Posted on 09/07/2008 12:21:07 AM PDT by guitarplayer1953
St. Valentine:
The church replaced elements of various love-gods (Juno Februata, Eros, Cupid, Kama, Priapus) with St. Valentine, an imaginary Christian. A number of contradictory biographies were created for him. One source claims that there were as many as seven Valentines. Some were:
A Bishop of Interamna (modern-day Terni) who was martyred circa 271 CE.
A priest at Rome who married couples in secret. The Emperor Claudius II had previously cancelled all marriages in the city in order to encourage more men to join the military. According to the story, Valentine was caught and executed on FEB-14, in the year 270 or perhaps 269 CE.
A Rome priest who clamed that the Roman gods Jupiter and Mercury were “shameless and contemptible characters.” He was arrested, beaten and beheaded...but not before he befriended the blind daughter of the jailer, and cured her.
A Christian who lived in Africa, about which little is known.
By taking over some of the features of the Pagan gods and goddesses, St. Valentine became the patron saint of lovers. “The crocus, which flowers about [FEB-14]...is St. Valentine’s Flower.” Pope Gregory XVI gave the remains of one of the St. Valentines to the Whitefriar Street Carmelite Church in Dublin Ireland. 12
Valentine’s Day and its traditions originated in two separate Roman feasts: Lupercalia and the feast day of Juno Februata.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/valentine1.htm
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:16
Off the top of my head I think I agree with that statement. Nevertheless I pray to the saints whether on earth or not.
I'm not going to drop my question just because you ignore it and offer "more of the same." That is, unless you can direct me to primary source material that demonstrates "The church replaced elements of various love-gods ... with St. Valentine."
this is like talking to a devil’s advocate... because no matter what you say... it gets twisted.
okay then answer this... you say:
“Where do you get the authority to make positive prohibitions out of Scriptural silence?”
Scripture doesn’t prohibit pedophilia. so where does any catholic get the authority to condemn said behavior ???
Scripture doesn’t prohibit birth control, or marriage amongst clergymen either but that’s another debate.
Are you saying Scripture alone is not enough?
Yes Christ honored his mother....but he also said [Luke 11:27] As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." 28He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
Jesus did not honor Mary over himself or other believers...he said
[Matthew 12:46] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." 48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Therefore, I feel no need to submit prayers to anyone other than Jesus. He never presented anything or anyone that would be his equal or his substitute.
Also, there is nothing in the bible that indicates our heavenly reward will transpose itself into god-like status enabling us after we die to grant answers to prayer. There isn't one time anywhere in the bible that anyone other than God answered prayer.
Illogic? To suggest this is to deny that God gave man free will.
Protestant doctrinal limitations do not apply to Catholic authority, but that is the nature of circular reasoning.
The Catholic Church has the authority to prohibit such things in and of itself. There is no need to appeal to Scripture for Church pronouncements. That such pronouncements DO comport with Scripture rightly understood, is a testimony to the nature and function of both institutions.
I think we would answer the paedophilia question by saying that general revelation and natural reason are enough, despite the Pauline prohibitions on homosexuality, to show that it is wrong. (Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine. There are married priests in the Catholic Church.) Artificial Birth Control was considered very wrong indeed by Luther, Calvin (I think, am not sure), and father after father, and in its very nature seems to propose an argument that it is against Natural Law.
That is, we would appeal to the beginning of Romans to say that there's a lot we can put our trust in without its being in explicitly laid out in Scripture.
Also we find in Scripture texts which suggest that Sola Scriptura, strictly interpreted, is not Biblical. We find references to oral tradition. We also find that councils can speak authoritatively and reliably in the name of God. So even without Opus's scriptural arguments, we would find that we can trust councils and the magisterium when they teach us about the saints in heaven.
this is like talking to a devil’s advocate... because no matter what you say... it gets twisted.
This is a problem with all debates. I think there MAY be some intentional twisting going on, but I also think that there are VAST differences between the thought of people whom I, meaning no offense, will informally categorize as "sola scripturists", and the thought of "Catholics".
As an example, most Catholic thought presupposes that certainly God and probably the saints are not bound by time, while most Protestants seem to me to speak as though God, while He can see perfectly into the future, is still in some way waiting with the rest of us for it to come to pass. To me that suggests a huge difference in the presuppositions which are brought to these exchanges, and those differences often give the appearance of twisted arguments.
FWIW
“Protestant doctrinal limitations do not apply to Catholic authority”
reminds me of the inquisition.
when is Catholic authority going to purge itself of homosexuals & child molesters ??
catholic authority... hmmmmm, i wonder where that is assumed to come from.
ie maybe an interpretation of “upon this rock” which is Scripture. could that be any sort of an homage to sola scriptura ??
i don’t think i’m the one on the merry go round here.
since when?
John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Every Jewish woman has wanted to give birth to the Messiah , some still think they can. That Mary was chosen had nothing to do with her or her acquiescence. She was "blessed" among women, ie, the happiest of women to get this honor as every single one of them wanted it.
The Holy Spirit was Christ's mother and His Father and the RCC powers- that- be know it, but seek to substitute the human Mary in as the Advocate, or HS. It's a lie.
This is, I think, at the heart of the mystery of the intercession of the saints and especially of Mary. God does not refuse her, as they say, because she does not ask anything outside His will, since by grace she was able and willing to make a complete self-offering, and God accepted the offering He enabled.
When we pray, "Thy will be done," there is often only a sort of formal and half-hearted (if that much) offering of our wills to God. Still, we believe that in His will is our peace and we long and pray for the grace to make that petition with utter sincerity, holding back nothing. In the meantime we are not astonished when our prayers are not answered as we would like, because we know that much of what we think we want does not accord with His will.
If we think of Mary or any saint sort of cajoling God into changing His mind, well, then there is some merit in the objections. When Mary is described as sneaking into heaven through the back door those who would not be granted admittance through the front door, well that's worse than merely silly.
But we who pray to her for her prayers nonetheless often have an astonished sense that something good is happening in us, despite ourselves.
You would think that the Calvinists and we could share some happiness in the shared perception that God acts in us despite ourselves.
But maybe that's not as fun as fighting.
talking to you reminds me of the witches i used to debate on aol.. no matter what i said, it was twisted around to sound completely different than what was stated....
Heaven itself is an undisputed reality. it is your assumption about the specifics in Heaven that is the disputed fantasy.
what any believer knows about the Body of Christ is from Scripture & nothing inherent therein supports your fantasy of physically dead believers having omnipresence or omniscience & being able to hear your prayers in Heaven.
you can ask any friend standing next to you for intercession. but then they grow old & die, & their body is buried in the local cemetery. 2000 years later millions of catholics calling on that same person is kosher to you ???
this is just another reason why i disagree with so much catholic doctrine.
1 Tim 6:15
He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.
Jesus is Lord
Why do you need intercession of anyone in the first place? Is God’s arm too short? Isn’t it His will that alone is done? Is someone going to change His mind. What if your “saints” are in Hell? then what? Isn’t God going to be insulted?
“The RCC has banished the Holy Spirit. It His place, the RCC has substituted Mary who, as some RCs told us in a recent thread, is on the cross with Christ, atoning for our sins.
(((choking from the mere writing of those words)))
Not content to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Rome now rewrites the Trinity.”
A) Mary is not nailed on the cross atoning for our sins and I’m quite sure with your inimitable method of completely re-and mis-interpretation of various and sundry posts, the meaning is different than the calumny you have posted.
B) The Holy Spirit has been and continues to be in the Catholic church and has been for over 2,000 years.
To declare that the Holy Spirit has been missing or never in the Catholic Church is a mockery of every single, saint and martyr over the precedding 1600 years.
What cheek. What absolute hubris.
“talking to you reminds me of the witches i used to debate on aol.. no matter what i said, it was twisted around to sound completely different than what was stated....”
How dare you compare a baptized Christian woman to a witch!
What a scandal.
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.