Replies

1 posted on 05/12/2008 8:08:08 PM PDT by annalex

I’m getting back into the swing of things. Will read this thoroughly tomorrow.

2 posted on 05/12/2008 8:10:13 PM PDT by Salvation (Â†With God all things are possible.Â†)

To: Antoninus; ArrogantBustard; CTK YKC; dan1123; DogwoodSouth; FourtySeven; HarleyD; Iscool; Jaded; ...

3 posted on 05/12/2008 8:10:52 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)

For an article sourced from something titled “Biblical Evidence for Catholicism” I find an apparent lack of evidence, Biblical or otherwise.

The author makes his case on the basis that these ideas can coincide with what the Bible says. That’s no more authoritative than Buddhist’s claims that their religion is compatible with Christianity.

As much as I admire those zealous Catholics who oppose abortion and the homosexual agenda, and as much as I want to think of Catholics as my Christian brethren, postings like these tend to affirm the common Protestant criticisms of Catholicism rather than serve as the intended, effective apologetic.

Not one point is authoritatively supported by scripture, while many are outright contradictions to the clear teachings of the Bible. And the author cites the silence or apparent ambiguity of scripture, not as a difficulty in defending Catholic doctrine and practices, but as if this provides some sort of cover for their allowance.

The most egregious of errors promoted here is that Christ is not central to the doctrines or practices being advocated. Christ is what all scripture is about, and this is the key to understanding its meaning. Christ is the savior of mankind, including Mary.

To elevate her as THE channel of ALL grace is to twist and contort the plain meaning of scriptural teaching on grace beyond all recognition. It is in keeping with the disciples carnal behavior while still in their ignorance when they debated who would be the greatest. And it is like when Peter in his ignorance wanted to make tents for Elijah and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration. Moses, Elijah, the apostles and Mary are all great examples of faith. Yet, now that Christ’s identity has been revealed in His fullness, there is no room for anyone else to glory except in Him.

But this author is stuck in a carnal mindset that predates the Transfiguration, the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Revelation of Christ.

5 posted on 05/12/2008 11:36:24 PM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)

Nothing in this article that demonstrates a biblical basis for the assumption, the immaculate conception, etc.

It’s all “feeling” and “acceptance of authority.”

The way it comes across to me is: Because he feels the RC authority fits, then just accept everything the RC says, including mariology.

So, the bottom line remains. There is no biblical basis to the assumption and the immaculate conception.

10 posted on 05/13/2008 5:18:41 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)

When I first started thinking seriously about Catholic Mariology, I approached it in a more right-brained, typically "non-male" way ... She was awesome to me: the very picture of womanhood and femininity.

That explains a lot right there since the right brain is the seat of the imagination not logic or rational thinking.

The concept is simple: Eve said "no" to God and Mary said "yes." Eve's choice led to the Fall, and Mary's led to the Incarnation and Redemption. She represented the human race (and for once we got it right). God wanted it to be that way. Human beings had fallen based on free choice and God wanted them to be redeemed by a free choice as well (as opposed to being declared saved apart from their free will).

Now there is a right-brained illogical thought for you. And just where was Mary appointed to "represent the human race"??? And if Mary made the choice for the human race, then the human race didn't have freedom of choice, did it???? especially if they never appointed her as their representative, right???

What do you guys need a teaching magisterium for??? These right-brained converts of yours become your instant theologians.

11 posted on 05/13/2008 5:34:36 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)

I will have to read this later, but as of yet I haven't seen any convincing arguments for the Marian doctrines apart from appeals to the Magisterium (it's true because we say so!) of the church.

As attracted as I am to the Catholic Church, and as much as the encroaching liberalism in the Protestant world has been goading me toward the Catholic Church, I simply cannot get past the Marian doctrines. I have stated elsewhere on this forum why and how I believe the Marian doctrines developed.

Can't buy it. From a logical standpoint, a Scriptural standpoint, and a standpoint of basic reason, the Marian doctrines just don't add up.

18 posted on 05/13/2008 7:34:32 AM PDT by Boagenes (I'm your huckleberry, that's just my game.)

To: annalex; All

I thoroughly enjoyed this post, especially the portions below. It fully and accurately stated what I've been trying to do vis a vis my own apologetic efforts in the last few months.

I always advise potential converts that the road to the Church is not undertaken with Protestant methods. One doesn't "figure everything out" one-by-one and then make the leap. That is the Protestant method, and it is very ingrained (I know, firsthand). When you become a Catholic, at some point you simply accept the Church's authority because it is an entity far far greater than yourself. You may not understand everything, but who does, anyway?

What you come to see is that this is the Church and authority structure -- with all its human foibles and terrible, scandalous shortcomings in practice - that was ordained by God, and how He intended it to be. The true doctrine and "apostolic deposit" was passed down and it has been known all along. It isn't to be discovered in every generation, or "re-invented" like the wheel. All other knowledge works the same way (science, engineering, mathematics, musical theory, the received outlines of history, legal precedents, etc.), yet when it comes to religion, somehow people think that it is this entirely individualistic and subjective affair. It's very weird when you sit down and analyze it.

Emphasis added. The portion in bold is why I have recently recommended everyone at least examine Communion and Liberation. Among such bold claims as "One can come to know Christ exists with as much certainty as anything", CL also teaches the basic concept in bold above, a reasonable concept, but one that is often forgotten and overlooked, even among many Catholics. Many are inclined to believe that "faith" and "reason" are separable, and indeed SHOULD be separated, because "faith isn't objective, it IS subjective". While that's true if one doesn't apply reason TO one's faith, this is not how faith SHOULD be and indeed, if one's faith cannot stand up to reason, then it truly isn't a HUMAN experience. It's just something done because one's family does it, or because one wants to look good in the community. It's a treasure set on a shelf, never used, just looked at and "admired" for its beauty. It's not something that is actually a PART of the person holding it, it's not something that's a natural expression of the "faithful's" HUMANITY. It's a piece of art, a trinket, an *ASIDE*, not a *REALITY*.

The portion in bold above points to another way of looking at "faith". This is, indeed, IMO, what sets the Church apart from every other church, belief system, or institution that competes for my spiritual attention. The Church offers a faith that is a method of reason. It doesn't deny the capacity of man to reason, it actually INVITES man to USE his reason to come to it, and to strengthen his own humanity, that is, to be TRULY human, WHOLLY human.

This concept is what continues to strengthen my resolve with regards to the Church. For, I reason, if there is a God who created me, and if He wants me to follow Him, the BEST way to follow Him is to follow Him the way He created me, through my HUMANITY. That is, why would God create me human, but yet not want me to be human? It is preposterous to believe that. Indeed, it follows from Catholic teaching: We are actually LESS human when we SIN. It's not "human nature" to sin, it's actually human nature, the way God intended that is, to NOT sin. This is one example. Another, is that clearly God gave us ability to reason. It therefore is unreasonable to believe that He wouldn't want us to use said reason, thus, our task as humans is to find a way to use our reasoning ability in harmony with God. This doesn't mean rationalizing our reasoning away, as some are inclined to do ("God gave me reason to make me realize that reason is not only unnecessary, it's a burden"). This cannot be the conclusion we should draw, because it's ultimately circular in its logic.

I digress however. The portion in bold is the key point to remember, and one I've been trying to make. For everything else, we always say, "I'll rely on that person's testimony; I'm not going to work out everything for myself". For science we say this. For art. For finances. No one is completely "self sufficient" in all of those areas. Even the professionals IN those areas rely on other's past experience to guide them. Why shouldn't we do the same for our religious experience? Is not the cliche "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" relevant here? I believe it is; I believe it's unreasonable, and therefore, inhuman, to do otherwise.

20 posted on 05/13/2008 8:37:48 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)

55 posted on 05/13/2008 12:39:57 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)

"But this is no different from what Jesus told us to expect, anyway. He said families would be divided and that discipleship was costly. If other people can't accept our choices made under God, in conscience and faith, with the use of reason and study and bathed with prayer, then in the end that is their problem. It may be difficult and painful and hurtful, for sure, but no one ever promised that following Jesus was a bed of roses." You mustn't be familiar with, arguably, the most popular preacher in America today: one, Joel Osteen.

83 posted on 05/14/2008 12:53:34 AM PDT by Beloved Levinite ("HOBo's already done more damage to race relations than Sharpton-Jacko combined.")

To: annalex; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

193 posted on 05/18/2008 9:20:56 PM PDT by narses (...the spirit of Trent is abroad once more.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794