Split: Another Marian Debate

[AlegreFe]

-]
5/-] 4. I think i don’t have to spell out what “know”

No you don’t.

-]
6/-] 5. to suggest that she remained a virgin suggest that their is something wrong about sex

You might think there’s something wrong about sex.

You could not be more wrong about this one. If you only knew about Pope John Paul II’s “Wednesday Audience” talks on “Theology of the Body!”

Here is one on Man and Woman: A Mutual Gift for Each Other.

Here’s another one; Man Enters the World as a Subject of Truth and Love

There’s plenty more too! Believe me when I say that the Catholic Church has no “hang ups” about sex when done so within the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony.

Here is something from Christopher West on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body

 

[AlegreFe]

rr1213:

To paraphrase George Orwel, being Catholic means “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Church discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white.”

AlegreFe:

Oh come on, you can’t do better than George Orwel? His words hold the same weight in the Catholic Church as your words do. He had clear disregard for any kind of authority. So this is nonsense to me.

AlegreFe
I believe that St. Ignatius of Loyola is the orginator of the black and white quote. I’m sure you would agree that he does some **“weight” **in the Catholic Church.

Hmm, I didn’t know that and obviously neither did rr1213. Do you have a link to this?

And yes, St. Ignatius of Loyola holds some weight in the Catholic Church.

 

[Eden]

I honor her similarly to how I honor my deceased mother, I think about her and smile about the blessings she brought forth in my life.

He is worthy to be sought.

It’s interesting that you respond to Luke 1:48 “generations shall call me blessed” by equating the Mother of God to the mother of Simon (AKA myfavoritmartin). I think that Luke 1:48 is referring to something more profound than smiling about someone.

 

[Eden]

The Trinity is pretty straight forward as I posted above. There is also the references to “the Spirit of the Lord” and “I and the Father are one, whomsoever has seen me has seen the father.” I’m sure that there is more such references that I’m missing, doing this off the top of my head prior to Church.

In contrast, there is nothing in the bible that supports, or contradicts, the assumption of Mary. The question of Mary remaining ever Virgin is pretty much refuted by Scripture, although enough ambiguity remains that you can’t irrefutably prove it one way or the other. The IC is least supported by Scripture. The typeology references are interesting, but don’t directly say anything in support of a doctrine that is contrary to other teachings of Scripture.

It’s straightforward to you. It’s straightforward to me. Now you have a glimmer of insight into how Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture work together with the fullness of the faith. The Real Presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succession and the institution of the Papacy are just as straightforward for me when I read the Bible. But because your faith tradition does not believe in these teachings, you are able to read the same passages that I am and not “see it”. If the doctrine of the Trinity were straightforward in the Bible, as you insist it is, we would have had never seen Modalism, Monarchianism, Patripassianism, or Sabellianism which has been revived again today in the teachings of the United Pentecostal Church.

 

[runandsew]

Ahem, that’s “your” opinion.

There is no apostolic succession. In order to be an apostle one had to see Jesus Christ, or know someone who did. Your Pope fails on both counts. The things you allude to in your post are a) completely misinterpreted and b) feeding sheep is a command given to pastors, teachers and elders throughout the church age…seeing as apostles are no longer around. According to Scripture. God bless you too.

The Bishops are the successors to the Apostles; but they are not Apostles themselves. You are right though in saying the Apostle had to see Jesus Christ, or know someone who did. The Catholic Church does not teach that the successors to the Apostles are also Apostles. Being a successor the the Apostle means that there were hands laid on that person, and that chain of laying on hands started with the Apostles, and continue to this day.
Surely you have read the track on Apostolic Succession on the Catholic Answers Web site.
The early church fathers are very strong in their opinion that it is only through the apostolic succession that the correct teaching of the church was passed down. That is how they countered all the heresies, by writing with authority because they were in the apostolic line.
If you haven’t read the fathers, there are several sites that offer their writings, but if you have read them and really don’t care what they wrote, then I guess nothing we write to you will change your mind.
New Advent Church Fathers
CCEL Church Fathers
Crosswalk Church Fathers
Early Christian writers

 

[maryj]

First off everone read Matt 1:24-25
"Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angle of the
lord commanded him and took to him is wife

and did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn Son
And he called his name Jesus"

here is what i think about this verse

1. Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus.
   2 After the birth why would mary need to remaim a virgin?
   3 Verse 25 states that that jesus was her firstborn.
   4 since the text says firstborn , the "first"part of firstborn
   implys that their was a second . else the text would have said she brought forth her only child.
2. I think i don’t have to spell out what “know”
3. to suggest that she remained a virgin suggest that their is something wrong about sex

Honest question for you…Did someone teach you this or is this your own conjecture, or a compilation of ideas learned from others??IMO this is what happens when you have no teaching authority to go by. This is in no way an attack on you, I just am curious how some attain ideas like this.

 

[rr1213]

I’ll be glad to put the scripture verse right here. I love putting scripture verses here where you can read it. I’ll even put protestant versions here for you to read and clearly see that Jesus never said, “John, here is your mother” or “John, behold your mother.”

Please read post 251 above. Do you honestly contend that this disciple was not John?

 

[rr1213]

And if with your own eyes you see that the Scripture says “white”, yet the Catholic Church teaches that the Scripture actually says “black” will you believe it to be white or black?

I’d still like to see Catholic posters honestly answer this question…“yes” or “no”?

 

[Stephen_C]

I’d still like to see Catholic posters honestly answer this question…“yes” or “no”?

Why should we Catholic’s need to answer this? It is setup on the premise that we are all lemmings blindly following. I assure you my eyes are wide open. It was seeking truth with an open mind and heart that lead me back to the Catholic Church.

 

[rr1213]

Why should we Catholic’s need to answer this? It is setup on the premise that we are all lemmings blindly following. I assure you my eyes are wide open. It was seeking truth with an open mind and heart that lead me back to the Catholic Church.

It’s an apologetics forum. We should be able to pose scenarios and get honest responses. We get these sort of questions from Catholic posters…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And if with your own eyes you see that the Scripture says “white”, yet the Catholic Church teaches that the Scripture actually says “black” will you believe it to be white or black?

Strawman. There is no place in the Scriptures that says something “white” and that the Catholic Church teaches is “black.” (and yes, I understand you’re giving examples and not using the actual words of ‘white and black.’)

Your argument is moot.

 

[AlegreFe]

Please read post 251 above. Do you honestly contend that this disciple was not John?

At that time when Jesus was on the cross and Mary was there, John was also there. But Jesus gave His mother to all of us and that is why He did not mention the name of “John” when He said, "behold your mother."

eta… oh btw, a link sure would’ve been nice for post 251. I always put links in my posts when appropriate.

 

[Stephen_C]

It’s an apologetics forum. We should be able to pose scenarios and get honest responses. We get these sort of questions from Catholic posters…

Ok, That it is. So maybe your question should be “I interpret this passage of scripture as to Mary as meaning this…The Catholic Church believes it say’s this…Why? Do you as a catholic believe this? Why?” That would be a good aplolgetics question. Not a broad and ambiguous question like the one you posed.
There is also that thing called Tradition…We have it and you all don’t. Or at least the Catholic one. So when we site this as a part of our belief structure or as our roadmap, user guide, etc… it is rejected out of hand.

 

[rr1213]

Strawman. There is no place in the Scriptures that says something “white” and that the Catholic Church teaches is “black.” (and yes, I understand you’re giving examples and not using the actual words of ‘white and black.’)

Your argument is moot.

Inapposite perhaps, although I would contend otherwise, but not moot.

 

[rr1213]

eta… oh btw, a link sure would’ve been nice for post 251. I always put links in my posts when appropriate.

I cited to the BIBLE, why should I need to put in a link for that? Again, are you denying that the “disciple whom Jesus loved” refers to John?

 

[rr1213]

At that time when Jesus was on the cross and Mary was there, John was also there. But Jesus gave His mother to all of us and that is why He did not mention the name of “John” when He said, "behold your mother."

That’s my point. The passage does not say that Jesus gave Mary to “all of us”. Tell me where it says that. It doesn’t. This is a Catholic gloss on the passage.

 

[AlegreFe]

rr1213:

And if with your own eyes you see that the Scripture says “white”, yet the Catholic Church teaches that the Scripture actually says “black” will you believe it to be white or black

? I’d still like to see Catholic posters honestly answer this question…“yes” or “no”?

One, If you carefully read your own question you would know that it is not a “yes or no” question. And two, I already answered this question.

Should I laugh? I hope you’re just being facetious

Okay, all kidding aside. This really is a dead question in which you are taking great pleasure I am sure. There is no way that the Church will ever say that something is black if indeed it is white. That should be a sufficient answer for you.

Only you think that something is white and the Church is saying that it is black. If the Church is saying that something is black and you think it is white then you are wrong. It’s as simple as that. You don’t have any kind of authority so you only think of your own opinion and we all know that scripture should not be of our own interpretation.

19 And so we have the prophetic word
confirmed, which you do well to heed as
a light that shines in a dark place, until
the day dawns and the morning star rises
in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy
of Scripture is of any private
interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of
man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as
they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Pet 1:19-21 (NKJV)

We need a Magisterium to teach us.
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him
reading the prophet Isaiah, and said,
“Do you understand what you are
reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless
someone guides me?” And he asked
Philip to come up and sit with him.
Acts 8:30-31 (NKJV)

 

[AlegreFe]

That’s my point. The passage does not say that Jesus gave Mary to “all of us”. Tell me where it says that. It doesn’t. This is a Catholic gloss on the passage.

It doesn’t have to say it specifically. But it also does not specify “John” as to be the only one to take in the Mother of Jesus.

I know you believe in the Trinity right? It does not say anything specific about the Trinity in the bible. See, this is why we all need a Magisterium to teach and guide us. We cannot interpret scripture on our own. God gave authority to Peter first and foremost to interpret scripture for us and he passes that on to all Bishops and we have a succession of Popes also so that they can guide the Church as they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. I have no question as to what the Pope believes is the Holy Spirit because Jesus gave Peter the Keys and He gave Peter the assurance of the Holy Spirit. But if you say that you are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture I would have to ask you from where did you get your authority. And it would have to be an answer such as a particular man layed hands on you that was a successor to Peter. And you would not be able to answer that question.

 

[AlegreFe]

I cited to the BIBLE, why should I need to put in a link for that?

I’m talking about a link for post 251, not for any bible verses. I don’t remember what post 251 says, especially because it’s on a different page already when you posted this request to read post 251. Boy oh boy, I’m just asking for some courtesy that’s all.
And besides I sometimes put links to bible quotes also, not all the time but sometimes.

 

[Ruben]

Honor and veneration for our Blessed Mother is an ultimate imitation of Christ.

Lets not forget the 30 years that Jesus spent in obedience to our Blessed Mother and his adoptive father Joseph.

Who do we think we are not to imitate Christ in this same fashion?

2:51. “And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart.”

Luke 2:51