Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Why am I being preemptively warned? Merely observing that certain unnamed Freepers could do with an exorcism isn't about any individual freeper and is no less flame bating than referring to Catholics as other than Christian or directly or indirectly stating that we are destined for hell. Would it be equally offensive if I observed or commented that certain unnamed Freepers could do with a Baptism or Confession?
why do you think that putting your inane comments in large type somehow makes them more meaningful.....it doesn’t
Might want to make your FRiend, Dr. Eckleburg, aware of your directive.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2644059/posts?page=129#129
Do you seriously believe that the rules apply and are applied equally to all?
It’s been the teaching of the Catholic church since the Council of Chalcedon.
Given that they are far closer to the source than we are, I feel more confident in trusting them.
If you don’t accept the Councils, then why do you trust the bible that was collated by these same men?
As much as I believe that anybody on these threads is going to be able to change anyone's mind.
You are right that if Mary inherited from St. Anne, that you would have an argument, but that’s not the case. Christ kept Mary from sinning, not St. Anne.
Scripture doesn’t even talk about Mary’s mom. Does that mean she never existed?
Actually I was watching the excellent football games.
Good to see Christian charity manifested.
There’s no verse that documents a sin that Mary committed, unlike the Apostles, particularly Paul who goes out of his way to make us all understand the depth of his sins.
All that we have to go on, is what the Angel says to Mary, that “all generations will call you blessed”, something that is not said of anyone else in Scripture. This to me is significant. Scripture doesn’t pull any punches at demonstrating the fallenness of the disciples, and yet it goes out of it’s way to highlight the blessedness of Mary.
Read into that what you will. The argument that Mary proclaims Christ as her Saviour is not the same as when Paul argues that he persecuted the Church, or Peter when he denies Christ, David with Uriah, etc. The list goes on.
When I get done, I expect to start the thread.
However it turns out, I sure would appreciate a ping when the thread goes up.
SURE. Have you down.
I guesstimate I’m about half-way through 2 Enoch, the 2nd version.
No, but it also doesn’t mean that the Roman Catholic Church can make up whatever it wants to about her, teach it, and then claim, “there is nothing in the Scripture that (insert rebuttal here)!”
That is what has been done. Same with Mary’s supposed sinlessness, Peter as the first pope, and so forth.
When we’re admonished to not add to God’s word, this sort of supposition, or ourtright falsehoods, is also what we’re warned against.
Hoss
>>Why would a Catholic send a Christian a post with Latin and prayers to saints - but to disrupt. Why the NEED for Latin?<<
We speak Latin.
If I wrote in Polish with English translation, would you ask me to stop? That’s just silly.
>>Nothing else matters<<
All correct. And the same to you and yours.
May we be safe in the Loving Arms of Our Lord.
You trust Duffy greater than the then Bishop of Jerusalem at the Council of Chalcedon?
Why not, is the Bishop of Jerusalem also infallible?
Sorry, the facts are that there is 300 + years of silence, then a myth first appears from apochryphal writings.
Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:
The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).
Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:
The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).
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.