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

[Standing Up]

Odd that so much of this thread is being devoted to the Protoevangelium of James

that book is not considered cannon by any Church

it was a popular book among early Christians, but it is not counted as being authoritative as Scripture, no one even thinks it was really written by James

Bingo.

Yet, it's influence has lingered for 1800 years.

 

[Tzaousios]

Bingo.

Yet, it's influence has lingered for 1800 years.

Standing Up, what do you think this influence says about the incarnational beliefs of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

 

[Standing Up]

Standing Up, what do you think this influence says about the incarnational beliefs of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

Like I've explained before, today there is little impact. Probably everyone here would agree that Christ came in the flesh, regardless of PoJ's description of Christ's birth, which was later picked up and shown to mean from Mary's side (east gate).

2000-1500 years ago, that idea to which today's believers all readily assent (came in the flesh) met something very specific. Here's 1 John 5:6a


This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood


Water and blood at birth (and at death with the spearing).

On the opposite end of the belief scale was a deceiver, an antichrist. Look at 2 John 1:7

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

So, long ago the belief was either came in the flesh (water and blood) or no flesh (no water and blood). The water and blood at Christ's birth (and death) meant He was human, as in God-with-us (one of us).

From that initial contrast between Christians and the world, we can trace the two ideas as they played out in the ECFs and councils. For example, we find this

"As we confess the divine birth of the Virgin to be without any childbed, since it came to pass without seed, and as we preach this to the entire flock, so we subject to correction those who through ignorance do anything which is inconsistent therewith. "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.lxxx.html

Without childbed would mean without water and blood, but I doubt any of them would embrace the idea that Christ did not have flesh. They just wouldn't be able to give a reasonable (human) explanation for their belief; that is, Christ had flesh, Christ was born, but without water and blood, like maybe from her side, like Eve from Adam.

So, again, today, the PoJ means little to most believers and most believers would quickly agree that Christ "came in the flesh". What that actually meant long ago has long been lost to the trickling sands of time.

 

[FireDragon76]

One does not have to believe that Jesus was born in some strange way to be Roman Catholic. Catholic beliefs in the ever-virginity of Mary are not dependent on the protovangelion of james and its description of Jesus birth. It was widely discounted in the West even in ancient times, yet most of the western Fathers believed in Mary's ever-virginity. St. Augustine most certainly did.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think that most non-Catholics do not know the difference. Since the RCC welcomes/allows/encompasses and does not deny the validity of so much of what many people see as total nonsense - like people flocking to see an image of Jesus or Mary on an underpass/chocolate dripping/piece of toast/apple core etc... then most people think that is enorsed by and a part of the Catholic religion. I have never seen any statements by the RCC denying or decrying that sort of thing.

The Catholic Church has never endorsed such a thing, so why would anyone think that the Catholic Church would do such a thing? Also, absence of a denial does not mean approval. If we had to say a public no to any and every so-called apparition, it would take too much time. We don't do it. It just makes big news on TV.

When there is a Marian apparition, it is a vision of a real woman, and a real message is conveyed by the person who sees the vision. Even when these are approved by the Church, it's only that they are worthy of veneration. It's not to be misconstrued that we must believe these visions.

 

[Root of Jesse]

As far as self discipline from candy denial to self-flagellation...
too much of a good thing is not a good thing,

Has someone said otherwise?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Glad to hear that.


Do you believe that they are missing the mark when they do
so? I can't see how, for instance, WWW could NOT be missing
the mark...

Well, when it comes to unnaturally messing with your body, I think any of that is wrong...but missing the mark how? As athletes? No, if they come to it by real work. As far as flying off of ropes and swinging collapsible chairs, or as entertainment, yeah, they miss the mark.

I just haven't seen such a thing in Scripture, so I don't know
why I'd be tempted to do so. I would worry that could attract
"cutting" and such.


Yes, what RCC's call proof may not be considered so for others who
are not in your church.

That's why it must be done under the guidance of someone who is responsible for your spiritual well-being.

And again, most of these apparitions and so on are only deemed worthy of veneration, not that it's a must that we do so, under pains of going to hell.

 

[Albion]

One does not have to believe that Jesus was born in some strange way to be Roman Catholic. Catholic beliefs in the ever-virginity of Mary are not dependent on the protovangelion of james and its description of Jesus birth. It was widely discounted in the West even in ancient times, yet most of the western Fathers believed in Mary's ever-virginity. St. Augustine most certainly did.

Yes, but as you know, most of these professions in that supposed development are so fantastic and incredible, that even Catholics don't ever talk about them. No one would take them seriously if they actually knew what was being suggested.

And then in addition, we know that the race was on to heap honors upon Mary in the generations following the founding of the church...in order to show piety, with each writer trying to outdo the last one, just the way we nowadays gild the lily with our political heroes. Some of our were considered ordinary or so-so in life but if they were assassinated, Katie bar the door. We have to name everything after them, create national holidays, etc. etc., and so with Mary. It's human nature, apparently.

Remember also that Marian devotionalism has waxed and waned throughout history. For awhile, it's the rage; then it's not.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, but as you know, most of these professions in that supposed development are so fantastic and incredible, that even Catholics don't ever talk about them. No one would take them seriously if they actually knew what was being suggested.

And then in addition, we know that the race was on to heap honors upon Mary in the generations following the founding of the church...in order to show piety, with each writer trying to outdo the last one, just the way we nowadays gild the lily with our political heroes. Some of our were considered ordinary or so-so in life but if they were assassinated, Katie bar the door. We have to name everything after them, create national holidays, etc. etc., and so with Mary. It's human nature, apparently.

Remember also that Marian devotionalism has waxed and waned throughout history. For awhile, it's the rage; then it's not.

Oh, really? Which ones? And how do you heap honors on someone you consider already MOST honorable? Are you talking about all the titles? They all express the same thing. The way we think of Mary far outlasts anything we feel for any other human, politician or otherwise. While Marien piety might wax and wane, there is a steady core group that never forgets our Mother.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, if you think that "Hey, this completely irrelevant pseudopigraphical work written a MINIMUM of 100 years after the last of the Apostles died says something....that must make it true!", is evidence, then sure.

However, that's the worst possible definition of evidence I've ever heard :S

If that was our only evidence, I'd agree with you. Alas, it's not.

 

[Rick Otto]

Has someone said otherwise?

Perhaps, but what I was suggesting is that the goalposts be fixed a little more rigidly & humanely, lest we have a situation where anything goes & "God knows my heart" becomes the rationale.

 

[squint]

One does not have to believe that Jesus was born in some strange way to be Roman Catholic. Catholic beliefs in the ever-virginity of Mary are not dependent on the protovangelion of james and its description of Jesus birth. It was widely discounted in the West even in ancient times, yet most of the western Fathers believed in Mary's ever-virginity. St. Augustine most certainly did.

The entire idea of that is simply nonsense. Nothing but a fairy tale with zero basis in scripture.

Yet that standard is held out and insisted on. Even to the possible detriment of a person's eternal fate. As if the birth of a man without a human father is not enough, they have to insist the mother didn't bear Him by a natural birth.

Weird. Just plain old weird.

s

 

[squint]

Yes, but as you know, most of these professions in that supposed development are so fantastic and incredible, that even Catholics don't ever talk about them. No one would take them seriously if they actually knew what was being suggested.

And then in addition, we know that the race was on to heap honors upon Mary in the generations following the founding of the church...in order to show piety, with each writer trying to outdo the last one, just the way we nowadays gild the lily with our political heroes. Some of our were considered ordinary or so-so in life but if they were assassinated, Katie bar the door. We have to name everything after them, create national holidays, etc. etc., and so with Mary. It's human nature, apparently.

Remember also that Marian devotionalism has waxed and waned throughout history. For awhile, it's the rage; then it's not.

Uh, yeah, I think you are now striking at the fact of the matter for sure.

The whole Marian devotion thing is really just religious pandering to the female side of the ledgers.

s

 

[MrLuther]

If that was our only evidence, I'd agree with you. Alas, it's not.

I haven't seen anything else?
The normal RC rant of "We say so, so it's true, and we say so because it's true, and it's true because we say so" isn't going to work, either.
Ad fontes!

 

[Rev Randy]

Uh, yeah, I think you are now striking at the fact of the matter for sure.

The whole Marian devotion thing is really just religious pandering to the female side of the ledgers.

s

Maybe that's why God instructed us to honor our mother.(Did you note some sarcasm?)

 

[MrLuther]

As if the birth of a man without a human father is not enough, they have to insist the mother didn't bear Him by a natural birth.

Weird. Just plain old weird.

s

(bolding mine)

In before RCs go "Oh see? Non-RCs don't know anything, and we know everything and are always right because we say so"...

Actually that's not what is claimed. Mary's "ever-virginity" doesn't speak as such to the birth of Christ. Everyone agrees that:
1: Mary didn't have sex BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus
2: Ergo: Joseph didn't have anything to do with her being pregnant.

What it IS about, is "Mary and Joseph didn't have sex....ever!". A notion totally unfounded and unsubstantiated in any of the relevant sources, and probably only so desperately defended because to do otherwise and realize "Uhm...yeah, probably not" would make the whole house of cards come tumbling down, after having claimed it staunchly for centuries.
They've painted themselves into a corner, from which they can't escape, so they try to pretend it isn't the case, by whatever means they can.

Maybe that's why God instructed us to honor our mother.(Did you note some sarcasm?)

Kindly tell me what this has to do with the discussion of whether or not Mary and Joseph did what every single other married couple in human history did?

 

[squint]

Maybe that's why God instructed us to honor our mother.(Did you note some sarcasm?)

Yeah, well, I think you should go kiss a statue for breakfast...

 

[squint]

(bolding mine)

In before RCs go "Oh see? Non-RCs don't know anything, and we know everything and are always right because we say so"...

Actually that's not what is claimed. Mary's "ever-virginity" doesn't speak as such to the birth of Christ. Everyone agrees that:
1: Mary didn't have sex BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus
2: Ergo: Joseph didn't have anything to do with her being pregnant.

What it IS about, is "Mary and Joseph didn't have sex....ever!". A notion totally unfounded and unsubstantiated in any of the relevant sources.

I mentioned the fact that after a natural birth a woman no longer has a hymen regardless of having had sex or not.

yes, we ascribe to an inception apart from a sex act. (as incredible as that is to believe) because the text sez so. But we are not requested in the text to believe that Mary regrew a hymen or that God reinserted one OR that Jesus popped out the side of Mary so that her hymen could stay intact.

weirdo's

s

 

[Rev Randy]

(bolding mine)

In before RCs go "Oh see? Non-RCs don't know anything, and we know everything and are always right because we say so"...

Actually that's not what is claimed. Mary's "ever-virginity" doesn't speak as such to the birth of Christ. Everyone agrees that:
1: Mary didn't have sex BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus
2: Ergo: Joseph didn't have anything to do with her being pregnant.

What it IS about, is "Mary and Joseph didn't have sex....ever!". A notion totally unfounded and unsubstantiated in any of the relevant sources, and probably only so desperately defended because to do otherwise and realize "Uhm...yeah, probably not" would make the whole house of cards come tumbling down, after having claimed it staunchly for centuries.
They've painted themselves into a corner, from which they can't escape, so they try to pretend it isn't the case, by whatever means they can.



Kindly tell me what this has to do with the discussion of whether or not Mary and Joseph did what every single other married couple in human history did?

Every other married couple? I know three who have never had sex. Two by reason of age and health and one by vow.

 

[Rev Randy]

Yeah, well, I think you should go kiss a statue for breakfast...

I don't do the statue thing. Now an icon......