Doesn’t wash, with me.
The only explanation I can think of that fits the observations is
a marked difference in levels of adoration for one vs the other.
And, in fact, RC’s seemingly minimalist perspective on Scripture has been spoken of many times, hereon.
The emotions then generated are about as excited as those from watching paint peel.
Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.
THEN the emotions flare intensely.
You wrote:
“Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.”
Actually the Bible never once says Mary had other children. Please don’t say that the “brethren” or “sisters” mentioned prove Mary had other children. Christians with exception always believed they were not Mary’s and not full brothers and sisters of Jesus. It is noteworthy that no other person is actually said to be Mary’s child. No one.
Quite different from merely asserting, quite Biblically, that Mary was not a perpetual virgin—that according to Scripture, she had other children.
Well, where does Scripture make the claim that she birthed other children? There is mention of "brothers" of Christ at the wedding at Cana in some translations (the original word actually means "relatives" and is translated in the Douay-Rheims as "bretheren". That doesn't mean they came from the same womb), but in all the years of hearing the gospels proclaimed I don't recall hearing that the Blessed Mother birthed other children. So, if it's there....
And, in fact, RC’s seemingly minimalist perspective on Scripture has been spoken of many times, hereon.
Last I knew, RC was a soda that tasted a lot like Dr. Pepper.
Catholics, OTOH, don't think much about Scripture unless we're specifically studying it, because it's such an integral part of worship, that it's a natural part of life. Take a gander sometime at the Mass threads and morning and evening prayer. It's all scripture. We all know the Prodigal Son better than the Canon. We don't actively defend Scripture because we don't have to. Now, defending what scripture SAYS, that's another story. The parts of the Faith that are constantly maligned are going to invoke more vitriol because we are constantly having to explain the theology.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have an incredibly long day ahead of me and need to pray and get some shut-eye.
LOLOL. Yep. Lamps thrown. Tables overturned. Men leaving in huffs.
of course not, because catholics have always believed in the inspired inerrant word of God, in fact, the very Church you are in a friendly manner making light of, put the Bible together divine guidance. (stated the canon about 325 or so, was it)And for about 1500 years all accepted the fact the Church alone had the power to authoritatively interpret Scripture, because the Bible was her book.
Some malcontents far removed from the orginal facts of history self-proclaimed their own infallible or quasi-infallibe interpretations and now we have the sad divsions and its logical aftermath: a society whose majority is “Christian” but who have very serious moral differences and who can now be exploited by unbelievers on account of the differences
the Bible is not argued about because we all agree that it is inspired, effective for teaching and reproof, etc.
Want a biblical argument: how many books are there 66? 72?
68 (didn’t the infallible St. Martin Luther want to ditch Revelation and other 3 other books, inclding the letter of St. James?) the fur will fly on that one