perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Kliska]

but, it is important enough to you to keep you from full communion with RCs.

you claim that the RCC cannot know that the PV, the IC and the Assumption are true. therefore, it makes no sense to require belief in them.

that also can be said of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and every other theological doctrine given us by and through Christ.

No, what I’m saying is that the RCC/ECC has now stepped past the gospel of Jesus and what I have to believe about it and Him; Who He is, what He has done, etc… and has now made something a salvational issue that was not originally a salvational issue. Even if you want to look at church history; take the Ethiopian that Philip talked with and baptized, take what happened on Pentecost. There was no order for them to agree with all things about Mary, because the focus was on Jesus.

The reason I don’t separate over this issue is that the Assumption of Mary is not, and cannot be construed as a salvational issue, except now it is according to the RCC/ECC, and that means salvation now hinges on someone other than God and Christ. * I could consciously go through the CCC and believe and agree with every bit of it except the Assumption of Mary and be denied entry into the RCC/ECC.* I don’t see how that is historical or biblical. I’m sharing it because it is something that is confusing to me, and an example, IMO, as to what Lewis was referring to as the “Jungle” of Catholicism.

 

[eddie_too]

kliska,

Jesus is the Truth. however, there is more to Jesus than any of us can fully understand.

there is more to the truth than any non-divine human being can understand.

the Church must remain faithful to the teachings it received from Jesus and His apostles and their successors. Jesus established His authority in His Church by creating a magisterium. if that magisterium failed in its task, there is no entity with religious authority in the Church and in the world, and Jesus has failed.

 

[stewstew03]

Jesus says to us that He is Truth.
…

But there needs to be a foundation before you get to Jesus.

Who is Jesus?
What is the Gospel?
What is Truth?

And who can tell us these things? Paul’s answer is the Church.

And as John Calvin explains in his commentary:

The reason why the Church is called the ‘pillar of truth’ is, that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known his truth; but he employs pastors, whom he has appointed for that purpose. … [She is also] called ‘the pillar of truth’ because the office of administering doctrine, which God has placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men.

 

[Kliska]

But there needs to be a foundation before you get to Jesus.

Who is Jesus?
What is the Gospel?
What is Truth?

Jesus is the foundation. Again, I could answer all of these things in the same manner a Catholic would and still not be received into the RCC/ECC. That’s a huge issue. We can be totally agreed on the gospel and Jesus and that He is the Truth, yet still be divided, and it’s not my peeps doing that dividing, but that is where a lot of the anti-Catholic feeling stems from, IMO. Once more, Lewis and his “Jungle” comment.

And as John Calvin explains in his commentary:

The reason why the Church is called the ‘pillar of truth’ is, that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known his truth; but he employs pastors, whom he has appointed for that purpose. … [She is also] called ‘the pillar of truth’ because the office of administering doctrine, which God has placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men.

I’m not a Calvinist… in fact I probably have more of a beef with Calvin than I do with any Catholic. lol

 

[stewstew03]

Jesus is the foundation.
…

Jesus is THE foundation, but neither you nor I walked with Jesus, so He left us the Church. And, as Paul explains, she is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

 

[eddie_too]

the Marian doctrines are true expressions of the truth that is Jesus. the truth that is Jesus cannot be limited to only some of the things that are true about Jesus, His life, His teachings, His death, His Resurrection, His Ascension, His Gospel, His mission, His purpose, His Mother and all that such things contain.

doctrine develops. it develops because if it does not, it fails in its purpose. its purpose being to assist souls on their journey to heaven and to assist souls in avoiding hell.

a christian doctrine every christian (i think), even the mormons, accepts is that salvation is through Jesus. accept that and a person has a pretty good chance of getting to heaven.

yet, tyhat doctrine, that salvation is through Jesus does not represent the fullness of truth. it is one aspect of truth, as are the other doctrines of the christian faith.

it is a serious error to pick and choose what doctrines might be sufficient for salvation, what doctrines are required for salvation and what doctrines can be dismissed as unnecessary for salvation.

while one cannot rightly oppose the faith taught by the magisterium established by Jesus, hypothetically, righteous opposition would require an intellectual exercise that addresses all of the doctrines and all of the relationships among those doctrines and all of the ramifications for the faithful of each of those doctrines.

none of the doctrines of the RCC exist in a vacuum. they were developed by thousands of people, some who were saints, all of whom had spent years of study about the
the doctrine(s). this process of doctrinal development began immediately on the first Pentecost Sunday and has proceeded under the influence of the Holy Spirit for nearly 2,000 years.

i realize you and all protestants, as well as non-christians should it occur to them, feel free and justified in ignoring the efforts of these thousands, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of these men and women who gave much of their lives to studying and praying about the meanings of these doctrines (kind of like Mary keeping these interesting developments she observed in her Son’s life in her heart). i know that you and the rest feel free and justified in rejecting the authority of the magisterium created by Christ to provide authority within His Church.

i guess my objection to the non-catholics rejecting (in my opinion cavalierly rejecting) (he RCC as possessing the fullnes of the faith given us by Jesus is that the reasoning process and knowledge they demonstrate when objecting lacks much information and logic required to adequately grasp what the RCC is teaching.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Jesus says to us that He is Truth. We are told how to become a member of Christ Himself,

Where, precisely, do you propose this instruction to be?

anyone that does that has Truth because they have, and are a part of, Christ. You may be a hand, and I may be a foot, but we are all Christ and are all united in the Truth of Him.

How much of that Truth?
You see, that’s precisely the point.
Catholics believe that we need to be united in ALL Truth.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth …

Mt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

I fully understand that isn’t the teaching of the RCC/ECC but that is my view.

Your proposal is not Christ’s teaching. But, hey, so long as it’s YOUR view …

Did you have any comment on my marriage analogy in #705?

 

[Lochias]

No, what I’m saying is that the RCC/ECC has now stepped past the gospel of Jesus and what I have to believe about it and Him; Who He is, what He has done, etc… and has now made something a salvational issue that was not originally a salvational issue. Even if you want to look at church history; take the Ethiopian that Philip talked with and baptized, take what happened on Pentecost. There was no order for them to agree with all things about Mary, because the focus was on Jesus.

The reason I don’t separate over this issue is that the Assumption of Mary is not, and cannot be construed as a salvational issue, except now it is according to the RCC/ECC, and that means salvation now hinges on someone other than God and Christ. * I could consciously go through the CCC and believe and agree with every bit of it except the Assumption of Mary and be denied entry into the RCC/ECC.* I don’t see how that is historical or biblical. I’m sharing it because it is something that is confusing to me, and an example, IMO, as to what Lewis was referring to as the “Jungle” of Catholicism.

If you only believe in things that don’t “step past the Gospel”, as you put it, you couldn’t be Christian. You’d have to deny the very concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for the Trinity is never explicitly explained in Scripture. You’d also never be able to eat shellfish, you’d have to have your male children circumcised no matter what, and have to avoid contact with everyone for seven days if you became sick with various diseases.

You’ve already “stepped past the Gospel” just by being Christian, Kliska.

 

[Kliska]

i guess my objection to the non-catholics rejecting (in my opinion cavalierly rejecting) (he RCC as possessing the fullnes of the faith given us by Jesus is that the reasoning process and knowledge they demonstrate when objecting lacks much information and logic required to adequately grasp what the RCC is teaching.

I apologize if my discussions on these issues seems “cavalier” to you, I can assure you they are not. The “division” of the body of Christ and matters of salvation are extraordinarily important. I can also say that it seems a bit insulting to say that protestants are not Catholic because we are ignorant (“lacks much information”) and are illogical (“lacks logic”) so as to not be able to grasp what the RCC is teaching. Most of us grasp it pretty well.

I don’t believe you mean to offend, btw.

I think I’ve thrown off the subject of the thread enough and I don’t wish to attack the RCC/ECC, I was merely attempting to bring out a perspective on these issues surrounding Marian teachings, and how they relate to salvation in the eyes of the RCC/ECC.

 

[eddie_too]

kliska,

fair enough. and, my reference to cavalierly rejecting was primarily a reference to the fact that the volume of information available to understand RCC doctrines is, realistically, beyond the comprehension of most if not all of us finite human beings. i admit that it could only be a cavalier rejection if they knew how much they did not know.

as an aside, that is one reason so many revered benedict the XVI. his command of the theology underlying RC doctrines was far beyond that of almost any of his contemporaries.

he probably wrote more books on theology than most of us have ever read.

that is why i injudiciously wrote cavilierly. i apologize for it.

i know that most of my fellow RCs also have little (relative to the amount available) theological knowledge in this area process.

this lack of knowledge and understanding has lent itself to a proliferation of what is sometimes called “cafeteria” catholics.

it seems that in the end it comes down to answering two questions. 1) did Christ establish an authoratative magisterium? 2) if you answer yes to the first question, is that magisterium still in the world.

if you answer no to the first question, the necessary conclusion would be that Christ established a free-for-all where all opinions are equal. and, the necessary conclusion to that conclusion would be that no one can claim to know the truth. and, a final conclusion results, if no one can know the truth, then Jesus is certainly not the truth because Jesus made Himself know to us.

i do sympathize with the idea that the faith can be reduced to believing in Jesus as your savior. however, the rational consequence of simplifying Jesus and His gospel to that extent would be an insatiable hunger to know more about this savior; and, that is from where the doctrinal developments promoted and promulgated by the RCC receive their impetus, an insatiable hunger to immerse oneself in the Truth that is Jesus.

 

[zz912]

But that’s the point; there are issues here that “outsiders” can see that are extraordinarily important. The question becomes; if I were at Pentecost and heard Peter preach, what was he preaching? He was preaching and extolling Jesus Christ. Those that believed what he was preaching joined the ranks of the church that very day and were baptized that very day. But today that couldn’t happen. Someone would have to go through RCIA and agree to all the dogmatic teachings of the magisterium and the Popes through the whole history of the Catholic church, including things that don’t have to do with the gospel message directly.

Again, in effect, the RCC/ECC has now made the assumption of Mary a defining factor of who is and is not a part of the church, hence affecting their salvation (in the eyes of the RCC/ECC).

Your example ignores that many times in the NT, we see people who later rejected a teaching of the Church, and were expelled and excommunicated. So the Church at that time still required full assent to everything in the New Covenant. You couldn’t pick and choose.

Today the Church has decided that it is best for people to make a full profession of faith and be fully instructed before being allowed entrance into the New Covenant. As Scripture says, it is worse for them if they are admitted into the Church, and then later reject the Church, than if they had never joined the Church.

 

[Kliska]

Your example ignores that many times in the NT, we see people who later rejected a teaching of the Church, and were expelled and excommunicated. So the Church at that time still required full assent to everything in the New Covenant. You couldn’t pick and choose.

Verses?

Today the Church has decided that it is best for people to make a full profession of faith and be fully instructed before being allowed entrance into the New Covenant. As Scripture says, it is worse for them if they are admitted into the Church, and then later reject the Church, than if they had never joined the Church.

Here I’m assuming you are referring to coming to the knowledge of the Truth; which is biblically the gospel of Christ, it didn’t have to do with organizational church membership. If you have specific verses about the church, do list them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Verses?

Off the top of my head:

Acts 5:1-11
5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

 

[Kliska]

Acts 5:1-11
5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira,

The Holy Spirit killed 'em because they lied to Him. This doesn’t have to do with the church, but with our relationship with the Holy Spirit in our lives.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

This is about church discipline. We’ve been explicitly taught by God about sexual sin, and Paul is clear elsewhere about not judging in regard to salvation, but rather driving away a wayward sheep who might lead others into committing wrong actions. We all agree on that.

 

[stewstew03]

The Holy Spirit killed 'em because they lied to Him. This doesn’t have to do with the church, but with our relationship with the Holy Spirit in our lives.
…

Yes, they (Ananias & Sapphira) were dealing with the Church (but they thought they were dealing with men). Turns out God was protecting the Church…

 

[eddie_too]

i thought they lied to peter.

who questioned them? that is the person to whom they lied.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, they (Ananias & Sapphira) were dealing with the Church (but they thought they were dealing with men). Turns out God was protecting the Church…

i thought they lied to peter.

who questioned them? that is the person to whom they lied.

Acts 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. 6 The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.

7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” 10 And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

 

[stewstew03]

Kliska:
Not sure why you repeated the verse…?

 

[eddie_too]

i think to demonstrate that ananias’ problem was with God and not with the Church.

i interpret the passages a little differently. i do not interpret it totally literally. i do not question whether peter made the comment. i disagree on why and what peter intended to communicate with the comment. i think peter’s point is that lying to the magisterium is the same as lying to God.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Acts 5:1 But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? 4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. 6 The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.

7 Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” 10 And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

Yep. Isn’t it funny, lying to Peter was equated to lying to the Holy Spirit!

Just the same way that persecuting the Church was equated to persecuting Jesus!

God identifies with His Church!!!