Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
All they knew was a large family with kids, and called them collectively "brothers". Middle-Easterners do so to this day.
Hm. You don't? The Church teaches that Christ was born without violating His mother's hymen. It was, you know, a miraculous birth.
It is very likely that Mary aloowed herself to be examined, and it would not diminish her dignity one bit.
Regarding spousal obligations, by giving birth to the Savior she fulfuilled the essence of it, and of course, the Jewish law says nothing against volunatry abstinence by both spouses. That is even letting alone the fact that this was altogether exceptional marriage.
Protoevangelium of James (Link) is a book written most likely in 2c (not by St. James), and that relates the story that Mary was, acocrding to the Jewish custom, a temple virgin married off to Joseph so that he may provide for her as she reached puberty. This explains her turn of the phrase "I know not man", otherwise without an explanation for a woman about to be married and make children.
Deep, man.
The Holy Scripture is the inspired word of God and is a written expression of the Holy Tradition that preceded it and is a larger body of knowledge, as the scripture itself teaches.
If you have an argument to the contrary, make it.
I absolutely agree that St. Paul taught the Old Testament as well as yet-unwritten Gospel. But in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 the "tradition" is something the Thessaloninas learned form either source; it is therefore not just the Old Testament tradition but what St. Paul wrote about, and he wrote as a part of the New Testament. He did not write any part of the Old Testament.
you are making a distinction between 'παραδόεις' and 'πατρικαι παραδόεις'. Which is fine, because I would like to see how you harmonize your personal defintion with how its used in Galatians 1:14
There is no distinction that would be pertinent to us. Both the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition are a larger body than the corresponding scripture, and both traditions control the correct reading of the scripture.
I don't think we need to discuss Dei Verbum since it is of no authority to you. I am pretty sure there is nothing in it that contradicts what I said here. Ask any Catholic Authority how do we know that Mary died a virgin and he will tell you, correctly, that we know that from the Holy Tradition.
The original point was that Luther was a godly man and then when evidence was submitted that he was indeed an evil vile man by today's standards the argument changed into Luther being a Catholic. Luther was excommunicated because he disagreed with the teachings of the Church putting him outside of the Communion of the Saints. One cannot argue that Luther was Catholic and not a Catholic or that everything good about him was limited to his anti-Catholicism and everything bad about his is a result of his Catholicism.
Further, those extolling the godliness of Luther have all espoused significant differences with his dogma in many areas implying or specifically stating that the godliness is only derived from his opposition to the Catholic Church. That is a vacuous argument and reinforces that those participating in attacks on Catholicism are doing so out of a visceral hatred of the Church and not on points of theology or dogma.
That is a completely circular, anachronistic interpretation of history using hindsight to impose a modern definition that was unknown in Honorious' day on that era. It must be a nice gig, if you can get it, to able to overturn the facts of history by mere dogmatic authority.
Actually, what you end up with that kind of circular reasoning is a concept that means nothing at all because you can never know if a current Pope's teaching will be approved by future generations, or will end up as one of those "he didn't mean that infallibly" pronouncements.
And btw, where did you come up with the "previously established infallible teaching" part of the definition of ex cathedra?
Ex CathedraLiterally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
Cordially,
Is this because Holy Tradition teaches that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit?
John 5:39-40 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.
lol.
Ask any Catholic Authority how do we know that Mary died a virgin and he will tell you, correctly, that we know that from the Holy Tradition.
Which leaves Holy Tradition at odds with the Holy Scriptures. Its one thing to do like the Mormons and alter doctrine over time, sort of like changing the rules in Poker in mid game, but according to Matthew's Gospel 1:24-25, Joseph is in the historical record as "knowing" his wife. Furthermore, both the LV and the TR include language that says that Mary had other sons. That is historical fact according to Matthew. If Holy Tradition now comes around and supersedes historical facts, then either Tradition is wrong or the Gospels is not Divinely Inspired making it less than Holy. You can't have something in realty happen and simultaneously not have it happen.
Virginity is not defined in terms of Quantum Mechanics.
The reasoning on infallibility is not circular. Any teaching from a pope that conflicts with previous infallible teaching is immediately null and void.
If there is some powerful interest supporting the error, it may temporarily gain currency. However, any Catholic who detects heresy from ANY source is obligated to resist it.
The basis of Church doctrine was established long ago so the occasions for new infallible teachings are very infrequent. A new teaching cannot be valid if it conflicts with any previous infallible teaching. That would require the old teaching that was once true to become false. Obviously, such a transformation is impossible, even for a pope. Do you understand how this logic is linear and not at all circular?
The US Communist Party infiltrated American seminaries with many thousands of agents. The same happened in all other parts of the world. Despite this tragedy, Church doctrine remains pure and undefiled. How do you account for this miracle other than by divine protection?
"...It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; and this must carry great weight with those who ground their views chiefly on external testimonies, without being able to rise to the free Protestant conception of Christianity and its history of development on earth."
Schaff is saying that Rome has been fairly consistent in its apostasy and superstition, and this consistency appeals to RC apologists who do not base their beliefs on Scripture but upon "external testimonies." Thus they are incapable of achieving the Biblical validity of Protestants.
Keep reading Schaff. It can only help.
They see what they want to see. Which explains the Virgin Mary in toast and salami.
Oh here it is, posted by mlizzy. From the thread "So Little Time Left (Urgent Messages from Mark Mallett). It's a treasure trove of Mary's spouse being the Holy Spirit.
Then the Bible lied when it called Joseph her husband.
Mark 1:18-24 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
What am I going to believe here? The Bible? Or some Catholic fable?
Decisions, decisions.....
That's a keeper.
Threats of force and hellfire and brimstone..... The inquisitions ordered by those who claim to be Christ's representative on earth. Not very Christlike by all accounts.
Catholic tradition remaining *pure* means nothing. It certainly doesn't mean it's right or true. All it means is that it hasn't changed from what was originally established.
And even that's debatable based on some of the stuff I've seen posted about the church fathers on these threads.
RnMomof7 wrote:
“There is NO typology of Mary in the OT..the Typology all points to Christ and the cross..NOT TO MARY.”
Well, to be fair and accurate, there is typology of Mary in the OT ... but, and let us make this very clear, its purpose is to point to Christ. The minute such things are used to elevate her above humanity itself a line has been crossed.
Yes, Mary would be called blessed among women, for she is the one to whom the types of Sarah and Hannah, for example, pointed.
And so too would John the Baptizer be called the greatest prophet of those born to women.
And so too were Capernaum and Bethsaida exalted to heaven.
But let us understand in each of these cases that what is said of them has nothing to do with some intrinsic virtue in them, and everything to do with their proximity, their closeness, to the long-promised Christ. He would be the seed of woman, but only Mary would bear Him. He would be proclaimed by each and every prophet of the OT, but only John would touch Him, point to Him, and call Him the “Lamb of God,” for all Israel to behold. He would dwell among His people, but only Capernaum/Bethsaida would be His hometown when He was revealed as the Christ. Thus each is exalted, as it were, above all other women in the Messianic, all other prophets, and all other cities or towns of Israel, respectively. So, you see, it really is all about Christ, even when the typology points indirectly through someone or something else to Him.
In the same way, for example, the crossing of the sea by Moses and Israel was a type (i.e. there is a typology here) of baptism, as Paul explicitly teaches, as also was the crossing of the Jordan, as also was the baptism of Naaman in the Jordan, as also was the priests’ washing of themselves before entering the tabernacle or temple (i.e. into the presence of God) etc. etc. But all these point not to baptism qua baptism, but to the Christ through the medium of the baptismal type/antitype.
One can find many, many such types in the Old Testament, not just the typology of Mary. But Romanists focus on Mary especially, because in the end they do desire to exalt her beyond even what God has done ... and, inevitably, as the expense of the glory of the Christ. And this is reflected in the worship and devotional life of millions of Catholics, even if it is said to be unintended or not official Catholic teaching. They are doing it because they are not stupid. They get what the Vatican has been saying all these years no matter their denials to the obstreperous Protestants.
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.