Catholic issues

[theefaith]

Thanks.

I thinks its fair to say that Jerome believes that bishops and presbyters are one in the same office and that traditionally the reason why some bishops were elevated above others was to avoid schism. I think Jerome also recognizes what Scripture says about tradition: 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Since you are so keen on using Jerome for a defense to prove your point that the office of Bishop is based on tradition, not Scripture, then certainly you wouldn't ignore his comments on the divine foundation and perpetual nature of the Papacy? Or was he being silly when he said that about the Papacy?

I agree with you that there are some worthless churches claiming to be Christian....

saints, church fathers, doctors of the church, scripture scholars are not goofballs!

fundamentalists are!

 

[Marymog]

I will 'ignore his comments' on other issues.
I use the teachings of church fathers, etc. if they seem to agree with the Scriptures; whether they are considered 'saints' in your religion, or people like Calvin or Luther.
It is good of you to reply to my comments, but there is not much more to discuss.
Take care.

Oh....I see. You like Jerome when he says things YOU believe but when he says things you don't believe he is put on the "ignore" list. Jerome is only right when you say he is right.

And you only "use the teachings of church fathers" when THEY agree with Scriptures. Translation: tabletalk decides who interprets Scripture properly.

Fascinating....That doesn't leave much room for discussion.....Does it?

 

[Marymog]

Why do the Catholic Church’s claim, teach and preach Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Ummmm..... You have it backwards Taken.

The teaching that Mary is a perpetual virgin has been taught by The Church since the beginning. It was the first teaching of Christianity. The teaching that Mary had other children took hold 500 years ago AFTER the Protestant Revolution.

So the real questions you should be asking is: Why do Protestants claim that Mary WASN'T a perpetual virgin and go against what Christianity has taught for almost 2,000 years? Why do Protestants accept a 500-year teaching of men but reject a 2,000-year teaching of The Church?

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[Taken]

QUESTION:
Why do the Catholic Church’s claim, teach and preach Mary was a perpetual virgin.

ANSWER;

Ummmm..... You have it backwards Taken.

LOL...no, my question was not backwards....

The teaching that Mary is a perpetual virgin has been taught by The Church since the beginning.

My question did NOT ask as WHEN.
My question DID ask WHY.

Try again.

 

[theefaith]

QUESTION:
Why do the Catholic Church’s claim, teach and preach Mary was a perpetual virgin.

ANSWER;



LOL...no, my question was not backwards....



My question did NOT ask as WHEN.
My question DID ask WHY.

Try again.

cos Christ is God and as a sign Isa 7:14 rev 12:1

 

[Marymog]

QUESTION:
Why do the Catholic Church’s claim, teach and preach Mary was a perpetual virgin.

ANSWER;



LOL...no, my question was not backwards....



My question did NOT ask as WHEN.
My question DID ask WHY.

Try again.

Well taken, yes it is backwards. I knew you wouldn't answer, and I know you will never admit that it's backwards because your pride will never let you be wrong. But here we go...... It is common practice and logical to ask WHY the former teaching (of anything) is being rejected and the new teaching should be accepted. The burden of proof is on the new teaching to discredit the old teaching. (NOT the other way around as you seem to believe) That is common practice in the entire world AND logical when trying to prove the old method/teaching was wrong. But since you are refusing to adhere to common practice and logic, I will answer your backwards question:

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is a perpetual virgin because nowhere, not once, not ever in Scripture does it say she had other children. Protestants can't point to one passage that says she had other children.

Mary’s perpetual virginity are signs of her total consecration (body, mind and spirit) to God. (some) Protestants can't fathom that. They think that the mother of God was 'just like any other woman'. God and Jesus didn't think that, but (some) Protestants do.

The Church accepts the earliest writings/teachings outside the bible (early 2nd century) of the men who lived closest to the time of Christ that she was a perpetual virgin. (some) Protestants accept the writings of men who lived 1,500 years after the time of Christ (because they knew better somehow?)

Soooooo why do (some) Protestants reject what Christianity has taught for the longest time but accept a new teaching that is only about 500 years old? Maybe it tickles the ears....

Mary

PS: the reason I put "some" in there is because there are some Protestant denominations that accept it. Even your Revolutionaries from the 16th century accepted it. You have fallen from that tree after they fell from the tree of The Church.

 

[amadeus]

Thanks Amadeus.

Paul wrote to a student of his (Timithy): You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; 2 and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well. Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the council of elders.

Timothy, who was ordained by the elders of The Church and who was taught by the Apostle Paul, was to teach other men what he was taught by Paul. The elders that ordained Timothy were probably students of the Apostles. How is that a "mistake for Apostolic Succession"? That's 3 generations of successful Apostolic teaching. When did that Apostolic Succession in teaching end? After the men who Timothy taught died? Help me out on your theory.....

When I took science classes in school, they taught me that men started with a hypothesis which was subsequently tested and retested before being finally down the line approved to be called a theory. A lot of hypotheses never make it the theory stage.

Speaking of my beliefs in God and His Way, I try to avoid using the word, theory, for my own beliefs or those of anyone else.

I do believe it all starts with faith in what we have not seen with the natural eyes. Through Jesus our faith may be increased to knowledge, but what man knows when and if he has made that leap [from faith to knowledge] on any point?

I cannot increase your understanding. I must leave that in God's hands. When He wishes to use me in that, will He not let me know? If He does not, upon whom should I put my hands? I do not see in you a sincere interest in understanding the basis of my faith so perhaps it would be better for me to leave it alone.

In Acts 1 they voted on a successor to the Apostle Judas. They used Scripture to justify their decision: “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; Did the Apostles make a "mistake" when they chose a successor to Judas?

In the scriptures of the OT more than once we read where men cast lots to find what was the will of God for a situation.
Were they gambling?
What of the Urim and the Thummim?

If we cannot answer these questions, is it correct to presume that we are out of God's will? Could we be mistaken in our answer to the question?

In Titus 1:5 the Apostle Paul explains how his apostolic ministry would be carried on by Christian leaders who succeeded and survived him. He designates Titus to serve as Bishop of Crete, directing him to appoint elders and bishops. Did Paul make a "mistake" when he appointed Titus?

If my answer is, yea or nay, would my answer be right or wrong according to God? Would it also be right or wrong for me to assume that Paul had the authority to so direct anyone?

When did this succession of appointments from the Apostles to the next guy to the next guy to the next guy etc etc end?

Curious Mary

Perhaps the end, if there was ever a God-willed beginning, would have been the first time an appointer appointed without proper authority... or the first time a person appointed was not appointed in accord with God's will.

How would a person today know unless it was by knowing the fruits of the person? How can any person know whether the fruits of another person are good or evil?

 

[Marymog]

When I took science classes in school, they taught me that men started with a hypothesis which was subsequently tested and retested before being finally down the line approved to be called a theory. A lot of hypotheses never make it the theory stage.

Speaking of my beliefs in God and His Way, I try to avoid using the word, theory, for my own beliefs or those of anyone else.

I do believe it all starts with faith in what we have not seen with the natural eyes. Through Jesus our faith may be increased to knowledge, but what man knows when and if he has made that leap [from faith to knowledge] on any point?

I cannot increase your understanding. I must leave that in God's hands. When He wishes to use me in that, will He not let me know? If He does not, upon whom should I put my hands? I do not see in you a sincere interest in understanding the basis of my faith so perhaps it would be better for me to leave it alone.

In the scriptures of the OT more than once we read where men cast lots to find what was the will of God for a situation.
Were they gambling?
What of the Urim and the Thummim?

If we cannot answer these questions, is it correct to presume that we are out of God's will? Could we be mistaken in our answer to the question?

If my answer is, yea or nay, would my answer be right or wrong according to God? Would it also be right or wrong for me to assume that Paul had the authority to so direct anyone?

Perhaps the end, if there was ever a God-willed beginning, would have been the first time an appointer appointed without proper authority... or the first time a person appointed was not appointed in accord with God's will.

How would a person today know unless it was by knowing the fruits of the person? How can any person know whether the fruits of another person are good or evil?

Huh....

None of what you said makes sense to me...Thank you for your time.

 

[Marymog]

Catholics make God look bad. Catholic is roman Catholic. The roman empire was born through war. Catholics also did crusades even though God said "thou shall not kill." The popes also look evil because God did that.

Hi JMyrick,

In regard to the Crusades, how would you propose the Christians of the day should have stopped the Muslims from slaughtering them, raping them, forcing them to convert to Islam, destroying Chrisitan churches/Holy Sites and taking all their land?

Mary

 

[amadeus]

Huh....

None of what you said makes sense to me...Thank you for your time.

You are welcome!

 

[Marymog]

You are welcome!

Oh goodness....
Welcome for WHAT??????????????????????????????????????????

you literally put yourself on a pedestal and said I cannot increase your understanding. I must leave that in God's hands. When He wishes to use me in that, will He not let me know?

Your post is a nonsensical, hippy, self-grandstanding answer that isn't really an answer. You are just putting me down for not understanding what YOU believe to be true and are suggesting that God led you to the truth......

Nowhere, not once, never, it's not there and it's twisted if you think it is in Scripture that reading Scripture is the same as eating His flesh and drinking His blood. That is a bizarre, unbiblical weird teaching that has NEVER been taught by Christianity.....SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO who taught you that? PLEASE ANSWER.......

And please don't say that God did because that is a cop out!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Taken]

QUESTION:
Why do Catholic Church’s claim, teach and preach Mary was a perpetual virgin?

A Catholic’s second attempt to answer.

"Marymog
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary is a perpetual virgin because nowhere, not once, not ever in Scripture does it say she had other children.”

LOL Funny.

The question was about Why Catholic’s teach Mary was a perpetual virgin

The question was NOT ABOUT IF Mary had other children!

So the Catholic’s answer is: Catholic’s can find no evidence of Mary’s having other Children, THEREFORE Mary must have remained a virgin.

Maybe you did not know, Virginity of a female is determined by a female who has not had intercourse, not by the number of children a female has. LOL

Since you are having difficulty with answering the question...
Here’s a hint.
Scripture using the term for a man “to know” his wife, as a reference to the husband and wife having intercourse.
Here’s a couple of examples, of husbands “knowing” their wives.

Gen 4:

• [17] And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch...

• [25] And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth...

Try Again.
Maybe you will discover a Scripture of Truth of Joseph knowing his wife Mary.
You do want to know the Truth, don’t you?
Hint, to help you discover the Truth.

Matt 1: 24-25

 

[Marymog]

QUESTION:
Why do Catholic Church’s claim, teach and preach Mary was a perpetual virgin?

A Catholic’s second attempt to answer.



LOL Funny.

The question was about Why Catholic’s teach Mary was a perpetual virgin

The question was NOT ABOUT IF Mary had other children!

Ummmmm......OK... I think we covered this already sooooo let's try again:

You Protestants teach opposite of Scripture. You teach that Mary had other children which means that she couldn't have been a virgin if she had other children. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo the question has been answered. Scripture DOES NOT state that Mary had other children as you Protestants have falsely claimed.

you are wearing me out kiddo...

 

[Marymog]

Since you are having difficulty with answering the question...

Nope, no difficulty answering the question......It was answered sooooooooooooooooo what are you talking about?

 

[Marymog]

Since you are having difficulty with answering the question...
Here’s a hint.
Scripture using the term for a man “to know” his wife, as a reference to the husband and wife having intercourse.
Here’s a couple of examples, of husbands “knowing” their wives.

Gen 4:

• [17] And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch...

• [25] And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth...

Try Again.
Maybe you will discover a Scripture of Truth of Joseph knowing his wife Mary.
You do want to know the Truth, don’t you?
Hint, to help you discover the Truth.

Matt 1: 24-25

Lol....YOU are having difficulty understanding 2,000 years of Christian teaching. Your theory was answered by The Church a LONG time ago. Would you care to try again?

 

[amadeus]

Oh goodness....
Welcome for WHAT??????????????????????????????????????????

For the time I spent. Is that not what you thanked me for...?

you literally put yourself on a pedestal and said I cannot increase your understanding. I must leave that in God's hands. When He wishes to use me in that, will He not let me know?

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem. 10:23

"Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." I Cor 3:5-7

Your post is a nonsensical, hippy, self-grandstanding answer that isn't really an answer. You are just putting me down for not understanding what YOU believe to be true and are suggesting that God led you to the truth......

I suggest that God leads people into truth. Does He not? How much truth do I have? Only what He has given me. How much truth do I lack? All the rest of it.

There really is no limit to what God can give us, unless it is according to the limit, we place on Him. Does He not allow that by what men name as free will?

Nowhere, not once, never, it's not there and it's twisted if you think it is in Scripture that reading Scripture is the same as eating His flesh and drinking His blood. That is a bizarre, unbiblical weird teaching that has NEVER been taught by Christianity.....SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO who taught you that? PLEASE ANSWER.......

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:51

"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." John 6:55-57

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" John 6:60

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63

And please don't say that God did because that is a cop out!!!!!!!!!!

So, I won't say it, but your denial or unbelief, or ignorance does not change what God did, does it?

Consider why many left Jesus. Do you really believe it was because he told them to eat a bit of bread made from grain or to drink a bit of wine made from grapes?

"From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" John 6:66
They did not understand as you do not understand. You hear the explanations made by men without question instead of asking of God. Will God not answer us when we ask of Him?

 

[Taken]

Ummmmm......OK... I think we covered this already sooooo let's try again:

You Protestants teach opposite of Scripture. You teach that Mary had other children which means that she couldn't have been a virgin if she had other children. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo the question has been answered. Scripture DOES NOT state that Mary had other children as you Protestants have falsely claimed.

you are wearing me out kiddo...

I did not mention Protestant.
I did not mention Children.

I asked a person who identifies as a Catholic, about a Catholic teaching, specific to Mary’s perpetual virginity.

This is the third time you have responded deflecting to what was NOT asked of you.

Do you have a Comprehension problem that you do not know the difference Between WHAT the words .... VIRGIN.....and CHILDREN....mean?

Your DEFLECTION, seems to be a COMMON THEME which many Catholics OFTEN DO, when they HAVE NO Scriptural Basis FOR their Catholic Teachings, so like you are doing, DEFLECT OFF TOPIC.

Mary’s “perpetual virginity”....is the TOPIC....
Stop talking about “CHILDREN”...it was not the question. It is not the topic.
Stop talking about “PROTESTANTS” teaching of Children...it was not the question. It is not the topic.

No, I am not “wearing you out”.
You are “wearing yourself out”....because YOU keep deflecting OFF TOPIC!

Mary’s perpetual VIRGINITY is what Catholic’s Preach...
WHAT SCRIPTURE notifies you, “MARY DID NOT EVER HAVE SEX WItH HER HUSBAND”?

Fourth time...try again.

 

[Taken]

Nope, no difficulty answering the question......It was answered sooooooooooooooooo what are you talking about?

Aside from your deflecting answer, your deflecting soooooooooooooooooo, typing of your answer is noticeably another usual (immature) Catholic deflection.

 

[Taken]

Lol....YOU are having difficulty understanding 2,000 years of Christian teaching. Your theory was answered by The Church a LONG time ago. Would you care to try again?

I’m not OF your Catholic Church, you are.
Are you confessing YOU do not know ‘WHY’ your Catholic Church teaches, Mary’s perpetual Virginity?
Because my question was ‘WHY’, not “WHAT” your church has taught for 2,000 years!

 

[Taken]

I was trying to respond to them in language they accepted or understood. Not an easy with regard to something I do not accept as valid.

To me it is not correct. Perhaps it is simply a way that men have constructed in imitation of what existed under the law God gave to Moses with a man, Aaron and his sons as a human high priest.

I am not saying that this is why the mistake of the Apostolic Succession is believed, but rather that it could be. To me it is part of someone's mistake.

God makes no mistakes, but men do. I know you believe that. You think almost certainly in this that it is me making the mistake.

You disagree with that, but you believe in the Apostolic Succession, and I do not.

I am not trying to convince you, but simply trying to answer your questions.

That was a strange question posed to you...

........”What is Apostolic Succession to you since you don't believe in the Apostolic succession as believed and taught by The Catholic Church?”.....

“Apostolic Succession” IS a Catholic taught term, and by all accounts appears to be a term established BY Catholics.
The question is strange....because you were not “teaching or preaching” Apostolic Succession, for it to matter what it means to you.

Jesus taught his Disciples (following students)
Jesus sent his Disciples (following students) out to other Jews, and then to other men Jews and Gentiles AS TEACHERS (apostles) expressly to teach other men....
ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD.

The “other” men...who are hearing, being taught, are neither called “disciples” or “apostles”....they may become called “disciples”....IF they are following learning students....and “apostles”....IF they are TEACHING other men.....
ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD.

The FACT is: The Catholic Church teaches...EVERY man the Catholic Church “ordains” as a head TEACHER, (ie their long list of appointed, Catholic ordained Popes)....is accredited as receiving the “Succession” of being an “Apostle”.

Noticing some teeny weeny dilemmas...
* Jesus’ appointed Apostles, gained their TEACHING first hand from the mouth of Jesus.
* Jesus’ appointed Apostles, were EXPRESSLY appointed by Jesus.
* Jesus’ appointed Apostles, DID in fact have, disciples that followed, heard, learned from them, (ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD), and thereafter were appointed to GO OUT and teach and preach to other men, (ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD) and themselves were also called apostles.

* A handful of Catholic men, decide WHO shall be “ordained” to teach and preach to other men.... ACCORDING TO THIER APPOINTED “HEAD” APOSTLE the POPE .....see the dilemma?
* Jesus’ teaching and appointing....WAS ALWAYS satisfactory WHEN...
The Apostles teaching and preaching IS ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD

* And that ^^ is why Marymog is struggling and deflecting to everything But Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity, after four times could not answer my question....of WHY Catholics teach and preach Mary’s perpetual virginity....BECAUSE for centuries Catholics have been taught “according to teaching OF MEN”.......”not ONLY according to the Word of God”....thus @Marymog can not point to ONE Scripture that says “Mary was a perpetual virgin”, WHICH would mean Mary Failed to DO as Scripture DOES TEACH, for a wife to be subject to her husband.

God Bless,
Taken