A
AgnosTheist
Guest
sorry.
this catholic belief was new to me. and i find it quite shocking. that a person who rejects a teaching of the catholicism is rejecting jesus. tough luck for billy graham. religion sucks.
- Status
this catholic belief was new to me. and i find it quite shocking. that a person who rejects a teaching of the catholicism is rejecting jesus. tough luck for billy graham. religion sucks.
B
BrianH
Guest
Since when do we have to get permission to quote someone? That is news to me!
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
the question was for brendan.
I’m here to find the official catholic teaching on this. I was hoping for someone to post something from the cathechism or from a bishop, instead i get responses that are contradictory with each other. what is it really? should i believe you or should i believe brendan & mannyfit? what about those who voted their disagreement? what is it? its confusing.Tell me you are not just fishing for someone who doesn’t understand Catholicism to reinforce your innacurate understanding of Church teaching.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
All is forgiven. For Protestants who have never been brought up Catholic, they were brought up differently and thus their belief that Mary didn’t remain a virgin is engrave within their thinking. So out of ignorance they don’t know the truth. Many Protestant Christians who grow out the traditions of the Reformers, so it would not the fault of their own not to know the truth.
However, Catholics who find this belief difficult to grasp and reject and use it for the mere reasons of leaving the Catholic Church is a different matter because by rejecting this Truth that Mary remain a virgin before and after the birth of Jesus Christ, is to reject the Truth.
Protestantism only contain partial truths. The rejecting of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary removes the fullness of Christianity within Protestantism. Therefore, Protestantism within its reject of basic Catholic and Orthodox Christian belief only make it partial truths.
Believe it, if you find it difficult, you rely on faith. Mankind was not made to full understand the nature of God’s workings. For I tell you, my brother. The reason how Mary remain a virgin is within the workings of God himself.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
It’s not hard to find the definition of salvation in the Catechism, what the Church teaches about Mary, or the degree of vincibility to which all persons, Billy Graham included, are obligated to embrace Church teaching.the question was for brendan.
I’m here to find the official catholic teaching on this. I was hoping for someone to post something from the cathechism or from a bishop, instead i get responses that are contradictory with each other. what is it really? should i believe you or should i believe brendan & mannyfit? what about those who voted their disagreement? what is it? its confusing.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Well, if he had put Manny’s name on it. It would be fine. But he just put, “a catholic wrote this.” or if he could have further explain his reason, and address me. “Manny, if you are reading this, I hope you don’t mine me to use it.”
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
Exactly. This is an issue of authority. Catholics believe that Jesus gave the keys of heaven and earth to Peter. In other words, the Church has His authority. Building on that, the Church has been given the solemn duty to feed and tend the sheep. This means that in addition to the Church being God’s tool to dispense His Grace (ie. Baptism, Eucharist, Confession), the Church is also responsible to teach the truth. We don’t believe that Jesus abandoned the Church that He gave His authority to and that He gave this responsibility to. Enter in the Holy Spirit that guides the Church in all truth when it comes to establishing formal teaching. The Church has formally taught, under it’s authority given by God, that Mary remained a virgin. To disregard the Church’s authority is a gross disobedience and a grave sin before God. However, as you mention here, there may be extenuating circumstances. In other words, there are people are ignorant of the authority of the Church (even though it is in the Bible, people choose to interpret it in a different way). The matter is still a grave matter, but they do not have full knowledge- therefore a mortal sin is not committed when those folks reject this teaching.
The Catechism talks about Mary’s virginity on 499-507. The teaching Magesterium and authority of Dogma are listed at 85-90. Sin, including mortal sin, is discussed at 1854- 1864.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Exactly, you simpify my words… if I noted above.
M
MHalsey
Guest
If you think it’s tough luck fro BG, what about these people:
This was after Jesus’ preaching on the Bread of Life.
And this has nothing to do with “religion su**s” as you claim, but rejecting Jesus and his teaching. It is the same for those who REJECT the teaching, not those who are ignorant of it or who don’t fully understand it.
Note: I am not commenting on whether or not Billy Graham is in Heaven. That’s up to God.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
it wasnt jesus in the bible who said that mary was a perpetual virgin. this idea came from the religion of catholicism. it wasnt jesus in the bible who said that rejecting a teaching of the church is equal to rejecting him. this idea came from religion.
R
Rocky
Guest
I think Billy Graham remains here on earth, and that it is only his wife Ruth who has died.
M
MHalsey
Guest
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
We leave that to God who knows the hearts of men.
M
MHalsey
Guest
I know that. That’s what I said in my original post. I said it was up to God.
W
wanner47
Guest
By denying Mary’s perpetual virginity, you are denying the Truth of Jesus’ Church as well as its authority to proclaim the Truth. Is that enough to lose one’s salvation?
Jesus said it was.
That’s not to say that one can’t have doubts or wonder about Mary’s perpetual virginity. But one cannot deny the truth of the doctrine without also denying the authority of Jesus’ church.
Jesus said it was.
That’s not to say that one can’t have doubts or wonder about Mary’s perpetual virginity. But one cannot deny the truth of the doctrine without also denying the authority of Jesus’ church.
M
MHalsey
Guest
Not really:
Well, it looks to me as if Jesus did give his apostles authority. Also, it sounds to me as if He also founded a religion.
From Websters: Religion - b1: the service and worship of God or the supernatural. b2: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
M
MHalsey
Guest
I agree. What this really boils down to is people rejecting the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. In reality, this is no different than someone rejecting the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Exactly.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
You are right that Jesus did not say it in the Bible. He said it to His Church. Sacred Tradition is as binding and as true as Sacred Scripture. In fact, we are commanded to keep what was taught verbally as well as what was taught in writing. The failure to follow this has led to serious error for “bible only Christians”.
As far as the Bible is concerned, much of what the Church teaches about Mary (Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity) is confirmed in typeology of the Old Testament. Most “bible only Christians” don’t have a problem with typeology as applied to Jesus. They freely admit Joseph, for example, was a type of Christ. But when typeology is used with Mary and the Ark, they refuse to see the parallels. (That the Ark was made of the purest gold, that no one except the High priest could touch it, that it carried the Word of God, etc).
C
Crumpy
Guest
I voted YES and AGREE.
Surely, our natural senses make us question why this is important, no matter what the answer is. To me, that is the starting point, because I just have to know why this makes a difference, in the first place.
An important point to consider is that Isaiah’s prophecy says that a young woman or virgin shall conceive the Messiah:
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
We have some insight and a problem. Some say the original Hebrew word means ‘young woman’ not necessarily a virgin. But, it seems that Catholics for sure have taken the word to be “virgin.”
I’m not sure how this verse is fulfilled, with respect to naming him “Immanuel.”
I tend to agree with the scholarly and traditional Catholic position, that Mary was a virgin. Notice that the verse says that virgin shall bear a child, so Mary was a virgin at the time she bore the infant Jesus.
And, so , it is no mental leap to say that she was a virgin after, since conception and childbirth did not change her status of being a virgin.
OK, but why does that make a difference? ta da, this is it, for me: **Mary being a virgin before, during, and after she gave birth to Jesus fulfills the “sign” that she is the virgin that bore the Messiah – Jesus is the Messiah. She fulfills the scripture, and the scripture must be fulfilled. It’s not much of a sign, and I don’t think it’s a sign at all, that a young woman will bear a child. It stands out if a virgin bears a child. **
The prophecy says that she shall name him Immanuel. I don’t know how that is fulfilled in Mary. Right now, that’s harder for me to explain than the virginity part.
Surely, our natural senses make us question why this is important, no matter what the answer is. To me, that is the starting point, because I just have to know why this makes a difference, in the first place.
An important point to consider is that Isaiah’s prophecy says that a young woman or virgin shall conceive the Messiah:
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
We have some insight and a problem. Some say the original Hebrew word means ‘young woman’ not necessarily a virgin. But, it seems that Catholics for sure have taken the word to be “virgin.”
I’m not sure how this verse is fulfilled, with respect to naming him “Immanuel.”
I tend to agree with the scholarly and traditional Catholic position, that Mary was a virgin. Notice that the verse says that virgin shall bear a child, so Mary was a virgin at the time she bore the infant Jesus.
And, so , it is no mental leap to say that she was a virgin after, since conception and childbirth did not change her status of being a virgin.
OK, but why does that make a difference? ta da, this is it, for me: **Mary being a virgin before, during, and after she gave birth to Jesus fulfills the “sign” that she is the virgin that bore the Messiah – Jesus is the Messiah. She fulfills the scripture, and the scripture must be fulfilled. It’s not much of a sign, and I don’t think it’s a sign at all, that a young woman will bear a child. It stands out if a virgin bears a child. **
The prophecy says that she shall name him Immanuel. I don’t know how that is fulfilled in Mary. Right now, that’s harder for me to explain than the virginity part.
- Status