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

sunlover1 said:

So having sex is being disobedient?
...

Click to expand...

What is it about you people and sex? Like it's major deal? I know TV makes it look like it's so important, and it is, for procreation, but really???

Root of Jesse said:

Exactly. What does fleshly pleasure profit?

Click to expand...

That's all sex is to you?
Carnal?

Root of Jesse said:

What is it about you people and sex?

Click to expand...

Seriously? US PEOPLE? lol.
You're the one making sex a big deal.

Like it's major deal? I know TV makes it look like it's so important, and it is, for procreation, but really???

Click to expand...

Sex happens to be a big deal to God for married folks.
In fact, a huge deal.
It's one of the main purposes in marriage.
So much that He mandates that your body
is not your own and you OWE your spouse sex.

Now why again... do you feel that it's a 'good'
thing for Mary to refrain from sex with her husband
when GOD created it and commands it?

Rick Otto said:

Sort of undoes the distinction between latria & hyper-dulia.

Click to expand...

Yeah, worship Mary as salvation, worship bread as salvation, view the Church as salvation. Maybe there's a pattern there.

Root of Jesse said:

How about being obedient to the will of God? Means nothing to you, I guess. But if you're an athlete, go ahead, sacrifice hours of training, pain, sweat, blood, diet, and so on to be a good athlete. If you're a scholar, sacrifice hours upon hours of study, time with family, and so on to be a scholar. If you're a musician, sacrifice hours on hours in a lonely room to be the best you can be! As St. Paul tells us, the athlete does all of that for a wreathe of olive leaves. Mary did it for love of God.

I guess it depends on what's important to you...a few minutes of pleasure that never lasts, or eternal happiness. What a jerk of a son!

Click to expand...

You're assuming that God told her to be a perpetual virgin! I don't recall him ever saying any such thing. So what does obedience to the will of God have to do with it?

(And seriously, "means nothing to you, I guess." Don't be a jerk yourself, either. Are you so jaded by CF that you can't even take a joke? Take a break for the boards then and come back in six months. I have. So has PaladinVader. And we're both better for it.)

You're also missing my point. I'm not denying her perpetual virginity. It's just a really terrible argument. Just because it doesn't fit in an argument for her immaculate conception and/or sinlessness doesn't mean it isn't true. But whereas "I want to make my mother sinless" seems pretty natural, "I want to deny my married mother sex" really is a bad way to approach her perpetual virginity. It really does make Jesus sound like a sexophobic Catholic, playing right into the hands of Protestants who want to paint all Catholics as squeamish about marital love. Because as all good Protestants "know," priestly celibacy and Marian dogma are all just the upshot of unhealthy views about sex.

C'mon. Be smarter than that.

sunlover1 said:

That's all sex is to you?
Carnal?

Seriously? US PEOPLE? lol.
You're the one making sex a big deal.


Sex happens to be a big deal to God for married folks.
In fact, a huge deal.
It's one of the main purposes in marriage.
So much that He mandates that your body
is not your own and you OWE your spouse sex.

Now why again... do you feel that it's a 'good'
thing for Mary to refrain from sex with her husband
when GOD created it and commands it?

Click to expand...

There's a tricky conundrum between disobedience and sinlessness.

Rick Otto said:

Sort of undoes the distinction between latria & hyper-dulia.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is a point that's been made many times, but it's good that you made it using the RCC jargon.

Getting back to the question of the thread...

I found this answer from Kenneth Samples, writing in the Christian Research Journal, to be interesting reading.

"Because of their seemingly miraculous character, Marian apparitions present a challenge to Protestant evangelical faith which needs to be addressed. In the remainder of this article I will therefore evaluate these occurrences from that Protestant position. In so doing, I must assume -- rather than defend -- the Protestant belief in the supreme authority of Scripture. That belief has been adequately defended previously in this journal.[22]

"It seems evident from studying this distinctly Catholic phenomenon that the only way one could justify belief in Marian apparitions is to accept completely the Roman Catholic view of Mary. That is, if these apparitions are authentic and are performed under the auspices of almighty God, then we are dealing with the Mary revealed in Roman Catholic theology. For these apparitions do nothing but confirm distinctly Catholic beliefs about Mary. However, this is the central reason why Protestant evangelicals cannot accept these apparitions as being from God. To accept these apparitions is to accept a completely unbiblical view of Mary. And, for the evangelical Protestant, the clear teaching of Scripture must supersede any private revelation, especially those that are directly incompatible with the Bible.

"Just as the Catholic church uses an objective criteria for accepting or rejecting apparitions (conformity to Catholic teaching), the Protestant does as well. For the Protestant, the phenomenon must conform to Scripture. Protestants, then, are no more closed-minded (apriorism) to supernatural manifestations than Catholics; we merely use a different and, from our perspective, more appropriate criteria.

"The Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), upon which Protestantism stands, asserts that Scripture is the supreme authority in matters of doctrine. However, the Catholic affirmation of Mary's immaculate conception, her perpetual virginity, her bodily assumption into heaven, and her work as an intercessor all lack biblical support.[23] Further, there is no biblical basis for granting Mary such exalted titles as "Queen of Heaven," "Mother of the Church," and "Queen of all Saints."

"It is not just that these Marian beliefs lack biblical support (nonbiblical); some of them undermine clearly defined scriptural doctrines (unbiblical). For example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception directly contradicts the biblical teaching of the universality of sin (Rom. 3:23). What concerns Protestants most, however, is the way Mariology challenges the uniqueness of Christ's person, and also detracts from the complete sufficiency of His work. If there is doubt about this, consider how Catholic Mariology parallels Christology: (1) Jesus was born without sin -- Mary was conceived without original sin. (2) Jesus was sinless -- Mary also lived a sinless life. (3) Following His resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven -- Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. (4) Jesus is a mediator -- Mary is a mediatrix. (5) Jesus is the Redeemer -- Mary is the coredemptrix. (6) Jesus is the new Adam -- Mary is the new Eve. (7) Jesus is the King -- Mary is the Queen. Even Protestant scholars who are sympathetic to Catholicism believe that this parallel can only threaten Christ's preeminence and blur His exclusive role as sole redeemer and mediator (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:16-18; 4:14-15; 7:25; 9:12-14; 10:1-10).[24] A further concern is that Mary, by virtue of her exalted status, has actually become a semi-divine being."

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

You're assuming that God told her to be a perpetual virgin! I don't recall him ever saying any such thing. So what does obedience to the will of God have to do with it?

Click to expand...

You're assuming what I'm assuming. God came to Mary and told her he wanted her to bear His son. Mary said yes. That's obedience.

(And seriously, "means nothing to you, I guess." Don't be a jerk yourself, either. Are you so jaded by CF that you can't even take a joke? Take a break for the boards then and come back in six months. I have. So has PaladinVader. And we're both better for it.)

Click to expand...

Seems maybe we're BOTH making wrong assumptions, if that's the case. I'm not jaded, at all. I respect the Mother of God, and I defend her. Got a problem with that?

You're also missing my point. I'm not denying her perpetual virginity. It's just a really terrible argument. Just because it doesn't fit in an argument for her immaculate conception and/or sinlessness doesn't mean it isn't true. But whereas "I want to make my mother sinless" seems pretty natural, "I want to deny my married mother sex" really is a bad way to approach her perpetual virginity. It really does make Jesus sound like a sexophobic Catholic, playing right into the hands of Protestants who want to paint all Catholics as squeamish about marital love. Because as all good Protestants "know," priestly celibacy and Marian dogma are all just the upshot of unhealthy views about sex.

Click to expand...

Mary had, according to tradition, already given up on sex, promising to live a chaste life. Which is why she says to angel Gabriel "How can this be, since I know not man?" She already gave herself to God. I will admit that the way I said it may be not the best, but so what? Everyone in here, non Catholic, pretty much, is laughing about the dogma of the Catholic Church, which has been the belief for 2000 years. The point is that God would want the person of his mother to be perfect,<edit perfect creature, not perfect as God>. And had the power to make her so. And did. That's our belief. Got a problem with it? I think it's pretty funny that Protestants sing pretty songs at Christmas about Mary, and then shove her back in a box until next year. Sad, really. Catholics, more so than Protestants, are not squemish about marital love. Look around at many Catholic families...You all don't know what you know and what you don't know. You just mischaracterize the Catholic faith. Having been on that side, believe me, I know.

C'mon. Be smarter than that.

Click to expand...

More erroneous assumptions.

Root of Jesse said:

Mary had, according to tradition, already given up on sex, promising to live a chaste life. Which is why she says to angel Gabriel "How can this be, since I know not man?"

Click to expand...

Talk about imagination run wild. But that's the nature of "sacred Tradition."

The meaning was obviously that she, a teenager, had yet to have sex because she wasn't married yet.

Stryder06 said:

I appreciate your response and read through it carefully. I however think that your explanation is based upon many an assumption. For instance, when you said "Mary's design in the world is to do what God calls her to do..." What exactly has God called her to do? And how can she save anyone from anything? Why petition her as such?

Click to expand...

God has called the Blessed Virgin Mary to be an example of deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ even when such faith costs what is most dearly held to her heart. Blessed Mary kept the faith she exhibited from the beginning of Christ's earthly ministry at Cana and she kept it faithfully with resolute determination until the end despite all the hardships she faced. And earlier in her life on this Earth Blessed Mary freely consented to God's purpose in bringing the Saviour into the world he was to save. Thus Blessed Mary's life and words - few though they be in sacred scripture - have been a source of inspiration for countless faithful Christians through all the generation from the beginning of the gospel until our own day.

You ask how can Blessed Mary "save anyone from anything?" The answer is found in sacred scripture by analogy to the saving work of saint Paul expressed in these words, And also by analogy with a similar doctrine expressed by saint Jude in the following words, Every labourer in the field of the gospel message seeks to save some people through the preaching of the gospel so one ought not to baulk at the thought that the saints in heaven and Blessed Mary, who is mother of the Church, have the same desire.

sunlover1 said:

That's all sex is to you?
Carnal?

Seriously? US PEOPLE? lol.
You're the one making sex a big deal.

Click to expand...

Do you call it pro-choice, too???

Sex happens to be a big deal to God for married folks.
In fact, a huge deal.
It's one of the main purposes in marriage.
So much that He mandates that your body
is not your own and you OWE your spouse sex.

Now why again... do you feel that it's a 'good'
thing for Mary to refrain from sex with her husband
when GOD created it and commands it?

Click to expand...

Where's that mandate? God actually demands that we not lust after our spouse. There's chastity in marriage, too.

Mary was, according to tradition, a vowed virgin. Consecrated, which is a permanent thing, whether you know it or not. You can't consecrate something to God, and then unconsecrate it. Which is why she said "How can this be since I know not man." God doesn't command indiscriminate sex with contraception. It's called temperance. I really don't expect you to understand. Maybe look into the subject and study it. From points of view other than yours. I did, and it made me want to be Catholic.

Albion said:

Talk about imagination run wild. But that's the nature of "sacred Tradition."

The meaning was obviously that she, a teenager, had yet to have sex because she wasn't married yet.

Click to expand...

I purposely said tradition, with a small t. Not Sacred Tradition. There you go again, misreading what was written...

Root of Jesse said:

I purposely said tradition, with a small t. Not Sacred Tradition. There you go again, misreading what was written...

Click to expand...

I usually spell your mythology, i.e. tradition, with a small "t" myself, so you're wrong about that. I only capitalized it there for emphasis.

Anyway, I take it that we're in agreement that Mary wasn't really devoting her life to no sex but that's just what later devotees came up with in order to make her seem superhuman.

Root of Jesse said:

Where's that mandate? God actually demands that we not lust after our spouse. There's chastity in marriage, too.

Click to expand...

God does not demand such a thing.

It's perfectly fine before God to have sexual fantasies for your wife/husband. Personally, I pity all the married Roman Catholics who follow such unbiblical teachings...

Lion King said:

God does not demand such a thing.

It's perfectly fine before God to have sexual fantasies for your wife/husband. Personally, I pity all the married Roman Catholics who follow such unbiblical teachings...

Click to expand...

sexual desire is not the same as lust

a healthy sex life is a good thing

Root of Jesse said:

You're assuming what I'm assuming. God came to Mary and told her he wanted her to bear His son. Mary said yes. That's obedience.

Click to expand...

You were arguing for her perpetual virginity on the basis of her obedience. That's not assumption, that's inference.

Seems maybe we're BOTH making wrong assumptions, if that's the case. I'm not jaded, at all. I respect the Mother of God, and I defend her. Got a problem with that?

Click to expand...

No! Did you not read what I wrote? I have no problem with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. I'm saying your argument for it is just bloody awful.

Mary had, according to tradition, already given up on sex, promising to live a chaste life.

Click to expand...

Yes, traditions like this abound in early Christian fiction, and put her in the context of consecrated temple virginity. But consecrated temple virginity was unknown among the Jews, being a peculiarly Greek phenomenon. Again, fine doctrine, bad argument.

She already gave herself to God. I will admit that the way I said it may be not the best, but so what? Everyone in here, non Catholic, pretty much, is laughing about the dogma of the Catholic Church, which has been the belief for 2000 years.

Click to expand...

You know, except for Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics, and high church Lutherans. Why the pity party? I'm not questioning her perpetual virginity.

The point is that God would want the person of his mother to be perfect,<edit perfect creature, not perfect as God>. And had the power to make her so. And did. That's our belief. Got a problem with it?

Click to expand...

And my point isn't that you're wrong in general. It's that it's a bad argument for the perpetual virginity. And yes, I have a problem with bad arguments, because they leave catholicism- Roman, Anglican, evangelical, or eastern- open to ridicule.

It's a bad argument for the perpetual virginity because it assumes that creaturely perfection consists in celibacy within marriage. That's a very bold assumption to make of Protestants. Celibacy is one thing. Celibacy within marriage is quite another.

Again, I'm not, NOT arguing against Mary's perpetual virginity. But to argue for her perpetual virginity from the perspective of God's desire for his blessed mother's creaturely perfection requires not only a belief that celibacy is a higher calling for creatures, but that celibacy and marriage are compilable. And that asks a whole lot. So as I said, be smart about it.

I think it's pretty funny that Protestants sing pretty songs at Christmas about Mary, and then shove her back in a box until next year.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because the Lutheran Service Book doesn't have the Magnificat in the Services of Vespers and Evening Prayer, nor does it celebrate the Feast of the Purification of Mary and the Presentation of the Lord on February 2, the Feast of the Annunciation on March 25, or the Feast of the Dormition on August 15.

Oh, wait, it does...

Catholics, more so than Protestants, are not squemish about marital love. Look around at many Catholic families...You all don't know what you know and what you don't know. You just mischaracterize the Catholic faith. Having been on that side, believe me, I know.

Click to expand...

For the love of Pete, I'm not saying Catholics have an unhealthy view of sex! I'm saying that you're feeding a common misconception about Catholics by arguing for Mary's perpetual virginity on the grounds that creaturely perfection consists in celibacy, let alone celibacy within marriage. It plays right into their hands, dude.

GratiaCorpusChristi, I admit to not having done extensive research into Temple practises in the late first century BC and the early first century AD so what I have to say here is a mixture of history and speculation.

Is it not true that the Jews in Palestine and the dispersion within the Roman Empire were coming from about three hundred years of Greek influence and that concepts such as temple virginity would be quite familiar to them and possibly adopted by some in their service of God? If I am not mistaken the Jewish historian Josephus mentions that there were quarters for consecrated women in which to live at the Temple in Jerusalem. And Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) mentions something that has, within the Catholic Church, been understood as speaking of the presentation of a virgin in the temple in these words, And another mention of virgins in the temple is found in the following text, So, let us not rashly claim that temple virgins were unknown to Judaism at about the time that our Lord, Jesus Christ, was born.

Rhamiel said:

sexual desire is not the same as lust

a healthy sex life is a good thing

Click to expand...

What is lust?

lust
/l&#601;st/
Noun
Very strong sexual desire.
Verb
Have a very strong sexual desire for someone: "he really lusted after me in those days".
Synonyms
noun. desire - craving - longing - passion - concupiscence
verb. crave - hanker - desire - yearn - covet - thirst - long

MoreCoffee said:

God has called the Blessed Virgin Mary to be an example of deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ even when such faith costs what is most dearly held to her heart.-snip-

Click to expand...

Folks, let's not confuse something.

There is Mary. And then there is "Mary", which is the subject of the thread. The two are not necessarily the same thing. Visions of "Mary" are not the same as Mary.

Let's not continue to beg the question, assuming in the first place that the visions are good theology and true. It has been shown in numerous places that the "Mary" visions contradict scripture and tradition.

So, while we all can agree that Mary is not our salvation, it's not clear why people are still defending "Mary" as your salvation.