Posted on 02/15/2010 9:07:17 AM PST by GonzoII
The Scenario:
Ever have one of those days when you’re feeling full of energy and vigor? I mean, you’re feeling just obnoxiously happy? Well, this is one of those days.
Driving home from work, you switch on the radio to see what’s happening, and you tune in to a local Protestant radio station just in time to hear a preacher speaking against various Catholic doctrines concerning Mary. The show is called Pastor Bob’s Bible Hour. Pastor Bob proclaims: “Jesus knew Catholics would come along and begin to worship His mother and call her perpetual virgin and absurd things like that. But the Bible says: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not His brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of His sisters with us?’ (Matt. 13:55-56a). And isn’t it sad, my brothers and sisters?”
Pastor Bob goes on to say: “Jesus dealt with these Mary worshippers in His day. In Luke 11:27-28, the Bible says, ‘A woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that You sucked!” But He said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”’”
On a normal day you would probably just listen, take a few mental notes and drive on. But not this time. You’re feeling a little bit too saucy. You take the first exit you see and head for a phone. This is just one more reason why you need to buy that cell phone you’ve been talking about getting.
Step One:
(Excerpt) Read more at envoymagazine.com ...
As I said, you still seem blind.
All right, we’ll open the question up to any Catholic:
Did Mary, who gave birth to the Savior in Bethlehem, require that Savior to shed His own Blood for HER sins?
Having been proven wrong, you proceed to “shoot and move” tactics.
Quick, change the question! Move along!
I’m not moving. I’m going to keep asking that same questions:
Did Mary, who gave birth to the Savior at Bethlehem, require that Savior to shed His Blood for HER sins?
If she did rquire a Savior, but had no sins, then from what did she require a Savior?
Really?
Which sphere, component(s), diocese, congregations, small groups, orders, . . . and the like
are on which side of that issue?
Clearly the Vatican/Roman Catholic INSITITUTION, EDIFICE is all over the water front on a list of issues.
I’m not talking about the Catechism. Written law is usually many years behind the standard beliefs and practices of the group.
That can make it a nice straw dog to refer back to claiming kosherness . . . or clear boundaries or some such . . .
However, it doesn’t fool the man in the street.
But, really, how do Roman Catholics et al distinguish between what they want to believe, do, practice, hold as “right” etc. . . . with Priests, Bishops and even Cardinals spread pretty far apart on most any issue’s continuum?
My sociologist/psychologist’s hunch is that they do what most people do about their values and behaviors . . . they go with the LOCAL REFERENCE GROUP and/or folks they most respect in their closer social network.
They certainly are NOT carrying around the Catechism for on the spot consultations!
Now, now, John.
You probably know that when one hinders one stinking pile of obsfucations, rationalizations and convoluted straw dogs . . .
they rush out and breed a new pile.
And after that colon, you proceed to ask different questions.
And the Catholic Church regards her, not as God does (a sinner who also required a Substitutionary Saviour), but as a deified individual.It's not true and you didn't even deign to offer any evidence.
Clearly not.
That would preclude too many baseless petty attacks.
I have no idea.
As I've told you many times, I'm not Roman.
“It’s not true and you didn’t even deign to offer any evidence.”
When my question gets answered, then we’ll know.
Did Mary, who gave birth to the Savior at Bethlehem, require that Savior to shed His Blood for HER sins?
If Mary had no sins, but yet required a Savior, as she said she did, then from WHAT did she require a Savior?
So you won't admit you're wrong, despite your lack of proof and the demonstration from the Catechism that contradicts you?
You know the problem is, before Constantine there was none of the stuff most of us see as pagan practices
""The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure3, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison4, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.""John Newman
The problem is not that they are pagan, but that YOU see them as pagan.
No Christian practice is pagan. It is sanctified by being Christian.
You miss Ven. Cardinal Newman's point entirely.
So by the way, you weren’t married with a wedding ring? You don’t have an engagement ring or a wedding ring?
The Angel Gabriel said, "Hail Mary Full of Grace, the Lord is with you". Catholics didn't make that up. Having no idea how she could concieve a child without being married, and knowing she could be stoned to death for that pregnancy, she responded, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord".
That was the beginning of God's plan for salvation. I find that beautifull. You may think it's meaningless. I don't. Why would you fault me for that?
Mary was part of God's plan for our salvation, she is special. She is the mother of our Savior, not just any other woman, or some sort of Hindu Goddess.
You may dissagree, and that is between you and Jesus. The Jesus I know made it clear that love was the most important of all of God's commandments. If Catholics love Mary, and others associated with Jesus, I suggest you leave the judgement of the intentions of the heart's of Catholics up to God.
Fascinating.
So . . . you are claiming to
NOT be part of the et al?
OK, I can go back to
Vatican Associates.
And, I recognize that the question might be a bit tough for those not given to straight-forward, congruent answers.
I'm taking no position on it at all.
I don't deal in hypotheticals like that.
Yet another "Petronski Dodge"TM
Quite the opposite, actually. I dealt rather directly with one of your anti-Catholic tactics.
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.