ve often wondered if that hadn’t been part of his plan. Regardless, it had an effect on me.

 

[ctkrcia]

I often wonder what would happen if one were to go into a “Bible-only church”, open a Bible, rip out a page. wad it up, throw it on the ground, and then step on it. :bigyikes:

I imagine the “ripper” would have the Bible ripped out of his hands and everyone would be in shock that the word of God had just been desecrated. Or was it? It was simply paper and ink. Nothing about its physical properties made it any more than the daily newspaper, except the material quality. But it would be taken as heretical, even though many present would deny that.

I also often wonder why I think of things like this. I gotta talk to somebody about it.

 

[Alix1912]

I often wonder what would happen if one were to go into a “Bible-only church”, open a Bible, rip out a page. wad it up, throw it on the ground, and then step on it. :bigyikes:

I imagine the “ripper” would have the Bible ripped out of his hands and everyone would be in shock that the word of God had just been desecrated. Or was it? It was simply paper and ink. Nothing about its physical properties made it any more than the daily newspaper, except the material quality. But it would be taken as heretical, even though many present would deny that.

I also often wonder why I think of things like this. I gotta talk to somebody about it.

I imagine this would be considered extremely disrespectful and awful if it were to happen in any Christian Church. It is the word of God, ripping it up is just plain disrespectful to both the congregation you are doing it infront of and to the author himself.

I wouldn’t do such a thing to any religions religoius text…it’s just plain rude and disrespectful.

Why would anyone even suggest such a thing.

 

[MarianKnight]

You really think that there are Catholics who think that the wood or clay that constitutes statue of Mary is more important than Mary herself? Or that the Rosary beads that represent the prayers to Mary and Jesus are more important than the prayers themselves? I don’t think I’ve ever heard any Catholic, even the least educated, interpret our sacramentals in this way. I don’t mean to be argumentative, I’m merely wondering what Catholics you have met that really feel this way.

…Such a person would be on dangerous ground, because that truly would be idolatry. However, I can’t think of any Catholic who feels this way.

Maybe I’m overstating this or just not getting my point across. Let me put it into context with a couple stories. Say I lose my rosary. It’s not the end of the world, I can simply make another and go on with my prayers. Fact is, I can pray without my rosary at all. Yet I know many Catholics who focus on the beads themselves and on the individual prayers, rather than the meditation of the mysteries. Lose their rosary and they feel they can’t say the prayer, because what is a rosary without the beads? To them the importance is saying the prayers in the right order on the right beads.

This in particular hits me hard, because I view the rosary as central to my faith, and those meditations on the mysteries of Christ have brought me to a deeper understanding. Without them the rosary is simply repetitive prayer, something Jesus explicitly warns against. There’s no malicious intent there, there’s simply a lack of understanding of the true meaning of the rosary. The symbol, the beads themselves, get in the way of the symbolism, the meditation of the mysteries of Christ.

So sad. They really miss out on a relationship with a great friend and benefactor.

It’s true, it is sad. I mean, I’m a mama’s boy, always have been, so to me a devotion to Mary is only natural. In the same way my mother brought me up to be Christian, so my devotion to Mary has opened new doors to deeper understanding of my faith.

 

[amerrychase]

I was talking with my sister about this yesterday, actually! She’s Lutheran, but comes with me to Mass occasionally, and always comments on how short the sermons are. It’s a bit of a relief, sometimes, I guess. My thoughts: What else do they have, for God to be there with them? Catholics can “skim” over the readings because the high point of our service is the Eucharist. Jesus is there, with us in the Mass, but Protestants (mostly) don’t believe that about Communion, so of course they would hold the Word of God in high esteem. It’s the entirety of revelation for them.

/Former Lutheran

 

[MarianKnight]

Actually many of the High Litergical Church’s hold Mary in great regard. We don’t necessarily see her as a intercessor per see, but she is a hugely important figure, she is after all the Mother of God. I personally look to her as a great example of strength, and have a new found honor for her now that I am a mother myself. She was asked so many difficult things by God, and she did everyone.

She had to be unmarried and pregnant in a culture that was not accepting of this. She had to ride 9 months pregnant on a donkey to Bethaleham, deliver a baby in a barn (which was essentially a dingy cave), had to deal with all the normal anxiety that comes with being a parent along with the added pressure of raiseing the son of God. Then she had to standby and watch her son die a horrific death, knowing that even if she had the power to save him she could not or the whole world would suffer. I think if any mortal in the history of the world deserved to be assumed body and soul into heaven, and to have statues the world over in her honor…it was Mary.

Oh it’s true she is held in high regard as the Mother of God, but that’s where her role seems to end. Protestants, or at the least the Baptists where I grew up, don’t ascribe to her any ongoing role in the redemption of the world as we do. I always thought the various appearances of Mary were kinda whacked out hallucinations because it seemed so weird to me. When I understood her role beyond being the Mother of Jesus, when I saw these visitations as proof of her continuing role as Mother of the Church, it all made sense to me. As far as most Protestants are concerned, Mary is the epitome of love, beauty and purity of soul, the bearer of our Lord and Savior and the most blessed of all women, but her work is done. We Catholics believe otherwise, and that’s quite a difference in theology.

 

[Alix1912]

I was talking with my sister about this yesterday, actually! She’s Lutheran, but comes with me to Mass occasionally, and always comments on how short the sermons are. It’s a bit of a relief, sometimes, I guess. My thoughts: What else do they have, for God to be there with them? Catholics can “skim” over the readings because the high point of our service is the Eucharist. Jesus is there, with us in the Mass, but Protestants (mostly) don’t believe that about Communion, so of course they would hold the Word of God in high esteem. It’s the entirety of revelation for them.

/Former Lutheran

I often find the homily at my husband’s church shot and lacking. I would never say that communion, which Lutheran’s also believe is the body and blood of Christ, is not the important part of the service, but I love my Pastor’s at my Lutheran Church because I learn and grow each Sunday listening to their great sermons. I think a lot of Catholic Priests fall back on the “eucharist is the most important part” and forget that the homily can be a powerful tool for instruction and spiritual nourishment.

 

[Alix1912]

Oh it’s true she is held in high regard as the Mother of God, but that’s where her role seems to end. Protestants, or at the least the Baptists where I grew up, don’t ascribe to her any ongoing role in the redemption of the world as we do. I always thought the various appearances of Mary were kinda whacked out hallucinations because it seemed so weird to me. When I understood her role beyond being the Mother of Jesus, when I saw these visitations as proof of her continuing role as Mother of the Church, it all made sense to me. As far as most Protestants are concerned, Mary is the epitome of love, beauty and purity of soul, the bearer of our Lord and Savior and the most blessed of all women, but her work is done. We Catholics believe otherwise, and that’s quite a difference in theology.

I’ll agree on that point. I’m not sure what to make of her continuing appearances. I’m not going to say they didn’t happen as I tend to give people the benifit of the doubt. I doubt anyone’s work is truly done in God’s Kingdom be they on earth or in heaven. As to Mary’s continuing role I don’t think we can really speak to that as it hasn’t been told to us.

 

[ClamDigger]

Ah but could that not be interpreted to say that the fact of her bearing a child has bearing upon her virginity?

That would be covered by the fact that it states that she is a virgin before and after giving birth. In giving birth implies that it also did not affect her physical virginity.

The fact is that a girl’s hymen can be torn through a hundred different mundane activities that have nothing to do with sexual intercourse. That has no bearing on her virginity, her purity.

It does, however, change her physical state. She is no longer physically a virgin, even if she is spiritually. One could also argue that the nuns who lost their virginity to rape during the Spanish Civil War were also spiritually virginal. However, I think we can all agree that it would be a great heresy and blasphemy to ever consider the Holy Virgin to be the victim of a rape, even if it wouldn’t violate her spiritual state of virginity.

In an ancient culture though, that was not always the case. So the question becomes why was there a need to word the decree like that? Probably because someone at some point tried to disparage the fact of Mary’s perpetual virginity by the fact that she bore a child, thus could not be medically virgin. Note that the church never says specifically Mary’s hymen didn’t break,

The Church has always stated that Mary’s hymen did not rupture. She is perpetually virginal in all ways: spiritual and physical. Pope St. Leo the Great said that, “[Mary] brought forth [Jesus] without the loss of her virginity, just as she conceived him without it’s loss…” He doesn’t say, “She remained a virgin, just in a different way than before,” he says that her virginity was the same both before, during, and after the birth. St. Thomas Aquinas states that, “The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man ‘was born into the world,’ according to Isaiah 35:1,2: ‘Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.’” St. Ambrose stated that, “Mary is the gate through which Christ entered the world when He was brought forth in the virginal birth, and the matter of** his birth did not break the seal of virginity**.” St. Augustine: “That same power which brought the body of the risen Jesus through closed doors brought the body of the Infant forth from the inviolated womb of the Mother.” The Council of Toledo in 693 stated unequivocally that she is an “intact virgin”.
Virginity, while it is also a spiritual state, has medical connotations as well. Mary was physically virginal her entire life, even in giving birth to Christ. This is the teaching of the Church in stating that Mary is virginal in giving birth.

and I can’t recall such a statement in scripture anywhere.

Of course we do not base all our views solely on scripture. That is heretical.

I’m sure I could be wrong, but the simple fact is that really it doesn’t matter. Whether her hymen was ruptured in birth and grew back after, was ruptured and didn’t or just never ruptured at all and the birth was somehow supernatural, it makes no difference. Again I say it matters how you interpret the word VIRGINITY.

It does make a difference. That would mean that the Council of Toledo was wrong in proclaiming her an “intact virgin”.

 

[ClamDigger]

What is more important, her physical intactness or her spiritual purity? What would the church put more stock in?

They are both equally important, just as her virginity in conceiving Christ is important.

Again, I’m nitpicking here just to prove that there is always room for interpretation. Whichever interpretation is right, the result remains the same: Mary is ever virgin.

But it’s not the same. It compromises the miraculous qualities of the virgin birth. All Christians agree that Jesus is the product of a virgin conception, but not all really believe that he is the product of a virgin birth. It is one of the things that seperates us from many Protestants who believe that he was born (not conceived) in a completely natural way.

Again, I guess I was more pointing to the fact of how protestants who do not believe in the trueness of that union could pull different interpretations of that teaching. You’re right in that there’s no wiggle room in this teaching, unless you can’t accept the truth of it. Then you can point to there being no rational explanation for such duality. Well as I’ve said before, I can’t explain it, but I have no problem believing it. This is one of those things that you have to want to not believe in order to dispute it. In fact it shocks me that some Protestants don’t believe it. I think it shows a lack of faith.

I agree. It does show a lack of faith.

I can tell you exactly. His answer was simply that some things he could not fully explain, that some things had to be taken on faith and that part of that faith had to be given to that fact that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit. For me that was an appropriate answer, because I wasn’t a serial doubter looking to refute every church teaching. I was a someone deeply connected to his God trying to decide if those things that were different from what I had been taught growing up would be roadblocks to my faith. I didn’t want “because that’s what the church teaches” because I think often that is a lazy man’s answer. That said, there are, as you aptly stated, somethings that can not be explained any other way and must be taken on faith. When that answer was given to me by my priest I was willing to accept it, because I knew he wasn’t just giving me the easy brush off answer and because that was the best he could do. That was good enough for me.

What is the difference between saying, “I cannot fully explain some things. Some things have to be taken on faith and that part of that faith had to be given to that fact that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit.” and, “The Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches it.” ?

Interestingly enough, transubstantiation was a little different answer, My wife and I had gotten married outside the church, so part of my journey was for us to have our wedding blessed. He has us need right at the foot of the altar as he consecrated the host for the Eucharist. I have never had a shred of doubt since. He never came out and said that was his motivation for placing us so close during the ceremony, but I’ve often wondered if that hadn’t been part of his plan. Regardless, it had an effect on me.

That’s very interesting.

 

[ClamDigger]

Maybe I’m overstating this or just not getting my point across. Let me put it into context with a couple stories. Say I lose my rosary. It’s not the end of the world, I can simply make another and go on with my prayers. Fact is, I can pray without my rosary at all.

Well, I would be upset if I lost my rosary because my rosary is a symbol of my faith (just like my crucifix) and also because it was a gift to me from my mother. I’d also be irked that I had to spend more money on a new rosary when I had a perfectly good one. In the same way, I would also be upset if I lost one of my favorite t-shirts, because it represents something about me, brings back good memories, and it would be annoying that I had to go shell out more money for a new one.

Yet I know many Catholics who focus on the beads themselves and on the individual prayers, rather than the meditation of the mysteries.

I have to admit that I do sometimes meditate on the individual prayers themselves rather than on the mystery. For example, I will meditate on the meaning of Mary being Full of Grace, etc… while praying the Hail Mary. It especially helps if I notice that I am experienceing distractions during the prayer because it is sometimes easier to meditate briefly on the words rather than for two-and-a-half minutes on the mystery. I don’t do it all the time while praying the rosary, but I do it sometimes if , for whatever reason, I can’t focus on the mystery at hand.

Lose their rosary and they feel they can’t say the prayer, because what is a rosary without the beads? To them the importance is saying the prayers in the right order on the right beads.

Do you know someone who has completely stopped praying the rosary simply because they lost one particular rosary?

This in particular hits me hard, because I view the rosary as central to my faith, and those meditations on the mysteries of Christ have brought me to a deeper understanding. Without them the rosary is simply repetitive prayer, something Jesus explicitly warns against. There’s no malicious intent there, there’s simply a lack of understanding of the true meaning of the rosary. The symbol, the beads themselves, get in the way of the symbolism, the meditation of the mysteries of Christ.

I still really can’t think of anyone I know who fits this type of criteria, unless you think that I do in what I just said.

It’s true, it is sad. I mean, I’m a mama’s boy, always have been, so to me a devotion to Mary is only natural. In the same way my mother brought me up to be Christian, so my devotion to Mary has opened new doors to deeper understanding of my faith.

Same here.

 

[Crumpy]

Just was interested to get some opinions on this. It seems from my personal experience that a lot of Fundamentalist’s seem to worship the Bible, the book itself, yet their churches are void of any cross or anything actually pertaining to Christ. I find they usually say “Well the Bible says this” or “the Bible says that” as opposed to I usually say “Jesus said this” or “the Church says that”. Just food for thought.

You’re asking an enormous question, which is “why did the Reformation occur?”

If “sola scriptura – the Bible alone” is the “answer” what is the question? Well, the biggest question was and still is, “Does the Catholic Church offer the correct interpretation of the Bible, or, does the Bible (somehow) explain itself?” So, their answer is, the Bible alone.

This contradicts – what? – the Bible.

[bibledrb]1 Timothy 3:15[/bibledrb]

As this verse says, the pillar and ground of the truth → is the “Church” not the Bible (as essential and important as that is).

 

[MarianKnight]

But it’s not the same. It compromises the miraculous qualities of the virgin birth. All Christians agree that Jesus is the product of a virgin conception, but not all really believe that he is the product of a virgin birth. It is one of the things that seperates us from many Protestants who believe that he was born (not conceived) in a completely natural way.

And that’s why we’re here in this thread, discussing how Protestants and Catholics differ in their interpretation of Mary.

What is the difference between saying, “I cannot fully explain some things. Some things have to be taken on faith and that part of that faith had to be given to that fact that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit.” and, “The Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches it.” ?

A lot of it is symantics and tone. It is the difference between brushing off a question and saying it is how it is, deal with it, and honestly saying it is one of the things we have to take on faith. I know it may seem like splitting hairs, but to someone joining the church and unsure if this is right for them, it makes a huge difference.

There’s faith in God and faith in the Church. When I went into RCIA I had no issues with my faith in God. Faith in the Church was something I hadn’t yet gained.That was one of the reasons I was there afterall.

 

[MarianKnight]

That would be covered by the fact that it states that she is a virgin before and after giving birth. In giving birth implies that it also did not affect her physical virginity.

It does, however, change her physical state. She is no longer physically a virgin, even if she is spiritually. One could also argue that the nuns who lost their virginity to rape during the Spanish Civil War were also spiritually virginal. However, I think we can all agree that it would be a great heresy and blasphemy to ever consider the Holy Virgin to be the victim of a rape, even if it wouldn’t violate her spiritual state of virginity.

Except that here there is sexual intercourse involved. However forced it may be, there is a loss of innocence. That transcends the physical nature of her virginity, if your interpretation of what virginity means the innocence from carnal relations.

St. Thomas Aquinas states that, “The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man ‘was born into the world,’ according to Isaiah 35:1,2: ‘Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise.’”

See, this why I joined these forums. I had never read this passage, and I’ve never heard anyone use in when referring to Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’ve been meaning to read some of St Thomas Aquinas’s writings, now I have even more reason to do so.

Of course we do not base all our views solely on scripture. That is heretical.

It does make a difference. That would mean that the Council of Toledo was wrong in proclaiming her an “intact virgin”.

There again though, we started this by discussing the differences between Protestant and Catholic views on the bible. To most Protestant denominations, their theology IS based solely on scripture. If you don’t believe the Church has any right to declare theological dogma int he first place, then there’s nothing heretical about it. Along those same lines, the whole point is that they DO believe the Council of Toledo is wrong.

I think at this point, I should be clear that I agree with you fully on all the points above. I have however found this discuss very enlightening.

 

[ClamDigger]

And that’s why we’re here in this thread, discussing how Protestants and Catholics differ in their interpretation of Mary.

Agreed!

A lot of it is symantics and tone. It is the difference between brushing off a question and saying it is how it is, deal with it, and honestly saying it is one of the things we have to take on faith. I know it may seem like splitting hairs, but to someone joining the church and unsure if this is right for them, it makes a huge difference.

There’s faith in God and faith in the Church. When I went into RCIA I had no issues with my faith in God. Faith in the Church was something I hadn’t yet gained.That was one of the reasons I was there afterall.

I can understand this, how it would be less abrasive than just saying, “THAT’S HOW IT IS! DEAL WITH IT!” Hahaha