Needed, (by some), Additions to the Good News of Christ.

[michael_legna]

Verses used by some to show Christ had brothers and/or sisters can always be shown to be referring to cousins or other more distant relationships.  Besides it must be remembered that Joseph was much older than Mary and could easily have had children from a previous marriage so even if Jesus had true brothers and sisters they could have been half brother and so Mary still could have remained a virgin.

Where do I find more on this? Being non-RCC, I would like Scripture on it. But if it isn't there, where do your early church fathers explain it? Sorry, 'it' being; Joseph's age, previous marriage, possibility of Mary's step-parenting, being married to Mary and not ummm.... consumating the marriage (so to speak).

The following two links should provide you with information on how the early Church Fathers held to the idea of perpetual virginity.

http://www.catholic-defense.com/mary.htm

or this one

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm

I normally am against providing links in forums, preferring instead to offer the actual text but in this case the discussion is so long it would make the post too large.  If you would prefer I send the entire text, so you don’t have to look it up yourself, I can via e-mail if you would provide it.  Basically the first site shows arguments by Augustine, Jerome and Chrysostom defending the perpetual virginity against different objectives.  The second site is a compendium of many more Church Fathers statements supporting the idea.

The rest of the ideas I expressed stem from this belief held since the earliest times.  The Catholic Church as you probably knows does not hold with sola scriptura so there is not any scripture that plainly teaches the perpetual virginity, at least as far as I know.  I also do not know of any scripture that teaches other than that either, so the doctrine is not contrary to scripture.  The argument basically goes as follows.  If the early Church Fathers taught Mary’s perpetual virginity then the Church has believed it for its whole existence.  If so and the Church cannot error on matters of doctrine then there must be other interpretations for verses that would indicate otherwise.  These other interpretations are that the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were really either one of three possibilities.  

First they could be real half-brothers, if Joseph was married previously.  Again this is only a possible alternative interpretation to show that the doctrine is not contrary to scripture.  I am not a scholar in terms of early Church Fathers statements, (I mean they fill a 20 volume set of books) but I do not know of a specific claim that Joseph did have a previous wife and children.  It is only that nothing in scripture disallows this idea and explanation.  

The second possibility is the one most commonly used and that is that the translation is imprecise because the languages are so vague.  The term used in the scriptures can also be used for more distant relatives such as cousins.

Finally the terms in some instances can be understood to mean brother and sister in a congenial sense.  In that they are not blood relatives at all but someone very close.

Any one or all of these alternatives, are not contrary to scripture, and allow the doctrine taught by the Church since the earliest of times to be accurate.  It all comes down to do you trust the Church’s teachings for the past 2000 years or someone’s relatively new interpretation of scripture in the last 400 years.

Did God elevate Mary or did man?  

Yes, that is the question.  If it was man then the Church is wrong.  But if it is God who did it and the Church is merely teaching a proper interpretation, as the ground and pillar of truth, then all should believe it.  Mary appears throughout the scriptures in many types and models in both the Old and New Testament, as the new Eve and the ark of the covenant, etc.  A complete study of this would take a long time but it is these appearances that had led the Church to see her in this elevated as you put it position.

I realize appearances are simply what things appear to be. That being told, I can tell you what I don't understand and you can explain it - if you so choose.

Catholic’s who properly follow the teachings of the Catholic Church see Mary as a saint and nothing more.  She is not on par in anyway with God.  She is not to be worshipped.  Prayers to her are to be seen as prayers to any saint, that is the request for them to pray for us to God much as we would ask any Christian on earth to pray for us.  The efficacy of these prayers may be greater in the same way that Peter was more likely to affect a cure than I would be, but that is only because they have proven themselves to be vessels of honor and God has chosen to work through them.

You cannot worship by accident, worship must be intentional.  Catholics who follow the Church’s teachings on Mary will not worship her.  To someone looking at it from the outside it may appear as those who have a cornucopia on their dining table are worshipping some pagan god, but they might not be.  They might just be following a custom of man and not even be aware of the significance.  Just as eating food offered to idols was considered worship by some in the New Testament times, but Paul showed that if we knew the idol was nothing than for us the act was also nothing.

[Petro]

What institutions like the RCC, teach are espoused by the heirarchy not its faithfull, as you can see, by the statements made by these who write their own understanding of what their church teaches, it does not reflect the official teaching of the church.

posted by michael at reply #30
Catholic’s who properly follow the teachings of the Catholic Church see Mary as a saint and nothing more.  She is not on par in anyway with God.  She is not to be worshipped.

Christians cannot take what christians that worship at the RCC altar say with a grain of salt, since they have their ideas, of what their church teaches, not really knowing the truth, this is clear when one observes the worship theology from country to country, even church to church in a country.

Consider what saint Ligouri of the RCC whose writings were considered iffallible at the time of his canonization.

Http://www.letusreason.org/RC8.htm

Praying to her

The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name...above every name, that at Thy name, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, p. 260).

Contrast what scripture states;

Phil.2 "Every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

"Pope Pius the 12th "Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and glory and might, she is exalted to hypostatic union with the blessed Trinity." This hypostatic union makes her part of the Godhead."


If they do not believe there own saints and popes, how can they expect anyone else to believe them??..

Petro

[Dyskolos]

What's the deal with all the Catholic-bashing on this forum?

With all the issues and challenges facing Christians today, don't you think that trying to hold your brothers and sisters in Christ up to ridicule is maybe not the best way to spend your time?

I'll say this for the Catholics - they haven't split themselves up into thousands of different denominations, like the Protestants.

[sincereheart]

Thank you for the links. It'll take me a bit of time to read and digest the information.

The Catholic Church as you probably knows does not hold with sola scriptura...

Naturally, I have to ask, why they don't? Maybe long ago before Gutenberg....  

[michael_legna]

Thank you for the links. It'll take me a bit of time to read and digest the information.

The Catholic Church as you probably knows does not hold with sola scriptura...

Naturally, I have to ask, why they don't? Maybe long ago before Gutenberg....  

They don't accept sola scriptura because the scripture doesn't say to.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say the scriptures alone are the sole source of God's Word.  Sola scriptura is an oxymoron, a self contradicting concept because it is an idea from outside scripture.  Additionally, it was never even proposed until the Reformation.  The early Christians looked to the Church not the Bible to instruct in the Way.

They don't accept sola scriptura because the Church existed prior to the scriptures of the New Testament, being the body that decided what was and was not to be included in them.  In fact the early Christians accept the scriptures because the Church recommended them. They did not accept a Church based on what the scriptures say as Protestants do today.  

The Church and not the scriptures are the ground and pillar of truth.

[Petro]

What's the deal with all the Catholic-bashing on this forum?

With all the issues and challenges facing Christians today, don't you think that trying to hold your brothers and sisters in Christ up to ridicule is maybe not the best way to spend your time?

I'll say this for the Catholics - they haven't split themselves up into thousands of different denominations, like the Protestants.

dyskolos,

It is not the individuals it is the teaching espoused, it is errorneous, and not scriptural.

We don't have a problem with christians that claim the Lord, who follow and agree with his word, but we do, with with those who deny HIS OWN Words, I don't speak for all just those that agree with Gods Word.

Anything or anyone who dosn't agree with catholic teachings is viewed as catholic bashing when one points out the truth  of scriptutre, so it seems to me the argument isn't with men but with God himself, since His word is plain.

I posted what I did, to refute, what is michael believes his church teaches, as you can see, he disagrees with what his church officially teaches.

It doesn' t matter if he or you deny that this is what they teach, if you do not know the truth of it.

There can only be unity when we agree what the truth taught in scripture is, and what the errors taught by religions are.

I, for one am not interested in unity at the expense of comprimising the truth of the Word of God.

Secondly, those who espuse what their religion teaches ought to know exactly what they teach so as to not teach something other than the truth of what they teach, that way, we can know whether to take them seriously or not.

And besides by pointing out error, perhaps it will lead the individusal to read the Word and learn the truth.

As for your statrement;

I'll say this for the Catholics - they haven't split themselves up into thousands of different denominations, like the Protestants.

You are mistaken, their are many persuasions of the RC type catholic religions,  some hold to some RCC doctrines some to others, but they all look up to the pope and mary, you need to talk to,  tibby....

Blessings,

Petro

[michael_legna]

What institutions like the RCC, teach are espoused by the heirarchy not its faithfull, as you can see, by the statements made by these who write their own understanding of what their church teaches, it does not reflect the official teaching of the church.

posted by michael at reply #30
Catholic’s who properly follow the teachings of the Catholic Church see Mary as a saint and nothing more.  She is not on par in anyway with God.  She is not to be worshipped.

Christians cannot take what christians that worship at the RCC altar say with a grain of salt, since they have their ideas, of what their church teaches, not really knowing the truth, this is clear when one observes the worship theology from country to country, even church to church in a country.

Consider what saint Ligouri of the RCC whose writings were considered iffallible at the time of his canonization.

Http://www.letusreason.org/RC8.htm

Praying to her

The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name...above every name, that at Thy name, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." (The Glories of Mary by Bishop Alphonse de Ligouri (Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, p. 260).

Contrast what scripture states;

Phil.2 "Every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

"Pope Pius the 12th "Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and glory and might, she is exalted to hypostatic union with the blessed Trinity." This hypostatic union makes her part of the Godhead."


If they do not believe there own saints and popes, how can they expect anyone else to believe them??..

Petro

You need to do some more research before you run off believing every detail of everything ever said by a Pope or a Doctor of the Church.  Just because they say it does not make it an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Only Councils of Bishops, or Popes (when they speak ex cathedra) are infallible.  Councils meet about once every 100 years or more and the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra three times in the past 200 years, so these aren't comon occurences.  Your two examples don't fall into either category Petro so they are not to be taken as infallible or even official teachings of the Catholic Church.  It appears once again that although you accuse me of not knowing the teachings of my own Church it is really you who do not know what you are talking about.  

The official teachings of the Catholic Church can be found in the Catechism.  If you have a problem with something in there, we can chat and I will explain it to you.  

If you want to drag up some obscure quote of a Pope or Bishop from a period where flowery speech was the manner of the day we will have to lay a lot of ground work before you will be able to see what is meant and not what your simplistic approach demands to see.

[Dyskolos]

dyskolos,

It is not the individuals it is the teaching espoused, it is errorneous, and not scriptural.

"If they do not believe there own saints and popes, how can they expect anyone else to believe them??.."

Your comment here isn't about any 'errorneous' teachings, it is a slam against individual Catholics.

[Petro]

You need to do some more research before you run off believing every detail of everything ever said by a Pope or a Doctor of the Church. Just because they say it does not make it an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

You sir,

Are in denial, how much information leading to the top, is necessary to have you conduct your own research to establish whether the information is true or not.

The information you put forth, is clearly that of an individual that isn't living in the reality of the times.  I suppose, you would still deny that better than 40%, of catholic seminarians are NOT homosexuals??

And deny the problem with pedophilia exists within this institution, pleeeaase..........you must be living in a bubble.

Only Councils of Bishops, or Popes (when they speak ex cathedra) are infallible. Councils meet about once every 100 years or more and the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra three times in the past 200 years, so these aren't comon occurences. Your two examples don't fall into either category Petro so they are not to be taken as infallible or even official teachings of the Catholic Church. It appears once again that although you accuse me of not knowing the teachings of my own Church it is really you who do not know what you are talking about.

You are right to a certain extent, however, there is the seal which the RCC uses to stamp its approval on writings that have been edited and closely monitered by the church which would be considered church official teaching (regardless of the fact that it actually comes with this disclaimer;

"The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

Which is ridiculous, it would seem that if someone had to pay to have the church examnine, edit, endorse, and approve the content of the material printed, that the church would either agree or disagree to its content by issuing the stamp or not, clearly it is another way of simply making money.

It is called the ............Imprimatur, Nihil Obstat.................

For a copy of what the seal looks like see;

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/york.htm
 
For a description of what it is see;

http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/imprimatur.html

Before you start claiming foul and your anti catholic rehtoric...feel free to search it out whereever...and,

If you claim any information I am giving you is inaccurate, please choose your own website, and educate me.

nihil obstat
Noun   1.   nihil obstat - the phrase used by the official censor of the Roman Catholic Church to say that a publication has been examined and contains nothing offensive to the Church  imprimatur, sanction, countenance, endorsement, indorsement, warrant - formal and explicit approval; "a Democrat usually gets the union's endorsement"    
   2.   nihil obstat - authoritative approval  sanction - the act of final authorization; "it had the sanction of the church"   

Having now, laid the foundation to what is the official and what isn't, allow now to present evidence that will allow you to examine  these in the light of what is official teaching, verses against what you THINK is official teaching, and what contitutes it.

Roman Catholics not only believe that Mary was without original sin; they believe her to be the 'Mediatrix" of all graces.  Some even assert that no grace grace is given to anyone unless it is first passes through Mary's hand (I have no idea where you stand on this issue, and neither do I care but clearly this is why you believe grace is a gift and not necessarily because God sanctifies believers in the drawing towards faith).
 
And this has led millions of RC's to actually practice , to replace Jesus  with Mary so that "a complete new worship system of Mary" has arisen and has  been sanctioned and even encouraged by the heirarchy of this institution.

"Encouraged to such a point  that the heirarchy had predicted that by the year 2000 it would announced and defined as the dogma that "the Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redemtrix of the human race."  

Even now James Nichols reminds us, "The sanction of Rome supports the affirmation of the theologians who deny that any man can be saved without the protection of the Virgin, and assert that even God obeys her 'commands'.

Quoted and paraphrased form;

Primer for Protestant, James Hastings Nicholas, (New York Association Press, 1949), p. 64
 
Consider;

Cardinal James Cardinal Gibbons, wrote;

"Never will our prayers find readier acceptance than when offered through [Mary].....She would be the instrument of God in feeding us with Divine grace, in clothing us with the garments of innocence, in sheltering us from the storms of temptations, in wiping away the stains of sin from our soul."

"The Faith of Our fathers", by James Cardinal Gibbons , (New York; P.J. Kennedy and Sons, 1917), PP, 142-43

michael,

Now, let me see if I understand you are correctly in saying that what ever a cardinal (a posiiton second only to the pope,) writes is not to be taken as official church teaching??

If this is so, why would a cardinal write, somehting like this if it was not official teaching of the church??  Would you have any idea??

I simply think you,  don't know what the offiial church teaching is.  

Please give me reliable information which corroborates what you have said, if I were a faithfull member of this organization, I would be more enclined to believe the Cardinal ,before listening to what you are saying.

I say put your money where your mouth is and show me, with sound teaching of the church, that what the Cardinal has printed is not the official....teaching...

Consider this other;

In Our Lady of the Rosary, a pamphelet issued in 1944 with the imprimatur of Archbishop (later Cardinal) Spellman of New York are found these words of petition to Mary:
 
Sweet Heart of Jesus, be my love.
Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation.
O Mary Immaculatre, great Mediatrix of all men......
O Mary Immaculate, Refuge of Sinners, to whom we will go
        if not to you?

Ref;  Ins and Outs of Romanism  James Cardinal Gibbons, (New York; Association Press , 1949), pp 155-156.   

Shiow me this is not the official teaching of the RCC, I simply refuse to believe you since you aren't even qualified to comment on this subject, seen it is evident you are not even aware of what is the true teaching.

I wouldn't be to proud  and quick to claim to belong to this institution, if I was as ignorant about the institutions teaching's as you seem to be.

The official teachings of the Catholic Church can be found in the Catechism. If you have a problem with something in there, we can chat and I will explain it to you.

If you want to drag up some obscure quote of a Pope or Bishop from a period where flowery speech was the manner of the day we will have to lay a lot of ground work before you will be able to see what is meant and not what your simplistic approach demands to see.

There you have it, I have given you enough information which any asstute observer as ytourself, should be able to examine and refute, mind you It is old enough to keep you from saying that this might be something new you were not aware of.

Hoping to hear from  you.


Blessings in your searching out of these truths, or lies whatever you would label them.

Petro

[Petro]

dyskolos,

It is not the individuals it is the teaching espoused, it is errorneous, and not scriptural.

"If they do not believe there own saints and popes, how can they expect anyone else to believe them??.."

Your comment here isn't about any 'errorneous' teachings, it is a slam against individual Catholics.

dykolos,

You have the wrong perception, I am not slamming him, as much as the false information he is espousing, in defense of the indefensible.

I am being kind to him, by keeping him honest.

Just as I have corrected your presumptiuons, I welcome anyone to correct me, using sound teaching of the scriptures, however, I do require correct reading and quotations from scripture.

I am apt to learn and interested in increasing in the knowledge and Faith in the object of my Faith and that would be Jesus.

So if you ever hear me make a statement wich is erroneous please feel free to correct me..

I believe in equal opportunity..

Blessings,
petro  

[Dyskolos]

Petro in the first place you haven't 'corrected' any of my 'presumptions'!

In the second place, the post above the one addressed to me, I have to say, it seems rather sad...and kind of desperate.

It's clear you are quote mining from your probably rather large collection of bookmarked anti-Catholic sites. You know, the ones that call the RCC the Great Whore of Babylon and such.  Can't you find one with some more up-to-date material? I mean, a couple books and a pamphlet from the 40's and a book from 1917! Are the pickings really that slim?

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

Here's a free add-on for Internet Explorer that you can use to spell-check:

http://www.iespell.com/

[Petro]

Petro in the first place you haven't 'corrected' any of my 'presumptions'!

In the second place, the post above the one addressed to me, I have to say, it seems rather sad...and kind of desperate.

It's clear you are quote mining from your probably rather large collection of bookmarked anti-Catholic sites. You know, the ones that call the RCC the Great Whore of Babylon and such.  Can't you find one with some more up-to-date material? I mean, a couple books and a pamphlet from the 40's and a book from 1917! Are the pickings really that slim?

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

Here's a free add-on for Internet Explorer that you can use to spell-check:

http://www.iespell.com/

Why? they will keep bringing you bqack.

[sincereheart]

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

To 'borrow' a quote from someone else:

"Your comment here isn't about any 'errorneous' teachings, it is a slam against [an] individual ...."

(bold is my addition)
 

[ollie]

Thank you for the links. It'll take me a bit of time to read and digest the information.

The Catholic Church as you probably knows does not hold with sola scriptura...

Naturally, I have to ask, why they don't? Maybe long ago before Gutenberg....  

They don't accept sola scriptura because the scripture doesn't say to.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say the scriptures alone are the sole source of God's Word.  Sola scriptura is an oxymoron, a self contradicting concept because it is an idea from outside scripture.  Additionally, it was never even proposed until the Reformation.  The early Christians looked to the Church not the Bible to instruct in the Way.

They don't accept sola scriptura because the Church existed prior to the scriptures of the New Testament, being the body that decided what was and was not to be included in them.  In fact the early Christians accept the scriptures because the Church recommended them. They did not accept a Church based on what the scriptures say as Protestants do today.  

The Church and not the scriptures are the ground and pillar of truth.

"The Church and not the scriptures are the ground and pillar of truth."
 
The church are the faithful in Christ Jesus.

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.

This is the pillar and ground of the truth the church upholds and presents. But some need additions to Christ as the way, the truth, and the life. Why?

 1 Timothy 3:15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
 16.  And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[michael_legna]

First I need to point out that in your previous post you claimed these points were considered infallible by the Church.  But when I caught you in your error you change your tune to claim they are just official teachings.  But I will show below that, that is not ture either.  I just wish you would stand still for a moment and stick to one story so you could see your errors as easily as everyone else does.

I suppose, you would still deny that better than 40%, of catholic seminarians are NOT homosexuals??

Yes I would deny it until someone presented some scientific evidence to prove otherwise.  I am certainly not going to let the your rantings influence my opinion, because I don't have to accept you as an authority anymore than you accept me.  And I have never seen any claim to that affect by anyone let alone an unbiased source.

And deny the problem with pedophilia exists within this institution, pleeeaase..........you must be living in a bubble.

I do not deny the problem exists, I do deny it is any greater than in any other cross section of society.

"The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed."

Which is ridiculous, it would seem that if someone had to pay to have the church examnine, edit, endorse, and approve the content of the material printed, that the church would either agree or disagree to its content by issuing the stamp or not, clearly it is another way of simply making money.

The arrogance you must have, to feel that you can better claim for the Church what is an is not its own official teachings.  They plainly offer a disclaimer to show that this seal does not automatically include the writings within official Church teachings and you claim the disclaimer is invalid just so you can build your little strawmen so you attack can be successful.  That approach does not show a sincere search for the truth going on within your motives.

If you claim any information I am giving you is inaccurate, please choose your own website, and educate me.

Ok here is a website for you
http://www.cin.org/mateo/mat93008.html

On it the author, a Catholic Priest says,

"When an author of a religious book or article presents his work to the local bishop for review, the bishop gives the work to a knowledgeable priest, who reads it and, if corrections are needed, returns it to the writer.  When the reviewer is satisfied with the corrections, he marks it with his "Nihil obstat" (Latin for "no problem".) If the bishop is satisfied, he gives the work his "Imprimatur" (Latin for "let it be printed").
 
If the writer belongs to a religious order or congregation, the rules of the order may require a first review by a member of the order.  If the reviewer here is satisfied, he grants the work an "Imprimi potest" (Latin for "it can be printed".)
 
Commonly, the three symbols are in this order: IMPRIMI POTEST, NIHIL OBSTAT, IMPRIMATUR.  After the Imprimatur, one usually finds these words: "The NIHIL OBSTAT and IMPRIMATUR are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.  No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR agree with the content, opinions or
statements expressed."

See not one mention of these representing official Catholic teachings.

I hope you accept Father Mateo from the Catholic Information Network, as an authority but since you don't accept the Churches own disclaimer I don't know what you will accept.

Having now, laid the foundation to what is the official and what isn't,

Don't be so quick to try to squirm out from under your error.  You have done nothing to lay the foundation for what is official teachings.  I have shown above you are ignoring the Churches own statements just so you don't have to change your world view.  You seem to have made up your mind and don't want anyone to confuse you with facts.  If you were truly searching for the truth you would be glad to have a concrete target to attack, such as the Catechism.  I surely wish Calvinism offered such a source to pin down instead I have to try to hit your bobbing and weaving doctrine and even if i prove it wrong you can always say well that isn't what Calvinism claims because it won't actually put anything in print for fear of the errors showing plainly through.  At least the Catholic Church has the courage of its convictions.