Mary - The Mother of Our Lord

[Pedrito]

It looks like Pedrito is going to get into trouble again.

Pedrito always seems to get into trouble when he points out the proper context of Scripture references used to support some ideas and notions.

But Pedrito has rubbed some special ointment onto his skin to thicken it, so here we go.

In Post #6, some Scriptures were offered to give support for the idea of the mother of Jesus remaining a virgin after His birth.

Pedrito is going to be bold enough to place the implications applied to those verses under a little scrutiny.

==============================================================================================

“In 1 Cor. 15:25 Jesus still reigns after he puts all enemies under his feet.”

1 Cor. 15:24-25:
“24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet”

Jesus will reign until the final world power has been put under subjection. (It would seem that in the purposes of God, that putting under subjection will not be an instantaneous process.) Once that is accomplished, Jesus will then stand aside and hand everything back to God.

==============================================================================================

“In Phil. 1:10 we will still be blameless after the day of Christ.”

Phil. 1:10: “That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;”

The context is the striving of true Christians to be as much like the Saviour as they can in this life. Once death takes them, or Jesus returns while they are alive (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17), the striving will be over.

==============================================================================================

“In 1 Tim. 6:14 we are to still keep the commandments of God after Jesus returns.”

1 Tim. 6:11-14:
“11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:”

The context here is similarly the striving of true Christians to be as much like the Saviour as they can in this life. Once death takes them, or Jesus returns while they are alive (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17), the striving will be over.

==============================================================================================

“In Acts 8:40, there's no statement that Philip ceased preaching Christ when he came to Caesarea. The word simply does not indicate cessation.”

Acts 8:40; 21:8:
“8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.
21:8 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.”

The “till he came to Caesarea” clearly refers to Philip’s preaching from city to city, not his preaching in general. His itinerancy did not continue after his arrival in Caesarea.

==============================================================================================

So it would seem that Matthew 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son...” actually means what it seems to say.

 

[Josiah]

I've been instructed, by those who know koine Greek well, that the word we find in the English translation ("until") ONLY looks back and not forward, unlike the only English word available, it doesn't imply that AFTER that they did have relations, it ONLY says they did not so to that point. The word "until" does not in any sense designate cessation of the condition mentioned. In 1 Cor. 15:25 Jesus still reigns after he puts all enemies under his feet. In Phil. 1:10 we will still be blameless after the day of Christ. In 1 Tim. 6:14 we are to still keep the commandments of God after Jesus returns. In Acts 8:40, there's no statement that Philip ceased preaching Christ when he came to Caesarea. The word simply does not indicate cessation.

The "problem" thus is that there is no English word that accurately conveys the Greek, the best English word tends to imply something the original Greek does not but no better English word is available. Thus the Greek is saying that she was a virgin at the time of our Lord's birth while saying nothing about after that. But I cannot so speak from personal knowledge (I've never studied Koine Greek). I'm NOT saying the Dogma of the RC Denomination is true (or confirmed by Scripture) only that it's not clearly and undeniably condemned by Scripture.

I understand that John Calvin (as well as Martin Luther) accepted this teaching, well aware of the verse you reference but also quite knowledgeable of koine Greek.


.

In Post #6, some Scriptures were offered to give support for the idea of the mother of Jesus remaining a virgin after His birth.

No.

Post #6 never even claims to offer ANYTHING in support of the idea that Mary remained a virgin after Our Lord's birth. I invite you to re-read post # 6 above.

So it would seem that Matthew 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son...” actually means what it seems to say.

Of course, but the verse does NOT say "her virginity ceased after Jesus was born." You personally may feel that the verse seems to mean something or other, but it's not what it states. The Greek carries the force of "She was and remained a virgin through the time of the birth of her son." The Greek term sadly translated into modern English with "until" states and implies nothing whatsoever about the state ceasing or continuing, thus this Greek word cannot be used to prove the POV to be heresy or dogma, indeed, it doesn't address the issue at all.



Thank you.


Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

He keeps saying that he was a Catholic

You've not posted even ONE comment about the opening post - just that it all matters not to you, you have no interest.


Post 16

The thread is of only minimal interest and no concern to me

Post 17

As I would predict.

But your singular denomination declares these to be de fide dogmas - issues of highest concern possible and greatest certainty possible.


But friend, you are typical of many Catholics: The issue of truthfulness in defining dogmas of their denomination appear to be of "no concern" to them; oddly while claiming to be devoted to Mary and hold Her in high esteem, it is of "no concern" to them whether what is dogmatically shouted about Her is true - at all. Just not interested. No concern about that. Odd, IMO. If some denomination officially declared as a matter of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible, an issue on which to divine His church and people, that the Pope had a wife and 6 kids - you'd likely shout "PROVE IT to the level claimed or take it back!!!!" (and I wouldn't blame you) but when it comes to Mary, well, as you put it, "it's of only minimal interest and of no concern" whether the dogmas are true or not. Mary seems totally exempt from the issue of truthfulness, exempt from the usual prohibition and condemnation of gossip.

I think a lot of Protestants actually are more respectful of Her than many Catholics, more concerned with respecting Her by respecting truth about Her than many (maybe most) of the Catholics known to me.


And your lack of interest and concern over whether the DOGMAS of your singular denomination are true or not also seems usual.... IF these issues are of no concern, why did your denomination make them DOGMAS (the last time in 1950)?



Curious.....


.

- Josiah



.

 

[Glark]

I'm getting off-topic but this reminds me of how often it is that Protestants criticize the Catholic concept of papal infalibility without understanding it.

Understanding a lot of Catholic doctrine requires more than a superficial study of Scripture. But is seems to me that a lot of non-Catholic Christians are only interested in a shallow, amateurish reading of the text. The finer points are often missed or when pointed out, they seem to sail over their heads. I was not always Catholic, but when I started studying Catholic theology, it struck as being much more intelligent and professional that anything Protestantism offered.

 

[Josiah]

I'm getting off-topic but this reminds me of how often it is that Protestants criticize the Catholic concept of papal infalibility without understanding it.

It is "off-topic." Why is what your denomination insists is a matter of highest importance possible and greatest certainty possible (de fide Dogma) "of little interest" and "of no concern" to some Catholics, some that they dodge the topic, try to change the subject, or just flat out state "I don't give a rip?"

The RCC has declared them dogmas (lastly in 1950) and they are used to condemn those who don't embrace them as such and thus divide His people. But what seems even more significant, these same Catholic brothers and sisters insist that they love and adore Mary (certainly more than Protestants) and yet seem (and not infrequently admit) they don't care if what their denomination says about Her is true or not. IMO, if someone is loved and held in high esteem, wouldn't that mean that stating the truth about them would be MORE important, not less important (well, "of no importance")? Seems odd to me.... When someone says they disagree with some pov of the RCC, some Catholics shout "PROVE IT - OR TAKE IT BACK!!!" but when the RCC states its dogmatic statements about Her, it's "doesn't matter whether it's true or not, this whole Mary thing is of no concern or interest or importance" in spite of their denomination insisting they are matters of highest concern possible, greatest importance possible. Odd, IMO. Seems simple: Since it is stated these are issues of greatest importance, concern and certainty.... and since some Catholics claim to respect Mary (the object of these proclaimations), then it's fair to ask if they are true (to the level claimed) - exactly as Catholics demand of non-RCC members.... or is it that actually that some Catholics actually exempt Mary or the RCC from the issue of truth and the usual prohibition from gossip? I don't know. But I honestly think many Protestants actually respect Mary considerably more than most of the Catholics I know, because these Protestants think what is declared about Her (especially Dogmatically) should be true (to the level claimed), that respect for Her suggests truth about Her. You may MEAN to respect me by declaring that I have 6 Ph.D's and am the Chair of the Physics Dept at MIT but actually that would be lies, gossip and quite offensive to me.... how much MORE would this apply to Our Lady?

I invite you to read the opening post.



Thank you! Blessings!


- Josiah

 

[NewCreation435]

You would not believe how much trouble I got in at CF for these views!! (The reaction by CF Staff is largely why I'm here, lol). Some seemed to get get unglued by these views - even though I didn't declare any of them heresies (or even wrong) - unlike many there who actually did!

I questioned the relevance of some of them, too. Their status as DOGMAS (matters of highest importance possible, issues on which our salvation may hinge); the WHY this view matters SO very, very much, what the essential POINT is. Often, my issue was more the STATUS of the teaching than the teaching per se (which, as you can tell, I often permitted). THAT cause a whole lot of staff to come unglued, too. Never really understood that. How do we DOGMATICALLY know this? Why is THIS a matter of highest importance and greatest certainly possible? Why is THIS something on which to divide the church and place personal salvation into question? One way or the other? Those were questions I asked (often resulting in Reports on me and hours spent appealing staff actions about them). Oh well.... that was then. And there.


Bill.... part of the reason this seems important to me - even 10 years later (I wrote those comments a decade ago) - is that I think the REACTION to these DOGMAS is largely why most of Protestantism now largely ignores Mary (we didn't until a couple of centuries ago). And .... well..... I just think if one is going to SHOUT something about someone...... especially SHOUT it as a matter of HIGHEST IMPORTANCE POSSIBLE and GREATEST IMPORTANCE POSSIBLE..... they should have something to show it's true, more than "cuz I now think it's so." BECAUSE Mary is so esteemed, shouldn't that be even MORE the case with her?????


Well, CH is a far more open and mutually respectful site. I'm confident that my views (while NEITHER Roman Catholic or modern "Evangelical") will not cause caustic and flaming results (disagreements, perhaps - but not hate and anger). I suspect that HERE we can have a civil and respectful discussion of the Mother of Our Lord.


Thanks, Bill



Pax Christi



- Josiah

From what I understand about the culture at the time Mary was most likely a teenager when she gave birth to Jesus. She was a very remarkable person considering that nobody at that time was thinking Jesus was going to come in the way that he did. The fact that she believed and didn't express doubt when she heard the news makes her someone to respect and honor if nothing else.

 

[Josiah]

From what I understand about the culture at the time Mary was most likely a teenager when she gave birth to Jesus. She was a very remarkable person considering that nobody at that time was thinking Jesus was going to come in the way that he did. The fact that she believed and didn't express doubt when she heard the news makes her someone to respect and honor if nothing else.

AMEN!!!! IMO, there is much - very, very MUCH - to mean She is to be called blessed in every generation! And very, very much to suggest She is to be held in esteem and to be emulated. IMO, there is also much to suggest that truth matters in her case.

Thank you!



- Josiah

 

[Glark]

If a Protestant can't grasp something as simple and straightforward as recognising that Peter is "this rock" in Matt 16:18, how on earth is he going to grasp the Catholic teachings on Mary?

 

[Albion]

But let us at least try to be fair about this. You are saying that the interpretation that the Roman church came up with about 300 years after Christ just must be the one and only possible interpretation. If that were so, all the Eastern Christian churches would agree with it as well. You know that they never have done so and yet they are arguably the oldest churches in Christendom.

The early church had no concept of the bishop of Rome being the head of the universal church and, in addition, even if the verse did suggest some sort of primacy for Peter, it says nothing about him handing it off to someone else! There are, in fact, about four common, but different, concepts about the meaning of "rock" in that passage.

 

[psalms 91]

But let us at least try to be fair about this. You are saying that the interpretation that the Roman church came up with about 300 years after Christ just must be the one and only possible interpretation. If that were so, all the Eastern Christian churches would agree with it as well. You know that they never have done so and yet they are arguably the oldest churches in Christendom.

The early church had no concept of the bishop of Rome being the head of the universal church and, in addition, even if the verse did suggest some sort of primacy for Peter, it says nothing about him handing it off to someone else! There are, in fact, about four common, but different, concepts about the meaning of "rock" in that passage.

Lets also not forget that James was the head of the governing body of the church in Jerusalem after Christs death as well which leads us to believe that another meaning was intended

 

[MoreCoffee]

If a Protestant can't grasp something as simple and straightforward as recognising that Peter is "this rock" in Matt 16:18, how on earth is he going to grasp the Catholic teachings on Mary?

That's an interesting question. Catholic Christians use the same words (in English) as many Protestant Christians do - words like redeemed, redemption, salvation, sanctification, justification, and so forth - but the definition for each within Catholic theology sometimes differs widely from the definition within Protestant theologies and sometimes the differences between Catholic meanings and Protestant meanings can be subtle. It may be useful to use the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which has a glossary of terms) to explain the intended meaning for words if there's a dispute between yourself and a Protestant member of CH. That way, at the very least, there is some chance that both participants in the discussion will know what the words used in the discussion mean to one another. Protestant members of CH can also offer definitions available within their theological tradition.

 

[Albion]

Lets also not forget that James was the head of the governing body of the church in Jerusalem after Christs death as well which leads us to believe that another meaning was intended

Certainly...and among the early church leaders we find that some thought Peter and Paul jointly were the heads of the Apostles, some that John was in that category, and others had yet another idea in mind.

That said, the discussion about Mary here does relate to the earlier mention of Matthew 16:18. Just as with the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, a simple Bible truth was blown out of all proportion by speculation. Peter having been chosen to bring the Gospel to the wider world in a miraculous fashion (on Pentecost) was ballooned over time into Papal Supremacy and then Papal Infallibility. So also, the simple Bible prediction that all generations would call Mary blessed came to be embellished with the legends of her supposedly having been born without original sin, her body having allegedly been taken to heaven, Mary as ever-virgin, she being the co-redeemer (with Christ) of Mankind, and etc. These are now defended as valid because they are seen as giving honor to her, quite apart from whether or not any of them have any basis in Scripture or Tradition.

 

[Josiah]

Certainly...and among the early church leaders we find that some thought Peter and Paul jointly were the heads of the Apostles, some that John was in that category, and others had yet another idea in mind.

Sort of off-topic, but you and Bill are absolutely correct. There is NO evidence that Peter was seen as some infallible denominational "Pope" or even especially as a leader in the earliest church - all that RCC spin is just "fake news" with zero basis in reality. A case (admittedly not strong) can be made that James (the "brother of Jesus" - not even an Apostle) was the leader for the first couple of decades, but it's weak. The original (and still EOC view) is that there was a SHARED and equal leadership among the Apostles (and probably bishops) but that too is weak, especially since there is no evidence of any denomination to lead; Christianity appears to have been pretty much a loose movement in those early centuries. Not until the 4th century would Rome create a denomination (in its own image) and the issue of POWER (the obsession of Rome) become a critical question in Christianity, as the obsession became how to lord it over one another as the Gentiles (AKA Romans) do.

But back to the topic

Just as with the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, a simple Bible truth was blown out of all proportion by speculation. Peter having been chosen to bring the Gospel to the wider world in a miraculous fashion (on Pentecost) was ballooned over time into Papal Supremacy and then Papal Infallibility. So also, the simple Bible prediction that all generations would call Mary blessed came to be embellished with the legends of her supposedly having been born without original sin, her body having allegedly been taken to heaven, Mary as ever-virgin, she being the co-redeemer (with Christ) of Mankind, and etc. These are now defended as valid because they are seen as giving honor to her, quite apart from whether or not any of them have any basis in Scripture or Tradition.

Years ago, I worked hard to TRY to explore the origins of these Marian speculations, and the reasoning behind DOGMATIZING them. I TRIED to do that also at CF (I think you may have participated) which was very unwelcomed (to say the least), the every thought of trying to understand the origins angered some Catholics in truly irrational ways (I was finally asked by staff that to stop any question since while it and I violated no rules, it ANGERED the Catholics SO much they were threatening to leave). On the 'net and elsewhere, I found some theories but exploring this seems to be forbidden territory and I gave up.


But two thoughts came to me....

1. WHATEVER the origins and reasons, IMO they have to do primarily with piety. I don't see any basis for some conspiracy or even the imposition of a (horrible and very double-standard) Greco-Roman view of gender and sex. Female gods played a major role in ancient pagan religions, and the veneration of female figures was a constant.... I think some of that probably just leaked into Christianity. In other words, a genuine, appropriate and sincere esteem for Mary just morphed in time to these views. For the Catholics I know, there is a Marian piety and spirituality that is very sincere and I believe very well intended..... how and why this evolved, I just don't know. And maybe it's not so important.


2. Catholics seems amazingly unconcerned and disinterested in whether any of these DE FIDE DOGMAS of their denomination are true; in fact, many of the uber-Catholics (I refer to them as fundamentalist Catholics) often go to some lengths to distance themselves from whether any of this is true or just gossip, they may even come right out and state they aren't interested in whether these things being shouted about Mary are true or not (just doesn't concern them). I got a LOT of that in my Catholic days. Yet their INSISTS in the very boldest terms possible that these are issues of GREATEST IMPORTANCE AND CONCERN POSSIBLE and GREATEST CERTAINTY OF TRUTH POSSIBLE. These are DE FIDE DOGMAS (the highest level of certainty and concern there is in Catholic theology), the last one reaching that status in 1950. So, either they are in protest of their denomination by denying the status their denomination has given to these, or they are in protest for the status itself; either way, they are in opposition to their denomination and are being "bad Catholics" (as my teachers put it) since a Catholic by definition is one who accepts "with docility" WHATEVER the singular, individual RC Denomination currently and officially teaches - both the teaching AND the status of such.



Great to have you here, Albion!


Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

Sort of off-topic, but you and Bill are absolutely correct. There is NO evidence that Peter was seen as some infallible denominational "Pope" or even especially as a leader in the earliest church - all that RCC spin is just "fake news" with zero basis in reality. A case (admittedly not strong) can be made that James (the "brother of Jesus" - not even an Apostle) was the leader for the first couple of decades, but it's weak. The original (and still EOC view) is that there was a SHARED and equal leadership among the Apostles (and probably bishops) but that too is weak, especially since there is no evidence of any denomination to lead; Christianity appears to have been pretty much a loose movement in those early centuries. Not until the 4th century would Rome create a denomination (in its own image) and the issue of POWER (the obsession of Rome) become a critical question in Christianity, as the obsession became how to lord it over one another as the Gentiles (AKA Romans) do.

But back to the topic







Years ago, I worked hard to TRY to explore the origins of these Marian speculations, and the reasoning behind DOGMATIZING them. I TRIED to do that also at CF (I think you may have participated) which was very unwelcomed (to say the least), the every thought of trying to understand the origins angered some Catholics in truly irrational ways (I was finally asked by staff that to stop any question since while it and I violated no rules, it ANGERED the Catholics SO much they were threatening to leave). On the 'net and elsewhere, I found some theories but exploring this seems to be forbidden territory and I gave up.


But two thoughts came to me....

1. WHATEVER the origins and reasons, IMO they have to do primarily with piety. I don't see any basis for some conspiracy or even the imposition of a (horrible and very double-standard) Greco-Roman view of gender and sex. Female gods played a major role in ancient pagan religions, and the veneration of female figures was a constant.... I think some of that probably just leaked into Christianity. In other words, a genuine, appropriate and sincere esteem for Mary just morphed in time to these views. For the Catholics I know, there is a Marian piety and spirituality that is very sincere and I believe very well intended..... how and why this evolved, I just don't know. And maybe it's not so important.


2. Catholics seems amazingly unconcerned and disinterested in whether any of these DE FIDE DOGMAS of their denomination are true; in fact, many of the uber-Catholics (I refer to them as fundamentalist Catholics) often go to some lengths to distance themselves from whether any of this is true or just gossip, they may even come right out and state they aren't interested in whether these things being shouted about Mary are true or not (just doesn't concern them). I got a LOT of that in my Catholic days. Yet their INSISTS in the very boldest terms possible that these are issues of GREATEST IMPORTANCE AND CONCERN POSSIBLE and GREATEST CERTAINTY OF TRUTH POSSIBLE. These are DE FIDE DOGMAS (the highest level of certainty and concern there is in Catholic theology), the last one reaching that status in 1950. So, either they are in protest of their denomination by denying the status their denomination has given to these, or they are in protest for the status itself; either way, they are in opposition to their denomination and are being "bad Catholics" (as my teachers put it) since a Catholic by definition is one who accepts "with docility" WHATEVER the singular, individual RC Denomination currently and officially teaches - both the teaching AND the status of such.

Just one point about your statement that it was a loose based system. When the question of the Gentiles came up where did they go to get an answer and present their case? Was it not Jerusalem?

 

[Tigger]

Let it be known to any of our new posters, particularly RC, here at CH that I was brought up in a RC family on both my father's and mother's sides of their family's. Although we would of been considered nominal Catholics compared to our more devout extended family members. We/I fully thought of ourselves as RC and I still, although Lutheran, hold no animosity towards Catholics or Catholism. I just don't embrace some of their doctrines and dogmas.

That being said, I tend to have a higher Mariology than most Protestants and appreciate a church that practices the historic liturgy. Following the church calendar causes more exposure to events concerning the BVM rather than just at the Nativity like most non- liturgical worship styles. Full disclosure, I don't pray to the BVM or any canonized Saint/s. Even while I was an E.O. Catechumen I felt uncomfortable doing so.

I offer this YouTube video clip because this typology compilation of the BVM is very rich and beautiful but I hold no dogmas concerning these depictions. Hope ya'll enjoy!

 

[Josiah]

Let it be known to any of our new posters, particularly RC, here at CH that... although Lutheran, hold no animosity towards Catholics or Catholism. I just don't embrace some of their doctrines and dogmas.

:shake: :clap2: :arms: :cheer2: :amen: :thumbsup:

That being said, I tend to have a higher Mariology than most Protestants and appreciate a church that practices the historic liturgy. Following the church calendar causes more exposure to events concerning the BVM rather than just at the Nativity like most non- liturgical worship styles.

Ditto above, lol

Generally, a Lutheran (and often Anglican) pov.....

Over the years (especially at CF), I got into SO much trouble because I both held Her in very high esteem AND did not embrace the RCC de fide dogmas AS SUCH. So everyone hated me, lol. Modern Catholicism, by the dogmatization of these things and by the enormous emphasis, has sadly divided Christianity into two opposite camps when it comes to Mary, and IMO, this is unfortunate.



Pax Christi

 

[MoreCoffee]

Let it be known to any of our new posters, particularly RC, here at CH that I was brought up in a RC family on both my father's and mother's sides of their family's. Although we would of been considered nominal Catholics compared to our more devout extended family members. We/I fully thought of ourselves as RC and I still, although Lutheran, hold no animosity towards Catholics or Catholism. I just don't embrace some of their doctrines and dogmas.

That being said, I tend to have a higher Mariology than most Protestants and appreciate a church that practices the historic liturgy. Following the church calendar causes more exposure to events concerning the BVM rather than just at the Nativity like most non- liturgical worship styles. Full disclosure, I don't pray to the BVM or any canonized Saint/s. Even while I was an E.O. Catechumen I felt uncomfortable doing so.

On the whole, tigger, you're sweet

 

[Josiah]

Non-RCC members are permitted to honor Mary, to hold Her in high esteem, even to adore Her.... without, in pure docility, swallowing whole whatever the singular, individual RC Denomination CURRENTLY shouts about Her in the most powerful and bold way, as matters of highest importance and certainty possible, as De Fide Dogma: Non RCC-members are generally permitted (perhaps even welcomed) to embrace those views (as part of their dogmatic corpus of teachings and/or as a part of their spirituality) but are not mandated to swallow it whole .AS DE FIDE DOGMA, NOT because such is shown to be true (or even relevant or respectful) but simply because the singular, individual RC Denomination has so declared it (as late as 1950 in one case). As I noted in the opening post, often it's more a case of STATUS than pov.


That said, the part that bothered me most as a Catholic on this point was not the views (I understood them as pious and possible) but the very clear point that it doesn't matter whether they are true or not, this point that they can't show any of this is actually true (just probably possible) because truth just doesn't seem to matter when it comes to Mary. THIS bothered me. I love and loved Her.... and to shout that it doesn't matter whether what is SO powerfully stated about Her is true or not, whether it is gossip or not, to SHOUT it as a matter of highest importance and certainty possible but no one knows if it's true.... well, if people claim to love me, I expect them to tell the truth about me and not spread gossip (however well meaning). Make sense?



Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No Catholic is permitted to adore Blessed Mary. Adoration belongs to God alone.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

He keeps saying that he was a Catholic but the evidence is not there is it; he makes so many mistakes about what the Catholic Church teaches and will not accept any amount of evidence provided as correction for the errors in his claims...

Non-RCC members are permitted to honor Mary, to hold Her in high esteem, even to adore Her...

No Catholic is permitted to adore Blessed Mary. Adoration belongs to God alone.

You know, if I can find out what the Catholic church teaches (or not) by doing five minutes worth of searching through the 'CCC', then it really stands to reason that MC is correct in his first statement. Sorry Josiah, don't hate me