In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[RnMomof7]

In Christ Alone lyrics

Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ

[OpusatFR]

Good catch.

Anti-Catholics are just full of intellectual dishonesty.

[Jaded]

I am no longer surprised by this sort of intellectual/emotional dishonesty. Disgusted maybe, surprised no. Thank you for posting the actual quote in it's entirety.

[wagglebee]

Isn't it odd that the actual quote says that the line of Apostolic Succession from Saint Peter has "preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy"?

[wagglebee]

I don't even know that this is intellectual dishonesty, this is old-fashioned quote fabrication, another thing that anti-Catholics on here are known for (though funeral fabrication was probably my favorite).

[metmom]

*claims*.

Isn’t that nice.....

[metmom]

It would not be in the least sinful for Mary to have marital relations with St. Joseph. She remained virgin because she chose to; there was no obligation on her to do so.

And yet it's not recorded in infallible Scripture but what IS recorded in infallible Scripture is this....

Matthew 1:24-2524When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

and

Luke 2:1-7 1In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

And Luke, being the doctor, no doubt knew what the term *firstborn* meant since he didn't say she gave birth to her ONLY son.

[metmom]

*most probably *

But like everything else Catholics teach concerning this myth, there’s not one shred of reliable evidence to back it up.

Childbirth would have destroyed the *evidence* of her virginity.

[metmom]

Which all gets back to the original question of WHY Catholics are so obsessed with her perpetual virginity.

Once prophecy was fulfilled, she didn't need to remain a virgin and once Jesus began His ministry and all the miracles and raising from the dead, He didn't need her virginity to prove who HE was.

John 10:22-26 22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

[wagglebee]

And yet it's not recorded in infallible Scripture but what IS recorded in infallible Scripture is this....

Matthew 1:24-2524When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

NOWHERE in this passage does Saint Matthew infer that Saint Joseph had relations with the Blessed Mother after our Lord was born. The point of this passage is to validate the Virgin Birth, the word "until" refers to the period of time BEFORE His Birth, not after.

And Luke, being the doctor, no doubt knew what the term *firstborn* meant since he didn't say she gave birth to her ONLY son.

Actually, Saint Luke knew that the term "firstborn" is an important LEGAL term in Jewish law that has NOTHING to do with medicine. The firstborn would be called the firstborn whether there were subsequent births or not. Do a search on the term "firstborn" in the Bible, it occurs nearly one hundred times in the Old Testament.

[smvoice]

Excuse me, but I did not. I put his quote in quotation marks. That’s what a quotation mark is.

[smvoice]

And no, if you read what you quoted, you will see that the succession is indeed "veiled in impenetrable darkness", as the entire quote makes the point that one list says one thing, another another thing. That would be "impenetrable darkness."

Quotes are from Philip Schaff. If it's not in """", smvoice said it.

[mas cerveza por favor]

You are supposed to ping somebody that you mention in a post.

It's also a great example of deflecting the argument away from the ugly candor already spoken on this forum -- Roman Catholic apologists desire a return to the Inquisition -- Spanish, French, Portuguese, Roman...whatever you got, they'll go for it.

You purport to know the minds of Catholic apologists. What do you think is the intended purpose and likely result of reinstituting an inquisition?

[wagglebee]

Which all gets back to the original question of WHY Catholics are so obsessed with her perpetual virginity.

Then why were all of the Reformers so adament about her perpetual virginity?

Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

John Calvin on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli on Mary's Perpetual Virginity

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

The reality is that it is anti-Catholics who are obsessed with denying her perpetual virginity.

Once prophecy was fulfilled, she didn't need to remain a virgin and once Jesus began His ministry and all the miracles and raising from the dead, He didn't need her virginity to prove who HE was.

Has it occurred to you that she WANTED TO BE?

The Holy Family WAS NOT a normal family, they are the most ABNORMAL FAMILY in all of history. Ordinary urges, desires and priorities were pushed aside.

The Blessed Mother's reaction here is evidence of her intention to remain a virgin:

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? (Luke 1:34)

When a normal young woman who is engaged to be married is told that she will have a child, her reaction is along the lines of, "of course, we will be married, have sex and I will conceive." The ONLY SCENARIOS under which the reaction is, "how shall this be done" are in cases of infertility or the woman does not intend to have sex.

[wagglebee]

And no, if you read what you quoted, you will see that the succession is indeed "veiled in impenetrable darkness", as the entire quote makes the point that one list says one thing, another another thing. That would be "impenetrable darkness."

No, it says that there are conflicts about who Saint Peter's immediate successor was, nothing more. It goes on to praise the list.

Quotes are from Philip Schaff. If it's not in """", smvoice said it.

Then Schaff's name should have come AFTER the actual quote.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Uh, that is your post, not Dr. Eckleburg's post. I assume that you are not saying that it was your own post that was deceitful. Dr. Eckleburg's post to which you were replying in the "deceitful" post does not leave out the word, "Spanish". The quotes were verbatim, as I showed.

Sorry, I gave you the wrong link. This is the correct link to Dr. Eckleburg's post which leaves out the word, "Spanish":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=1678#1669

[smvoice]

Thank you for your lesson in correct placement of quotations. I will place them in the order you gave me from this point on. Or I will place them in brackets for easier understanding. Because I was not aware that people do not understand that quotation marks are the understanding that the person you are attributing to the quote is who said it. Thank you, Judy.

[wagglebee]

Thank you for your lesson in correct placement of quotations. I will place them in the order you gave me from this point on. Or I will place them in brackets for easier understanding. Because I was not aware that people do not understand that quotation marks are the understanding that the person you are attributing to the quote is who said it. Thank you, Judy.

Here is your post from #1777:

About those successors to the original twelve..Church historian Philip Schaff writes: "The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness." For that reason, it is impossible for the RCC to substantiate its claims of papal succession from Peter to the present Pope.- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: eerdmans, 1910), vol. 2, pp. 164-165.

You placed the information about Schaff (page number, etc.) AFTER your statement, this would typically indicate that your statement was a quote from Schaff. Under normal rules of citation, your statement should have been in a separate paragraph or at least clearly denoted as not being from Schaff.

[smvoice]

I GET IT, wagglebee. I told you I would place them in the order you gave me from this point on. Is that not enough for you that you must go to Miss Landers for vindication? Once again, I GET IT, Judy.

[Quix]

[RnMomof7]

Yes it would be nice if Jesus wrote a huge FAQ that answered any conceivable question that we might have. He did not do that though, did He? Perhaps that was intentional and He wanted us to rely upon the Church He set up.

The scriptures tell us everything God intends we know and everything necessary for salvation,

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: