Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
And why are 35 out of the 36 books/essays you provided in Latin or Italian, as shown on Vatican.va?
Are they published in English? Or are they unavailable to people who speak English, German, French and Spanish?
I make no claim whatsoever as being qualified to translate the word and meaning of old Greek documents and their many "slightly different" versions.
I hope you will not be insulted if I decline to accept your expertise.
Why is “authority” the favorite word of Roman Catholics?
I do not yet live in "aveternity" (or whatever word is being used this week to describe temporal creatures experiencing eternity), or at least I have not yet apprehended that I do, what with time still marching on. "The constraints of time" isn't just an expression of having to get to the store before it closes. What I did 20 years ago isn't the full reality of who I am. We live in time, to ignore that just asking for trouble. We don't become flies in amber when we say the sinner's prayer (or some variation of it).
If my faith is motivated by love of self and not love of God then I'm not in His hand to be snatched away.
On October 31, 1950 you were free to argue against, or ignore, the entire issue concerning the Bodily Assumption Of Mary.
Were you still free to do so on November 1, 1950 when the BISHOP OF ROME declared it to be so?
Among voters, 54% of Roman Catholics voted for Obama while 45% of Protestants voted for him.
Those are the uncomfortable facts for Rome.
Sterling post, Legatus - I think that you have very adequately addressed the whole ‘saved now’ versus ‘saved 30 years from now’ thing.
Now, I must apologize to all for your posts to me that I have been unable to get to. I am now downsized and looking for work; I have been very busy, sometimes more sporadically so than at other times. I regret that I will not be able to respond to your posts with the attention that they deserve on a regular basis.
Keep up the good works, folks, they will be the salvation of this thread. :)
Ping to post.
So again, the question arises.....WHY is it so important that Mary would have been perpetually a virgin? Once she delivered Jesus, the prophecy was fulfilled, that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. After that, there was no necessity for her to remain a virgin.
Apparently Rome believes that in order to get people to believe in magic, they have to create not only magicians, but also their winsome assistants.
Ping to post.
If things don't improve dramatically for 2012 I'm going to just start writing in "Ronald Reagan's Corpse".
But yes, I'm very uncomfortable knowing that any self professed Catholic voted for that prize loon living in the white house. But on top of that (and I'm not pointing any fingers) there are some people who appear to be doing their level best to drive the rest of us right out the door.
Matthew 1:
[24] When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife,
[25] but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
Now it's your turn to provide Scripture concerning Mary's perpetual virginity.
I know just what you mean, I missed being old enough to vote for President Reagan in 1984 by about 6 months, since then there has not been a presidential candidate on the ballot that I was even remotely enthusiastic about voting for.
OFFICIAL?
Do not use pottery language on this thread. Or else. Something terrible will. Happen
that’s just plain funny!
RnMomof7 was correct to point out Calvin's excellent understanding of Mary's true grace --
"...for it was of vastly greater importance to be regenerated by the Spirit of God than to conceive Christ, according to the flesh, in her womb; to have Christ living spiritually within her than to suckle him with her breasts. In a word, the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son, so that the heavenly Father reckoned her in the number of new creatures."
lol. Throwing punch-lines as well as clay?
Metmom wrote:
So again, the question arises.....WHY is it so important that Mary would have been perpetually a virgin? Once she delivered Jesus, the prophecy was fulfilled, that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. After that, there was no necessity for her to remain a virgin.
Dr. E's response:
Apparently Rome believes that in order to get people to believe in magic, they have to create not only magicians, but also their winsome assistants.
I'm confused, what is it that you are dismissing as pagan and magic?
Is it:
A. The Virgin Birth
or
B. The Blessed Mother's perpetual virginity
Let's look at both options:
If the answer is A, I would agree that there are pagan cultures that have legends of virgin births. I would also, agree that to a non-believer, the idea of a virgin giving birth to a child would require some form of magic. However, YOU consider yourself a Christian, so why would a Christian consider the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ to be pagan magic?
Now, if the answer is B, I suppose there are some pagan cultures that have at times placed a value on virginity, but this is usually in preparation of a sacrifice. The notion of a woman remaining a lifelong virgin was known in the Greco-Roman culture, but it was also practiced among some Jews, so I fail to see how this would be considered pagan. As far as magic, I suppose in the 21st century it might be highly unusual for a woman to maintain her virginity throughout her life; it would certainly require self-discipline, but not magic.
Exactly, the Resurrection is the most important act in history. Mary wasn’t even at the last supper. If she was going to be the new Eve and the co-redeemer, Christ would have instituted an office for her.
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.