What is the one true Church?

[Grailhunter]

Origen, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. Thomas Aquinas don't make doctrine for The Church

OK...So they were not Doctors and or Father of the Church.....not even leaders.....did not influence the Church in any way?

 

[Marymog]

OK...So they were not Doctors and or Father of the Church.....not even leaders.....did not influence the Church in any way?

Influence, YES. Make doctrine? No

 

[Grailhunter]

Well then, it's settled fact. YOU have never met any or read about any or seen any on TV.

It must be the truth then....

Latin Rite....Eastern Rite.....
Have not met any in America or Europe.

 

[Grailhunter]

Influence, YES. Make doctrine? No

So no doctrines reflect their beliefs?

 

[Marymog]

So no doctrines reflect their beliefs?

The Church teaches some of the doctrines they espouse

 

[Marymog]

Latin Rite....Eastern Rite.....
Have not met any in America or Europe.

According to your logic....If I haven't met any of them then they must not be real.

I haven't met you or any Presidents either.....so you nor they must not be real either.

 

[Grailhunter]

Complete lie....shame on you.

Marriage is one of 7 sacrements of The Church.

Now do you want me to copy the comments of the most influential leaders of around the 4 the century back in here? They thought very little of women, love, sex, or marriage.....and where not big on marital sex.

If I remember correctly the Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 16th century at the Council of Trent 1545 and 1563. Shortly after the Protestant required a wedding ceremony to be married. And then the Catholic Church followed suit and made wedding ceremonies a requirement to be married....and then only recognizing Catholic weddings.

 

[Grailhunter]

According to your logic....If I haven't met any of them then they must not be real.

I haven't met you or any Presidents either.....so you nor they must not be real either.

Did not say they are not real....

 

[Marymog]

Now do you want me to copy the comments of the most influential leaders of around the 4 the century back in here? They thought very little of women, love, and marriage.
If I remember correctly the Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 16th century at the Council of Trent 1545 and 1563. Shortly after the Protestant required a wedding ceremony to be married. And then the Catholic Church followed suit and made wedding ceremonies a requirement to be married....and then only recognizing Catholic weddings.

Copy all the comments of influential leaders you want on the matter. Why wouldn't you just copy the teachings of The Church on the matter?

Let me help you out: The Holy See

In the 5th century The Council of Florence declared, “The seventh sacrament is marriage, which is a figure of the union of Christ and the church.”

 

[Marymog]

Did not say they are not real....

Are they real?

 

[Illuminator]

See post 918
And not all of the Apostles were celibate and still served God well.

Dialogue: Is Catholic Virginity an “Anti-Sex” Viewpoint?​

"It seems to me clear that the main message of the Mary stories is that sex is essentially bad, and only someone who doesn’t have any experience with it at all is the ideal to be achieved. Of course, this then inevitably dooms all women who marry to be lesser things than they were earlier – they have been defiled by the very act that defines marriage. Is this really the message that the Church wants circulated? “Just say "no” is hardly a viable strategy for sexuality in the long run."​

As I have explained, in order to have an incarnate God, He has to come about in a way that is not the usual reproductive method.
That entails the virgin birth (“with child by the Holy Spirit” rather than by a man).

Perpetual virginity is an extension of the supernatural nature of the birth. If Mary had had other children, skeptical people like you, who reject the virgin birth as it is, would have more “grounds” to doubt that Jesus’ birth was supernatural and miraculous.

I don’t see how this has anything whatever to do with an “anti-sex” message. Sexuality is only tangentially involved insofar as sex is the way that human beings are normally conceived. Since this is a miraculous conception, sex could not be involved.

Your view is like arguing that a person who wants to get to the top of a hill by a method other than walking is “anti-walking.” Does that make any sense? No . . .

Now, how one gets to the virgin birth / perpetual virginity scenario to an imaginary position that all of this somehow is an “anti-sexual” point of view, perhaps you can explain to me. It’s not actually there. It’s merely projected onto the state of affairs by those who already believe that the Church is “against sex” merely (mostly, it seems to me) because it has sensible rules (another whole discussion).

It’s like saying that one is “against beer drinking” because one believes that it is sensible to not drink five bottles of beer and then drive a car. Is that against beer itself or is it for a sensible use of a substance that alters cognitive abilities?

Now, going beyond Mary and the birth of Jesus, the biblical, Christian view of virginity is that it’s a great state if one is called to it. Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 7) that all should follow the calling that God gave them. If they are called to be single (which in biblical morality, means celibate), this is good, because (as he says) the single person can give undistracted attention to the Lord, whereas the married person is naturally concerned about wife or husband, too.

Both states are, therefore, exalted. The consecrated virgin is considered to be “married to the Lord”. Marriage is a sacrament. It gives grace to those who are married.

I have found that it’s only in the Catholic Church that a single, celibate person is considered valuable, and not defined merely by the lack of a mate. Every other institution and our society (generally speaking) tend to look down upon single people as freaks, weirdos, oddballs, misfits, incomplete, inadequate, people that don’t fit in.

Protestants and Orthodox insist upon married clergy. Our view (Roman Rite / Western / Latin Catholicism) is that we prefer priests to be among the category of people who have totally devoted themselves to God, as consecrated virgins: a heroic sacrifice made for the sake of God. But Eastern Catholics allow and encourage married priests. This is a matter of discipline, and not dogma (thus, it could change).

Again, that hasn’t the slightest to do with some supposed antipathy to sex. If you want that, you have to go to ancient Gnostic views or Puritanism or Victorianism: that sort of thing.

You can’t find a single passage in the Bible whereby a married woman becomes “defiled” by marital sexuality. It’s not a sin! Extramarital sex is the sinful activity, not marital sex. There are passages about the Law that have to do with menstruation, etc., but that had to do with ritual purity: not sin. It was a symbolic thing.

There is not a single passage in the Bible that states that “marital sex is evil / wicked / bad.” If you’re so sure that Catholicism is “anti-sex” then surely you could produce one or more such passages. But it can’t be done because they don’t exist. And you ought to know that already, since you say you’ve studied the Bible a lot.

If you think the Bible is anti-sex, you need to read Song of Solomon, very slowly. The very relationship of God and His people is compared repeatedly to that of a groom and his bride. So how could we possibly arrive at a notion that “sex is bad” if God chose to use a sexual relationship as a description of His relations with human beings?

He would be using a sin to describe Himself, and of course, that’s not possible in a Christian, biblical worldview, where God is perfectly holy and without sin.

Related Reading:

Q & A: Catholic Sexual Morality and Contraception [1-1-08]

Virgin Birth & Perpetual Virginity: “Anti-Sex”? [5-21-14]

Catholic Sexuality: A Concise Explanation & Defense [12-29-15]

Catholic Sexuality: Cordial Dialogue with an Agnostic [12-30-15]

Natural Family Planning: Anti-Sex & Anti-Pleasure? [1-23-17]

 

[Grailhunter]

Are they real?

Ya I just have not met any or see them on TV....but I have not seen bigfoot either.

 

[Marymog]

Ya I just have not met any or see them on TV....but I have not seen bigfoot either.

Thank you for the clarification. Still not sure what you meant when you said that you "Have not met any...".

 

[Grailhunter]

As I have explained, in order to have an incarnate God, He has to come about in a way that is not the usual reproductive method.
That entails the virgin birth (“with child by the Holy Spirit” rather than by a man).

Well ya know, I catch heat on this but...“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

I believe this describes a sexual act more than a zap and Yeshua as a real Son of God.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Most know what the word begot means, if not reference the Old Testament....whole bunches of it there. I believe that God begot Yeshua....It does not say that He beamed Him in or Zapped Him in. I believe that Yeshua is the real Son of God, not a creation.

The phrase Virgin Mary does not occur in the Scriptures.....She was a virgin before but not after conceiving. I do not believe she was celibate after delivering Yeshua. Her name is Miriam, early Christians did not like the name Miriam because it means bitter-rebellious.
Named after Aaron's and Moses' sister, who chastised Moses for marrying a Pagan woman.

Joesph was not Yeshua's father so Yeshua's blood line to King David was through Miriam.

Irregardless I believe in, love, pray to, and have seen Miriam.

Now I have ticked everybody off!

 

[Grailhunter]

Thank you for the clarification. Still not sure what you meant when you said that you "Have not met any...".

I have not studied it.....don't remember it in Catholic college.....I just probably missed it. I will look into it.

 

[Grailhunter]

I don’t see how this has anything whatever to do with an “anti-sex” message. Sexuality is only tangentially involved insofar as sex is the way that human beings are normally conceived. Since this is a miraculous conception, sex could not be involved.

Your view is like arguing that a person who wants to get to the top of a hill by a method other than walking is “anti-walking.” Does that make any sense? No . . .

You are absolutely wrong. Again do you want me to copy what the doctors and fathers of the Church said....Understand this gets a lot more nasty.....I am holding back.....don't press me on this.
On the lighter side Funny....Middle Ages

 

[Illuminator]

So no doctrines reflect their beliefs?

No. Cherry picking outdated 5th century opinions, then pretending its doctrinal, is dishonest.

Now do you want me to copy the comments of the most influential leaders of around the 4 the century back in here? They thought very little of women, love, sex, or marriage.....and where not big on marital sex.

If I remember correctly the Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 16th century at the Council of Trent 1545 and 1563.

Horse muffins.

Shortly after the Protestant required a wedding ceremony to be married. And then the Catholic Church followed suit and made wedding ceremonies a requirement to be married....and then only recognizing Catholic weddings.

More horse muffins. You have been poisoned by anti-Catholic polemics. GOD instituted the sacrament of matrimony in Genesis 1 BEFORE THE FALL!!! Matrimony has been regarded as holy ever since, not subject to the consequences of original sin. The CC regards ALL MARRIAGES AS VALID, until proven to be invalid, no matter ones denomination or beliefs.

The Holy Catholic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet).

Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family).

Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:9; 1 Tim. 2:12-13 – while some people argue that God imposed the submission requirement upon women as a punishment for the original sin, this is not true. God designated the man as the head of his family from the very beginning of creation, even before the original sin. Therefore, man’s authority over the woman was not imposed as a punishment for the original sin, but to reflect the order of creation.

Gen. 3:16 – in fact, God revealed that women would want to usurp their husband’s authority as the result of the original sin. After the original sin, God tells Eve: “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Thus, as a result of the original sin, Eve would desire to rule over Adam, but God ensured that Adam would rule over Eve.

Isaiah 3:12 – the prophet laments about how women were usurping the authority of men, during the height of Israel’s covenant apostasy.

Just as wives must be submissive to their husbands as the head of the family, husbands must love their wives sacrificially, as Christ loves the Church:

Eph. 5:25,28 – just as wives must submit to their husbands, husbands must “love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.” Just as the Church is legally and morally obligated to submit to Christ, wives are obligated to submit to their husbands. This is why Paul makes the comparison between husbands and Christ, wives and the Church.

Feminists who bellyache over the submission requirement think the husband rules from the couch, and not the cross. “love your wives, as Christ loved the church" is a very tall order.

 

[Grailhunter]

No. Cherry picking outdated 5th century opinions, then pretending its doctrinal, is dishonest.

Cherry Picking? False accusation! Opinions....history is not an opinion....

Now do you want me to copy the comments of the most influential leaders of around the 4 the century back in here? They thought very little of women, love, sex, or marriage.....and where not big on marital sex.

If I remember correctly the Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 16th century at the Council of Trent 1545 and 1563.

Horse muffins.

You and the readers and look it up for yourselves! Why argue with reality?

More horse muffins. You have been poisoned by anti-Catholic polemics. GOD instituted the sacrament of matrimony in Genesis 1 BEFORE THE FALL!!! Matrimony has been regarded as holy ever since, not subject to the consequences of original sin. The CC regards ALL MARRIAGES AS VALID, until proven to be invalid, no matter ones denomination or beliefs.

The Holy Catholic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet).

That is what the Bible says....that is not what the Leaders, Doctors and Fathers of the Catholic Church said. You need to review Catholic History.

 

[Illuminator]

You are absolutely wrong. Again do you want me to copy what the doctors and fathers of the Church said....Understand this gets a lot more nasty.....I am holding back.....don't press me on this.

I'll press you to cite what the Church formally teaches about marriage and sexuality, and I'll press you to pull your head out of the 5th century.

On the lighter side Funny....Middle Ages.

It's not funny, it's New Age mockery.

 

[Illuminator]

Cherry Picking? False accusation! Opinions....history is not an opinion....

Horse muffins.

You and the readers and look it up for yourselves! Why argue with reality?

That is what the Bible says....that is not what the Leaders, Doctors and Fathers of the Catholic Church said. You need to review Catholic History.

You need to understand DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. I've posted this link 30 times in this board, but it falls of deaf ears.

LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO WOMEN
Taking up the themes I addressed in that document, I would now like to speak directly to every woman, to reflect with her on the problems and the prospects of what it means to be a woman in our time. In particular I wish to consider the essential issue of the dignity and rights of women, as seen in the light of the word of God.

This "dialogue" really needs to begin with a word of thanks. As I wrote in my Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, the Church "desires to give thanks to the Most Holy Trinity for the 'mystery of woman' and for every woman-for all that constitutes the eternal measure of her feminine dignity, for the 'great works of God', which throughout human history have been accomplished in and through her" (No. 31).

2. This word of thanks to the Lord for his mysterious plan regarding the vocation and mission of women in the world is at the same time a concrete and direct word of thanks to women, to every woman, for all that they represent in the life of humanity.

Thank you, women who are mothers! You have sheltered human beings within yourselves in a unique experience of joy and travail. This experience makes you become God's own smile upon the newborn child, the one who guides your child's first steps, who helps it to grow, and who is the anchor as the child makes its way along the journey of life.

Thank you, women who are wives! You irrevocably join your future to that of your husbands, in a relationship of mutual giving, at the service of love and life.

Thank you, women who are daughters and women who are sisters! Into the heart of the family, and then of all society, you bring the richness of your sensitivity, your intuitiveness, your generosity and fidelity.

Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery", to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.

Thank you, consecrated women! Following the example of the greatest of women, the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, you open yourselves with obedience and fidelity to the gift of God's love. You help the Church and all mankind to experience a "spousal" relationship to God, one which magnificently expresses the fellowship which God wishes to establish with his creatures.

Thank you, every woman, for the simple fact of being a woman! Through the insight which is so much a part of your womanhood you enrich the world's understanding and help to make human relations more honest and authentic.

3. I know of course that simply saying thank you is not enough. Unfortunately, we are heirs to a history which has conditioned us to a remarkable extent. In every time and place, this conditioning has been an obstacle to the progress of women. Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. This has prevented women from truly being themselves and it has resulted in a spiritual impoverishment of humanity.

Certainly it is no easy task to assign the blame for this, considering the many kinds of cultural conditioning which down the centuries have shaped ways of thinking and acting. And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry.

May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision.

When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honoured the dignity which women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love.
As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon?

Letter to Women (June 29, 1995) | John Paul II

Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, male, female, Women's dignity, woman, solidarity, John Paul II, Women

www.vatican.va