Hot and cold the anti-Catholic bigots run: either we can’t prove it or the proof is too juridical and gymnastic.
Some folks just aren’t smart enough for Catholicism, and should stick with the super-slick storefront plastic-banana happy-fun-day splinter groups.
Handlin snakes don’t need no readin’!
That would be dreadful if true and a great attack on, indeed a refutation of, the Church's claims. The Church Catholic is for all and it touches every aspect of life. It is catholic intensively and extensively, in principle if not in fact. It is for the 80 IQ and the 120 IQ, for the 60IQ and the 140IQ and so on right out to the ends of the scale. If not it is not catholic.
I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. I have baptized seriously retarded children, and though I was an Episcopalian when I did it, I didn't baptize them into a "denomination", I baptized them into Christ and His Church. So we teach, and so I believe.
We must consider that wisdom comes from God, It is infused, a gift, whose first manifestation is the "fear' of the Lord.
And wisdom gives us to understand, even without reading I Cor 12, that none of us can do everything, and that all of us in some things must be humble. I cannot do foot surgery, and I obeyed what my surgeon said. My surgeon cannot (or, at least, does not) do theology and should "obey" (from "ob" + "audire" -> listen intently) to those who under the aegis of the Church do "do theology.
I am a not so bad arm-chair theologian. A man I very much admire and who influenced (unbeknownst to him) my choice of my name in religion is leaving our parish to go and do doctorate in ST with an emphasis on Sacramental Theology. You can bet your, ah, bippy I will "obey" him -- though most of my obedience will be querulous and argumentative. He's smarter than I, not LD, and is going to study with some good guys.
Protestants who think nothing pf trusting their money to financial planners or their health to physicians, seem unable to understand that a relationship with Christ which might lead to someone's being a dazzlingly bright beacon of Sanctity does not necessarily qualify one as a theologian. A physician who only understands the biomechanics of football but who couldn't throw a football ten feet, may still be a legitimate authority for some aspects of John Elway's life. The trainer is not the athlete and does not wear the wreathe or the medal, but he still has legitimate authority over some aspects of the athlete's life. The race is ours, is each individual's to run, but some are better qualified to give advice on how to run than are others.
Some of our brothers do not understand this. They are still fit to run, and indeed called by God to run with us and wearing the same colors. That they are froward and will not accept the qualified trainers does not excuse or disqualify them from the team.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I think that's a good example of the personal slurs and insults that are not appropriate for any of the Religion forums, open or otherwise.
I mention it because I know you are extremely sensitive about following the rules precisely from the conversation yesterday about ecumenical threads.
I was going to put a substantive response here to your substantive comments, so this wasn't just a meta-post about rules, but I realised on re-reading that there was nothing to respond to.
I agree with you that snake handling requires no particular scripture knowledge, although I would imagine reading up about snakes might be helpful.
As to the substance of the argument about Mary and her children. I think scripture is clear enough that there were brothers and sisters, but acknowledge that the references themselves do not prove the point (Once again showing that Catholic doctrine, whether you agree with it or not, is not ignorant, but is cleverly, cautiously constructed on a reading and interpretation of scripture).
However, if there was basic tenet of faith and practice that involved Mary being a Virgin throughout her life, I would assert that someone would have mentioned it explicitly in the Scriptures. After all, it was a requirement of marriage to consumate the marriage, so if we were to believe it was never consumated, we should have been told that.
Scripture made a point that Joseph did not know her before Jesus was born, so it would have been trivial to say that Joseph didn't know her ever.