Teaching of the Catholic Church I am having trouble with...that make me doubt others

[NonDenom]

Hey NonDenom,

I take it you do not have any children? To make such an analogy is frankly absurd. I have 4 children. I was concerned when I heard my wife was pregnant with our second that I could not possibly love a child anymore than our first.

However, any parent can tell you, by the grace of God, your heart is expanded! Beyond a shadow of a doubt I love our first the same as our second, third, and fourth.

By the way. I’m a convert to the RCC. I saw what you said about holding Mary up as high as Christ. It’s funny to me at this point. Do you know anyone Catholic? Maybe you should ask them before you make absurd assumptions. (Or were you just being sarcastic?)

PS. Have you made any progress on the History of how the NT Canon was formed?

Hi
How in the world did you come up with the idea that I said you couldnt love a child as much when you have another child?
If you would go back and read my post, I said that when you have another child, you have to divide some time between the two. I have four kids and know this to be true and so does any parent
with more that one child.
I do know many Catholics as my wife was born and raised Catholic. Most of her family are still Catholic, except for her and her Brother. I got my wife into some Bible study’s and she has since saw the truth and quit the Catholic church. One thing that opened her eyes is when The Queen of Apostles church that she attended was raising money for their new community center planned a family fun night, At the joyful event they had a beer garden and Vegas style card tables, they also were auctioned of old bottles of wine and whisky. They actually encouraged people to keep drinking as it was going for a good cause. Oh well there were other things as well.
As for the NT Cannon I am still reading and researching different opinions.
In Him and Only Him.

 

[St.Eric]

NonDenom:

Hi
How in the world did you come up with the idea that I said you couldnt love a child as much when you have another child?
If you would go back and read my post, I said that when you have another child, you have to divide some time between the two. I have four kids and know this to be true and so does any parent
with more that one child.
I do know many Catholics as my wife was born and raised Catholic. Most of her family are still Catholic, except for her and her Brother. I got my wife into some Bible study’s and she has since saw the truth and quit the Catholic church. One thing that opened her eyes is when The Queen of Apostles church that she attended was raising money for their new community center planned a family fun night, At the joyful event they had a beer garden and Vegas style card tables, they also were auctioned of old bottles of wine and whisky. They actually encouraged people to keep drinking as it was going for a good cause. Oh well there were other things as well.
As for the NT Cannon I am still reading and researching different opinions.
In Him and Only Him.

I don’t see the problem here as it relates to the alcohol and gambling. Drinking and being merry is one thing, and not prohibited by scripture. Being willfully drunk is another. That is prohibited.

“And before the Lord your God, in the place which he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstlings of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to bring the tithe . . . then you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves, and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household” (Deut. 14:23-26).

“Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do” (Eccl. 9:7).

“John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, He has a demon.' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (Luke 7:33-34)

Imagine that. Christ himself accused of being a drunkard by people in a wine drinking culture. That would indicate he drank quite a bit. Thing is, some can drink a lot without being a drunkard. For others it only takes a little. It is up to the person to exercise temperence according to his ability to handle the drink.

Please save the argument that it was only grapejuice. That does not hold water. Grapejuice is only possible with refridgeration. Without it, it ferments into wine or is spoiled.

Eat, drink, be Merry!

 

[Subrosa]

Gareth:

Jesus is part of the Trinity Mary Isn’t! If Jesus is God, then praying to Jesus is the same as praying to God, often when I pray, I might spontanously address one or another, this is because the two are one and by the prescence of the Holy Spirit we exist within them…

The type of prayer shouldn’t be the same I would say…

Praying for intercession of saints, does seem to have some validity… as another poster said we all ask others to pray for us, and of one thing I am certain, Mary is a risen saint…

confusing…

Hi Gareth -

You may be misunderstanding Mary’s position in Christianity, just a bit. (Good time for a bible passage! http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif )

James 5:
16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.

Saints are people we pray to that are in heaven. Only since the onset of protestantism has the view been taken that prayer is only for worship. Christians have always used it to communicate with thier deceased loved ones and saints.

With reference to the passage I posted above, the Church makes no distinction between people alive here on earth or alive in heaven. The passage above works for both. It is that simple.

So to answer your statement above "The type of prayer shouldn’t be the same I would say… " when we pray to saints, it is a different prayer. We ask them for intercession without giving them worship. Worship is only for God. For example…

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
**

See? Intersession, not worship. Mary is most venerated among the saints.

God bless,
Subrosa

 

[Gareth]

This does make sense. But Mary as sinless, that seems to be going too far… Mary as co-mediatrix also seems to be usurping the uniqueness of Christ.

It’s a pity we’ll never know (until the end at least) what Peter and Paul would have thought about more recent doctrines like the Imaculate Conception and the Assumption.

 

[Axion]

NonDenom:

Hi
I do know many Catholics as my wife was born and raised Catholic. Most of her family are still Catholic, except for her and her Brother. I got my wife into some Bible study’s and she has since saw the truth and quit the Catholic church.

Or she has followed you onto the road of error. As many have been led off the straight way into a new gospel.

One thing that opened her eyes is when The Queen of Apostles church that she attended was raising money for their new community center planned a family fun night, At the joyful event they had a beer garden and Vegas style card tables, they also were auctioned of old bottles of wine and whisky. They actually encouraged people to keep drinking as it was going for a good cause. Oh well there were other things as well.

No doubt you and your wife would have been equally eaten up with your invented traditions 2,000 years ago. Jesus and Mary would not have been good enough for you. What partying, drinking wine - and even making more of it! I have no doubt you would have taken your self-righteous path straight off to join fellow pharisees elsewhere.

 

[wpr]

Hi
How in the world did you come up with the idea that I said you couldnt love a child as much when you have another child?

You are right in that I was not clear and my rebuttal not 1:1 against your anaolgy. I see that. However, your analogy was such that if I pray to Mary (as an intersessor) then it somehow must limit my love of Christ (time spent in prayer to Christ). My point is that the result of piety to Mary in addition to that of prayer to Christ is same as having more than 1 child. Your heart expands and your love increases for Christ!

Read and reflect on the wedding feast at Cana Mt 2:1~12. It may click for you someday. At least you may be less judgemental.

Also, within Catholocism piety varies widely. Many are close to our Holy Mother, while others are less pious in relation to her. The Church does not seek uniformity in relationship to Marian devotion, while it most definitely recommends it.

As for your wife supposedly seing the truth of the Bible once your pointed it out to her is amusing to me. You do not even know where it came from, yet you claim to be the end all to the interpretation of Scripture? How so?

Read the posting on Regeneration from start to finish and see if you are able to follow it. I suspect your knowlege of Catholic teaching is really near zero. You brought the completely sophmoric charge that “Catholics elevate Mary to the level of Christ”. You ought to at least get past Catholic bashing 101 before making some ridiculous charge that Catholics do not know the Bible.

Why don’t you try some books by Dr. Scott Hahn or maybe Steve Ray, or Robert Sungenis. You may find that some of the brightest Protestant Scholars of our day, steeped in the Scriptures ran head-on right into Catholic teaching and came home to Rome. (I think you are already a Christian brother)

Furthermore, the history of the discernment of the Canon of the Scripture is not an opinion. It is rather historical fact. One that a scholarly secular historians as well Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical can research.

That the Word of God is infallible is a truth we both share. The difference is a Catholic has a basis for this belief. A Protestant rejecting, all things Catholic, is met with a stunning leap. You either trust that which you despise, or you start over again and try to piece it together yourselves.

While we have plenty of fragments that give us great confidense in the texts and translations we have, you have no way of discerning if they were of Apostolic origen without the witness of the Catholic Church.

That which you condemn held fast to the Scriptures for 1500 years and defended them before your novel approach to Scripture was ever conceived. Your claim that the Bible is the sole source of Gospel teaching meets with the IMPOSSIBILITY of such a method for at least 1200 years after the death of Christ.

I do know many Catholics as my wife was born and raised Catholic. Most of her family are still Catholic, except for her and her Brother. I got my wife into some Bible study’s and she has since saw the truth and quit the Catholic church.

Then how on earth did you make the silly accusation that we elevate Mary to the level of Christ?

Consider with whom you debate. Please, debate St Thomas Aquinas for us and show us the error of his ways. For that matter, why not St Augustine. Or perhaps a little closer to St John the Apostle, please do debate St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Before you arrogantly leave the Church Fathers on the cutting floor, consider who witnessed to the authenticity of the Canon you rightfully love!

One thing that opened her eyes is when The Queen of Apostles church that she attended was raising money for their new community center planned a family fun night, At the joyful event they had a beer garden and Vegas style card tables, they also were auctioned of old bottles of wine and whisky.

There is no sin in this at face value. St.Eric did a nice job in defense as well.

I will say that Christ was accused as a drunkard not because he was actually smashed, but because of his radical teaching.(like Peter on Pentecost) That Christ drank, I am not argueing at all.

They actually encouraged people to keep drinking as it was going for a good cause. Oh well there were other things as well.
As for the NT Cannon I am still reading and researching different opinions.

It is not an official teaching of the Catholic Church to encourage drunkeness. However, I beleive you may overstate the situation to puff yourself up as one of greater piety than Catholics. I have a suggestion. Why not remove the beam from your own eye before attempting to remove a sliver from your brother’s.

 

[jessecd]

Within these posts, Catholic apologetics websites, Catholic books, and papers on the perpetual virginity of Mary, Calvin is often cited as believing it…yet,

Calvin’s Harmony vol 1 on Luke 1:34:
“The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God.”

The statement used to “show” Calvin’s support comes from his Calvin’s Harmony On Matt 1:25:

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

It can in context really go either way…

Anyway, I’m a Protestant leaning heavily towards Rome, and when I read several Catholic pieces about this and saw Calvin cited, I got excited…now though, after a little more reading, that subsided…
I thought it important, from a Catholic standpoint, to clarify an argument that could undermine “our” attempts to bring Protestants into the Church.

In Christ,
Jesse

 

[mlchance]

jessecd:

Calvin’s Harmony vol 1 on Luke 1:34:
“The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God.”

Calvin, in this section of his commentary, is commenting just on Luke 1:34, stating that this one verse cannot be used to infer a premarital vow of perpetual virginity by the Virgin Mary.

Next:

jessecd:

The statement used to “show” Calvin’s support comes from his Calvin’s Harmony On Matt 1:25:

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

It can in context really go either way…

Not unless one thinks Calvin was so dim as to not recognize such a blatant contradiction in his own writings. Calvin didn’t think the Virgin Mary had made a premarital vow of perpetual virginity, but he did believe she was perpetually a virgin due to her selection by God to be the Mother of God.

In any case, what Calvin thought or didn’t think is irrelevant. The Catholic Church, not John Calvin, is the pillar of truth, and that pillar has said the Virgin Mary is Ever-Virgin.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jessecd]

If Calvin’s statements are irrelevent, how much more so are your statements?

I didn’t post the question to have it written off as irrelevent…

j

 

[St.Eric]

jessecd:

If Calvin’s statements are irrelevent, how much more so are your statements?

I didn’t post the question to have it written off as irrelevent…

j

Your question is relevant jessecd and a good one. I think sometimes folks just get a little “short” after continually answering similar objections/questions. Not your fault! Keep delving into the Church. If you are like me, the more you research the Church the more it becomes clear that this is the one that Christ established.

 

[mlchance]

jessecd:

If Calvin’s statements are irrelevent, how much more so are your statements?

Considerably less than irrelevant. I accurately explained the sections from Calvin’s commentaries that you posted. Your question was answered, not “written off as irrelevent.”

What is ultimately irrelevant are John Calvin’s opinions about Christian doctrine. John Calvin had no authority to interpret Scripture and decide doctrinal questions. The Catholic Church does. If John Calvin agrees with the Church, he is right. If he disagrees, he is wrong, and no matter how clever or cogent his arguments may appear, he remains wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

mlchance:

Considerably less than irrelevant. I accurately explained the sections from Calvin’s commentaries that you posted. Your question was answered, not “written off as irrelevent.”

What is ultimately irrelevant are John Calvin’s opinions about Christian doctrine. John Calvin had no authority to interpret Scripture and decide doctrinal questions. The Catholic Church does. If John Calvin agrees with the Church, he is right. If he disagrees, he is wrong, and no matter how clever or cogent his arguments may appear, he remains wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark,

I find your response somewhat ironic considering your “signature”; the quote from Pascal: “Two errors: too exclude reason, and to exclude all but reason.”

You probably know this, but one definition of cogent is “Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning.”

So apparently you’re willing to discount reason even while trumpeting the fact that you consider that to be an error.

Peace,
Richard

 

[jim1130]

Kendy:

I also don’t get this “full of grace” thing the way the RCC interprets it. Does that mean that she is not capable of sinning? That she never sinned? I think this was part of another thread?
Kendy

Would you believe that Mary is full of grace if said by the Archangel Gabriel:

Luke 1:28. “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 1:29. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 1:30. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.”

I think, for many non-Catholics, it seems normal that Mary and Joseph would have relations, but from reading many of these posts I think you can begin to understand why we hold that Mary remained ever virgin.

For me, in practical ways, Mary, knowing she was selected by God, chose to continue to devote her entire life to God, thereby forgoing that of which many people would assume occur in marital relationships. She knew that she was the spouse of the Holy Spirit and to have other children would distract her from her mission of serving God through Jesus. When the commitment is made to God, it is life-enduring. God does not use people for an immediate need then cast them aside. God did not use Moses just to present the Ten Commandments. Moses served God until the end. When chosen by God the person is chosen for life. Mary was chosen for life, not just to give birth to Jesus, but to continue to serve God. To have other children, to participate in marital relations, would mean that God was delegated to a shared, if not second, tier of her life. All of us commit, or try to commit, ourselves to God, but life’s distractions and responsibilities make inroads that keep boundaries up. Mary, by remaining ever virgin, by not having relations with Joseph, by not giving birth to other children, is not only the Ark of the New Covenant, but the epitome of that which we aspire: the absolute servant to God.

Does this make sense?

 

[jessecd]

mlchance:

Considerably less than irrelevant. I accurately explained the sections from Calvin’s commentaries that you posted. Your question was answered, not “written off as irrelevent.”

What is ultimately irrelevant are John Calvin’s opinions about Christian doctrine. John Calvin had no authority to interpret Scripture and decide doctrinal questions. The Catholic Church does. If John Calvin agrees with the Church, he is right. If he disagrees, he is wrong, and no matter how clever or cogent his arguments may appear, he remains wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.

Mark,

You’re not going to get many protestants converting to the CC by simply asserting your beliefs in such an uncharitable way. Also, a protestant considering Catholicism isn’t going to be swayed by “the CC says it, so its true” line…just like telling an atheist that “the Bible says theres a God, so theres a God”. It doesn’t work well.

In reference to calvin, if so many Catholic’s tout that Calvin believed the perpetual virginity, and if he didn’t, that possible untruth is going to negatively affect their reliability, which in turn negatively affects their mission to bring the separated bretheren into full communion. That is the point of my post…

God gave us reason for, well, a reason. I am using reason, intellect, and prayer to guide me to the truth, which looks at this moment to be the CC. the more info I have, the better I am to employ God’s gift of reason…whether or not that info is gained from luther, calvin, Hahn, Kreeft, Aquinas, or others I read.

antiintellectualism (which I have taken your posts to me as) creates nothing but a shallow and easily defeated faith in new converts.

this isn’t meant to berate, by any stretch, but to help us all strengthen our arguments for the Church. Here is the rare opportunity to talk and discuss with a protestant moving ever closer to Rome.

I appreciate the encouraging responses from others in this group.

In Christ,
Jesse

 

[mlchance]

jessecd:

You’re not going to get many protestants converting to the CC by simply asserting your beliefs in such an uncharitable way.

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

Ah, yes. “Uncharitable.” The favorite adjective of those who get answers they don’t like.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Coder]

Cath.orProtes.?:

Matthew 1:25: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. The notes say: The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it. However, from my point (and I realize I am but a mortal with limited knowledge and wisdom) but if there were no relations that need all be said. The verse would look like; "He had no relations with her. (Period) She bore a son and named him Jesus. The “until” serves no purpose (in my mind) unless there was “relations”, as it would serve as clarifying “when” there were relations and that being not until Jesus was born.

A.) The word “until” may be a “best-fit” translation from Hebrew/Greek.
B.) “Until” does serve to protect against any interpretation/declaration that denies that Jesus is the Son of God.

Consider these statements: Mary had no relations with man. Mary bore a son.

A casual reader might say: “Well that obviously means that she had no relations with man until she later got married and became pregnant.”…

You see, the word “until” makes it very clear and specific that her being with child has nothing to do with relations with man.

Also, it is common in marriage for the couple to have relations during the woman’s pregnancy especially early (and I don’t think it was any different 2000 years ago). So the fact that Joseph did not have relations with Mary, when it is ordinarily normal to do so, harmonizes with the Church teaching that they had no relations afterward.

Yes, at a glance the word “until”, appears a certain way. However, perhaps that’s a key problem - people including Protestants might glance and jump to a conclusion.

Scripture often requires much deep thought and contemplation to gain true understanding.

 

[jessecd]

mlchance:

http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif

Ah, yes. “Uncharitable.” The favorite adjective of those who get answers they don’t like.

– Mark L. Chance.

mark, you are seriously missing the point. Step back and take a breath. Look at the tenor of your posts.

I have no issue with any aspect of mariology. I pray the rosary, I love and respect Mary as Theotokos, I believe in her perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, sinlessness, and assumption.

My contention is that if we cite someone as supporting something, lets make dang sure he or she does.

I’m done. tired of the attitude.

in Christ,
jesse

 

[scylla]

I think it is important to note that Catholic belief is not the same or to be thought of us becoming God’s in as God’s ourselves but in partaking in the divine nature. We will be more than what we are now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Della:

I wasn’t thinking of anyone in particular, no, but why defend the “Mary had other children” position at all if it doesn’t matter?

If so, why do you think the Catholic Church sees it as important that Mary remained a virgin? Truly. Do you know why?

I’ve only read about 1/2 this thread, but…

In answer to that question, Protestants (some at least) believe, as we do, that Scripture sets forth historically correct teaching. We might take it a little further, and say that the original authors were writing truth insofar as what the Holy Spirit originally intended to convey. Which is kind of a “higher” view of Scripture, in a way, than the Protestant view, because we believe in the 4-fold sense of Scripture.

So, the Protestant, with their desire to protect the reverence for the truth of Scripture, sees the Catholic belief that Mary had no other children besides Jesus as an attack on the clear historical teaching of the Bible. They interpret it to teach that she did in fact have other children.

That’s why it matters to Protestants.

We disagree with their conclusion about Jesus’ “brothers,” but we at least agree in defending the historical accuracy of the Bible.