Mary and her Virginity

[guanophore]

No, I understand what St. Paul and St. James are saying the New Testament regarding faith and works. I am refuting the spin your church has put on it.

The trouble is, brother in Christ, that the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in the NT that is not Catholic, and nothing in Catholic teaching that contradicts the scriptures. For that reason, our view cannot properly be called a “spin”.

On the other hand, your perception, emanating about 500 years ago from a tradition of man having separated themselves from the Apostolic Succession can certainly be properly characterized as such.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

As often as I can.

Good.

Now could we please get back on topic? I would very much like to hear your response to my post #186.

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

I think a study of the early heresies, and the council of Ephesus will make it clear that Theotokos (Mother of God) applies to being the mother of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity.

Wow, guanophore. I respectfully disagree. One would have to say that Christ is not fully God to come to this conclusion. eek.

On the contrary, the title Theotokos was given to His Mother precisely to reinforce this fact.

This does not mean she is the mother of God the Father, or God the HS.
"guanophore:

The Church teaches that humans do not exist before the moment of conception. The Church also teaches that the Trinity cannot be separated, but that Jesus “emptied Himself” of His divine perogatives in order to take form in the likeness of humanity. Mary is not considered the Mother of Father God, but she is considered the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

This is from the website of the Holy See, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

Please notice it uses “and”. Your statement seems to imply that no part of Christ was divine. I’m sorry, but this is just not the way I was catechised…at all.

Don’t feel bad, my catechesis did not even get that far! No, the Catechism is teaching that Jesus is God, and that she is truly the mother of God, in the sense that Jesus has two natures in one being. He is divine, and he is human. She is the mother of His person, with the two natures together, not the mother of only the human, or only the divine. It is complicated, and it is a profound mystery, but the basis of the dogma is that Jesus is God.

Also, the Church also teaches that God has known each one of us since the beginning of time. God is eternal and therefore so is his plan. If Mary was any part of God’s plan then she and her position in Heaven were as well.

Yes. But His foreknowledge does not equate to our existence prior to conception. when Scripture says “before you were in the womb, I knew you”, it does not mean that a human existed prior to conception.
"guanophore:

Certainly she was at the time of the Annunciation, but not prior to her conception.

Again, if God is eternal so is his plan. I believe this to mean Mary was consecrated since her immaculate conception. Otherwise, what would be the point of it? The Holy Spirit knew Mary as the Mother of Christ from the beginning of time. To say otherwise would be saying the Word was not with Him.

Yes. Theh Church teaches that Mary was created to be His mother from the moment of her conception. The foreknowledge of God is not the same as the preconception existence of humans.
"guanophore:

The way this is stated, it makes it sound as if giving up virginity or fulfulling a wifely duty is impure in itself. I think we will all agree that marriage is a sacrament, and that the role of a wife and mother is also blessed and pure. However, Mary was a consecrated vessel, and it would be a sacriledge to take what has been consecrated and apply it to daily use.

If you believe nuns are pure of sin, okay. I don’t happen to equate virginity with sin. I spoke of impurity, not sin. Sin is not the only form of impurity. In the time of Christ a woman could not enter the temple if she was menstrating because she was impure. She was not in sin she was ritually unclean, not spiritually unclean.

Well, ok. I will concede this point. I just wanted you to now how your statement came across. Protestants will often vehemently insist that there is nothing “impure” about marriage and children, a statement about which we agree. However, one who is consecrated for a sacred purpose is not to be returned to secular use.

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

Mary did not become “heavenly” until she was assumed.

I didn't say Mary was Heavenly. I said she was in communion with Heaven as in communion with God. Unless we can separate the two, my statement stands correct. This would make her Holy, not Heavenly. Pretty much the same as the Pope, but one step above I think.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, then.

Since the Trinity can’t be separated from Heaven, we believe that Mary was chosen by God to be a mother in Heaven, not an earthly mother. God has never left Heaven and so when Mary became Christ’s mother, she became a mother in Heaven. Unless of course you *can *separate God from Heaven.

The word Trinity is not in scripture but the concept is. We both know that. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Mary remained a virgin either. Please let me know which part of what I said is not in scripture. I am open to correction.

I think it is misleading to say that “it is all there in scripture”. Scripture was never meant to contain “all” of the faith Furthermore, though I agree the concept of Trinity is in scripture, clearly people can read scripture, and come out in another place. There are some that don’t believe the Aposotlic Teaching on the Trinity because, when they read scripture, they understand it differently.

I said nothing about her motherhood occuring in Heaven before it did on earth. But if we are to believe that Mary is God’s mother (as the Catechism points out), then we must believe that in Heaven, Mary was considered a mother. I didn’t say she was physically in Heaven.

Actually I did not really understand what you meant by your references (quoted above) about her being a mother in heaven. I think you are wrong that Jesus cannot be incarnated on earth, and still not be God. He did not have to “leave heaven” to become man.

Again, only if you consider sin to be the only impurity. I think one can be ‘unclean’ and not be sinful.

I agree with you here.

Otherwise, why would God have wanted Mary to be a virgin? What would be the point? She was already saved from Original Sin, how was that equated with virginity? God wanted her to be free of OS AND to be pure. That meant be free of sin and free of sin???
.

I understand you. I just think, the way you worded it, our separated brethren will have difficulty.

 

[happilycatholic]

This much is not. I think a study of the early heresies, and the council of Ephesus will make it clear that Theotokos (Mother of God) applies to being the mother of Jesus, the second person of the Trinity.

I’d forgotten about the subtle differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. Actually, I hadn’t forgotten the differences, but I’d forgotten that you are Byzantine.

But that explains this and puts it into perspective. It would’ve been nice if you’d laid that on the table instead of tearing down my post, bit by bit as if I were wrong in my beliefs according to the Church. At any rate I’ve proven otherwise. I guess we can agree to disagree.

This is the kind of thing that causes protestants to think there are different “versions” of catholicism.

Peace Be With You.

 

[guanophore]

I’d forgotten about the subtle differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. Actually, I hadn’t forgotten the differences, but I’d forgotten that you are Byzantine.

But that explains this and puts it into perspective. It would’ve been nice if you’d laid that on the table instead of tearing down my post, bit by bit as if I were wrong in my beliefs according to the Church. At any rate I’ve proven otherwise. I guess we can agree to disagree.

This is the kind of thing that causes protestants to think there are different “versions” of catholicism.

Peace Be With You.

No, you have not “proven otherwise” to anyone but yourself! However, I am willing to concede that I do not understand your statements, and that we understand the writings of the Church on the subject differently.

I agree that this is the kind of thing that causes protestants to think there are different versions of Catholicsim. The Catholic and the Eastern Church share the first 7 ecumenical councils. Therefore, when a disagreement such as this arises over a heresy was settled during those years, it is particularly disconcerting.

 

[happilycatholic]

Biting off your face despite your nose is nonsensical. You running over the same dead dog in the road instead of reading what the Scriptures say regarding the subject matter and knowing it as truth. Why are you so defiant? Why isn’t the inherant word of God good enough for you? Perhaps it’s the same reason why Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross isn’t enough for you either. I’ll pray for you tonight to have peace in your soul.

My soul may be in danger over a few things but NOT my reverence for our Blessed Virgin Mary. Thanks for the prayers though. I’ll take them just the same.

 

[dpgreen]

No No No. It’s on you to prove the Marian dogma that she was perpetually virgin when Scripture says nothing of the sort. Nobody else is making this claim except you.

Unless I am reading another thread, it appears to me that I am not the only one saying that Mary remained a virgin.

The burden of proof rests on you brother. You are rejecting 2000 years of teaching - even teaching that your protestant reformers held to. So try to convince me otherwise. Your arguments are not convincing at all. In fact, you give no basis for your position other than the use of the word “until” which has been demonstrated to you, through scripture, that the word lends itself to other interpretations.

My challenge to you was to prove the link and the meaning of “full of grace” to be other than what has been suggested in the paper. If you know the bible as well as you say you do, then you should have a satisfactory answer that clearly refutes the claims put forward. Yet you shy away from the challenge:blush:

 

[dpgreen]

Respond to those Catholics here who have stated time and again that faith in Christ is not enough.

This is yet another tactic used to hide from responding to a reasonable request. I would say to those Catholics that say Christ is not enough - “Go to the Catechism to find what the CC actually teaches” just as I have challenged you to do. Instead it is much more comfortable for you to rely on uninformed Catholics and anti-Catholics for your pseudo-knowledge about the Church. Play fair. Inform yourself about what you are opposing.

 

[Sellers1]

Unless I am reading another thread, it appears to me that I am not the only one saying that Mary remained a virgin.

The burden of proof rests on you brother. You are rejecting 2000 years of teaching - even teaching that your protestant reformers held to. So try to convince me otherwise. Your arguments are not convincing at all. In fact, you give no basis for your position other than the use of the word “until” which has been demonstrated to you, through scripture, that the word lends itself to other interpretations.

My challenge to you was to prove the link and the meaning of “full of grace” to be other than what has been suggested in the paper. If you know the bible as well as you say you do, then you should have a satisfactory answer that clearly refutes the claims put forward. Yet you shy away from the challenge:blush:

Nice try you cop out.

 

[Sellers1]

This is yet another tactic used to hide from responding to a reasonable request. I would say to those Catholics that say Christ is not enough - “Go to the Catechism to find what the CC actually teaches” just as I have challenged you to do. Instead it is much more comfortable for you to rely on uninformed Catholics and anti-Catholics for your pseudo-knowledge about the Church. Play fair. Inform yourself about what you are opposing.

Explain and prove what you ascert. You have not. I don’t care what your catechism says. It means nothing. It contradicts Scriptures. It expounds upon Catholic doctrine and dogmas. It does not reflect God’s inherant word. It means nothing to me and nothing to Christians who believe in and worship the one soverign God.

 

[Sellers1]

Unless I am reading another thread, it appears to me that I am not the only one saying that Mary remained a virgin.

The burden of proof rests on you brother.

Scripture backs what I believe. It doesn’t back you, sorry.

You are rejecting 2000 years of teaching - even teaching that your protestant reformers held to.

Oh really?? You mean Anglicans believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

So try to convince me otherwise. Your arguments are not convincing at all. In fact, you give no basis for your position other than the use of the word “until” which has been demonstrated to you, through scripture, that the word lends itself to other interpretations.

You haven’t shown that. Why do you sit there in front of your screen and lie like that?

My challenge to you was to prove the link and the meaning of “full of grace” to be other than what has been suggested in the paper. If you know the bible as well as you say you do, then you should have a satisfactory answer that clearly refutes the claims put forward. Yet you shy away from the challenge:blush:

My Bible doesn’t say “full of grace”. It says “highly favoured”. You prove nothing once again. Get off yourself please.

 

[dpgreen]

Nice try you cop out.

I’m actually a Catholic Christian not a cop out. Perhaps your tone is affecting your ability to read what has been put forward. Clearly I am not copping out of anything. It would appear that you are.

 

[dpgreen]

Sellers1

1. Please prove that scripture supports your position.
2. Anglicans believing in the Immaculate Conception & Assumption? It is irrelevant if they do or not to me. What is relevant is that the early church did. So what I was putting to you is that since the beginning of the Church, these dogmas were accepted as truth. If the Anglicans or the Calathumpians want to assert something else, then so be it. Truth is not a matter of opinions.
3. Show me where I lied please.
4. If your bible says “Highly favoured one”, then, as I suggested, it has a rendering not faithful to the ancient text. Full of grace comes from the original text. Do some research and you may find that your modern translation has done an injustice to interpreting scripture in light of the early church’s understanding.
5. Get off yourself??? Charming.

Oh, by the way, it is the INERRANT word of God not the inherant word of God. Inerrant means that it does not err.

 

[guanophore]

Scripture backs what I believe. It doesn’t back you, sorry.

Of course your perception of the Scriptures backs your theology. It is called eisogesis. You read into it what you believe it to mean, then disregard anything that does not confirm your presuppositions.

You are rejecting 2000 years of teaching - even teaching that your protestant reformers held to.

All the reformers accepted the Marian doctrines of the Apostolic Church.

Oh really?? You mean Anglicans believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

All modern Protestants have rejected, to a greater or lesser degree, both the Apostolic Teachings, and that of their spiritual ancestors. Each generation departs a little bit more than the last.

So try to convince me otherwise. Your arguments are not convincing at all. In fact, you give no basis for your position other than the use of the word “until” which has been demonstrated to you, through scripture, that the word lends itself to other interpretations.

I submit that it is impossible to convince a person of anything, when they refuse to look at the evidence. At some point, when you reach more spiritual maturity, you may be willing to consider viewpoints other than your own. Doing this will not prevent you from clinging to what you believe, but it will enable you to have a scholarly discussion.

You haven’t shown that. Why do you sit there in front of your screen and lie like that?

You have been told that this language and attitude are considered disrespectful here. The fact that you persist reflects the attitude of your heart.

My Bible doesn’t say “full of grace”. It says “highly favoured”. You prove nothing once again.

Articles of faith are not subject to “proof”. Otherwise they would not be termed this way. However, when you are ready for an intellectual challenge, take a look at the Gk,. word that is translated this way. I think you will find that it is a unique word.

Get off yourself please.

Advice I hope that you will have the humility to take yourself, before you end up being banned from here for discourtesy and other violations of forum rules.

1. Get off yourself??? Charming.

Oh, by the way, it is the INERRANT word of God not the inherant word of God. Inerrant means that it does not err.

He does not spell or construct sentences well. We may be dealing with a lack of education as well as lack of maturity.

 

[guanophore]

Explain and prove what you ascert. You have not. I don’t care what your catechism says. It means nothing.

Well, Sellers, basically what you have done is walled yourself in, or created one of those “safe rooms” and locked yourself inside it. If you were not afraid, you would be willing to look at what the Catholic Church really believes and teaches. I think deep down you know that what you have been told is wrong. Why else would you be here? You can say it “means nothing”, but your actions are speaking louder than your words. People don’t react to things that “mean nothing”. It means enough so that you feel the need to come here and disparage it, not even having the intellectual honesty to explore it’s contents! This is the sign of an emotional decision.

It contradicts Scriptures. It expounds upon Catholic doctrine and dogmas. It does not reflect God’s inherant word. It means nothing to me and nothing to Christians who believe in and worship the one soverign God.

Let’s see, you claim that it means nothing, yet you seem disturbed by what it means.

Very curious.

No, Sellers, there is nothing in Catholic Teaching that contradicts the Scripture. They come from the same Source, so they cannot contradict. What is contradictory is your perceptions of them both.

You seem very hostile toward Catholicism, and in this post you imply that Catholics do not believe in and worship the One Sovereign God. People don’t get hostile about things that “mean nothing”.

 

[jpaul1953]

Explain and prove what you ascert. You have not. I don’t care what your catechism says. It means nothing. It contradicts Scriptures. It expounds upon Catholic doctrine and dogmas. It does not reflect God’s inherant word. It means nothing to me and nothing to Christians who believe in and worship the one soverign God.

Sellers1,

The Cathechism doesn’t contradict Scripture. The Cathechism contradicts your anti- Catholic interptretation of Scripture. How dare you think, with all your sarcasm (protest of the weak) and animosity that you have been granted the rite of passage to tell anyone, including yourself, the infallibly perfect and concise understanding of Scripture that you believe you own.

Are we all missing something here, Sellers. Do you believe yourself to be the Second Coming or are you a human being like the rest of us just with an arrogance that will not permit you to see anything but your side.

Oh, I just figured it out. You are scheming to become the new Archie Bunker if a new series ever evolves. No buddy, but no buddy knows more than Archie Bunker. So get in line with the rest of the self-proclaimed best.

The dust has fallen from my sandals!

jpaul1953

 

[chaunceygardner]

Okay, I want to ask this question at RCIA, but I have been quiet so far.* I don’t want this to turn into a free for all as my question about James did in the other thread.* So please keep the responses specific to the question if we can.I understand and have faith that Mary was a virgin mother to Jesus.* The church teaches us that she remained a virgin and this seems very important to the church.* I am not disagreeing with this, just trying to understand more clearly.The questions are…Where in the scripture does it imply that she remained a virgin throughout her life? Why is it so important that she have remained so?

You ask some good questions that many people have pondered over the centuries.* Many years ago when I was a “newer” Catholic I had the same questions, especially when I noted all the Holy Days dedicated to Mary.* I thought the emphasis was misplaced.* I sought out a priest to discuss my questions with and did my own reading about it.* What I learned didn’t really answer all my questions, but it did help my understanding of the reasons for the emphasis.

Others have quoted specific scripture that has been interpreted to back up the belief that Mary was always a virgin, was Immaculate.* We know that this was an issue the church struggled with for a long time, and the official view of Mary was constructed over 2000 years, with the bodily Assumption becoming official doctrine just 59 years ago.
Her status is important due to her position as the mother of God incarnate (Jesus).* Many of the early disciples did not consider Jesus to be divine at birth, but that He became so at a later time, such as at His baptism by John.* When the church agreed on the idea of the eternal divinity of Jesus, then they also had to do something with May, for how could an everyday Jewish girl in Galilee be the mother of our Lord unless she was really special?* So that’s how the emphasis on Mary developed.
Does our worship of Mary obscure our focus on Jesus and the Father?* It seems that it does for some.* Mary should be honored because she was blessed to be chosen as the mother of Jesus.* Beyond that, is all the rest that has been added about her since New Testament Days necessary to our faith or our salvation?* Probably not.* If it were necessary, the earliest disciples, such as Paul, would have emphasized Mary more than they did.* So scriptural authority for most of what we claim for Mary is thin, simply because it was not important to spreading the Gospel of Jesus.Does it hurt to adore Mary?* Probably not, as long as it doesn’t detract us from the true focus on Jesus as the Son of God and the Redeemer of humanity.But I am sure others will find fault with that position.* I missed your other thread, but I am assuming from your comment that you asked a question about James, the brother of Jesus.* That too will get a lot of people going.My suggestion is that you talk to a priest or catechist about your feelings and questions.* I feel fairly certain they will have heard the same questions many times before.* Good luck and God Bless.

 

[dpgreen]

“Others have quoted specific scripture that has been interpreted to back up the belief that Mary was always a virgin, was Immaculate.* We know that this was an issue the church struggled with for a long time, and the official view of Mary was constructed over 2000 years, with the bodily Assumption becoming official doctrine just 59 years ago.”

Dear oh dear. If you are going to be an advocate for Catholic teaching, please ensure that you give the official teaching. The official teachings on Mary were NOT CONSTRUCTED over 2000 years ago. When a dogma is defined by the Church it does not indicate that the belief came into existence that year of the definition. For example, the dogma on the Trinity was not defined until the 4th century, yet all Christians up to that time and after believed in this important dogma. Read the early Church Fathers to see that these beliefs were always held as part of apostolic teaching. Get some good orthodox Catholic teaching on these issues. There are plenty resources available and you will find that scripture as well as early church teaching confirms present day beliefs about Mary.

“Her status is important due to her position as the mother of God incarnate (Jesus).* Many of the early disciples did not consider Jesus to be divine at birth, but that He became so at a later time, such as at His baptism by John.* When the church agreed on the idea of the eternal divinity of Jesus, then they also had to do something with May, for how could an everyday Jewish girl in Galilee be the mother of our Lord unless she was really special?* So that’s how the emphasis on Mary developed.”

This is nonsense. Please cite your sources otherwise you would have me believe that you are joking.

“Does our worship of Mary obscure our focus on Jesus and the Father?”

Catholics do not worship Mary but honor her.

“Beyond that, is all the rest that has been added about her since New Testament Days necessary to our faith or our salvation?* Probably not.* If it were necessary, the earliest disciples, such as Paul, would have emphasized Mary more than they did.*”

Where on earth are you getting your theology from? So, if Paul emphasized Mary, then that is proof positive that the Marion beliefs are correct? Strange logic. I actually believe that these beliefs are an integral part of our salvation history. It was because of Mary’s “yes” that we can have salvation. God could have chosen any means He wanted to bring us salvation, yet He chose a humble woman. I wonder how the pages of history would read if Mary said no to the angel.

I do not mean to offend, however, you need to be shown that what you have posted is clearly NOT Catholic teaching. Just because Fr Chuck or Sister Betty told you does not make it true. They are many wolves among us.

 

[jpaul1953]

You ask some good questions that many people have pondered over the centuries.* Many years ago when I was a “newer” Catholic I had the same questions, especially when I noted all the Holy Days dedicated to Mary.* I thought the emphasis was misplaced.* I sought out a priest to discuss my questions with and did my own reading about it.* What I learned didn’t really answer all my questions, but it did help my understanding of the reasons for the emphasis.

Others have quoted specific scripture that has been interpreted to back up the belief that Mary was always a virgin, was Immaculate.* We know that this was an issue the church struggled with for a long time, and the official view of Mary was constructed over 2000 years, with the bodily Assumption becoming official doctrine just 59 years ago.
Her status is important due to her position as the mother of God incarnate (Jesus).* Many of the early disciples did not consider Jesus to be divine at birth, but that He became so at a later time, such as at His baptism by John.* When the church agreed on the idea of the eternal divinity of Jesus, then they also had to do something with May, for how could an everyday Jewish girl in Galilee be the mother of our Lord unless she was really special?* So that’s how the emphasis on Mary developed.
Does our worship of Mary obscure our focus on Jesus and the Father?* It seems that it does for some.* Mary should be honored because she was blessed to be chosen as the mother of Jesus.* Beyond that, is all the rest that has been added about her since New Testament Days necessary to our faith or our salvation?* Probably not.* If it were necessary, the earliest disciples, such as Paul, would have emphasized Mary more than they did.* So scriptural authority for most of what we claim for Mary is thin, simply because it was not important to spreading the Gospel of Jesus.Does it hurt to adore Mary?* Probably not, as long as it doesn’t detract us from the true focus on Jesus as the Son of God and the Redeemer of humanity.But I am sure others will find fault with that position.* I missed your other thread, but I am assuming from your comment that you asked a question about James, the brother of Jesus.* That too will get a lot of people going.My suggestion is that you talk to a priest or catechist about your feelings and questions.* I feel fairly certain they will have heard the same questions many times before.* Good luck and God Bless.

Chauncey Cardner,

You state you are Catholic. If you are then you need some help in this area just as who you responded to. Your answer is Protestant. Your answer is doubt. And, yes, your answer is an uninformed response that only feeds more disillusionment.

You respond to the unsure to ‘Go talk to a priest or a cathechist’. Are you saying they both hold the same knowledge? Many priests will direct you to the Church’s founding Fathers, who all believed or to defined clarity in the Cathechism. Many catechists know no more or less than the ‘asker of the question’. They are good people who are sometimes learning as they go, and that 's okay because they care to learn. There are, of course, many very skilled catechists, but they do not have signs on themselves stating such.

If you are true, please be careful not to confuse the already confused. The Church, as you put it, drummed up the idea to help build up the divinity of Christ, to make Christ appear to be Christ!! Well, if that’s the truth then we’ve all been lied to. The Church is not the Church. Our Dogma is a string of things put together as the Church grew in in doubt, needing answers to make the Church look like the Church.

There are many places one can get info on the Blessed Mother, ever Virgin. The Church is the Church because Christ made it the Church with the knowledge and authority. You think he chose Simon, son of bar Jonah, because Simon was just the best Jesus had at the time. Jesus picked him from the start as He did all His 12 and as He did with Paul.

The Church speaks for God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Church cannot lie to us because that would mean that Christ is lying to us since the Church is the BODY OF CHRIST.

Yes, the Church has had many stewards fall from grace, many of who will probably have hell to pay for it. That doesn’t mean that what the Church teaches is wrong about anything with regards to Dogma/Doctrine. The reason the Pope made it Dogma is because there was to be no more question about it.

The Reformists needed fuel for their fire to take the Church down. So they attacked all highly held beliefs of the Church to shed doubt on the Christ-given right to state these beliefs.

You as a Catholic Christian are to believe all that is Catholic, not pick and choose what you wish or believe to be Catholic. Just because it’s a Protestant’s job to shed doubt isn’t proof that the doubt is now an absolute. Remember, if they can’;t believe their own doubts, how could they remain Protestant?

We, who are Catholic on these forums, should be obligated to inform correctly about our beliefs. If you, yourself, doubt ‘Truths of the Church’ go ask an apologist on line here for the correct response or simply call up the Catholic Answers apologist line. They are there to help answer any and all questions that we are confused about.

Please don’t confuse the confused with more confusion.

Take care and may God Bless.

jpaul1953