I never said either of those things. I simply stated that I WASN’T judging and pointing out that I’m NOT a protestant anymore. You are reading way too much into things. I never accused you of anything. So, no, I was not “doubly wrong.”
Like I said, sometimes you have to make people sit up and take notice or else you are just wasting your time. You claim I was passing judgement on you [when I wasn’t] but you seem to have no reticence in saying that I am, 1. annoyed and 2. not liking it here. On the contrary I am not annoyed and I like being here. I also like the truth and I don’t like it watered down. You appear to be the one who is annoyed,at least with me. But I note that you have not taken issue at the veracity of what I say, that is, the truth of my posts, but rather the manner in which I deliver it. Well protestants have a lifetime of poor scriptural exogesis plus false beliefs which result in all the false allegations about Catholicism that we see here and elsewhere. I try to cut through all of that. I want them to think about what I say and I do that by giving them meat and leaving the mashed potatoes aside. Sometimes the language is direct. I don’t apologize for that. But I don’t make any false accusations against protestantism or protestants. Heaven knows there are enough true ones that false ones are unnecessary. If only they would do the same about Catholicism…
The inference was there. You posted a partial quote from me then say, “I [meaning Ann]wasn’t judging.” What is one to think, that you were replying to an accusation of mine? One that I did not make at all.
I don’t. I deal with the truth as obtained by research I have done and try to present it in a rational and a direct manner. So I don’t go off half cocked or get riled up. Look at my response to the Brethren of Jesus thread and then look at the responses from other Catholics and tell me which one refutes the protestant claims scripturally and rationally better.
wow, you think WAY too hard to come up with these things. Obviously, you and I are not in the same mindset when it comes to communication. I think it best that you and I not respond to each other and focus on the op’s intent for this thread. I do not believe in over-reading or making sweeping statements regarding others. Assumptions do not make for good discussion…
In the Litany of Loreto we say (365rosaries.blogspot.com/2010/05/marian-devotion-litany-of-loreto.html):
I am disappointed to hear the disrespectful tone of some contributions here.
why is there not more attention and honor given to Joseph? He WAS Jesus legal father, helped raise and nurture Him. He supported Blessed Mary in her mission. Whatever happened to Joseph? I can’t really find a clear answer on this.
None, as far as I know.
St. Joseph’s feast days are March 19 and May 1 and he is also the Patron Saint of the Universal Church.
The last mention of Joseph was when Jesus was twelve, if I remember corretly. Whatever happened to him is to be found in oral tradion only … and know some people who distrust both “Tradition” and “tradition”.
that’s about the last mention of him that I have heard as well. I haven’t heard anything Tradition of him. Is it not known when he died or whether he was with Jesus thru any of Jesus’ adult life? How sad that more is not made widely known of him.
I found it telling that when Mary and Jesus’ ‘brothers and sisters’ come to speak to Jesus that Joseph wasn’t with her. Where WAS he? Why wasn’t he there?
Oops! You are absolutely correct. I read Ann’s comments and didn’t research if it was correct. You never did accuse her of judging. My humble apologies.
The word is brethren which includes relatives and perhaps friends. Joseph may or may not have been one of them.I found it telling that when Mary and Jesus’ ‘brothers and sisters’ come to speak to Jesus that Joseph wasn’t with her. Where WAS he? Why wasn’t he there?
If you read what is actually said here, this is talking of Mary as:
It is generally taught that he died at some time between Jesus’s visit to the temple at around age 12, and the Wedding at Cana. This would fit in with the tradition of Joseph being quite an old man at the time of his wedding to the BV Mary. It would also fit with Jesus’s “brothers” (half-brothers or cousins) being older than Him - which they would have to be, to criticise Him.I found it telling that when Mary and Jesus’ ‘brothers and sisters’ come to speak to Jesus that Joseph wasn’t with her. Where WAS he? Why wasn’t he there?
Quite a lot really. He is a major Saint, and is traditionally presented as flanking Jesus, along with Mary in the heavenly court, particularly at the Last Judgement.
I believe we can honor Mary as the mother of Christ without having to believe that she was the only human being born without sin (Immaculate Conception), lived a totally sinless life, was assumed into heaven miraculously, is Queen of Heaven, etc., etc. There are only two references to her in the Gospels between Christ's childhood and crucifixion, and both raise questions. Reread John 2:4, for example. As for her perpetual virginity, I don't see that as essential, and Matt. 1:25 suggests that she and Joseph may have lived quite normally as husband and wife. No problem. Love-making is a gift from God.
The whole story of her parents, Anne and Joachim, is not found in the Bible - not even their names - so that raises questions, too.
But isn't becoming the mother of Christ quite enough to make her 'blessed among women'? Why is it necessary to add and add and add to her accolades?