Speak lovingly of Mary

[Kristos]

Since when does a matter of faith require conclusive proof?

I guess that settles that

It's so nice to agree once in awhile.

 

[Philothei]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Since when does a matter of faith require conclusive proof?
​

Kristos :

I guess that settles that

It is nice to hear Mr. Rick Otto to agree that the belief in the Virginity of Mary is based on faith

You finally saw the light Mr. Otto... I am glad some can see it at the end of the tunnel...

 

[Thekla]

ooooh... bad statement for someone who adheres to a system that bases it's dogmas on the fact that people agreed something was true.

no, not quite

Didn't believe that Arius, Nestorius etc. and those that agreed with them spoke truth - and some books were considered neither first or second canon, but heretical. All these needed to agree with what had been believed and taught from the beginning - the witness of/the ethos of the Church.

But if we (EO/OO/RC) are to be called on relying on Tradition and faith for our beliefs, I think its only fair to ask those who question our stance to conclusively prove the authenticity of what they "base" their teachings on.

So, we believe the Bible is authentic based on Tradition; what is your authentication process ?

there is a difference in having faith in something, and having NO reason to have faith in it.

for instance, if someone said "I have faith in Gumby." you'd raise an eybrow and say "why? what reason is there for that faith?"

likewise, we questions "why have faith in something that is completely absent from scripture?" Remember this is not about absolute proofs... it's about ANY mention at all. The things that are completely devoid of biblical backing.

Or, how we understand/interpret what we read.

 

[lionroar0]

Hey, I deny the ressurection never happened too.

grammer matters

lol. grammar becomes a fringe benefit for me. After having 4 hours sleep.



Peace

 

[hogndog]

Then why do you always ask for proof that the saints in heaven can hear us? Its a matter of faith.

I'm sorry you feel that way, I've been under the distinct impression that Jesus was the one that heard us and I've been under that same impression for Oh 38 years now. Necromancer's speak to the spirits of the dead but those spirits aren't human spirits, God forbids the practice.
Would you mind explaining your stance in a wee bit deeper terms?

Thanks,
hogndog

 

[Rick Otto]

Thekla!

But if we (EO/OO/RC) are to be called on relying on Tradition and faith for our beliefs, I think its only fair to ask those who question our stance to conclusively prove the authenticity of what they "base" their teachings on.

So, we believe the Bible is authentic based on Tradition; what is your authentication process ?

Well, briefly, it has to do with the structural integrity of the narrative, or "arc" of The Gospel - "the scriptures define themselves" is a simplified way to express this integrity of message in both the narrative on the action level, and the thematic progression of The Gospel from origins in Genesis, thru type & shadow in the OT, anchored by prophecy to the incarnation, resurrection & return of our Savior - the "arc" or storyline of the greatest story ever told, in the NT.

It isn't that you base your faith on Tradition per se: rather it is what tradition doesn't provide, & allow me to iterate that I'm not forbidding tradition at all, I simply want to restore it to a less inflated or exalted position in your cosmos. lol
Ummm,... I think it is the lack of eyewitness accounts and the lack of something as concrete as scripture that trouble me most about tradition. Tradition often establishes the fact of a certain belief &/or practice from antiquity & even by consensus, but hasn't seemed to satisfy my appetite for correlation with what I can see darkly in my "KJV".

I'm not thereby declaring myself right or above or below any authority by saying any of that, it's just my perspective,... which I just had buffed I might add, so show a little respect!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It does not appear that way. All she said was Speak lovingly of Mary.

Because, unless it's true, then it's UNLOVING, disrespectful, hurtful and (according to the Catholic Catechism), sinful.


NOTHING in this thread has addressed the issue of the truthfulness of these stories; the issue of substantiation has been ridiculed and evaded as if entirely moot for Catholics (an issue that ONLY applies to noncatholics).


The RCC argues these are DOGMAS, issues of the highest importance and greatest certainty (their highly personal and entirely moot nature seems completely irrelevant to the RCC). IF such is so, the substantiation needs also of the highest importance and must be of the greatest certainty. But, as our Catholic brothers and sisters have revealed so stunningly and consistently, they have nothing. Absolutely nothing at all.




.

 

[katholikos]

.

Is there something of relevance in that rant?

 

[Thekla]

but if substantiation is the requirement for "not spreading rumors",

we'd do well to toss the NT -- after all, there's no evidence its the same as the 1st.c. writings

(seems many Churches have already tossed the oral teachings anyway)

 

[katholikos]

...there is a difference in having faith in something, and having NO reason to have faith in it.....

The problem with that statement is that this sub-forum is filled with umpteen-million reasons to have faith in it.

Do not confuse your rejection of those reasons with there not being any reasons at all.

 

[lionroar0]

Because, unless it's true, then it's UNLOVING, disrespectful, hurtful and (according to the Catholic Catechism), sinful.


NOTHING in this thread has addressed the issue of the truthfulness of these stories; the issue of substantiation has been ridiculed and evaded as if entirely moot for Catholics (an issue that ONLY applies to noncatholics).


The RCC argues these are DOGMAS, issues of the highest importance and greatest certainty (their highly personal and entirely moot nature seems completely irrelevant to the RCC). IF such is so, the substantiation needs also of the highest importance and must be of the greatest certainty. But, as our Catholic brothers and sisters have revealed so stunningly and consistently, they have nothing. Absolutely nothing at all.
.

According your bar that we must have conclusive proof of a something that is a matter of faith.

And there's ur straw man.

Interestingly enough when measured with the same bar silence...

I just have to wonder why???



Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Is there something of relevance

According to the Catholic Catechism, it's critical. Because it stresses that if the popular story isn't true, it's a sin to spread it AND it is hurtful, not loving (the issue of this thread).

You have already indicated that you will not accept a statement or story or claim as DOGMATIC FACT unless there is credible, verifiable substantiation. But you continue to reveal that while this you regard as critical (and insist on a very high level of substantiation for everyone and everything that's not Catholic) you completely disregard such as entirely moot when it involves Mary.

Since I'm convinced that you love Mary (as do I), then I had hoped that you'd care if you are being truthful, loving, respectful toward Her and therefore Her Son. You reject stories about Joseph Smith that have FAR, FAR better substantiation than what you've offered for Mary's having no sex ever (holding that claim accountable), you've made my point over and over.

My love for Mary outweighs my felt-need to protect the Catholic Denomination from accountability and the double standard you are fighting for (NONcatholics are accountable and need substantiation of a high level, the RCC needs little to none at all, self saying self is right is more than enough). I'm more uncomfortable hurting Mary and Her Son than I am in seeking the same substantiation for the RCC that it (and you) require of everyone and everything else.

And yes, this entire discussion is about love for Mary. Because unless it's true, it's a rumor, it's sinful and it's hurtful (according to the RCC). Thus, substantiating that it is true (to the level required of DOGMA and the level the RCC requires of all others) is absolutely essential.




.

 

[Uphill Battle]

lol. grammar becomes a fringe benefit for me. After having 4 hours sleep.



Peace

something wrong that's keeping you up bro? hope you find your rest!

(on the other hand, if it's self inflicted because you're addicted to posting... nuts to you! you deserve it! )

The problem with that statement is that this sub-forum is filled with umpteen-million reasons to have faith in it.

Do not confuse your rejection of those reasons with there not being any reasons at all.

umpteen-million?

I challenge you to come up with more than 100. I DO think you are exaggerating a smidgen.

but, that being said, you're right. There IS reasons to have faith in it. you wouldn't have faith in something if you didn't have SOME reason... so my post was false.

perhaps I should have said something along the lines of supportable reason, or GOOD reason... but we wouldn't agree on those terms either.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

According your bar that we must have conclusive proof of a something that is a matter of faith.

You aren't reading what I've posted...

I've said NOTHING of "proof." I've only noted what your Catechism teaches, that unless it is TRUE it is a rumor, it is sinful and it is hurtful (not loving). The Catholics here have already revealed that adequate substantiation is needed; they reject the dozens of friends, relatives and associates of Joseph Smith who knew him well and wrote (in materials existing to this day) that all the claims about Smith are true - this, they insist, is entirely INADEQUATE evidence to the truth of the claims. This indicates that these Catholics insist that substantiation IS needed and that such MUST meet a high "bar" of such or it is not proper to spread the story. I've only noted that is their position and that of the RCC. I've stated that I'm more than glad to accept the same level and nature of substantiation from them that they accept from Protestants or Mormons. What I've sought is the substantiation that the Catholic Catechism says must exist and of the same level they demand of others. I have spoken of evidence and substantiation, not "proof." Proof is irrefutable, evidence is credible and convincing. Again, I'm just seeking Catholics to regard stories about Mary held to the same standard as stories about Smith or any other person, claims made about Our Lady held to the same standard as claims made by noncatholics.

And no, these are DOGMAS - the highest level of certainty and importance. And the discussions here have NOT been "this is a pure article of faith" but "this is dogmatic fact." I don't think anyone here is taking the position that the Mormon's "faith" in the claims regarding Joseph are the same as the Catholics's "faith" in the claims regarding Our Blessed Lady. Come on, my good and respected friend....

Interestingly enough when measured with the same bar silence...

I agree. It's my point. It's not loving if it's not true. In fact, such a highly personal, intimate aspect (one Catholics here have insisted they do not want publicly discussed) should have something more than silence to authenticate and evidence such. I suppose we could write, preach and teach out children about how you and your spouse have sex, but my LOVE and RESPECT for you would suggest two things for ME: First, it what is being spread around about this supremely intimate and personal aspect of your life TRUE? Is there substantiation equal to it's status as the highest level of certainty? Secondly, I'd want your permission to tell everyone I know and insist that they docilicly accept such as the highest level of importance. That would all be on a MUCH higher level for Mary because (take no offense) she I love, adore, revere, esteem and hold in highest regard as the Mother of God and the Mother of my Lord. She's my Mother, my good friend. I CARE about her heart and feelings. TRUTH about her matters to me. That it seems so moot to my Catholic friends is a point that does puzzle me. Again, the CAtholic Catechism taught me that it is a SIN and it is HURTFUL (unloving) to spread a story or report (NO MATTER HOW SINCERE THE INTENT OR CONFIDENT THE VIEW) unless it is substantiated as true. Thus, I asked for the substantiation the Catechism says is ESSENTIAL. I got nothing, which is FAR, FAR less than the CAtholics here require from Protestants, Mormons, etc. We're talking about my Mother here . And her sex life (Why is her sex life soooooooooo critically and dogmatically important to you guys?). As dogma.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[Philothei]

According to the Catholic Catechism, it's critical. Because it stresses that if the popular story isn't true, it's a sin to spread it AND it is hurtful, not loving (the issue of this thread).

That is a bunch of balony.. As the ever virginity of Mary is a dogma for the RC and not a rumour. How can then be a lie? According to who you CJ?

That is another of your "faulty" assumpitons and logical fallacies...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

umpteen-million?

I asked for just 5. Just 5 credible people from the first century. Just 5 people who knew Mary. I was told there isn't even one.

I asked for even 5 statements from the first Century that state that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin - even if they are NOT credible, even if they are heretics, even if they never met Mary or Joseph or anyone who ever did. Nope. Not even one.

I challenge you to come up with more than 100.

Been there. They can't give even one.
BUT, they INSIST, it's dogma - the highest level of certainty.
Why? Cuz the one teaching it say it is - a rubric they ridicule and regard as absurd.


.

 

[katholikos]

That is a bunch of balony.....

Thanks, my EO sister. And I'll add: If CJ wants to compare 2000 years of teachings on the Blessed Virgin to that whackjob Joseph Smith, then I doubt that any progress can be made in this thread.

.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thanks, my EO sister. And I'll add: If CJ wants to compare 2000 years of teachings on the Blessed Virgin to that whackjob Joseph Smith, then I doubt that any progress can be made in this thread..

1. It's NOT 2000 years of teaching.

2. Gnosticism is much older than this dogma, and you are required to reject that as heresy, so age is entirely and completely moot to our discussion.

3. I don't want to compare them since the LDS' claims about Smith are much better substantiated than the silence you've offered about Mary's sex life.

4. To make progress in this thread, you need to show that this DOGMA is true, because otherwise the RCC states it is a rumor, spreading it is a sin, and it is hurtful and thus not loving. I'll accept the same "bar" of substantiation that you'd accept from the Mormons about Smith, or from and all other noncatholics for their views not embraced by the RCC.




.

 

[Philothei]

Thanks, my EO sister. And I'll add: If CJ wants to compare 2000 years of teachings on the Blessed Virgin to that whackjob Joseph Smith, then I doubt that any progress can be made in this thread.

that is another illogical assumption that he has failed into explaining how he agrees that the LDS are making a better argument that the Ever Virginity yet they are not false in their faith...doh....

 

[Thekla]

California Josiah,

perhaps you've missed my question, so I'll repeat it here:
what evidence can you give to prove that the NT is authentic (ie, not rumored to be authentic) ?