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

[Stryder06]

Without the reference to Jesus' birth, what you have suggested would be revealing intimacy details completely irrelevant to the Gospel.

Except for the fact that the prophet spoke saying "And the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son..."

 

[Stryder06]

I do not think your statement is correct; those who believe that Mary is ever virgin do so on the basis of Apostolic Tradition and no matter what you may make of the meaning of the phrase "Apostolic Tradition" the truth is that in the Church during the centuries when she was persecuted we have testimony from church fathers that Mary was indeed ever virgin.

For example, Protoevangelium of James tells is that saint Anne (Mary's mother) vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord. The same source tells us that saint Joseph (Mary's husband) was elderly when they married.Such stories do not come out of nowhere; there were, I conjecture, stories of a similar kind in circulation among Christians, and possibly among heretics too, at that time (the early second century AD).

Thus the evidence upon which the Church relies for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is found both in scripture and in the early church.

Hate to break it to you, but your church fathers were wrong. And what makes you think they didn't come out of nowhere? Ever consider the fact that the few texts the gospels have about Mary post birth, she is given no special recognition? Compare that with your stories and ask yourself why.

 

[Stryder06]

I feel like Protestants wouldn't care about Mary's perpetual virginity if it wasn't such good ammunition in the fight to assert that Catholics don't really care about the Bible, since the Bible so strongly suggests Mary had other children.

So whether or not she was a perpetual virgin, I think it's really just about bashing Catholicism.

Nothing to do with bashing Catholicism. It's about truth. If Mary isn't ever-virgin that knocks a rather large leg out of their three-legged stool. I'll ask you, if you had undeniable proof that Mary wasn't ever-virgin, what would that mean for you in regards to ever Marian apparition that has appeared.

 

[Tzaousios]

Nothing to do with bashing Catholicism. It's about truth. If Mary isn't ever-virgin that knocks a rather large leg out of your three-legged stool. I'll ask you, if you had undeniable proof that Mary wasn't ever-virgin, what would that mean for you in regards to ever Marian apparition that has appeared.

"Youryouryour"...did you stop to notice that GratiaCorpusChristi is not Roman Catholic?

 

[Stryder06]

Much of the energy behind the belief is a culturally WASP-ish attack on celibacy and anti-clericalism. Mary's perpetual virginity becomes an symbol for all that is bad about Roman Catholicism, the exotic "Other". So Protestants end up buying into ridiculous, and sometimes even sub-Christian, assumptions in order to justify that.

Actually, "Sacred Tradition" is a symbol of all that is bad with Roman Catholicism. Having a priest tell you that the bible is "just a book" and that Sacred Tradition is really what you should look to is problematic in my opinion.

Thinking that someone is just trying to bash your religion is another excuse, in my opinion, to ignore the evidence being placed before you that it's quite possible that something you're being taught is wrong. The only reason why I'm discussing the "ever-virginity" of Mary is because it goes to the heart of these apparitions that show up claiming to be her. If scripture shows that Mary isn't ever-virgin, then that would, in my opinion, mean that the visions of "Mary" aren't actually visions of Mary.

 

[Stryder06]

"Youryouryour"...did you stop to notice that GratiaCorpusChristi is not Roman Catholic?

I did, and I've been quite careful in my responses to him to not lump him in as a Catholic. That was an accident.

 

[Stryder06]

You seem confused, most Christians throughout history have not been celibate, including Catholics and Orthodox.

What proof have you of this?

The Orthodox and Catholics also recognize that celibacy is a calling that not everyone is given. In my mind it is prideful for a person to demand that they be recognized as another's equal. It is a sign of spiritual maturity to respect those that have sacrificed for the Kingdom, and to recognize ones own spiritual poverty and to be grateful for the grace God has given us.

How is celibacy in and of itself a sacrifice for the kingdom? Paul was celibate because he was busy evangelizing. Not having a family made it easier for him to go from one place to another being fully engaged in his ministry. I could be wrong, but it seems most celibate Catholics are priests and nuns, and they function mainly within their locale.

The holy men and women you criticize pray, fast, and mortify their flesh for the love of God and salvation of the world, and your words show the spiritual impoverishment and foolishness of your theology.

Mortify their flesh? Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

[MrLuther]

"Youryouryour"...did you stop to notice that GratiaCorpusChristi is not Roman Catholic?

Kinda crypto- though...

Actually, "Sacred Tradition" is a symbol of all that is bad with Roman Catholicism. Having a priest tell you that the bible is "just a book" and that Sacred Tradition is really what you should look to is problematic in my opinion.
.

To be fair, that's not what the RCs claim.

 

[Albion]

Kinda crypto- though...

Actually, "Sacred Tradition" is a symbol of all that is bad with Roman Catholicism. Having a priest tell you that the bible is "just a book" and that Sacred Tradition is really what you should look to is problematic in my opinion.

To be fair, that's not what the RCs claim.

To be fairer, that's not what their church claims. The church's management is always careful to choose its words well. But it is common for "the RCs" here on CF to talk that way and use those very words--which suggests that they get the idea from somewhere or other. If one's church makes it a point to denounce Sola Scriptura all the time, and carp about calling the Bible "the word of God," the average member is going to get the point, isn't he?

 

[squint]

To be more exact, that's not what their church claims. The church's management is always careful to choose its words well. But it is common for "the RCs" here on CF to talk that way and use those very words--which suggests that they get the idea from somewhere or other.

There is also the common notion amongst the members that any critique is RCC bashing, which is just a flat out lie.

One can very well disagree with any position and NOT do so by placing their eternal fate in jeopardy whatsoever, so how much 'bashing' is a reality?

Exactly NONE.

What is even stranger is that the orthodox in general expect that thinking, supposed freewill individuals are supposed to rigorously examine matters, yet when the potential frailties come to LIGHT, the big stick comes out and those same questioners are quickly stuffed back into their SILENCIO box with the threat of eternal damnation.

Wizard of Oz theology lost it's abilities long long ago. And rightfully so.

s

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Protoevangelium of James isn't considered Scripture, even by the RCC. It's pseudopigraphical, and Origin called it dubious and of recent appearance. It speaks of temple virgins in the Temple in Jerusalem - a practice there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for, and which doesn't make an ounce of sense.
Its similarity with the Vestal Virgins in the Roman temples, though, is striking.
Hey, are you going to say now that Pseudo-Matthew is also Scripture? Full of dragons, and panthers, and newborn Jesus telling the palm trees to bow to give Mary shade?
Or is that somehow conveniently different?

There isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest that Mary and Joseph alone, of all the couples in Israel, didn't have sex. The concept is ridiculous.

Watch out. They're going to try to make the case that there were consecrated temple virgins in Jerusalem.

 

[Tzaousios]

Watch out. They're going to try to make the case that there were consecrated temple virgins in Jerusalem.

LOL

 

[Stryder06]

To be fair, that's not what the RCs claim.

I disagree. They may not say it like that, but it comes across exactly as such. I wonder if a RCC had to do without scripture of Sacred Tradition, which they'd choose.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

To be fairer, that's not what their church claims. The church's management is always careful to choose its words well. But it is common for "the RCs" here on CF to talk that way and use those very words--which suggests that they get the idea from somewhere or other. If one's church makes it a point to denounce Sola Scriptura all the time, and carp about calling the Bible "the word of God," the average member is going to get the point, isn't he?

To be fair, the theologian in the twentieth century who has most carped about calling the Bible "the word of God" was Karl Barth.

 

[squint]

To be fair, the theologian in the twentieth century who has most carped about calling the Bible "the word of God" was Karl Barth.

It's not. Only the RED LETTERS are Gods Words.

the other words are categorically not Gods Words, inspired of recordings as they are.

Barth, if that's what he was directing towards, was right.

s

 

[FireDragon76]

What proof have you of this?

Plainly obvious- in most Catholic or Orthodox countries, the life of ordinary people is family oriented. It is far from being some kind of religion that shuns family obligations and marriage. In fact sometimes parents are even very upset to learn their children will become monks, nuns, or priests. It's more correct to say that Catholics view celibacy as a sacrifice than an obligation.

How is celibacy in and of itself a sacrifice for the kingdom? Paul was celibate because he was busy evangelizing. Not having a family made it easier for him to go from one place to another being fully engaged in his ministry. I could be wrong, but it seems most celibate Catholics are priests and nuns, and they function mainly within their locale.

What does wandering around have to do with making sacrifices for the Kingdom?

You are confused because your understanding of salvation is individualistic. Instead of seeing those people as spiritual warriors that the non-celibate benefit from through their prayers and wisdom, you see them as selfish and anti-social. That is the un-spiritual WASP bias.

Mortify their flesh? Can you explain what you mean by that?

Mortification of the flesh is "putting to death" the flesh, the Old Adam, through asceticism and self-discipline.

To be fairer, that's not what their church claims. The church's management is always careful to choose its words well. But it is common for "the RCs" here on CF to talk that way and use those very words--which suggests that they get the idea from somewhere or other. If one's church makes it a point to denounce Sola Scriptura all the time, and carp about calling the Bible "the word of God," the average member is going to get the point, isn't he?

You can look into the Papal Encyclical Dei Verbum. Roman Catholics have a very high view of Scriptures. Nevertheless, Catholicism is not Bibliolatry- the whole point of the Bible is to point to Christ, who would be alive today and present in the Spirit whether or not we had a Bible. The Holy Spirit is the basis of Sacred Tradition for most catholic minded Christians.

Distinguishing between the Word of God as an active presence from the text of the Bible is nothing new, even for Protestants - Luther has elements of this in his theology, and it is the basis of much of Karl Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy, which has been highly influential in mainline Protestantism and some evangelical Protestant churches.

 

[Albion]

Plainly obvious- in most Catholic or Orthodox countries, the life of ordinary people is family oriented. It is far from being some kind of religion that shuns family obligations and marriage.

All right, that's fair--as far as that final point is concerned. But I don't think you can generalize about family life in "most Catholic or Orthodox countries." In most of them, the majority are only nominal Catholics who rarely are seen in church.

You can look into the Papal Encyclical Dei Verbum. Roman Catholics have a very high view of Scriptures.

I already said that the lip service given the Scriptures by the church officials looks right. But it doesn't translate to the attitude we see here from church members and they get that from what their church tells them between the lines, all encyclicals and other formal proclamations aside.

Catholicism is not Bibliolatry- the whole point of the Bible is to point to Christ, who would be alive today and present in the Spirit whether or not we had a Bible. The Holy Spirit is the basis of Sacred Tradition for most catholic minded Christians.

Does that mean that you know some people who ARE "Bibliolaters?" Thanks for verifying my point.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Just the same as those who believe they didn't. And those who believe they did have more to base their guesses on than those who believe they didn't, ergo the probability that THEY are correct and the "ever virgin"-crowd is wrong, is greater.

Actually, we have Scriptural backing, as well...

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."
Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.
Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.
Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived).

 

[Stryder06]

Plainly obvious- in most Catholic or Orthodox countries, the life of ordinary people is family oriented. It is far from being some kind of religion that shuns family obligations and marriage. In fact sometimes parents are even very upset to learn their children will become monks, nuns, or priests. It's more correct to say that Catholics view celibacy as a sacrifice than an obligation.

How is this proof that most are celibate?

What does wandering around have to do with making sacrifices for the Kingdom?

You consider evangelism wandering around?

You are confused because your understanding of salvation is individualistic. Instead of seeing those people as spiritual warriors that the non-celibate benefit from through their prayers and wisdom, you see them as selfish and anti-social. That is the un-spiritual WASP bias.

When did I say they were being selfish and anti-social? I don't have to be celibate to pray for someone else. Being celibate won't make my prayers more effective, so I really fail to see your point. Paul's POV on celibacy wasn't to do it just to do it. It was to do it so you could be more engaged in the work of Christ.

Mortification of the flesh is "putting to death" the flesh, the Old Adam, through asceticism and self-discipline.

Ok.

You can look into the Papal Encyclical Dei Verbum. Roman Catholics have a very high view of Scriptures. Nevertheless, Catholicism is not Bibliolatry- the whole point of the Bible is to point to Christ, who would be alive today and present in the Spirit whether or not we had a Bible. The Holy Spirit is the basis of Sacred Tradition for most catholic minded Christians.

I never said they didn't put a high view on scripture. But from my experience with Catholic's, it's Holy Tradition that guides them. They read the scripture and understand it based on Holy Tradition. On more then one occasion I've been asked by what authority I interpret scripture. According to their tradition, I have none. If the Holy Spirit was the basis of Sacred Tradition, it would be in line with scripture.

Distinguishing between the Word of God as an active presence from the text of the Bible is nothing new, even for Protestants - Luther has elements of this in his theology, and it is the basis of much of Karl Barth's Neo-Orthodoxy, which has been highly influential in mainline Protestantism and some evangelical Protestant churches.

Don't know who Karl Barth is. Don't know much about Luther outside of his thesis being nailed to a church door. I don't think I understand what you mean about distinguishing between the Word of God and the text of the bible. The scripture is the written word of God given to us for guidance. Christ is the Word made flesh, who taught us using the scripture. That should be example enough of what God desires to be our guide.

 

[sunlover1]

To be fairer, that's not what their church claims. The church's management is always careful to choose its words well. But it is common for "the RCs" here on CF to talk that way and use those very words--which suggests that they get the idea from somewhere or other. If one's church makes it a point to denounce Sola Scriptura all the time, and carp about calling the Bible "the word of God," the average member is going to get the point, isn't he?

Loudly and clearly.
And, so we respond...