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

[seeingeyes]

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

I see no reason to die on such a hill.

 

[Standing Up]

I see no reason to die on such a hill.

It's a problem to know some history for sure.

 

[squint]

It's a problem to know some history for sure.

I'm surprised no one (especially you Standing Up) has dragged out "Ineffabilis Deus" and the official Papal Sanctions against anyone who does not adhere to the Ever Virgin postulations, er, ah, I mean fact findings, yet.

yer slippin' buddy!

s

 

[Rhamiel]

The point is women were not allowed into the priest area and clearly never into the Holy of Holies, even if it was empty. The PoJames is simply wrong.

" For since there was a partition built for the women on that side, as the proper place wherein they were to worship, there was a necessity for a second gate for them: this gate was cut out of its wall, over against the first gate. There was also on the other sides one southern and one northern gate, through which was a passage into the court of the women; for as to the other gates, the women were not allowed to pass through them; nor when they went through their own gate could they go beyond their own wall. This place was allotted to the women of our own country, and of other countries, provided they were of the same nation, and that equally. "
-Josephus

Again, the conclusion is that the PoJ has picked up the vestal virgin religion of Rome and applied it to create their Mary myths (ever-virgin, had to leave the temple at first menstation, women as priests).

so the fact that the Protoevangelium of James is wrong on some things
you think it is wrong about everything?
not only that, but you assume that the mistakes that are made in it are not honest mistakes, but the deliberate grafting in of Pagan customs?

the first part is illogical
and the second part is uncharitable

 

[seeingeyes]

It's a problem to know some history for sure.

History or no history, I consider a waste of time to nit-pick people to death in the name of Jesus. If MoreCoffee wants me to call the Church 'George', then 'George' it is.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, I believe that was noted prior.

For example I as a [protestant, generally speaking] certainly accept the virgin birth as a matter of written presentation and a reality accepted via faith, empirically none of which can be proven as a fact.

So I draw the line at acceptance of a limited portion of information that is presented in writing, which same is once or twice removed from the original documents.

But that is not enough for the RCC. That is my point.



It's not a 'recommended' option, by your own statements. It's mandatory.

There seems to be some fantasy in play that such information is quantifiable as empirical evidence.

It's not.

s

As I have said previously...WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PRAY TO MARY. Belief in the articles of our faith, just like you believe yours. I mean, if you're not going to agree to the rules, why join the club?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Catholic Church is patently not reformed or reforming by their own testimony. Rome cannot affirm the correctness of Trent and object that people objecting to the correctness of Trent are stuck in the past. Moreover, the 16th century, being the context of the schism, is the correct context in which to view the schism.

The Catholic Church reforms every day, and has for nigh on 2100 years. I don't know what your idea of "reform" is, but we do it every day, as individuals and as the body of Christ.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The point is women were not allowed into the priest area and clearly never into the Holy of Holies, even if it was empty.

Right, except you missed two words...during worship.

The PoJames is simply wrong.

Your opinion.

" For since there was a partition built for the women on that side, as the proper place wherein they were to worship, there was a necessity for a second gate for them: this gate was cut out of its wall, over against the first gate. There was also on the other sides one southern and one northern gate, through which was a passage into the court of the women; for as to the other gates, the women were not allowed to pass through them; nor when they went through their own gate could they go beyond their own wall. This place was allotted to the women of our own country, and of other countries, provided they were of the same nation, and that equally. "
-Josephus

Again, the conclusion is that the PoJ has picked up the vestal virgin religion of Rome and applied it to create their Mary myths (ever-virgin, had to leave the temple at first menstation, women as priests).

As I said this speaks nothing of regular life.

 

[Metal Minister]

so the fact that the Protoevangelium of James is wrong on some things
you think it is wrong about everything?
not only that, but you assume that the mistakes that are made in it are not honest mistakes, but the deliberate grafting in of Pagan customs?

the first part is illogical
and the second part is uncharitable

*blind post*
Hello my brother! It's been some time since we last spoke! I pray you are well and feel God's blessings everyday! I only wanted to point out, that since the PoJ is wrong on many points, it stands to reason that it should be acknowledged as an unreliable work, and therefore should not be accepted as correct in anything without having verifiable proof. It would be like reading the newspaper, and the writer stating that the moon is made of cheese and your breakfast cereal is really grass clippings. Would you give credence to anything else he wrote? Of course not, unless he had a reputable outside source with first hand knowledge and evidence to back up any other claims the writer made. We don't have that with the PoJ. God bless my brother!

 

[squint]

As I have said previously...WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PRAY TO MARY. Belief in the articles of our faith, just like you believe yours. I mean, if you're not going to agree to the rules, why join the club?

You are trying to double deal the deck.

sorry.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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).

Where does he say that?! Also, vestal and vestige have no relationship. The Vestal Virgins were the priestesses of the goddess Vesta.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are trying to double deal the deck.

sorry.

In what way is requiring belief in a dogma regarding Mary requiring that we pray to Mary? Please explain this to me. Understanding, of course that, even if we do pray to Mary, it doesn't involve worship, and it's really prayer through Mary...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where does he say that?! Also, vestal and vestige have no relationship. The Vestal Virgins were the priestesses of the goddess Vesta.

Jesus of Nazareth, Vol II.

On further review, your second statement is correct. But in that case, there would be no copycat in Jerusalem, it would be something of Judaism's doing.

 

[squint]

In what way is requiring belief in a dogma regarding Mary requiring that we pray to Mary? Please explain this to me. Understanding, of course that, even if we do pray to Mary, it doesn't involve worship, and it's really prayer through Mary...

"

THE DEFINITION​

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. [Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]
​

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart. "

CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Ineffabilis Deus (1854)

 

[Metal Minister]

I'm surprised no one (especially you Standing Up) has dragged out "Ineffabilis Deus" and the official Papal Sanctions against anyone who does not adhere to the Ever Virgin postulations, er, ah, I mean fact findings, yet.

yer slippin' buddy!

s

"

THE DEFINITION
Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. [Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart. "

CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Ineffabilis Deus (1854)

Decided to take things into your own hands I see.

 

[squint]

Decided to take things into your own hands I see.

Just thought I'd clear the air on where 'they' think all other believers who disagree with their supposed facts stand.

Nothing like their own writings to do it with.

s

 

[Root of Jesse]

"

THE DEFINITION​

Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. [Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]
​

Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart. "

CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Ineffabilis Deus (1854)

That says nothing about requiring the faithful to pray to Mary.

 

[squint]

That says nothing about requiring the faithful to pray to Mary.

You might do yourself well and read the whole document.

 

[MrLuther]

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

Well, they can claim it all they want. They have absolutely no basis for it, and the claim can be dismissed off-hand.

I disagree.

Then you're wrong.

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

No, you don't.
Also: Do you consider the Protoevangelium as Scripture or not? And what about Pseudo-Matthew?

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

I fail to see what this proves, other than there were at least two people known to the first readers with the name of Mary.

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).

No.
It demonstrates that she had not at the time known any man, and therefore was quite puzzled as to how the Angel's promise should be fulfilled - exactly BECAUSE she knew full well how a child was conceived.

There is nothing at all in any source I am aware of, which indicates that life-long virginity vows for women were part of 1st century "Palestininan" Judaism.

Thank you for your time and your efforts. Time to end this conversation.

What, don't like having an obvious slip-up pointed out? Then don't make them.

Lutherans and Anglicans, two protestant groups, absolutely do accept the idea that Mary prays for the Church, by the way.

The most high-church of the Lutherans, sure. But these are a tiny minority.

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).

That's plain wrong. There isn't anything to back up the idea of "vestal virgins" in Judaism; 1st century or present.
Only ONE person, the High Priest, was allowed into the Holy of Holies, and that only ONCE a year on one very specific day. What, and you honestly claim that various random girls came and went inthere as they pleased?
They had no function there. The one function to be performed there, could ONLY be performed by the high priest.

You're somehow managing to get Judaism and Roman polytheism mixed up, though I'm not sure how....

You know full well that the meaning of Catholic is such that no non-Roman can call Rome the Catholic Church. It'd be like the American president changing his title to "Emperor of the World" and demanding all other leaders address him as such.

THIS is basically what's going on.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Jesus of Nazareth, Vol II.

I don't remember that... where in the book?

On further review, your second statement is correct. But in that case, there would be no copycat in Jerusalem, it would be something of Judaism's doing.

There would be no copycat in Jerusalem because there were no consecrated, lifelong virgins in the service of the temple, and neither Sirach, nor 2 Maccabees, nor the Targumim, nor Luke prove otherwise.

Well, they can claim it all they want. They have absolutely no basis for it, and the claim can be dismissed off-hand.

You'd think. But they're living in la-la land, where Second Temple Judaism looks like the Roman Vestal cultus and documents like the Protoevangelium of James actually have historical merit.

It's just embarrassing. I'm always so close to becoming Catholic when reading actual Catholic theologians, and then I get on CF.