Posted on 03/26/2015 11:36:04 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Because we have contemporaries of the Apostles not mentioning it at all. Doesn’t it make sense that if Jesus actually wrote something it would not only be referenced, but preserved? Should it have be destroyed, wouldn’t it have been a major catastrophe, noted by believers? Wouldn’t the possession of such a text by the Apostles reduced any kind of confusion among the Gentiles? Finally, wouldn’t the Gospel writers have made note, and referenced it?
That is a great question!
Jesus told the Apostles to go forth and teach what He had taught them. And so they did. As these teachings were recorded and saved unto history, that is one way.
The other way is when Jesus tells the Apostles they have the power to bind and loose; when they are told to “...go to the Church”; when St. Paul visits Peter. In all of these things, authority is shown and exercised. This authority didn’t end with Peter.
Additionally, the Apostles had the authority to appoint a successor to Judas, namely Matthias.
As you see, the Church has possessed the authority handed to it by Christ Himself.
We are speaking of two different things. It was the Jews who codified the Septuagint, 130 years before Christ. So, you can’t blame that on the Catholic Church.
Secondly, the Canon of Scripture, for Christians, was unchanged for over a 1000 years. It wasn’t until Luther and the like removed books from the Old Testament.
Does one trust the universality of the Canon, or does one trust someone who wishes to alter it?
One doesn’t need to believe in the Assumption to attain salvation. Jesus, through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection attained our salvation, once and for all. No person can earn salvation, nor merits it. It is freely given by God.
The Apostles likely wouldn’t have taught the Assumption, as many had been martyred prior to her death. Because an exact date is not recorded, we can’t know for sure, on that point.
To believe that Jesus didn’t speak to the Apostles about His teaching is just absurd.
I don’t worry, as Jesus told the Apostles the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church, built upon Peter.
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII
"45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith." [http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM]
>>The Apostles likely wouldn’t have taught the Assumption, as many had been martyred prior to her death. Because an exact date is not recorded, we can’t know for sure, on that point.<<
So you don't believe what the Catholic Church puts out about all the apostles being transported to here death bed?
If one doesn’t believe in the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, then reasonably they have fallen away from it. That doesn’t mean they have lost the gift of salvation, given once and for all by Jesus Christ. Instead, it is a teaching binding upon Catholics.
The Church doesn’t definitively teach the Apostles surrounded Mary at her earthly death. There is a vision of this by St. Anne Catherine Emmerich. Hers is a private revelation, which is defined as that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Further, Benedict XIV says: “It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)” (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).
While a Catholic is free to believe the Apostles surrounded Mary at her death, it is not required. In my personal opinion only, I just don’t know, and take no stand one way or the other.
Sorry, everybody... can’t chat for a while. Our beloved kitty (14 yrs) is slowly dying, we’re trying “home hospice” (rather than euthanasia)—which is completely uncharted waters for my wife and for me—and I’m pretty busy and overwhelmed (and an emotional wreck). Prayers would be appreciated!
So you believe once saved always saved?
It is not mocking to call into question certain policies of the Church. While Church policies, rules, regulations, ritual, catechisms, liturgy, and practice are always subject to change-—look no further than Vatican II for proof of this fact-—the Holy Bible always remains constant.
Certain Catholic practices can and should be called into question. Take compulsory clerical celibacy for example. Marriage among the clergy is specifically permitted in the New Testament and married priests with families were the norm all throughout the Bible in both the Old Testament and the New. I refer you to 1 Timothy 3:1-7 which I already quoted. Compulsory clerical celibacy was introduced by the Church in the Middle Ages (First Lateran Council 1123) and for reasons that have nothing to do with anything that can be found in the Bible.
If you had your way, every Catholic would be marching in lockstep with every policy and every rule coming down from the Vatican. There would be no dissent, no tolerance for differing opinions, no questioning, no debate at all. I’m tired of being told I’m not a Catholic because I question some Church policies. And I’m not going to be silenced. Is there a rule that says you are not permitted to question Church policies? Ever? My gosh, even the Pope has raised questions about compulsory clerical celibacy and is on record stating that the policy is a discipline, not a dogma or a doctrine of the Church and is always subject to change. I totally agree!
Yes brothers and sisters is a term which can mean brothers and sisters in faith. I know St. Paul has used it in that context and so have the priests at my church as well. That’s why you need to look at the context in which the terms are being used.
I do not rule out the possibility that Jesus’s bothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible could really be His cousins-—as some insist. But I doubt it and really it doesn’t matter in he final analysis. I am perfectly content reading the Bible as it is written-—not reading into the Bible or speculating on such matters.
Since Mary and Joseph were in fact a married couple, it is reasonable to assume they did what other married couples do. Physical intimacy between a husband and a wife is a precious gift from God, not a sin or an act of defilement. I see no reason why this gift would have been denied to Mary and Joseph. There is certainly no mention of this in the Bible. While I do concede the possibility of your theory (even though it just that-—a theory) could you EVER concede the possibility that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage?
Hardly. God’s free and unearned gift of salvation must be accepted daily. When we turn our backs on God, we are rejecting salvation in favor of our sins.
Salvation, redemption, justification, are all words that have similar general meanings, however, in religious context, can very greatly, depending upon the person using them.
It isn’t reasonable to assume, as God was the Father of Jesus, not Joseph. Joseph was to protect both Mary and Jesus, but her body was reserved as a tabernacle for Jesus.
Joseph knew she was chosen by God, set apart. In setting her apart, she would have been physically reserved, so to speak.
Her perpetual virginity is a foil to Eve, as was her “Yes,” to God. Mary played a role in the reversal of man’s condemnation. Hers was to be both an example of obedience, but also provide humanity to Jesus. It was to suffer, as she was foretold by Simeon. It was also to nourish Jesus.
Eve on the other hand, disobeyed God. She helped to bring sin into the world. In the Garden, she suffered nothing. She most certainly didn’t nourish Adam by giving him the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She carried original sin.
Mary carried the light of the world!
Here is a good article that will do a better job than I can explaining. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
Catholics have the oddest carnal view of scripture.
Sure. Unlike many non-Catholic denominations who support homosexuality, abortion, cohabitation, sex before marriage, and so-called “same sex marriage.”
Yep, definitely different from the main stream I am glad to say.
What you are presenting here is strictly theory and conjecture. Not an OUNCE of fact is presented here. The Bible mentions that Mary was a virgin ONLY at the time of her conception of Jesus. Period. It ends there. Since Mary and Joseph were a MARRIED COUPLE and since the Bible mentions Jesus’s brothers and sisters, it is reasonable, natural, and normal to reasonably conclude that Mary and Joseph had a happy normal close marriage which was blessed with other children. Why is this soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo difficult to believe????? To believe otherwise, you would have to conclude that Joseph was a passive wall flower and that Mary and Joseph slept in separate rooms. I don’t think that’s how Holy Matrimony works for anyone. You just offer theory not facts based on Biblical accounts which is our primary source.
God’s plan is for Holy Matrimony. His plan is for to be fruitful and multiply. He created Eve because He did not want Adam to be alone. The Church invented celibacy. That is NOT God’s plan for Mary and Joseph. That is NOT God’s plan for men and women. That is SPECIFICALLY NOT God’s plan for the clergy-—for proof of this simply read 1 Timothy 3:1-7. READ IT AGAIN. Then you tell me what that means. Holy Matrimony is God’s plan for men and women and their families. This all throughout the Bible. Only the Romans seemed to glorify virginity as goal in of itself-—remember the vestal virgins? Of course celibacy is the preferred state outside of Holy Matrimony. But marriage is God’s plan for us-—and this not to be excluded to our clergy if you read 1 Timothy 3:2.
Catholics really need to refrain from that type of hyperbole. The Catholic Church harbouring paedophiles preceded those Protestant denominations atrocities.
Is the trinity written out word for word in the Bible? No. However, one can reason to it.
Is perpetual virginity written out in the Bible? No. However, one can reason to it.
However, to reason to it, one must understand several things. One would be the archtype of the new Eve. The second would be the role of virgins in ancient, specifically Jewish society. One would have to have a thorough understanding of Koine Greek. Finally, one would have to be able to synthesize all of that data.
As we look at the books of the Bible with our 21st century eyes, much of what seems clear really isn’t. However, when viewed from the lens of ancients, as well as the writings of scholars throughout the ages, such as St. Thomas Acquinas, St. Augustine, St. Polycarp (to name a few), we find that perpetual virginity has been an accepted teaching since the first century.
God didn’t want Adam to be alone, that’s right. However, Joseph wasn’t Adam, and Mary wasn’t Eve. Additionally, religious celibates were common, and were commended by Jesus Himself, “and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:12)
God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, in general. But that is not a commandment.
If you are struggling with these dogmas, it is worthwhile to speak with your pastor. I am sure he can walk you through these doubts.
Wow, talk about off topic. You must finally be seeing the light for you to pull that one out. What’s next, the Crusades?
You bring up the apostasy of some of the Protestant churches in some attempt to attach that to all no affiliated Protestans but think it's "off topic" to mention the same faults within the Catholic Church? Really?
Sexual abuse has never been a policy or doctrine of the Church. Evil people have committed those acts, and deserve all proper punishment, both here and in the afterlife.
My point is that, in general, non-Catholics approve or promote at least one or more of these non-Biblical positions: divorce, divorce and remarriage, homosexual fornication, cohabitation, and so called “same sex marriage.”
These positions, again, are held as matters of policy or doctrine. Obviously, this list can’t cover every non-Catholic entity. However, one only need look to the major non-Catholic Christian entities to find acceptance of divorce (Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.sbc.net/faqs.asp) Presbyterian, Methodist (http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/the-nurturing-community) etc.
Since there is no single authority in each non-Catholic, Christian sect, their beliefs vary, even from church to church. Unfortunately, as listed above, these apostasies are the general rule, and not the exception.
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.