Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
Standing Up, what do you think this influence says about the incarnational beliefs of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?
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.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.
Has someone said otherwise?As far as self discipline from candy denial to self-flagellation...
too much of a good thing is not a good thing,
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.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...
That's why it must be done under the guidance of someone who is responsible for your spiritual well-being.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.
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.
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.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.
If that was our only evidence, I'd agree with you. Alas, it's not.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
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.Has someone said otherwise?
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.
If that was our only evidence, I'd agree with you. Alas, 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
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
Maybe that's why God instructed us to honor our mother.(Did you note some sarcasm?)
(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.
Every other married couple? I know three who have never had sex. Two by reason of age and health and one by vow.(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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?