How do non-Catholics explain Eucharistic miracles, such as bleeding, and Marian...

[Root of Jesse]

Proverbs 1:
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;
2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;
3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;
4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

I happen to have a penchant for O.T. literary devices. The subjective presentations of Wisdom as a HER and the Objective Delivery of God, the Father, as HE Is.

s

Wisdom personified as 'she' is different from calling Wisdom "Mother". Matter of fact, the complete OT has an entire book called Wisdom.

 

[Albion]

I'd suggest that Mary is not optional for any RCC member, period.

Certainly not in the matter of her (alleged) Assumption and Immaculate Conception, which are required under pain of sin.

 

[squint]

Certainly not in the matter of her (alleged) Assumption and Immaculate Conception, which are required under pain of sin.

In RCC Christology there is no elimination of all their fact findings of/for Mary. And that applies to other matters of their practice as well.

It's not optional.

s

 

[squint]

Wisdom personified as 'she' is different from calling Wisdom "Mother". Matter of fact, the complete OT has an entire book called Wisdom.

Indeed. Her no less. And yes, the connection to Wisdom and Mother is also therein, as previously noted.

s

 

[Epiphoskei]

Which Roman Catholic history are we talking about? Again, this is the esssentialist flaw. In reality there are many Roman Catholic self-understandings, not all of them are based on the sort of extreme positivism you are criticizing- the sort of thing not alien to Protestants, either.

I reject the extreme cynicism that underlines much of the Protestant polemic. Cynicism is a horrible thing to invite into ones spiritual life.

And I reject the cynicism underlying your criticism of Protestant treatments of Rome as cynical. Apparently today we don't need to actually validate these kind of accusations. There's a very thin line separating cynicism from whole books of the Bible (Ecclesiastes for one), and I think the medieval conduct of Rome towards Protestantism is enough to warrant not assuming Rome's general good faith. Was the story invented in WASPish political intrigue, or was Huss burned alive? Did Luther live in the Castle attic hiding from Rome or not? Is Tyndale still living in a cottage in Essex with Elvis and JFK?

On the whole, although you can take issue with any brief summation of a complicated issue, my take on Church history is more plausible than yours. These were not political machinations; Rome was actually bad.

 

[Tzaousios]

And I reject the cynicism underlying your criticism of Protestant treatments of Rome as cynical. Apparently today we don't need to actually validate these kind of accusations. There's a very thin line separating cynicism from whole books of the Bible (Ecclesiastes for one), and I think the medieval conduct of Rome towards Protestantism is enough to warrant not assuming Rome's general good faith. Was the story invented in WASPish political intrigue, or was Huss burned alive? Did Luther live in the Castle attic hiding from Rome or not? Is Tyndale still living in a cottage in Essex with Elvis and JFK?

On the whole, although you can take issue with any brief summation of a complicated issue, my take on Church history is more plausible than yours. These were not political machinations; Rome was actually bad.

In all of this it appears you are assessing the ascetic tradition and monasticism from a purely post-Reformational, Protestant viewpoint, taking these things to be products of Roman Catholic origin. Asceticism and monasticism stretch much farther back to late antiquity and in both the Eastern and Western ecclesiastical contexts. Are you taking this generalization that far back and over both contexts as well?

 

[MoreCoffee]

And I reject the cynicism underlying your criticism of Protestant treatments of Rome as cynical. Apparently today we don't need to actually validate these kind of accusations. There's a very thin line separating cynicism from whole books of the Bible (Ecclesiastes for one), and I think the medieval conduct of Rome towards Protestantism is enough to warrant not assuming Rome's general good faith. Was the story invented in WASPish political intrigue, or was Huss burned alive? Did Luther live in the Castle attic hiding from Rome or not? Is Tyndale still living in a cottage in Essex with Elvis and JFK?

On the whole, although you can take issue with any brief summation of a complicated issue, my take on Church history is more plausible than yours. These were not political machinations; Rome was actually bad.

Oh dear!

 

[Root of Jesse]

In RCC Christology there is no elimination of all their fact findings of/for Mary. And that applies to other matters of their practice as well.

It's not optional.

s

Yes, when you find the facts, they should be seen as facts. This is definitely Catholic understanding. We accept the facts of Mary and we are required to believe them. Praying to her is not absolutely necessary.

Neither is brushing your teeth. Highly recommended, though.

 

[FireDragon76]

And I reject the cynicism underlying your criticism of Protestant treatments of Rome as cynical. Apparently today we don't need to actually validate these kind of accusations. There's a very thin line separating cynicism from whole books of the Bible (Ecclesiastes for one), and I think the medieval conduct of Rome towards Protestantism is enough to warrant not assuming Rome's general good faith. Was the story invented in WASPish political intrigue, or was Huss burned alive? Did Luther live in the Castle attic hiding from Rome or not? Is Tyndale still living in a cottage in Essex with Elvis and JFK?

The Catholic church reformed (and is still reforming). Basically people like you are beating up a corpse and claiming some kind of victory in doing so, to justify your own unreformed beliefs and prejudices. Holding onto dusty 16th century doctrines and prejudices like they are infallible truth is no better than what you are criticizing.

It's hard to look at people like Thomas Moore, Erasmus, Ignatius of Loyola , Francis de Salles, or Vincent de Paul and think "wow, these were bad Christians". Roman Catholicism had to be doing alot right during the Reformation, contrary to the Protestant polemics that it was "all bad".

Luther was not literally hiding from Rome in the attic. He was hiding from a secular power, the Holy Roman Emperor. And its not like Luther himself was against that kind of magisterial authority, he encouraged the princes of the German states to violently persecute anabaptists and peasants. You are looking at that history through a romantic Protestant lense and not through sober analysis.

 

[Stryder06]

Yes, it can be a kind of atonement. This isn't incompatible with the catholic understanding of atonement, since there must be contrition or sorrow in repentance.

Maybe it isn't contrary to the catholic understanding, but it is contrary to the biblical one.

In the eastern Christian tradition they speak of penthos - sorrow, as a result of repentance. This idea that we must be cheerful and happy all the time and so on, to be a valid view of reality is false, it is inconsistent with the deepest understandings in the Christian tradition. As the Lord said, "Blessed are those who mourn". Life in a fallen world is sad, penthos is all about acknowledging and making peace with that, seeing the sorrow as a pathway to God.

Yes we ought to be sorrowful in regards to sin, and it wouldn't hurt to be sorrowful about the world we live in from time to time, but that's not the way we ought to live our lives.

Sometimes when people are grieving, they want to do things to process that sorrow. I could see sackcloth and ashes as a way that people would process those feelings, making them much more physical in nature. They also tore their clothes sometimes too.

True. None of that cause physical pain though.

"Bring your burdens to Him" smacks of 19th century pietism more than it does ancient Christian tradition, or even something that is "Biblical" in the classical Protestant sense used by Luther or Calvin. Jesus is not your therapist.

Hate to disappoint you, but the following verse disagree with you
Matt 11:28 - Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Psalms 55:22 - Cast thy burden upon the LORD, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.
1 Peter 5:7 - Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

 

[Epiphoskei]

In all of this it appears you are assessing the ascetic tradition and monasticism from a purely post-Reformational, Protestant viewpoint, taking these things to be products of Roman Catholic origin. Asceticism and monasticism stretch much farther back to late antiquity and in both the Eastern and Western ecclesiastical contexts. Are you taking this generalization that far back and over both contexts as well?

The specific concern I have with monastic tradition is the unlawful forbidding of marriage, which is an aspect it had from the beginning and which Rome in particular struggles with in that they extended this rule via the monastic reform movement over their clergy, whereas the EO have not.

Monasticism has generally been understood, from a post-Reformation perspective, to be a form of holier-than-thou living by which men become righteous by obsessing over outward considerations. I will be the first to call that an oversimplification, although it has some basis in popular attitudes in times and places. The response to that position offered here is that monasticism is properly considered a discipline for those who are either weak in faith or on the spiritual front lines. That'd be fine and good if we were focusing on fasting or hairshirts (which I think are overdone, but that's another thread), but celibacy makes the normative Christian weaker, not stronger. It is categorically not a spiritual discipline, but a spiritual gift. It can scarcely be denied that the celibacy of monks was a consequence not of any merit celibacy has in the Christian life (it has none except for the gifted), but of a general social and theological trend towards believing sex is categorically impure. And thus I do believe monasteries have always been among those errors prophesied in Timothy when Paul wrote that men will come forbidding marriage.

 

[squint]

Yes, when you find the facts, they should be seen as facts. This is definitely Catholic understanding. We accept the facts of Mary and we are required to believe them. Praying to her is not absolutely necessary.

Yes, I believe that was noted prior.

For example I as a [protestant, generally speaking] certainly accept the virgin birth as a matter of written presentation and a reality accepted via faith, empirically none of which can be proven as a fact.

So I draw the line at acceptance of a limited portion of information that is presented in writing, which same is once or twice removed from the original documents.

But that is not enough for the RCC. That is my point.

Neither is brushing your teeth. Highly recommended, though.

It's not a 'recommended' option, by your own statements. It's mandatory.

There seems to be some fantasy in play that such information is quantifiable as empirical evidence.

It's not.

s

 

[Epiphoskei]

The Catholic church reformed (and is still reforming). Basically people like you are beating up a corpse and claiming some kind of victory in doing so, to justify your own unreformed beliefs and prejudices. Holding onto dusty 16th century doctrines and prejudices like they are infallible truth is no better than what you are criticizing.

The Catholic Church is patently not reformed or reforming by their own testimony. Rome cannot affirm the correctness of Trent and object that people objecting to the correctness of Trent are stuck in the past. Moreover, the 16th century, being the context of the schism, is the correct context in which to view the schism.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Catholic Church is patently not reformed or reforming by their own testimony. Rome cannot affirm the correctness of Trent and object that people objecting to the correctness of Trent are stuck in the past. Moreover, the 16th century, being the context of the schism, is the correct context in which to view the schism.

Roman Catholic bishops and Lutherans in the US and Europe have agreed that there is substantial agreement about justification. That actually in itself is a miracle consider where things were 400-500 years ago:

"By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works"

- Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

So yes, it would seem that the Protestant material cause can come down to misunderstanding and miscomunication, and a question of different emphases, not different substance. On the issue of justification, Lutherans and Catholics have transcended the issue of Trent, it is just not relevant anymore to thinking Catholics or Lutherans except for those that have an axe to grind.

 

[Albion]

Roman Catholic bishops and Lutherans in the US and Europe have agreed that there is substantial agreement about justification. That actually in itself is a miracle consider where things were 400-500 years ago:

"By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works"

- Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

So yes, it would seem that the Protestant material cause can come down to misunderstanding and miscomunication, and a question of different emphases, not different substance.

What happened is that the Church of Rome agreed with most of the Lutheran position that it had denounced for hundreds of years before this agreement. That parallels the Catholic Church's acceptance at Vatican II of many of the other Lutheran and Protestant concepts that the Papacy had rejected before--Communion in two kinds, lay participation in the liturgy, congregational singing, the worship service to be in the language understood by the people, the priest's work at the altar to be visible to the congregation, etc.--all Protestant mainstays that Rome was just then catching up to.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Roman Catholic bishops and Lutherans in the US and Europe have agreed that there is substantial agreement about justification. That actually in itself is a miracle consider where things were 400-500 years ago:

"By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works"

- Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

So yes, it would seem that the Protestant material cause can come down to misunderstanding and miscomunication, and a question of different emphases, not different substance.

I am going into work and will not be able to continue this, but as this excursus has continued moving further and further from the original discussion into a discussion on Roman-Protestant issues in general, I think it's sufficient to end it this way - miscommunication is a nice word that gets used a lot in order to allow all parties to claim everyone was right all along, no harm, no foul, but issues are rarely that simple. If Rome is no longer clinging to the things which made protestants reject them as a false church, it should be easy to see them willing to make concessions on the issues which separated both groups. Apart from the joint declaration on justification, that's just not happening. When we start having open discussions over whether there should be a pope or not and the Roman position isn't obvious ahead of times to all parties, interaction between Rome and Protestantism might be able to go ahead as you suggest it can.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The council at Trent declared that for a correct and clear understanding of the doctrine of justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that

• since all men had lost innocence in the prevarication of Adam, having become unclean, and, as the Apostle says, being by nature children of wrath
• they were so far the servants of sin and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the Gentiles by the force of nature, but even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, were unable to be liberated or to rise though free will, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent though it was by no means extinguished in them.

So the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when the fullness of time was come,

• sent to men Jesus Christ, His own Son, who had both before the law and during the time of the law been announced and promised to many of the holy fathers,
• that he might redeem the Jews who were under the law, and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons.
• Him has God proposed as a propitiator through faith in his blood for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.

But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the benefit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so if they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through His passion, the grace by which they are made just.

• For this benefit the Apostle exhorts us always to give thanks to the Father, who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption and remission of sins.
  
• In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour.
  
• This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
  
• Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The council said more on this matter but the above is sufficient to make it possible to see that a Catholic perspective is also a biblical perspective.

 

[Standing Up]

That Women in Ancient Israel article speaks only of participation in worship. Doesn't speak of every-day life. Like sewing, washing vestments, cleaning, etc. Who do you suppose did such things??

The point is women were not allowed into the priest area and clearly never into the Holy of Holies, even if it was empty. The PoJames is simply wrong.

" For since there was a partition built for the women on that side, as the proper place wherein they were to worship, there was a necessity for a second gate for them: this gate was cut out of its wall, over against the first gate. There was also on the other sides one southern and one northern gate, through which was a passage into the court of the women; for as to the other gates, the women were not allowed to pass through them; nor when they went through their own gate could they go beyond their own wall. This place was allotted to the women of our own country, and of other countries, provided they were of the same nation, and that equally. "
-Josephus

Again, the conclusion is that the PoJ has picked up the vestal virgin religion of Rome and applied it to create their Mary myths (ever-virgin, had to leave the temple at first menstation, women as priests).

 

[FireDragon76]

What happened is that the Church of Rome agreed with most of the Lutheran position that it had denounced for hundreds of years before this agreement. That parallels the Catholic Church's acceptance at Vatican II of many of the other Lutheran and Protestant concepts that the Papacy had rejected before--Communion in two kinds, lay participation in the liturgy, congregational singing, the worship service to be in the language understood by the people, the priest's work at the altar to be visible to the congregation, etc.--all Protestant mainstays that Rome was just then catching up to.

The reforms of Vatican II were not merely Protestantism baptized into Catholicism, they were often based on much of the work of Roman Catholic theologians and liturgists such as Karl Rahner, Yves Cogner, Balthasar, Gregory Dix, and so on, who emphasized returning to Patristic sources, and not merely adopting a Protestant critique. In some ways it involved more rethinking than even the Protestant reformers were willing to do, which is why so many Protestant denominations payed attention to Rome's Vatican II and largely followed many of the reforms as well.

 

[Tzaousios]

Again, the conclusion is that the PoJ has picked up the vestal virgin religion of Rome and applied it to create their Mary myths (ever-virgin, had to leave the temple at first menstation, women as priests).

So this is your only conclusion on the matter and it does not extend to any type of judgment on Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy at large?