Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
My rationalization is rational, at least. They are good reasons. Let me expand upon the "sibling rivalry" point. Mary remained without sin her entire life. She was the new ark of the covenant, a perfect vessel. One would not even think of desecrating the holy vessel which held God Incarnate with mere human contents. That's the spiritual significance.
SD
You're helping me illustrate a point. I hope you know that.
The Pharisees were given their authority by God. It was also removed by God via the Messiah. The messiah is now the interpreter and judge of the Law and the Commandments. He is the King of Isreal and of the Congregation. As such, the priesthood answers to Him and derives from Him. And the bible says we all who believe are now priests. The spirit of God is Given us to interpret for us directly. If we get it wrong, it is our fault because God made all the resources directly available to each of us. There is no excuse for failure. And the only reason for failure is disobedience to God. God knew what He was doing.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and denounced their methods and their traditions; but, you are correct that he did say they should be obeyed at the time because they still held places of authority. Upon the death and resurrection, that authority was revoked. The priesthood of old was now useless. And anyone now claiming a priestly authority has none. Teachers and Preachers are servants to be heeded. We ignore those who teach correctly to our own peril. In heeding false teachers we do that to our own peril as well.
Think of it this way, if you had a cloth or napkin that Jesus used to wipe the sweat from his brow, would you use it to clean up the table? To wash dishes with? Or would His having contacted it make it "special"? Something dedicated as sacred is not then used for mundane purposes.
How more so with Mary, who had the most intimate contact with Jesus, providing his sustenace in utero.
SD
I can see how you can logically make the other 2 statements concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit, but this one needs some Scriptural support, and please dont site "Mary, full of grace" as your evidence of Mary being Immaculately Conceived.
I think you overthought that one. He wasn't referring to the IC or anything. Mary was a daughter of the Father in the same way that every Jew, or every person, is a child of the Father. That's all.
SD
Oh, wait, you finally did ask one that applied to everyone didn't you? Think about that and then ask yourself if you feel like a twit yet? Wasn't intending to be mean; but, it illustrates a point quite well. If you need a flashlight, I can post some highlights. I've been keeping track of the answers I gave and the questions asked. "What do you think" and such.. Go back and read the line of questions and answers up til now. You all see what you want. Much as Dignan in his response in 899 to another issue.
You Got close to the truth in your arguing because you assumed that what I stated as an application to myself was being globally applied to everyone. You still didn't quite get it right. And you still can't see the problem you have, unfortunately. I tryed to draw it out.
If it's wrong for me. It's wrong because I have a problem with it. That's a biblical truth that you all missed (strike 1). If another does something that can cause his brother to stumble that is sin (strike 2). And more specific and to the point, the images of Mary and the saints were made to be adored, sang to, prayed to, etc. They have and do serve this function. By definition, they were made for the purpose that is described by the 2nd commandment. Pelayo got closer to that, I think, than anyone; but, without thinking about how it applied to him.
It wasn't a perfect excersize. But, you all reacted as expected. Dave better than expected. Beligerant without discernment. To the credit of my fellow brothers here and without prompting all of them were silent. Perhaps not for the reasons I suspect; but, it shows somebody was paying attention. Flame away.
Thank you JH. Glad to know my thoughts regarding whether ya'll got this or not were understood by ya'll. Confirmation is always a good thing :) But, don't get too shaken. I let it happen to me for a purpose. This is the same thing that was done to our Lord. The priests were after Him from the start. They hated him so that they could see only what they wanted in his speach because they were searching for something to use against him. They've been putting words in my mouth for some time. This time, I just let it go to see how far they'd go with it. When the Lord finally fell silent and didn't defend himself, they tried him in silence, beat him in silence and crucified him. This wasn't that bad. I answered; but, only in such a way as to cover myself and let them see it as applying to the world..
Rectal Cavity search - Rofl. That is rather what it appears to be isn't it.
the Proto-Gospel of St. James, which was known to Origen and was probably composed before his time, is evidence that Our Lady was venerated quite early on. This this practice grew is suggested by the fact that her role increases from the earliest to the latest gospels. But the opposition we see to the concept of perpetual virginity is really just anti-Catholicism: the Protestant exaultation of marriage in opposition to monasticism; their fanatical opposition to the medieval cult of Mary. That Jesus himself never married --was in fact a monk like Anthony or a friar like Francis, anyway--is something they never face up to.
This is funny, because I posted the identical question (this has always baffled me) a few months ago when we discussed this subject. Translated, the answer is: Cuz' that's our story and we're stickin' to it! Because they have to no matter what evidence is shown, they don't think they can afford to be shown in error on anything like this. It's bunk dressed up in fancy clothes and given the name "Holy Tradition".
Not to mention the fact that counter arguments abound based on logic that would be equally valid without in any way risking the purity of the Lord. Ie. God, knowing that Jesus was going to die, would not leave a family without Children. And the argument of sibling rivalry looses more ground to "Why can't you be more like Joseph's son". This stuff happens in every day life without divinity. The sibling argument denies reality.
As far as the "Are these not His sisters" statement. They are precisely posing the question that if these all came from the same parents, where did this One, Jesus, derive all these things the others do not have. This flatly loses it's meaning if one trys playing word games (that do not fit btw). It is intended to reflect his divinity.
Just think of it as us doing our part for the ancient Christian duty and obligation to proclaim the truth and fight heresy.
It's propped up because there are a lot of Catholics out there that worship Mary that would no longer call themselves Catholic if this were removed. It is a tool. More Catholics in SouthAmerica believe in "the virgin" than the Lord. Is that not what we read a few threads ago. And have we not seen the parades, all of us, in south america as in other parts of the world where an Idol of Mary is paraded around the streets of these small towns in large processions Celebrating the Goddess who Gave birth to a God named Jesus. They lavish her and cover her in money.. The modern Catholic 'miracles' always have something to do with Mary.. The weeping virgin that cries water or blood, the virgin idol with images in her eyes or some such nonsense, the wierd (and I'm afraid, not understood even by me) crucified virgin...
If that's your take, it has nothing to do with Protestants. The Apostles and thier servants penned the Bible. Your argument is with them. They didn't write what you would like to turn their words to say. The Lord had brothers and sisters. It's in the Bible - to your detriment. If that's anti-Catholic, then the Bible is anti-Catholic. What a truth.
It is my personal opinion that the beliefs at the time this doctrine was "developed" were that sex was dirty and Jesus mother couldn't have sullied herself in such a disgraceful act as to have sexual intercourse ever (even with her lawful husband). Of course, once the doctrine is developed it's not likely to ever be changed. It's not in their way of doing things to admit they were wrong.
The logical flaw comes in on the error created in lifting Mary up on a pedastal, making idols to her, etc. The error is in the midst of that, seeing the Catholic church say she gave birth to God and leave it hanging out there for people to abuse. I understand completely why it's done. Ya'll may not; but, ya'll are the willing dupes (scuse') that have to defend it because a bunch of Carnys in fish hats are more intent on their own purposes than on watching out for your souls. If it looks good, do it. If it makes money do it. If it gives them power do it. What other reason is there other than just outright error? Because mariology does not in anyway line up with scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.