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

[FireDragon76]

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.

Perhaps nominal piety, in some sense, is the real deal, moreso than people that are mere enthusiasts? I don't see the need to pit the "nominal" against their church. It suggests some kind of essentialist view of Roman Catholicism that betrays the historical diversity of expression.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It has more to do with the RCC (and to a lesser extent EO) tendency to value virginity as an unqualified virtue as opposed to a situational virtue - fine when not married, but it doesn't make you purer or more virtuous to not marry. We were warned that in the end times false teachers would forbid marriage. In the earliest days of Church history, we called them Gnostics. When the church shut down that heresy, people with inappropriate ascetic tendencies had to find some other outlet for the sinful self-denial which makes a show of outward religion, hence the hermits, the stylites, and later, monks.

I'll tell you what...you give up something that you crave to your very core, and tell me you're not purer because of it. For example, a chocolate lover gives up chocolate because he wants to focus his love on something higher than his earthly desires, that being God. You really think you're not purer when you do it for that reason? There is nothing in the Catholic Church that forbids marriage to anyone, unless they want to become a priest, or religious brother or sister, and then it's their vow, freely given. And it must be freely given, or it's not really given at all.

If you think self-discipline is an outward show of religion, try being an elite athlete. You think they don't have self-discipline? Michael Jordan couldn't make his high school basketball team. He really wanted to be on the team, so he asked the coach why he didn't make the team. The coach said it was because his free-throw skills were weak. So Michael Jordan took it upon himself to strengthen those skills. He started practicing free throws, and wouldn't stop until he made 500 free throws. You think this is because he wants to show the world that he can play basketball, or do you think, as I do, that it's because he wanted to be a better basketball player? Now, apply that to the ascetics and monks of the early Catholicism. Jerome left Rome and went to live in the desert because he couldn't get the dancing girls out of his mind, and his mind wanted to be closer to God. So he extracted himself from the venue. Holy virgins are the same way. They focus on God. And you say that's a bad thing?

 

[Albion]

Perhaps nominal piety, in some sense, is the real deal, moreso than people that are mere enthusiasts?

It could be that PRIVATE piety (which of course the Roman Catholic Church doesn't look kindly upon) might be an alternative to organized religion, but that's not what a "nominal" Christian, of any denomination, is doing or what the word means.

I don't see the need to pit the "nominal" against their church.

No one's pitting anything. I was merely making a factual correction to something you wrote. Most Catholic countries are NOT populated by people who are defined by their faith. In most of them, the people's connection to their church is minimal.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

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

Not even close.

 

[Root of Jesse]

A man who seeks holiness by asceticism, treating the flesh more harshly than is necessary for exercising Christian self control, is indulging in false spirituality by abasing his flesh in ways scripture repeatedly says are vain and of no profit. His religion is outward because it is in the outward man, not inward because it is not in his spirit.

Who are you to say that someone's journey to God is too harsh? Also, if he goes into the desert, it's...deserted. No outward show at all...

"Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."

Who are you to say that they're harsh or false, or that they don't produce the intended result?

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth."

While it is true that people go to extremes and then find out that the God they're following is false (like the Branch Davidians), if someone prays about ridding himself of his earthly attachments, and feels called to go into the desert to assist him in his quest, why do you judge him? He'll get his reward, whatever it is.

Now some men on an individual basis may have needed to discipline themselves more harshly and fast more regularly because of a weakness of faith (though none but those specifically gifted with celibacy is to avoid marriage) but the moment the church at large accepted things which are at best signs if immaturity as signs of greater piety or identifications of a holy man, the church adopted an ascetic ethos little different from what would have happened if the church had been infiltrated by several sects of full blown Gnosticism.

Ah, so now you want to say that it's an immature way of doing things. Actually, we are all called to exert temporary celibacy in our marriages. When a couple doesn't want to have any more children, and it becomes apparent that the wife is fertile, it's time to exert such temporary celibacy. Of course the world says use birth control. But by doing so, the couple would be subverting God's will. So if God's will is your will, as it should be, you should listen to His will. Which brings us back to Mary "Be it done unto me according to Thy word."

 

[Root of Jesse]

If I recall the scriptures have been around at least since Abraham if Paul was correct.

You have to love the logic attempt though. IF a statue bleeds, THEN RCCism must be true because RCCism has the market cornered on Mary.

s

Can you name for me a Church-approved bleeding statue? FWIW, we don't corner, or attempt to corner, the market on Mary. You folks just reject the teaching. It's available to those who want it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.

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.

Cynical doubt cast upon her, accusations of sin levelled at her, casual disrespect shown to her tell their own story.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Got a name of such a priest that does this? Otherwise, you're grasping at thin air. The Church does not teach such a thing, yet you've claimed it several times. He may have said your translation of the Bible is just a book...then he might have something!

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.

So then it's a matter of how you, who has no authority,interpret Scripture, as opposed to the Church, which has the authority of Christ, interprets Scripture. I'll take Christ's Church. You can have yourself.

 

[squint]

Can you name for me a Church-approved bleeding statue? FWIW, we don't corner, or attempt to corner, the market on Mary. You folks just reject the teaching. It's available to those who want it.

Officially? hmmm, don't know if the Lady of Akita bled, but I think that is the only RCC official bleeding statue, if it did.

s

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Protoevangelium of James isn't considered Scripture, even by the RCC.

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

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What proof have you of this?



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.




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

If I deny myself something I want. That can be considered mortification. Wearing a hair shirt could be considered mortification. There are other minor tortures one can inflict on themselves, as well.

 

[squint]

Can you name for me a Church-approved bleeding statue? FWIW, we don't corner, or attempt to corner, the market on Mary. You folks just reject the teaching. It's available to those who want it.

As to 'official Mary' teachings, I am not aware of any in the texts.

So it would appear to me to be largely made up by Mary zealots of the past. Perhaps the same ones who said 'blessed be the paps' whom I consider are still hanging around fwiw. I tend not to listen if it doesn't measure up to Gods Words as delivered to, not the RCC, but to the JEWS.

s

 

[Root of Jesse]

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?

Words are spoken, as well as written, no? Words are heard as well as read, no? So why do you think only what's written down is the Word of God?

 

[Stryder06]

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.

Mary had a role to play. She did what was asked of her and it is shown. She is not mentioned nearly at all post Wedding feast. I'm not saying she didn't do something great, and I think her praise to God ought to have been mentioned.

Cynical doubt cast upon her, accusations of sin levelled at her, casual disrespect shown to her tell their own story.

She was a sinner like the rest of us. That's not an accusation. It's a statement of fact. The only disrespect being shown is by those who trump her up to be more than what she was.

 

[sunlover1]

If I deny myself something I want. That can be considered mortification. Wearing a hair shirt could be considered mortification.

What's a "hair shirt" and why would you wear
such a thing?

There are other minor tortures one can inflict on themselves, as well

Inflicting minor tortures on oneself is sin.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

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

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

How do we know what belongs in red letters?

 

[Stryder06]

If I deny myself something I want. That can be considered mortification.

Yeah, I saw that from the definition. I think it's a strange word, but I see no problem with that.

Wearing a hair shirt could be considered mortification. There are other minor tortures one can inflict on themselves, as well.

This is what had come to mind when he said mortification, but I wanted to be certain of it first. Exactly how is inflicting pain upon oneself a holy act?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.


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.


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

Is this why we always read whole sections of Scripture-OT, NT, Psalms and Gospel in Liturgy? As well as in daily Prayer? Because it's lip service?

 

[squint]

What's a "hair shirt" and why would you wear
such a thing?


Inflicting minor tortures on oneself is sin.

Why is it that no discussion of the RCC can stand for long without the subject of the inquisition coming to the fore?

Historical tradition must logically include historical facts?

s