Do you agree with this statement?

[patricius79]

The reason it is hard to explain is because it would be me describing something they are cognitively out of phase with. Truth produces a resonant harmony. If you are indoctrinated with fear, you can't feel truth when it presents itself. It is felt physically, but it is a sensation that begins in the spirit. Joy is the word that comes closest, but it doesn't have to be ecstatic - it can be subtle. But if you have fear guarding your heart, fear is what you will feel. The greater the truth, the greater the fear (in personal terms - we all have our own fears).
Some we outgrow and overcome. Some we are never burdened with.
What any church or religion for that matter, teaches officially, is only an official teaching. Everybody knows in their heart, that what we do as persons speaks louder than what we do as officials. Officiality becomes the infrastructure for doublespeak. Titles become oxymorons or outright lies.
The birth being of a virgin is miracle enough one would think.
My view of virginity is venue appropriate, not subject to official approval. It is neither "high" nor "low". Those terms are a semantic trap in this context. They are vague enough to offer redefinition and goal shifting readily.

How has anyone engaged in "double speak" or "goal shifting"?

I believe that humans have free will from God, and that virgins can be devoted to God--Who Is Love--in an undivided way.

Also, what are the limitations on how much God can exalt a creature, such as His Mother, who freely agreed to conceive Him by the Holy Spirit?

 

[patricius79]

Hey, I like that "Officiality becomes the infastructure for doublespeak"

Okay, great, so I fell into answering semantical clap trap lol

I guess your right, I mean I really dont have a "low view" of virginity but again in regards to Mary's age (even I never had a sex drive that young to view being a virgin as some great feat to be one). I just dont think of it beyond God's promise and the miracle of our Christ's birth (which is more my focus). But even before then I dont understand the big deal (in and of itself) because Mary (if I consider it) being a virgin at her age... which was what? 12 years old? or 14 years old some others say? I dont know, but even I was a virgin (as an unbeliever) having no such pure virginal aspirations and was a virgin up until around 17 (I didnt quite make it to the day) but the month.

It really wasn't like it was extremely difficult to be a virgin for me at Mary's own age. I had no such struggle at that age. Although I went through a longer "Eww its a boy" stage then my closest peers, but after that wore off and I didnt find them "Ewwy" anymore I commited fornication with the worst of them and lost the right to the title "Virgin me". But I honestly dont get all the fuss given that particular age, its like it would almost be out of the norm if she were not a virgin, espeically back then.

Its neither a low view of Mary or virginity itself

The feeling is somewhat comparable with the thought of glorying in the virginity of a 5 year old. I wouldn't (of myself) ever think to do that because that is pretty much the accepted norm for a child that age, and you just dont think about it. So while everyone around you is throwing a party with a million balloons over it you just cant get all that excited about it. And then when you read the apostles you feel very normal seeing they weren't doing so either, something happened after them (it just got weird).

How has anyone engaged in "doublespeak" or "semantical clap trap?

I'm glad neither of us has a low view of virginity. Do you think a life of virginity can be an expression of a person's undivided devotion to Mary's Son, our God?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Wouldnt you just love to know Patrius

 

[patricius79]

I think the divisions among Christians need healing, and that it's curious that discussions degenerate into unsubstantiated accusations. The reality is that we are all sinners who are saved through the Blood of Jesus, the Son of Mary.

I was raised Catholic and there was no "indoctrination in fear". In fact, we weren't taught very much at all. We had some catechesis at a local parish, but it's not like I went to a Catholic school or anything. And homilies certainly weren't tough or threatening, or even catechetical.

I'm Catholic because I know it's all true, and that the other groups broke away from the Catholic Church later on, such as Protestantism in the 1500s which, as I understand it, originally taught that humans have no free will, and that God causes everything we do, including sin, and then simply picks some people to be saved and others to be damned (I wasn't taught that growing up, either, but learned it much later, including through one of the Protestant posters on here).

And that God doesn't actually make us holy, he simply "imputes" the holiness of Christ, to us.

Yet Protestants and Catholics are all just people. Protestants and Catholics share much in common and are both Christians. Some of my favorite people are Protestants.

Yet even then both Luther and Calvin believed Mary to be Ever-Virgin (and I think maybe Luther believed Mary was sinless, as Augustine and others taught)

I especially love Marian devotion, because I believe that Jesus is God--Mercy-- and that he wills to give us all mercy through His Ever-Virginal Mother, through whom he came to save us.

I see nothing fear-based about devotion to the Mediatrix of Graces (Mary), who appeared at Guadalupe and other places. She is all sweetness and help as we try to do Christ's will.

I don't know where everyone on here is at. I can only say where I'm at, and that we all need to be respectful of one another, even as we ask questions and state what we believe.

 

[Rick Otto]

Wouldnt you just love to know Patrius

He's using a classic troll method to try and wear us down : feigning ignorance when we bust his chops for double speak and goal shifting, as if he doesn't know what they are or when he did it after we pointed it out.
Face palm AND smh.

 

[patricius79]

He's using a classic troll method to try and wear us down : feigning ignorance when we bust his chops for double speak and goal shifting, as if he doesn't know what they are or when he did it after we pointed it out.
Face palm AND smh.

Is there any evidence for these accusations?

 

[Fireinfolding]

He's using a classic troll method to try and wear us down : feigning ignorance when we bust his chops for double speak and goal shifting, as if he doesn't know what they are or when he did it after we pointed it out.
Face palm AND smh.

My husband witnesses more face palms then I ever openly express

 

[Rick Otto]

My husband witnesses more face palms then I ever openly express

He just did it again.

 

[Fireinfolding]

He just did it again.

 

[MrMoe]

Yes with caveat of foster or legal father.
Foster father is used in Catholic prayers.

Why does Joseph get a caveat but Mary doesn't?

 

[Rick Otto]

Why does Joseph get a caveat but Mary doesn't?

I think the divisions among Christians need healing, and that it's curious that discussions degenerate into unsubstantiated accusations. The reality is that we are all sinners who are saved through the Blood of Jesus, the Son of Mary.

I was raised Catholic and there was no "indoctrination in fear". In fact, we weren't taught very much at all. We had some catechesis at a local parish, but it's not like I went to a Catholic school or anything. And homilies certainly weren't tough or threatening, or even catechetical.

I'm Catholic because I know it's all true, and that the other groups broke away from the Catholic Church later on, such as Protestantism in the 1500s which, as I understand it, originally taught that humans have no free will, and that God causes everything we do, including sin, and then simply picks some people to be saved and others to be damned (I wasn't taught that growing up, either, but learned it much later, including through one of the Protestant posters on here).

And that God doesn't actually make us holy, he simply "imputes" the holiness of Christ, to us.

Yet Protestants and Catholics are all just people. Protestants and Catholics share much in common and are both Christians. Some of my favorite people are Protestants.

Yet even then both Luther and Calvin believed Mary to be Ever-Virgin (and I think maybe Luther believed Mary was sinless, as Augustine and others taught)

I especially love Marian devotion, because I believe that Jesus is God--Mercy-- and that he wills to give us all mercy through His Ever-Virginal Mother, through whom he came to save us.

I see nothing fear-based about devotion to the Mediatrix of Graces (Mary), who appeared at Guadalupe and other places. She is all sweetness and help as we try to do Christ's will.

I don't know where everyone on here is at. I can only say where I'm at, and that we all need to be respectful of one another, even as we ask questions and state what we believe.

If you can do that, you'll be all right.

I was raised Roman Catholic and saw fear tactics permeated everything. They shot themselves in the fgoot at every opportunity it seemed. By fourth grade, after they tried to teach me transubstantiation, I knew how far out they were and that I had better learn to keep a low profile until I was old enough to walk away.

Happy for you that you had a better experience. Probably much better staff, maybe.

 

[MrMoe]

If you can do that, you'll be all right.

I was raised Roman Catholic and saw fear tactics permeated everything. They shot themselves in the fgoot at every opportunity it seemed. By fourth grade, after they tried to teach me transubstantiation, I knew how far out they were and that I had better learn to keep a low profile until I was old enough to walk away.

Happy for you that you had a better experience. Probably much better staff, maybe.

Lol, not sure what that had to do with what I was asking but good for you.

I was just trying to point out the obvious double standard I see between Joseph and Mary when it comes to their title.

Jesus didn't use a caveat when he called himself the Son of man, the Gospels didn't use a caveat when calling Jesus Son of David, Catholics have no problem calling Mary, mother of God and don't seem to mind the obvious misunderstanding that can come from calling her that, but when it comes to Joseph they must insist they add an extra word, as if calling Joseph father of God would cause some people to believe Joseph was Jesus's actual Father. Which would be no one who's read the bible.

 

[justinangel]

Oddly enough, in reading I John 4:6 which you posted there is no mention at all of "drawing a distinction between the true ministers of the Church and the false teachers who deny the Incarnation. He is enjoining the faithful not to pay heed to them, but to hold on to the tradition that was taught by the apostles and their appointed associates." Perhaps somebody has been reading beween the lines here. Unfortunately, you failed to post those salient bits of information that fall between the lines of your Bible. Had you done so I would surely have been able to read it.

Instead, John refers to "us" as including "beloved" and "little children". "Beloved" can be applied to any and all Christians irrespective of their role in the Church and I sincerely doubt that he would call ministers of the church "little children", which, in fact, he does not in the same letter.

1 John 4

1 'Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.'

John is addressing the Christian community of believers. So how is it that he includes himself as one who is being addressed? I see no connection with v.6, not that it makes any grammatical sense. "You" is not "us". And why is it that the Christian faithful must try the spiriits whether they be of God? Because many false prophets, meaning teachers, have gone out into the world.. This verse sets the tone of v.6. The faithful must be vigilant, for there are many false teachers whose profession and customs contravene the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Here we are introduced to three subjects: John (apostles), the Christian community( beloved children), and false prophets or teachers (heretics).

4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome him, because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Again, the little children whom John is addressing are the Christian community of believers. John says "You are of God, " not "we are of God." So how does the object pronoun "us" in v. 6 refer to both John and the little children he is addressing in verse 4? Grammatically it makes no sense.

5 They are of the world: therefore of the world they speak, and the world heareth them.

By "they" John means the anti-Christs and heretics who are ruled by a worldly spirit. These false teachers, who are not guided by the Holy Spirit, misguide people in following them. People who do not really know God and are enslaved by their own passions are easlily persuaded by these heretics and their ungodly teachings and ways.

6 We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us: He that is not of God, heareth us not: by this we know the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

As opposed to them, the anti-Christs and heretics who preach a false gospel, are the apostles (we) and their validly appointed associates in the ministry. He, the true Christian believer, knows God by lsitening to the Apostles and their successors. They are the ones who have received the Spirit of God and are not guided by the spirit of the world, since they have been lawfully commissioned by Christ. One cannot know God and love Him if they fail to comply with the doctrine of Christ by listening to the false teachers rather than to the apostles who have been appointed by the Lord. Anyone who refuses to listen to the true ministers of the word and obey the voice of the Church and those whom Christ appointed to govern the Church are not of God. We can distinguish between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error by drawing a distinction between those who are guided by the Holy Spirit and those who are ruled by the spirit of the world.

"And that you may still be more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? Which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit."
Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be saved?, 42 (A.D. 210)

 

[justinangel]

I was just trying to point out the obvious double standard I see between Joseph and Mary when it comes to their title.

Jesus didn't use a caveat when he called himself the Son of man, the Gospels didn't use a caveat when calling Jesus Son of David, Catholics have no problem calling Mary, mother of God and don't seem to mind the obvious misunderstanding that can come from calling her that, but when it comes to Joseph they must insist they add an extra word, as if calling Joseph father of God would cause some people to believe Joseph was Jesus's actual Father. Which would be no one who's read the bible.

Jesus called himself the Son of Man, but he didn't deny that he was a divine Person. Jesus referred to his human attributes when he called himself that. He was the son of David by virtue of being the fruit of Mary's womb. She was a descendant in the line of David. There is no reason to call Joseph the Father of God, since he didn't beget Jesus who later became God at his resurrection, as a branch of Adoptionists believed in the 2nd century.

If you reject this Marian designation, then you must naturally espouse one of the several Christological heresies without knowing it, given your reasons why you deny Mary is the Mother of God. There is no misunderstanding that can come from calling Mary the Mother of God unless a person fails to understand how it is that the Son of Man is God. To understand how it is, one must be conversant with sacred Tradition and the dogma of the Church as formed by the early ecumenical Coiuncils. You can't possibly understand this Christological divine truth by only reading the Scriptures, especially not when reading the Bible on your own without any guidance from the Catholic Church (Acts 8:26-40).

 

[patricius79]

Lol, not sure what that had to do with what I was asking but good for you.

I was just trying to point out the obvious double standard I see between Joseph and Mary when it comes to their title.

Jesus didn't use a caveat when he called himself the Son of man, the Gospels didn't use a caveat when calling Jesus Son of David, Catholics have no problem calling Mary, mother of God and don't seem to mind the obvious misunderstanding that can come from calling her that, but when it comes to Joseph they must insist they add an extra word, as if calling Joseph father of God would cause some people to believe Joseph was Jesus's actual Father. Which would be no one who's read the bible.

Mary conceived Jesus in her womb by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Jesus is God. That is why Mary--though a mere creature--is the Mother of God.

People are obviously uncomfortable with how much God has exalted Mary, a creature.

But how can we limit God's ability to exalt a creature?

I love it in the O.T. when God speaks from the Burning Bush, telling Moses to take off his shoes because the place where he is standing is "holy ground".

How much holier is the Mother of God!

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

Please remember when posting to address the content of a post and not address the character of a poster.

Thank you.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Panevino]

Why does Joseph get a caveat but Mary doesn't?

Because of isa7:14 and mat1:23/25

 

[MrMoe]

Jesus called himself the Son of Man, but he didn't deny that he was a divine Person. Jesus referred to his human attributes when he called himself that. He was the son of David by virtue of being the fruit of Mary's womb. She was a descendant in the line of David. There is no reason to call Joseph the Father of God, since he didn't beget Jesus who later became God at his resurrection, as a branch of Adoptionists believed in the 2nd century.

This is from a Catholic website:
"Nonetheless, denying Joseph human fatherhood does a disservice to him and makes vulnerable an important piece of our understanding of the person and mission of Christ himself in the Church.

For if St. Joseph is merely a stepfather, a foster father, a guardian, or a caretaker, then he did not adopt Jesus and therefore is not Jesus' legal father. If Joseph is not Jesus' legal father, then he could not have handed on to Jesus his own Davidic heritage. Whether or not Mary was a member of the House of David (she probably was), it was Joseph's adoption of Jesus that gave Jesus legitimacy, that gave him Joseph's family, that made Jesus the Son of David. By the laws of the time, Jesus' Davidic heritage could be passed to him only by a son of David. If Joseph was not truly Jesus' father, as Jesus' own Mother said that Joseph was (cf. Luke 2:48), then Jesus was not truly the Son of David. The great genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that link Jesus to King David (Matt. 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38) would then be no more than legal fiction."

Mary herself affirms Joseph as father (small f) to Jesus in Luke 2:48 ...Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

So saying there is no reason to call Joseph the father of God I think is very dismissive and highly disrespectful of his role in Jesus's life and Gods plan for salvation.

If you reject this Marian designation, then you must naturally espouse one of the several Christological heresies without knowing it, given your reasons why you deny Mary is the Mother of God. There is no misunderstanding that can come from calling Mary the Mother of God unless a person fails to understand how it is that the Son of Man is God. To understand how it is, one must be conversant with sacred Tradition and the dogma of the Church as formed by the early ecumenical Coiuncils. You can't possibly understand this Christological divine truth by only reading the Scriptures, especially not when reading the Bible on your own without any guidance from the Catholic Church (Acts 8:26-40).

I have no problem with the title of Mary, mother of God if it means what Catholics say it means, but if Joseph gets a caveat in his title of Foster father of God, then for clarity and equality Mary's title should also get a caveat and be called Mary, mother of God Incarnate.

 

[MrMoe]

Mary conceived Jesus in her womb by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph.

Then what was Joseph? Chopped liver?

Everyone knows Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit but that doesn't mean Joseph couldn't have been a father to him (see above post). Mary herself affirms Joseph as father to Jesus in Luke 2:48.

Jesus is God. That is why Mary--though a mere creature--is the Mother of God.

Yes, Jesus is God and Joseph was His father (small f) Therefore Joseph, father of God. I'm using the same logic Catholics use.

People are obviously uncomfortable with how much God has exalted Mary, a creature.

Correction, people are uncomfortable with how much the Catholic Church has exalted Mary, a creature.

But how can we limit God's ability to exalt a creature?

God set the limit Himself in Luke 11:27-28.

I love it in the O.T. when God speaks from the Burning Bush, telling Moses to take off his shoes because the place where he is standing is "holy ground".

How much holier is the Mother of God!

Sounds like you're begging the question here.

Because of isa7:14 and mat1:23/25

Those verses do not explain why Joseph gets a caveat in his title but Mary doesn't. It just shows what we already knew, that there are prophecies of a virgin giving birth.

 

[Panevino]

.