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

[Stryder06]

I know because the Church knows and the Church knows because the Fathers knew and the Fathers knew because the Apostles taught them. It is, in short, Apostolic Tradition.

That song and dance is getting kind of old. It's not Apostolic Tradition because the Apostles didn't teach this. You have to take your churches word for it, and you do so at the expense of the written word of God.

And yes, the Blessed Virgin Mary is well known and acclaimed as blessed by so many people because the Catholic Church and the other ancient churches have constantly held and taught Apostolic Tradition. I guess that when you opine that the Blessed Virgin is presented as "more than what she was" by the Apostolic and ancient churches it is because the theology which you teach makes rather little of her thus she become less that what she was in that system of beliefs.

An ancient teaching does not equal a correct teaching.

I make it a rule to reject a theology that will cause me to dismiss what is said in sacred scripture; the theology you are offering in the above quote simply asks that what saint Paul and saint Jude write be rejected.

First, were that true, you'd not be Catholic because you'd have to reject the majority of your theology since it requires you to accept tradition over scripture. Second, Paul and Jude are calling individuals to be faithful and to follow after Christ. Is that not what the text says? Following someone's example does not give precedence to ask said individual to "save you". Such pleas should only be petitioned to Christ.

Saints Paul and Jude were instrumental in the salvation of others and expressed that instrumentality as if they were saving those people.

I wouldn't disagree with them being instrumental in the salvation of many, and the expressions of Paul that he worked for the salvation of those souls.

Mary too is instrumental in the salvation of those who practise the devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary and so they express themselves about Mary as if she was saving them. In the cases of saints Paul and Jude neither was under the impression that they saved anybody apart from the grace of God and that they were anything other than his faithful servants in the salvation of those to whom they ministered. In the case the the blessed virgin Mary none who practise devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary has been taught that Mary saves anybody apart from the grace of God or that Mary is anything other than his faithful servant in the salvation of those who are devoted to the immaculate heart of Mary.

This is the confusion. Paul never said he saved anyone. Fact is that we are saved by grace through Christ. Any work that anyone does to save anyone is the result of Christ working through them. He receives the credit. You say Mary is "instrumental", my question is why? Why ask her to save you? Why say that she is your refuge? It's one thing to follow someones example. It's another to ask that individual you're following to "save you".

And you didn't answer my question. Are there other saints that you consecrate yourself to, that have prayers that include asking them to save you?

 

[Standing Up]

" How can we ever be grateful enough to our kind heavenly Mother, who had already prepared us by promising, in the first Apparition, to take us to heaven. "
From first Fatima vision

For those on GT who constantly opine they have no idea whether they are saved (going to heaven) or not, the little girls can offer you solace that they knew.

You just have to trust your "heavenly Mother", whoever that is.

 

[Rev Randy]

That song and dance is getting kind of old. It's not Apostolic Tradition because the Apostles didn't teach this. You have to take your churches word for it, and you do so at the expense of the written word of God.



An ancient teaching does not equal a correct teaching.



First, were that true, you'd not be Catholic because you'd have to reject the majority of your theology since it requires you to accept tradition over scripture. Second, Paul and Jude are calling individuals to be faithful and to follow after Christ. Is that not what the text says? Following someone's example does not give precedence to ask said individual to "save you". Such pleas should only be petitioned to Christ.



I wouldn't disagree with them being instrumental in the salvation of many, and the expressions of Paul that he worked for the salvation of those souls.



This is the confusion. Paul never said he saved anyone. Fact is that we are saved by grace through Christ. Any work that anyone does to save anyone is the result of Christ working through them. He receives the credit. You say Mary is "instrumental", my question is why? Why ask her to save you? Why say that she is your refuge? It's one thing to follow someones example. It's another to ask that individual you're following to "save you".

And you didn't answer my question. Are there other saints that you consecrate yourself to, that have prayers that include asking them to save you?

We all take someone's word in our various traditions, even you. Trust in one's Church is a part of most believers faith to some degree.

A modern teaching also is not the equal of truth. It takes a bit more.
If you are drowning and I throw you a life ring? One might say I'd saved you and one might say the life ring saved you.

 

[Standing Up]

""I have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart."
-from second vision of Fatima

See? The IH will save you. Devote yourself to IH and be saved.

OR, you could trust what the church, tradition, and bible say. Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.

 

[Standing Up]

" In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. "
-from second vision of Fatima

Not.

When did "Mary" reject John's (her keeper after Christ's death) book of Revelation wherein it says Christ will triumph?

 

[Stryder06]

We all take someone's word in our various traditions, even you. Trust in one's Church is a part of most believers faith to some degree.

Taking someone's word, and trusting your church to a degree is understandable. But not when that trust causes you to disregard what the scriptures say.

A modern teaching also is not the equal of truth. It takes a bit more.

Truth is timeless. It only seems modern because a lie has been accepted in it's place, and has been paraded around for so long.

If you are drowning and I throw you a life ring? One might say I'd saved you and one might say the life ring saved you.

If you throw out the life ring, you saved me. The life ring is only a tool. When you pull me to safety, I'm not going to thank the life ring.

 

[Stryder06]

The Immaculate Heart of Mary is a devotional name used to refer to the interior life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, her joys and sorrows, her virtues and hidden perfections, and, above all, her virginal love for God the Father, her maternal love for her son Jesus, and her compassionate love for all persons

Can someone validate the accuracy of this statement?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Mary devoted her life to serving God, in the persons of her Son, and His Father. She did not have a sexual relationship with any man.

I understand why you would equate mythology with tradition, even if they're not equal. That's the Protestant mind for you.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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...

Really? I disagree. When you have sexual fantasies, you idealize and emphasize things that aren't real. Catholics are taught (whether they follow or not) to deal with the reality of the whole person.

Where does the Bible say that lust is ok in marriage, btw?

 

[Root of Jesse]

sexual desire is not the same as lust

a healthy sex life is a good thing

10-4 Roger that.

 

[Lion King]

Really? I disagree. When you have sexual fantasies, you idealize and emphasize things that aren't real. Catholics are taught (whether they follow or not) to deal with the reality of the whole person.

What does that even mean?

Where does the Bible say that lust is ok in marriage, btw?

For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

Now your turn. Could you show me where God forbid lusting after your own wife/husband?

 

[seeingeyes]

Really? I disagree. When you have sexual fantasies, you idealize and emphasize things that aren't real. Catholics are taught (whether they follow or not) to deal with the reality of the whole person.

Where does the Bible say that lust is ok in marriage, btw?

How does thinking about having sex with your own wife constitute 'lust'?

That's...insane.

The fruit of that teaching can be nothing but fear. "Am I thinking about her? Or fantasizing?" "Am I lusting? Or appreciating God's grace?" "Am I acting in sin? Or in perfect chastity?"

Spend a week or two on the Christian Advice board and you'll discover that a teaching like this bears only rot.

 

[Rev Randy]

That song and dance is getting kind of old. It's not Apostolic Tradition because the Apostles didn't teach this. You have to take your churches word for it, and you do so at the expense of the written word of God.



An ancient teaching does not equal a correct teaching.



First, were that true, you'd not be Catholic because you'd have to reject the majority of your theology since it requires you to accept tradition over scripture. Second, Paul and Jude are calling individuals to be faithful and to follow after Christ. Is that not what the text says? Following someone's example does not give precedence to ask said individual to "save you". Such pleas should only be petitioned to Christ.



I wouldn't disagree with them being instrumental in the salvation of many, and the expressions of Paul that he worked for the salvation of those souls.



This is the confusion. Paul never said he saved anyone. Fact is that we are saved by grace through Christ. Any work that anyone does to save anyone is the result of Christ working through them. He receives the credit. You say Mary is "instrumental", my question is why? Why ask her to save you? Why say that she is your refuge? It's one thing to follow someones example. It's another to ask that individual you're following to "save you".

And you didn't answer my question. Are there other saints that you consecrate yourself to, that have prayers that include asking them to save you?

What does that even mean?



For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

Now your turn. Could you show me where God forbid lusting after your own wife/husband?

With the exception of modern day earthly dictionaries, lust and desire are not the same. Burn with desire would only mean lust if a lifelong devotion was not included in the desire. I desired my wife before she was my wife. I did not desire (lust) after her body to gratify my sexual wants. I desired to be with her unto death. The sex is a bonus. If she was unable to have sex, I would still desire her. That is not lust.
Lust is what I did as a young man in the topless bars.
The point behind lust is fornication.
The point behind burning with desire (as Paul was addressing) is Matrimony keeping one who cannot contain alone from lasting..

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

If Mary gave herself to God in obedience, she would not have a place in her life to be other than a virgin.

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.

Sorry you didn't like it. As I said, maybe I didn't present it well, EXCUSE ME! The fact is that Mary said Yes to God, no to earthly pleasure.

Whether you have a problem or not with the doctrine is up to you.

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.

Unknown? Hardly.
The True Presentation of the Virgin Mary (Foretold in the Book of Sirach) - Taylor Marshall

Did Jewish Temple Virgins Exist and was Mary a Temple Virgin? |

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.



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.

Again, sorry you don't like the argument. All you had to say is "I don't like this argument, it doesn't ring with me." Or something like that.

Mary was ever virgin because she was a consecrated virgin who obeyed her vows and obeyed her God. But why wouldn't an all-powerful God make Mary pure and perfect as creaturely possible? I don't see that as a bad argument. So we disagree.

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...



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.

Creaturely perfection consists of obedience to God. I said that several times, and you just don't seem to see it. Lifelong celibacy, however it's taken, is a calling from God, coupled with a conscious acceptance of the calling. Mary was called, she heard and accepted, and so she was.

I'm sorry you don't get that. I don't care what those who disagree have to think about it, quite honestly. I know people who have prayed to God to provide them a spouse, been told that marriage in this life wasn't for them, tried to enter consecrated life, been led that this wasn't the call either, and spend their lives as vowed virgins. FWIW, temple virginity isn't too popular today, and yet we have cloistered nuns, consecrated widows, and consecrated virgins. Maybe not many. But popularity doesn't really matter.

 

[Stryder06]

Really? I disagree. When you have sexual fantasies, you idealize and emphasize things that aren't real. Catholics are taught (whether they follow or not) to deal with the reality of the whole person.

Where does the Bible say that lust is ok in marriage, btw?

How does a fantasy equal idealizing and emphasizing something that isn't real? Ever play pretend as a kid? Usually you do it just for fun and once the moment is over, you know that it's over.

That said I do agree that lust isn't ok, even in marriage, but i don't think that fantasizing about one's spouse means they'll end up lusting after them.

 

[Lion King]

Seems some have no idea what the word lust really means.

lust
noun /ləst/ 
lusts, plural

Very strong sexual desire
- he knew that his lust for her had returned

A passionate desire for something
- a lust for power

A sensual appetite regarded as sinful
- lusts of the flesh

verb /ləst/ 
lusted, past participle; lusted, past tense; lusting, present participle; lusts, 3rd person singular present

Have a very strong sexual desire for someone
- he really lusted after me in those days

Feel a strong desire for something
- pregnant women lusting for pickles and ice cream

 

[Stryder06]

With the exception of modern day earthly dictionaries, lust and desire are not the same. Burn with desire would only mean lust if a lifelong devotion was not included in the desire. I desired my wife before she was my wife. I did not desire (lust) after her body to gratify my sexual wants. I desired to be with her unto death. The sex is a bonus. If she was unable to have sex, I would still desire her. That is not lust.
Lust is what I did as a young man in the topless bars.
The point behind lust is fornication.
The point behind burning with desire (as Paul was addressing) is Matrimony keeping one who cannot contain alone from lasting..

Just wondering why you multi-quoted me on this one?

 

[Root of Jesse]

What is lust?

lust
/ləst/
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

Lust is actually an overwhelming disordered desire for something. Many people today lust after money, and electronic gadgets.

 

[Lion King]

With the exception of modern day earthly dictionaries, lust and desire are not the same. Burn with desire would only mean lust if a lifelong devotion was not included in the desire. I desired my wife before she was my wife. I did not desire (lust) after her body to gratify my sexual wants. I desired to be with her unto death. The sex is a bonus. If she was unable to have sex, I would still desire her. That is not lust.
Lust is what I did as a young man in the topless bars.
The point behind lust is fornication.
The point behind burning with desire (as Paul was addressing) is Matrimony keeping one who cannot contain alone from lasting..

Can you please tell me what lust means according to these ancient "heavenly" dictionaries you possess?

Lust simply means having strong desires for something.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Mary and the Saints, simply put, are examples of how we are to live our lives. Role models, so to speak. Is that clear enough for you?