Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Turtlepower; Jvette; narses; Melian
Actually, rejecting this leads to the slippery slope culminating in Gene Robinson. Namely, if our spiritual ancestors didn't know their own times, how can they speak for us now?

this doctrine, by itself, doesn’t impact one’s standing before God with respect to their salvation -- you are correct, with the condition by itself it does not, however we do not toss or change one part of the faith handed down to us.

Jvette correctly pointed out that Just look within this thread and you will see posits that Mary could have divorced and remarried. Or married again after becoming a widow. I don’t have to remind you narses of the heinous remarks of a certain poster(in a different thread) that Mary could have been a prostitute after the birth of Jesus and that would matter not a whit.

The reason it matters is the same reasoning why the Church does not permit divorce or contraception -- the Anglicans were the first to permit divorce and slowly but surely it ended up with Gere Robinson. They were the first to allow contraception and now we have an Anglican pastoress saying "Abortion is a blessing".

I know you mean well and you can see this slippery slope

We have to be firm on the faith that has been handed down to us, because it's very easy to slip one little thing at at time and finally one ends up as the ECUSA..

112 posted on 06/15/2011 6:52:05 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: Cronos

“The reason it matters is the same reasoning why the Church does not permit divorce or contraception — the Anglicans were the first to permit divorce and slowly but surely it ended up with Gene Robinson.”

Really?
Pointing to a homosexual priest/bishop in another church is the defense for Roman Catholicism’s belief in Mary’s ever virginity?!

Really?
The reason it matters is so the priesthood and bishopric remain vessels of purity and holiness.

Really?
I mean- whether or not Mary was ever virgin, we know for sure some priests aren’t.

Whether Mary ever had sex with a male, we know that some priests did (do).

I’m having trouble typing through fits of apoplectic laughter.

Will


120 posted on 06/15/2011 7:21:20 AM PDT by will of the people
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: Cronos

I have no problem being firm with doctrinal beliefs that have been handed down to us throughout the ages so long as there is a srong basis for those viewpoints. The core beliefs of the Christian faith are rooted in scripture. Even other topics, such as the sins of homosexuality, abortion, and predicting Christ’s return (e.g., Camping) also have strong basis in scripture.

The reason you have certain churches that accept homosexuality, abortion, and predicting Christ’s return is because of their liberal views on scripture and not necessarily because they don’t always fall in line with official Catholic church teaching. Liberal churches believe they can pick and choose what to believe even when there is strong scriptural opposition to their positions.

In the case of perpetual virginity, the Bible doesn’t explicity state that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin forever. Instead, there are many verses that can be used to infer the proper understanding. Both sides of this issue present reasonable arguements based upon scripture, IMO. Therefore, I don’t believe this issue can be settled to everyone’s satisfaction by examining scripture alone.

Catholics also believe, based upon tradition, that those close to Mary knew she was a virgin and passed along that knowledge to others. If there was evidence that the tradition really did originate from those close to Mary, then I would accept that as pretty convincing. However, all I have seen is appeals to early church fathers who would have been pretty far removed from the original source of the tradition.


121 posted on 06/15/2011 7:21:47 AM PDT by Turtlepower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

To: Cronos; Turtlepower; Jvette; narses; Melian

this doctrine, by itself, doesn’t impact one’s standing before God with respect to their salvation

This doctrine is not a stand alone, but it is an integral piece in the mosaic of faith and salvation begun by Jesus and continuously confirmed and proclaimed by the Church, at Christ’s command. And again, it is not meant to defend Mary but her Son. And conversely, when one attacks this doctrine, one attacks not just the Church and not just Mary, but her Son. The Church ALWAYS focuses its exegesis and theology on the person of Jesus.

The Apostles did not accept Jesus as Messiah based on one thing He did or said. In fact, it was one particular thing He said that caused many to reject Him and leave Him.

Peter says in the Gospel of John, “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. You are the Christ. We have come to believe that you are the Holy One of God.”


142 posted on 06/15/2011 8:37:44 AM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson