Ever Virgin

[benedicta00]

He is the last Bishop of Rome, of which Peter was the first, probably, though I’ve read some stuff about breaks in the chain of Apostolic succession, I’ll have to read up on that. However, assuming there is an unbroken line, does that mean that all of Peter’s powers were necessarily passed down? Now I have a horrible headache and it’s late were I am, so I’m going to stop posting before I say something stupid that makes me look like an idiot, if I haven’t already. I’ll resume this discussion later. God Bless everyone!

There were no breaks in succession-- and ‘powers’? huh? The pope has no more power then what you give to yourself… which is when it comes to teaching faith and morals, he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

You think God gave it to everyone who is ‘saved’ and who has a bible and we say God gave it to one man at a time, he who sits in the chair of Peter.

and hope you feel better soon.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There were no breaks in succession-- and ‘powers’? huh? The pope has no more power then what you give to yourself… which is when it comes to teaching faith and morals, he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

You think God gave it to everyone who is ‘saved’ and who has a bible and we say God gave it to one man at a time, he who sits in the chair of Peter.

and hope you feel better soon.

Maybe by “powers” he means Gifts of the Spirit that are gifts for the priests and bishops and possibly the Pope as the holder of the Keys through th elaying on of hands from bishops already ordained from a line back to the Apostles?

 

[benedicta00]

What was passed down is the God given authority to teach the deposit of faith that Christ left with His 12.

Authority and who has it is the 500,000 $ question.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What was passed down is the God given authority to teach the deposit of faith that Christ left with His 12.

Authority and who has it is the 500,000 $ question.

500,000? That is all? LOL

 

[sinner06]

All right, I think I was mildly delirious last night. No, we did not experience pain before the fall, of course not. That would be, as you say, heretical. So, I am going to leave this thread and see if I can perhaps salvage any credibility I have. If some other Protestant wants to try to pick up the pieces, fine, but I am too humiliated to keep up this thread. Thank you for pointing out what should have been an obvious error. My apologies. God Bless

 

[benedicta00]

Okay, but now you know why Mary did not have birth pains… not becuase we just make stuff up but becuase she was preserved from the original sin.

 

[benedicta00]

Sexual intercourse between spouses is not a defilement. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. The Blessed Virgin had made a vow of perpetual virginity to God. To break a vow to God: now that’s a defilement.

– Mark L. Chance.

Not to mention the fact that Joesph was a God fearing Jew. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had passed through the body of Mary. i do think Joesph would have understood what that implied and would not have touched Mary in that way.

 

[Hercules253]

The idea that Mary did not experience birth pains is obviously false, since the book of Genesis says that the birth pangs would intensify, and you can’t intensify what isn’t there. Thus, even if she were preserved from original sin, she still would have had *some *birth pains. The idea that she had no birth pains was obviously made up. The theories of the ECF were just that, theories. I’m tired of everyone saying “Mary took a vow of virginity”, and their only proof is that the ECF said so. If their theory birth pains thing, what else could they be wrong about? So why do you quote the ECF view that Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity as if it is concrete evidence?

As to the Psalm, right before the verse about zeal for God’s house, which refers to Jesus, the verse before it says, "8 I have become estranged from my brothers
And an alien to my mother’s sons.
9For zeal for Your house has consumed me,
And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. "
This pretty clearly refers to Jesus, after all, His siblings did not believe in Him. Also, this appears directly before a prophecy that we know applies to Jesus. Obviously all of Psalms, or even all of that chapter, cannot apply to Jesus, its proximity to the prophecy about Jesus, combined with the fact that it applies to Him perfectly, certainly seems to imply that it is talking about Him. Put together this verse with the verses about Jesus’ brothers, and you get a pretty impressive argument, especially considering no one but the all too fallible ECF ever say Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Sinner man, I completely agree with you on this one. The context in Psalms definitely refers to Jesus and not Israel. A Catholic will definitely have a hard time reconciling the two together. The Greek word that John 2:17 uses for brother is translated to “adelphos”, meaning “from the womb” which is contrary to and an anepsios, “cousin”

John’s gospel records a fulfilled prophesy from the book of Psalms–in it, Jesus tells us He has brothers and sisters.

John 2:17, And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psalms 69:8-9 *I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.
*

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Psalms 69:8-9 *I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.
*

---->

1. An alien I have become to My brethren, and a stranger to the sons of My mother Psalm 68:8. To the sons of the Synagogue He became a stranger…Why so? Why did they not acknowledge? Why did they call Him an alien? Why did they dare to say, we know not whence He is? Because the zeal of Your House has eaten Me up: that is, because I have persecuted in them their own iniquities, because I have not patiently borne those whom I have rebuked, because I have sought Your glory in Your House, because I have scourged them that in the Temple dealt unseemly: John 2:15 in which place also there is quoted, the zeal of Your House has eaten Me up. Hence an alien, hence a Stranger; hence, we know not whence He is. They would have acknowledged whence I am, if they had acknowledged that which You have commanded. For if I had found them keeping Your commandments, the zeal of Your House would not have eaten Me up. And the reproaches of men reproaching You have fallen upon Me. Of this testimony Paul the Apostle has also made use (there has been read but now the very lesson), and says, Whatsoever things aforetime have been written, have been written that we might be instructed. Romans 15:4 …Why You? Is the Father reproached, and not Christ Himself? Why have the reproaches of men reproaching You fallen upon Me? Because, he that has known Me, has known the Father also: John 14:9 because no one has reviled Christ without reviling God: because no one honours the Father, except he that honours the Son also. John 5:23

newadvent.org/fathers/1801069.htm

Who wrote that quote that addresses the Mother as the Synagogue?

Augustine of Hippo is who: newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm

Written in the 4th century and closer to the time of Jesus than any today. Augustine gives many writings that cover the Psalms in support of Jesus. And a man more knowledgable of the use of such words than those of today.

These are the writings of Christians.

 

[sinner06]

---->

newadvent.org/fathers/1801069.htm

Who wrote that quote that addresses the Mother as the Synagogue?

Augustine of Hippo is who: newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm

Written in the 4th century and closer to the time of Jesus than any today. Augustine gives many writings that cover the Psalms in support of Jesus. And a man more knowledgable of the use of such words than those of today.

These are the writings of Christians.

Wasn’t Augustine also the one with the crazy ideas about sex, that even Catholics don’t believe? If this is a different Augustine, my apologies.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Wasn’t Augustine also the one with the crazy ideas about sex, that even Catholics don’t believe? If this is a different Augustine, my apologies.

Not sure if he is the same guy you are speaking of but this may help answer you?

Unfortunately, his faith, as well as his morals, was to pass though a terrible crisis. In this same year, 373, Augustine and his friend Honoratus fell into the snares of the Manichæans. It seems strange that so great a mind should have been victimized by Oriental vapourings, synthesized by the Persian Mani (215-276) into coarse, material dualism, and introduced into Africa scarcely fifty years previously. Augustine himself tells us that he was enticed by the promises of a free philosophy unbridled by faith; by the boasts of the Manichæans, who claimed to have discovered contradictions in Holy Writ; and, above all, by the hope of finding in their doctrine a scientific explanation of nature and its most mysterious phenomena. Augustine’s inquiring mind was enthusiastic for the natural sciences, and the Manichæans declared that nature withheld no secrets from Faustus, their doctor. Moreover, being tortured by the problem of the origin of evil, Augustine, in default of solving it, acknowledged a conflict of two principles. And then, again, there was a very powerful charm in the moral irresponsibility resulting from a doctrine which denied liberty and attributed the commission of crime to a foreign principle.

From my link in my previous post.

 

[sinner06]

Emphasis added.

The reason why Mary had to remain a virgin is answered indirectly by St. Augustine and his theology on original sin.

Augustine views original sin as a direct consequence of the way in which we are conceived. This implies that sex, even used as a means of reproduction is still unclean and sinful in some way. For Mary to engage in sexual intercourse even after Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit she would not be free of sin.

This is what I was talking about. Augustine had several crazy views on sex that I don’t think even the Church believes(if it does, I’ll leave this very day). If this is Augustine of Hippo, who I’ve read about, I read that he had lots of problems with lust, which I would think would have corrupted his theology. If he was as obsessed about lust as the above seems to imply, it seems only fitting that he would have done everything in his power to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary. My point is that is one of the main reasons why I question the Church Fathers. Scripture is protected from error by the Holy Spirit(the Church teaches that, right?), the writings of the ECF were not and were subject to all the weakness and prejudices of the ECF, such as Augustine’s prejudice against intercourse, which may have influenced them. Just a thought.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Emphasis added.

This is what I was talking about. Augustine had several crazy views on sex that I don’t think even the Church believes(if it does, I’ll leave this very day). If this is Augustine of Hippo, who I’ve read about, I read that he had lots of problems with lust, which I would think would have corrupted his theology. If he was as obsessed about lust as the above seems to imply, it seems only fitting that he would have done everything in his power to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary. My point is that is one of the main reasons why I question the Church Fathers. Scripture is protected from error by the Holy Spirit(the Church teaches that, right?), the writings of the ECF were not and were subject to all the weakness and prejudices of the ECF, such as Augustine’s prejudice against intercourse, which may have influenced them. Just a thought.

What you bolded osunds like it is Gnostic in nature and if we look at the group that Augustine fell in with for a short period we will probably see that there.

But regardless… Augustine corrected his errors and moved forward to be a Saint.

Here is his writing on this group that was written later: “On the Morals of the Manichaeans”
newadvent.org/fathers/1402.htm