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

[Root of Jesse]

Private devotions are not considered an adequate alternative to corporate worship, etc. As a supplement, sure, they're encouraged. You really need to stop jumping to extremes when you're looking for some rebuttal.
But since you are unwilling to discuss in a calm and civil manner, this is the end.

Private devotions are endlessly encouraged. But if you're just saying that it doesn't fulfill the requirement for public worship of God, why not say that?

 

[squint]

This isn't true of the NT...which is the only place we have God's word actually spoken.

hmmm?

That's NOT what the Apostles presented, but whatever...you may have been taught...

You do know that the Nicene Creed, which we all affirm here, acknowledges the Word of God of the O.T? as does the RCC?

s

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh, I didn't mean to say that no one would argue.

But that isn't the [Catholic Church's] stance on Mary, is it?

It is what the Catholic Church teaches.

There is also the teaching of the church fathers in Apostolic Tradition.

Our brethren in all of the ancient churches share our deep respect for the mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[seeingeyes]

If that were the [Catholic Church]'s stance, then there could be no argument.

You'd be surprised

By the way, is there a reason you switched 'RCC' to 'Catholic Church' in my quote? Is 'RCC' incorrect?

 

[Root of Jesse]

hmmm? Medjugorje and Akita?

Don't really follow them to tell you the truth. I had my fill of exposure to Mary channelers when I was more active in the charismatic realm...

s

Medugorje is not an approved Marian apparition. I am not sure about Akita.

Even so, no Marian apparitions are required by the Church for faithful Catholics to believe. None. Approved ones are considered worthy to follow, but not required.

 

[squint]

Medugorje is not an approved Marian apparition. I am not sure about Akita.

Even so, no Marian apparitions are required by the Church for faithful Catholics to believe. None. Approved ones are considered worthy to follow, but not required.

Members have no choice but to accept every jot and tittle of official teachings AND findings...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well Albion, you know if you don't accept their teachings on this matter what awaits you...

Again, not true.

I am sorry, I'm just trying to clear up common misconceptions. Albion, I believe, knows better, but continues to use inflammatory language.

Private devotions are encouraged, not required. Many different ones are approved as useful in private worship of God. Private devotion does not substitute for weekly attendance at Divine Liturgical worship, commonly called Mass. Doing this fulfills our observance of what was done in Scripture, on the first day of the week.

 

[MoreCoffee]

By the way, is there a reason you switched 'RCC' to 'Catholic Church' in my quote? Is 'RCC' incorrect?

"RCC" is a kind of nickname and Catholic Church is the proper name of the Church. Best to stick with the proper name; you can abbreviate it - CC, for example, would be consistent with CCC as abbreviation for Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[seeingeyes]

It is what the Catholic Church teaches.

There is also the teaching of the church fathers in Apostolic Tradition.

Our brethren in all of the ancient churches share our deep respect for the mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But the Catholic Church does not teach that "God saw fit to preserve Mary's name in sacred scripture and God saw fit to record her obedience and her song of praise and the Lord's respect for her. That is enough."

 

[seeingeyes]

"RCC" is a kind of nickname and Catholic Church is the proper name of the Church. Best to stick with the proper name; you can abbreviate it - CC, for example, would be consistent with CCC as abbreviation for Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Sorry if I offended.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But the Catholic Church does not teach that "God saw fit to preserve Mary's name in sacred scripture and God saw fit to record her obedience and her song of praise and the Lord's respect for her. That is enough."

The bold words were addressed to my interlocutor. They constitute a separate (albeit short) thought. The other words are indeed what the Church teaches.

 

[squint]

Again, not true.

I am sorry, I'm just trying to clear up common misconceptions. Albion, I believe, knows better, but continues to use inflammatory language.

Private devotions are encouraged, not required. Many different ones are approved as useful in private worship of God. Private devotion does not substitute for weekly attendance at Divine Liturgical worship, commonly called Mass. Doing this fulfills our observance of what was done in Scripture, on the first day of the week.

I might suggest that prayers to Mary are not optional in the RCC.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sorry if I offended.

You're a good guy, you did not offend. I merely expanded the abbreviation and lost the "R[oman]" part because it isn't the name of the Church. And while it is true that more than 90% of Catholics use the Roman Missal and follow the Roman rite there are, nevertheless, 10% or so who follow more than twenty other liturgical and disciplinary traditions within the Catholic Church.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Origen actually "chose" the PoJames "over" scripture. He liked the idea of an ever-virgin. And he sourced the idea of ever-virgin to the PoJames. Not scripture. Not apostles. Not to faithful bishops.

The other tradition extant at the time was Joseph/Mary had children. For example, Tertullian used that as further proof of the humanity of Christ, in addition to 1 John (came by blood and water). And there is Cyril of Jerusalem who speaks only to Mary's virginity that ended at Christ's birth.

 

[Standing Up]

There were. We have documents that show it. We've shown it to this thread.

Scripture debunks the idea of temple virgins in Jerusalem in the time of Christ with the case of Anna (not a virgin) and other women (blood).

The vestal virgins of Rome are the model into which they fit Mary.

 

[Standing Up]

Oh goodness, no, no you didn't. The Sirach quote and the example of Anna don't even come close. Other people properly refuted them so I didn't take the time.

Perhaps you should read Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah. Don't worry, it has an Imprimatur.

And what possible role would temple virgins play in the Jerusalem temple? Male priests had to be abstinent during their term of service in order to enter the holy place, but women couldn't enter the inner courtyard at all. So why be virgins? To... what? Direct foot traffic? The whole idea of temple virginity is a Roman idea, where women could be priest(esse)s, as in the case of the Vestals. So was Mary... a priestess?

Interesting. This (women priest at Rome) would explain why the PoJ asserts Mary entered the Holy of Holies.

Simply more refutation and explanation from where "Mary" ideas arose.

 

[FireDragon76]

Members have no choice but to accept every jot and tittle of official teachings AND findings...

That's not really true- it's perfectly OK to not believe a particular apparition or vision, and I know Catholics that take their faith seriously, but otherwise are not particularly devoted to apparitions or the piety assosciated with that.

When the RCC approves of something like the Divine Mercy devotion, they aren't necessarily saying that a person has to believe Jesus appeared to a polish nun and taught her some prayers- they are saying the practice of the Divine Mercy is consistent with their received tradition and the Bible. The same is true with other devotions like the rosary- it's not necessary to believe any of the particular stories about it, merely that it is beneficial and consistent with the Catholic faith.

There are Protestants, particularly among some Anglicans and Lutherans, who do accept the reality of much of Roman Catholic religious experience, while still regognizing that the debates of Petrine supremacy and so forth that seperate Catholics from Protestants are not resolved. For instance, I am currently reading a book, written by a Lutheran pastor and writer, on Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, a mid-twentieth century Italian charismatic saint. And the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterburry, Rowan Williams, visited Lourdes and gave a sermon there. So there are Protestants that are not automatically inimical or hostile to Roman Catholicism and can recognize what is true and good there, there is no need to be a Christian and have an "us" vs. "them" mentality.

I might suggest that prayers to Mary are not optional in the RCC.

Mostly it is optional, yes. The only place it might appear is if the Confitetor, a confession of sin, is used in the Mass's penitential rite, and even then, Mary is not addressed directly, the Confitetor is addressed to the assembled faithful. "Prayers to Mary" fits more with private devotion, something people can take or leave as it suits them.

Lutherans and Anglicans, two protestant groups, absolutely do accept the idea that Mary prays for the Church, by the way. The issue for Lutherans is the propriety of asking saints to pray for us- some Anglicans even accept this practice, others do not.

 

[Tzaousios]

The vestal virgins of Rome are the model into which they fit Mary.

If you are so sure about this parallel, does that also lead you to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are also pagan in nature and thus not Christianity?

 

[Standing Up]

By the way, is there a reason you switched 'RCC' to 'Catholic Church' in my quote? Is 'RCC' incorrect?

You are correct to identify the Roman Catholic Church with RCC or RC (Roman Catholic).

For some unknown reason, some of the RCers here like to make mention that they think they are the Catholic Church, as if to hope no one knows their doctrines/dogmas are far different from what the church taught long ago.

PS As an example, Cyprian and Firmillian argued against the Roman Church (pope Stephen) back in the 3rd century about Rome's belief that any baptism by any group was equivalent (regenerative) to the Christian one. They were the Catholic Church, not Rome is what they argued.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Oh goodness, no, no you didn't. The Sirach quote and the example of Anna don't even come close. Other people properly refuted them so I didn't take the time.

Perhaps you should read Raymond Brown's The Birth of the Messiah. Don't worry, it has an Imprimatur.

And what possible role would temple virgins play in the Jerusalem temple? Male priests had to be abstinent during their term of service in order to enter the holy place, but women couldn't enter the inner courtyard at all. So why be virgins? To... what? Direct foot traffic? The whole idea of temple virginity is a Roman idea, where women could be priest(esse)s, as in the case of the Vestals. So was Mary... a priestess?

Actually, not necessarily so. Pope Benedict talks about virgins being allowed to serve at the Holy of Holies, because there was no longer an Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. There was only a vestige of the Ark. Therefore, vestal virgins. Raymond Brown isn't my cup of tea, though he does have some things of value (to me).