Is the Pope Catholic? - The Greatest Schism in Catholic Church History!

Spiritual Food Blogspot ^ | May 10, 2016 | Rev. Joseph Dwight

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, so OK. God chooses, sanctifies, and loves a lot of people, and I love, respect and honor them, too.

This doesn't violate God's law.

In fact, it expresses His loving nature in me.

Mary was the one He was closest to, though. He took His entire human nature from her (think of that!!),lived inside of her for 9 months, lay blissfully in her arms as an infant, grasped he hand when He was learning to walk, imitated her when He learned His first words (and He was the Word who brought here into existence!), gazed down upon her and cared for her when He Himself was dying on the cross.

We give her a very great honor, because He did.

The honor we give to God is so much greater than that, it isn't even in the same ballpark. Human languageis always imperfect, but using the same word for both (we "honor" her, the creature; we "honor" Him, the Creator)--- comparing the one to the other ---they are so different it's not even a difference in degree, it's a difference in kind: it's a category mistake.

The honor given to God is incomparably greater: it is infinite. p> Any "counting" number, even if it be the number of atomic particles in the Universe, any amount, any measure, however great, is infinitely less than infinite.

[BipolarBob]

Visitations and apparitions that you agree with are things you would believe. Those that you do not agree with must be demonic. I believe they call that one affirmation bias.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Confirmation" bias.

But I don't rely on my own judgment only, which is skeptical. (My default position is: "They could be mistaken.") I would not honor what are called the "Medjugorje Apparitions" because not only did they seem dubious to me, but the local bishops to this day (35 years after the original alleged apparitions) have not found them to be of supernatural origin.

Probably not one in 200 or one in 300 reported Marian phenomena receives ecclesiastical approval (and not even ecclesiastic approval establishes it as something that must be believed.)

"Confirmation bias" is a very common cognitive or perceptual tendency, even in situations like criminal investigations; but in these cases it seems to operate rather poorly. Perhaps we're just diligent about compensating for it by adding an extra dollop of skepticism.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sorry, but both you and B- manifest a lack of comprehension, such as, your failure to make a distinction between hyperdulia and latria. Even if you disagreed with it, you could show you understand what you're disagreeing with, --- but so far, you have never done this.

That's not authority on my part, it's observation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

In the light of Christ.

[BipolarBob]

I’m sorry Elsie. It looks like it’s all our fault.

[Elsie]

That's not authority on my part, it's observation.

And we 'observe' Catholics doing things that; outside of the entrenched Catholic mindset; would be recognized as WORSHIP.

[Elsie]

In the light of Christ.

Light; eh?

Well; He IS mentioned ONCE in all of those Promises...

All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ.

[Elsie]

Light of Christ...

 

 

 

ME = 4

I      = 3

MY = 1

 

1	me
2.	I
3.
4.
5.	me
6.
7.
8.
9.	I
10.
11.	me
12.	me
13.	I
14.
15.	my

[Elsie]

Isn’t it ALWAYS!

[BipolarBob]

I give up after post #360. Matt. 15:8,9 tells me it is time to abandon this thread.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You are not reading this in the light of Christ. All of these things have to with bringing people to her Son. Without Jesus, what is Mary? Nothing. We all know that.

#251

[Elsie]

Without Jesus, what is Mary?

Without the Roman church; what is Mary?

The mother of Jesus.

Period.

[metmom]

Mary’s statement wasn’t, “How shall this be because I never intend to have sex with any man?’

It was “How can this be (present tense) since I am not currently having sex with a man?”

It says NOTHING in the least about future intentions.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Consider that at the time she spoke, Mary was not pregnant. Neither had she any idea whether this pregnancy predicted by the Archangel was to commence in a week, a month, a year, or if it would be delayed until decades in the future, as was her ancestress Sarah’s renowned,heaven-predicted pregnancy. No timeline was announced.

There was no reason whatsoever for her to think it would be right away.

Therefore she is speaking of a pregnancy to come in the indefinite future.

That’s exactly what’s so strange about her troubled, puzzled response that she knows not man. She was a married woman. She knew where babies come from. Yet she apparently couldn’t work out in her mind where *her* future baby could come from. Her first thought was apparently not “Well, Joseph, my husband, of course.”

[Mrs. Don-o]

Consider that at the time she spoke, Mary was not pregnant. Neither had she any idea whether this pregnancy predicted by the Archangel was to commence in a week, a month, a year, or if it would be delayed until decades in the future, as was her ancestress Sarah’s renowned,heaven-predicted pregnancy. No timeline was announced.

There was no reason whatsoever for her to think it would be right away.

Therefore she is speaking of a pregnancy to come in the indefinite future.

That’s exactly what’s so strange about her troubled, puzzled response that she knows not man. She was a married woman. She knew where babies come from. Yet she apparently couldn’t work out in her mind where *her* future baby could come from. Her first thought was apparently not “Well, Joseph, my husband, of course.”

[Elsie]

Therefore she is speaking of a pregnancy to come in the indefinite future.

That’s exactly what’s so strange about her troubled, puzzled response that she knows not man.

Make up your mind.

[Elsie]

Yet she apparently couldn’t work out in her mind where *her* future baby could come from.

Oh?

Seems a bit limiting the mind power of a SINLESS WOMAN.

[metmom]

That’s exactly what’s so strange about her troubled, puzzled response that she knows not man. She was a married woman. She knew where babies come from. Yet she apparently couldn’t work out in her mind where *her* future baby could come from. Her first thought was apparently not “Well, Joseph, my husband, of course.”

So then why did she take that vow of perpetual virginity if she didn't know she was going to be the mother of the messiah?

And why didn't Scripture state that the mother of Jesus would be a perpetual virgin?

[Mrs. Don-o]

" So then why did she take that vow of perpetual virginity if she didn't know she was going to be the mother of the messiah?

We don't know.

Luke 2:36 says the prophetess Anna, daughter of Phanuel, never left the Temple but was there praying and fasting, day and night, for many decades as a widow. Being a widow gave her the freedom to do such a thing. It is possible, and congruent with what we know about Mary --- the "lowly handmaid" totally given over to God ---that she might have thought to do the same, as a virgin. She was willing to be set aside for some total consecration to the Lord God. She didn't know she would be His mother!

"And why didn't Scripture state that the mother of Jesus would be a perpetual virgin?"

Scripture doesn't state that Paul or even that Jesus would be celibates. This was not prophesied in the OT --- and yet they were celibates. (Unless you and Dan Brown think you can conjure up a "Mrs. Jesus.") But the silence of prophecy on this topic doesn't render their holy celibacy any less certain.

There are many OT images of Mary as a perpetual virgin, as in this article, from the Association of Hebrew Catholics (LINK). Note particularly page 7, although the whole article is well worth you attention, and I think will appeal to your scholarly interests.