(CNS/Paul Haring)
Posted on 06/06/2014 11:46:00 AM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Those who insist others pray and believe exactly like they do, those who have alternatives to every church teaching and benefactors who use the church as a cover for business connections may call themselves Catholics, but they have one foot out the door, Pope Francis said.
"Many people say they belong to the church," but in reality have "only one foot inside," the pope said June 5 at the morning Mass in the chapel of his residence.
(CNS/Paul Haring) |
I’m not fussing over anything.
I’m for keeping it real.
Read the Bible, believe in God.
Don’t make things up.
My issues are with people who develop dogmas and doctrines contradictory to what is written the Bible.
Our faith is based upon historical events and real people.
We should not be making things up about them and that includes theories which are nothing more than conjecture and yes, propaganda.
Some Catholic theologians centuries ago wanted to believe that Mary was ALWAYS a virgin. So they made up this yarn that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage. Jesus’s brothers and sisters? Oh no...they meant say cousins. Oh no...they were the children of Joseph and a previous spouse they speculate existed. They cannot conceive of the notion that Mary and Joseph has a perfectly happy and normal marriage which produced other children after Jesus was born.
They’re not really Catholic unless someone wants bragging pints for numbers.
Then it’s 1.2 billion strong.
What more would you like to see done?
A half-hearted spirited Catholic would have shut these 'clinics' up YEARS ago!
How?
Which is why to be faithful to Scripture - which is not the supreme law for Rome, nor is the weight of its substantiation the basis for the veracity of her claims - means one must dissent from Rome, like as the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses.
That is lame, as we are talking about Rome's treatment of him while he was yet manifestly impenitent, and even insolently asserted in his letter to the pope that he “never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings” of his church. And rather than being reproved, he was granted special treatment.
See 152 . Which is just one more thing that is not in Scripture, nor had unanimous consent of the "fathers."
Not Bible idolatry again?
The Immaculate Conception is a dogma.
Papal infallibility is a doctrine.
One day, you’ll see the Truth. It may be too late, however.
Are you claiming to be a Catholic who questions not only doctrine but dogma, also?
Explain how rejecting that which is not in Scripture is Bible idolatry. And while you are at it, what your basis is for assurance that Papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception is Truth. I am waiting.
Peace be with you.
If "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne.
Why do you suggest that? Solomon was heir to David's throne, and he was not his eldest living son. Adonias was older but was not the king because God did not choose him. It seems silly to pretend that God would have to choose an older step-brother to be Christ when he rejected Adonias as king of Juda.
The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name.
Perhaps, but it is hard to deny that the scriptures tell us that the Blessed Virgin did in fact have a sister named Mary. It may be odd, but it is so. And, just to be clear, I did not actually suggest that the brothers of the Lord were his cousins, which is a common theory, but rather his step-brothers.
Israel knew nothing of a marriage that was not consummated between two persons who could procreate, nor does the NT.
Well, I don't see how one could say that. I will grant that it is atypical historically, but so is much we read about in the New Testament. And that there is perhaps no direct record of such in the scriptures does not mean such a marriage never existed. In Christian marriage consummation is also generally considered necessary and yet people have been married, especially in older ages, for companionship or other such reasons. I had an elderly aunt who did just that, and we have no idea whether they consummated the relationship physically. After all, who is going to ask? And, if, as has been traditionally believed, St. Joseph was an elderly man at the time of the marriage he could quite possibly not have been, as you say, able to procreate.
Paul actually instructs the married to have sexual relations, and restricts abstinence in marriage to only a period of fasting, and then to come together again. (1Cor. 7:3-5)
Yes he does, but it is in a context. He makes that clear from the start by stating that what he is saying is "in fear of fornication." We know from this that he is speaking to people who are still sexually active. They are struggling against lust. He is not speaking about marriages in which the partners are not afflicted by this danger. An elderly man called by God and the Mother of our Lord would obviously not be in his mind, and neither would their life have been applicable to the people he is speaking to in this instance.
Except in rare instances "heōs" ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Matthew 1:25) indicates a terminus and a change, or allowing for that..
It can allow for a future change, but it is not required. The word as used there only means that there were no marital relations up to that point, and it implies nothing about what follows. Yes, it allows for future relations, but it also allows for otherwise. This is not a useful verse for drawing conclusions in this case.
Instead of any teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin, ,we have many texts which refer to Mary having other children. (Mat_12:46,48, Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40,47, Mar_16:1; Luk_24:10; Joh_19:25; Gal_1:19)
I think you infer too much from these verses. Look at the first, Matthew 12.46-48. It refers to the Lord's Mother and his brethren, but it never says they are the children of his Mother.
My father has an adopted sister, and she is always called his sister. Nobody in our family introduces her to people known to him without calling her his sister. She is not, however, the physical daughter of his mother. Calling her a sister only describes her relation to my father, not to his mother. It doesn't even imply one. And yet she is his sister, and she is not the biological daughter of his mother.
Your second verse is much the same. Actually it is even weaker. Matthew 27.56 refers to "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" and you are suggesting, I am supposing, that this must be the Blessed Virgin. But, are we really supposed to believe that in the Gospel of our Lord he would not even deserve mention as a child of a woman in a list of her offspring? It would be strange enough to see him given in a list of other people in any way, as if they were all of the same level of importance, but not to be there at all? If this were the mother of the Lord I have no doubt she would be listed as just that, the Mother of the Lord. Not the mother of James and Joseph. These people are obviously not children of the same Mary. Mark 15.40, and 16.1 share the same problem, as does also the other verse from Luke. They are obviously not referring to the Mother of the Lord.
Actually, one verse you list is very confusing to me, and that is John 19.25. There we are told standing by the cross was "his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen." This never suggests that there is another child born to our Lady, and instead names her sister. I am at a loss as to why you think this contradicts the perpetual virginity of our Lady.
Jason Engwer states , Luke uses the word "supposedly" to describe Jesus' relationship with Joseph (Luke 3:23), but doesn't use any such terminology to describe Jesus' relationship with His brothers and sisters . . .
The point about "supposedly" is interesting, but I don't think it works as he suggests. It must be remembered that this word appears during a genealogy of the Lord as traced through St. Joseph. Now, it is perfectly natural for the author to point out that such a genealogy, which would otherwise imply direct biological descent, was not meant to indicate that St. Joseph was the real biological father of our Lord or else he would risk confusing the reader regarding the Virgin Birth. That is not true in the case of brothers and sisters who were still brothers and sisters even if not born of the Virgin. It just wouldn't occur to most people to add "supposedly" in that situation, while it would be natural in a genealogy when relating to a person thought to be a father.
There is simply no need for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, unless martial relations are sinful or necessarily denoting inferior virtue, as some CFs erroneously held , contra. Heb. 13:4)
I don't like the word "need" in this context. Which dogmas are "needed" in that sense and which are not? Many people think certain moral teachings are not "needed" but I accept them anyway, because the Church teaches them. And I agree that there is nothing inferior or sinful about marriage, but that doesn't negate the value of one who chooses otherwise. St. Paul himself, as mentioned above, states he wishes all could be like him, but he knows not all can. He sees real value in continence, but also sees the danger for the weak. And just as there is no inferiority in marriage, given the Apostle's desire that all could be like him there is surely also no inferiority in the single life or a life of continence.
Neither is false teaching!
Have you NOT heard of the CRUSADES; which were 'holy' wars over REAL ESTATE!!
How much more is a Human Life worth?
An awful lot of pure CONJECTURE in this statement; NONE of which is SUPPORTED by any facts.
I cannot 'procreate', but I sure like a roll in the hay!
Why does Catholicism deny this GOD given pleasure to Mary and Joseph?
Elderly man?
I hope a bunch of us OLD coots pounce on you whippersnappers (whipper - not mackerel) and mention Abraham, Noah, and others who were 'old men', yet fathered children late in life.
Are you saying organize some kind of private army inside the US to attack abortion clinics?
I would observe that “he’s not really a Christian” is heard more from Protestants who belong to some nutball denomination than it is from Catholics.
That having been said, those nutball Protestants really do care about walking with the Lord.
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.