Posted on 05/03/2013 10:50:36 AM PDT by marshmallow
Candida Moss, a professor of early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame and a practicing Catholic, wants to shatter what she calls the “myth” of martyrdom in the Christian faith.
Sunday school tales of early Christians being rounded up at their secret catacomb meetings and thrown to the lions by evil Romans are mere fairy tales, Moss writes in a new book. In fact, in the first 250 years of Christianity, Romans mostly regarded the religion's practitioners as meddlesome members of a superstitious cult.
The government actively persecuted Christians for only about 10 years, Moss suggests, and even then intermittently. And, she says, many of the best known early stories of brave Christian martyrs were entirely fabricated.
The controversial thesis, laid out in "The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom," has earned her a lot of hate mail and a few sidelong looks from fellow faculty members. But Moss maintains that the Roman Catholic Church and historians have known for centuries that most early Christian martyr stories were exaggerated or invented.
A small group of priest scholars in the 17th century began sifting through the myths, discrediting not only embellished stories about saints (including that St. George slew a dragon) but also tossing out popular stories about early Christian martyrs.
Historians, including Moss, say only a handful of martyrdom stories from the first 300 years of Christianity—which includes the reign of the cruel, Christian-loathing Nero—are verifiable. (Saint Perpetua of Carthage, pictured in the stained glass window above, is one of the six famous early Christian martyrs Moss believes was actually killed for her faith.)
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Are either of those the catechism? ;)”
Is that wink there to demonstrate how cynical you are, in that you are rejecting what is taught by Popes and teachers of your church? Are Thomas and those two Popes heretics?
“Just because the Catholics have invented brand new word definitions and centered their theology around them doesn’t mean I have to accept their definition.”
It does mean that using your own personal definitions, that the Catholic church isn’t saying what you are claiming they say.
“he can’t make it so that we all understand each other in heaven? Really”
This is a silly objection. You’re a protestant. Are you claiming that Pentecost never happened? God already gave the Apostles the ability to speak in languages that they did not know such that their words were understood by everyone.
“if Time is totally stopped for Mary in heaven, how she can hear more than one prayer at the same time.”
On the contrary I have thought about it.
Prayers aren’t coming ‘at the same time’. If the passage of time is sufficiently slow enough - then they are coming micro or milliseconds at a time. If a microsecond is an aeon - then she has plenty of time to consider and pray on each and every single one.
If heaven is outside time altogether, and she can see into the world, then she is aware not only of what is happening now - but also what is to come.
“Your religion does not actually teach that she is up in heaven “reading” the prayers, like you wrote.”
Actually it does. :) Communion of Saints.
“Because even in heaven, human beings are not omnipresent and omniscient. Going to heaven does not make you God.”
The Holy Spirit is. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit couldn’t send Mary prayers from people here on earth?
“So we’re apparently praying to GOD, who passes on the prayer to MARY, who passes it back to GOD.”
Not just that.
God the Father hears us pray, with the aid of the Spirit for Mary’s intercession. The Spirit passes that onto Mary who also prays to Christ to plead with YHWH on our behalf. Christ then does the same and decides how to answer our prayer.
“And since God is relying on the judgment of Mary”
Where does the Catholic church teach that?
You were asked to prove this, and you failed.
“Mary must have perfect judgment”
Where does the Catholic church teach that Mary judges? Oh wait, you’re the one who can’t understand the distinction between intercession and mediation, which is also why you have an erroneous understanding of intercession.
Words, and their meanings are important. Incorrect understanding carries over to incorrect application of the terms, primary example here. The correct understanding - Mary intercedes, Christ mediates.
“It’s an absurd and useless system, and it exalts a human being as having an equal place with God.”
Given that it’s entirely out of your head I agree with you that it’s an absurd system.
I’m amused that you cannot provide a simple citation for what the Church teaches from the catechism. One would think that if the Church really did teach it, you could find it in there.
“Since Christ had no human father, we can expect him to be free from the taint. It passed from Adam, after all, and not from Eve”
Dig deep enough you find heresy. Fully God and Fully Man. God made Flesh.
Maybe he got it from some Chick comic book.
“It does mean that using your own personal definitions, that the Catholic church isn’t saying what you are claiming they say.”
Catholic Catechism, par. 494 At the announcement that she would give birth to ‘the Son of the Most High’ without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’: ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be (done) to me according to your word.’[Luke 1:28-38 ; cf. Romans 1:5 .] Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace: [Cf. LG 56.] As St. Irenaeus says, ‘Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.’ [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.] Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: ‘The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.’ [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 22, 4: PG 7/1, 959A.] Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary ‘the Mother of the living’ and frequently claim: ‘Death through Eve, life through Mary.’
The Catholic Church says it exactly as I have described. Those Popes and Catholic Saints weren’t speaking in contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Obviously, when the Catechism describes Mary as giving us “gifts of salvation,” working in the plan of God, and by her prayers “saving us from death,” or that by her works she gained salvation for the world, those Popes and Saints would understand it as teaching exactly as they teach: “One must go through Mary to get to Jesus.” This isn’t a teaching that Mary was merely the tool by which Christ was born. Rather, it is a teaching that Mary saved the world by her assent, and that she is continually saving people from death through her intercession. Your Popes further say that it is required for salvation, as no one, according to them, can get to the son but by Mary. An exact parody of Christ’s words “No one can come to the Father but by me.” That’s certainly how millions of Catholics all over the world believe and understand it.
But as to definitions, I was only showing that the Catholic excuse that allows for more than One Mediator between man and God has no basis. It does not excuse the Catholic church for setting up so many mediators and extra gods.
“This is a silly objection. You’re a protestant. Are you claiming that Pentecost never happened? God already gave the Apostles the ability to speak in languages that they did not know such that their words were understood by everyone.”
It’s not entirely clear that they even understood the language that they were teaching, since Paul states that if no one can interpret it, it should not be done within the churches:
1Co 14:27-28 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
The act of speaking in tongues is not actually the person at all, but is a result of the Holy Spirit falling upon the person and giving Him direct divine revelation to speak things He has never learned.
Act_2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
According to Catholicism, this is not what is happening with Mary. She is personally in the presence of every believer, and is, in fact, dispensing the gifts of the Holy Spirit. IOW, she is an equal partner, and is acting of her own will and power.
St. Louis Marie de Monfort:
“God the Holy Spirit entrusted his wondrous gifts to Mary, his faithful spouse, and chose her as the dispenser of all he possesses, so that she distributes all his gifts and graces to whom she wills, as much as she wills, how she wills and when she wills. No heavenly gift is given to men which does not pass through her virginal hands. Such indeed is the will of God, who has decreed that we should have all things through Mary, so that, making herself poor and lowly,, and hiding herself in the depths of nothingness during her whole life, she might be enriched, exalted and honoured by almighty God. Such are the views of the Church and the early Fathers.”
St. Maximilian Kolbe:
“The Blessed Mother is in the second category, having received graces in that manner from the Godhead. She is not like a mailcarrier. She does not receive graces from God for an appointed purpose so that She might use them in one way or another. The Immaculate Virgin receives graces from God for Her own exclusive property and She dispenses them to us how She wills, to whom She wills, and inasmuch as She wills, for these are Her own. Here, finally, do we see how holy and great God made His Blessed Mother, and how much we should honor Her.”
St. Bernard:
“God Has willed that we should have nothing which would not pass through the hands of Mary”
The Apostles, on the other hand, were used BY the Holy Spirit, and did not have the power to speak in tongues, or to prophecy, or to heal, based on their own power or ability, or even their own will. They moved according to the will of the Spirit.
“The Holy Spirit is. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit couldn’t send Mary prayers from people here on earth?”
Such an argument basically is saying that the Holy Spirit intercedes for men to the Virgin Mary. He is taking the plea to the Virgin Mary, laying it down before her, for her consideration and approval. Presumably, this then goes back to God. So, we have Holy Spirit —> Mary —> God.
The scripture simply never speaks in this way. The only intercessors, mediators, advocates, helps, comforts, and hearers of prayer, is and always is God:
Rom 8:26-28 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (27) And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (28) And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
The “Spirit” here is NOT the Virgin Mary.
All your posts are merely excuses for trying to justify your extra-biblical teachings, which are not even logical in their own world.
“Where does the Catholic church teach that Mary judges? Oh wait, you’re the one who can’t understand the distinction between intercession and mediation, which is also why you have an erroneous understanding of intercession.”
We’ve been over this. You’ve not offered any alternatives to my scripture and dictionary quotes. You just repeat yourself, over and over and over again. I think you mean to drive me off with the tedium of your argumentation.
“Dig deep enough you find heresy. Fully God and Fully Man. God made Flesh.”
So you deny that original sin passed from Adam, and that Jesus did not have a human father, and that Jesus is God? Does Jesus not having a human father make Him not “fully” man?
Furthermore, if Christ had to be born of a woman who was sinless in order for Himself to be sinless, how is it that Mary is born without original sin despite having a mother and a father who were both under sin? If Mary is made specially free from original sin, why can’t Jesus, the Word made Flesh, be free from original sin by virtue of who He is?
The deeper you go into Roman theology, the more of your common sense you have to toss out.
“So you deny that original sin passed from Adam”
Mary is a daughter of Adam, and so if she were sinful, so was Christ.
“Does Jesus not having a human father make Him not “fully” man?”
Jesus has a human nature. Where does he get his human nature from? Mary. If Mary were sinful than Christ would have a sinful human nature.
“how is it that Mary is born without original sin despite having a mother and a father who were both under sin?”
Great question!
How did Mary end up sinless in the first place?
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin”
491 of the Catechism of the Catholic church. Pius IX btw.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm
“why can’t Jesus, the Word made Flesh, be free from original sin by virtue of who He is?”
Until he was conceived, Christ did not have a human nature.
““The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin””
IOW, Christ Himself cannot, by His own virtue and merits, be immune from all stain of original sin. He must have Mary, who by His own merits, keeps preserved and immune from original sin. This also makes her a sinless human being, as those without an original sin cannot sin. If they do sin, they die spiritually immediately, as if it were the fall of Adam all over again.
Furthermore, if Christ’s merits exist before Christ was incarnated, it does not follow that Christ cannot be singularly free of sin by His own merits at His conception.
It’s a ridiculous addition to the scriptures that simply isn’t taught, and in fact actively contradicted when it declares that all the world is guilty before God. There is no Biblical basis for Christ’s dependence upon Mary for being free from sin. And the explanation only shifts the power of God from Christ upon Mary, without giving a legitimate reason why the power of God cannot be with God the Son.
“Until he was conceived, Christ did not have a human nature.”
Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore Mary was only a vessel for that work. Since Jesus remained fully God while being made flesh by the power of the Spirit, it does not follow that Christ was dependent on Mary for His own holiness.
The early Christians “hyped” the Martyr “stories?”
Next this horrible person will be saying that they “hyped” the Resurrection and Ascension.
What has happened to Notre Dame? Just because thewon once gave a speech there, they’re now anti-Catholic?
Something’s rotten in Denmark.
Most Catholic colleges lost their way when control of the universities was transferred from bishops and religious to lay boards, following the Land ‘o Lakes conference in 1967.
http://www.catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm
Oh. Just dang.
I finished going to Catholic school in 1965, so I guess I got the last of the best.
What a shame.
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.