quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
You have nearly convinced me your Church has, more than any other, the right to call itself the true church (not that it's utterly compelling to me, at this writing anyway).

1) Why should I convert?

---

quote:

---

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

---

Paging IngoB...

AV

[ 16. May 2014, 13:15: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Well the reason I have not converted (as yet!) is that I am not fully persuaded. I don't know if this is a general policy in the UK, but the (excellent) priest who I had instruction with really did think that I should only convert if that was my genuine conviction, and that if in my heart of heart I was still, theologically, more Anglican that Roman, I should stay where I was whilst always seeking more light.

So it depends on how nearly is nearly.

So, for example, issues where I am more in line with the current C of E are:

- artificial contraception (not that at my age it is an issue

- no celibate priesthood (getting awkward)
- women priests (well that just about does it).

I rather think the policy of discouraging non wholehearted converts is wise.
 

---

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
- no celibate priesthood (getting awkward)
- women priests (well that just about does it).

I rather think the policy of discouraging non wholehearted converts is wise.

---

quote:

---

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
1) Why should I convert?

---

quote:

---

Master Sekiso said, "You are at the top of the 100 foot high pole. How will you make a step further?" Another Zen Master of ancient times said, "One who sits on top of the 100 foot pole has not quite attained true enlightenment. Make another step forward from the top of the pole and throw your own body into the 100,000 universes."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
2) Can you think of any reasons I shouldn't convert?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Shrug. This isn't kindergarden, this is the Church Militant.

---

quote:

---

You have climbed the 100 foot pole, and now you are sitting on top there, swaying in the breeze. You are asking me how you could climb up even further. I do not have an answer to that. Yet that is not true religion. Religion is to step forward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
No quarrel with that especially. I would be genuinely interested in your account of how you reconcile what is, essentially, a 'fideist' position with the Catholic Church's claim to be 'rational' rather than 'fideist'. That is a polite enquiry and you have no need to answer it if you have other demands on your time and attention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
2) Can you think of any reasons I shouldn't convert?

---

Sure. It's tough to live according to Catholic morals, the Church is spent and shallow, many people hate you as a cultural throwback, and mostly it's getting worse. Etc.

Shrug. This isn't kindergarden, this is the Church Militant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It's tough to live according to Catholic morals, the Church is spent and shallow, many people hate you as a cultural throwback, and mostly it's getting worse. Etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
The genius of the Anglican church is that you can join and be accepted without anyone questioning you about what you actually believe. Many people see that as a weakness and say the the Anglican church doesn't believe in anything very much. I see it as a strength that I am not being asked to be intellectually dishonest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pope Francis has changed all that, leo. I think you would be quite happy in the RCC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
The genius of the Anglican church is that you can join and be accepted without anyone questioning you about what you actually believe. Many people see that as a weakness and say the the Anglican church doesn't believe in anything very much. I see it as a strength that I am not being asked to be intellectually dishonest.

---

Sure if you actually join (i.e. are baptised and confirmed or received into the church) you are expected to understand and accept the Nicene Creed at least? Anglicans may not agree on much but the historic creeds are certainly on the list. That certainly doesn't lock you into any particular theory of atonement, beyond "for our sake he was crucified..." but it does lock down the core of the faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
Questions for the Roman Catholics here.

You have nearly convinced me your Church has, more than any other, the right to call itself the true church (not that it's utterly compelling to me, at this writing anyway).

1) Why should I convert?

---

quote:

---

Homer: (after finishing confession) “Woo-hoo, I’m clean! In your face, Lord!“

Fr. Sean:“Not yet, Mr. Simpson. I can only absolve you if you’re a Catholic”

Homer:“Uh-huh. And how do I join? Do I whale on some Unitarians?”

Fr. Sean:“Well, it’s a little harder than that. It starts with looking deep inside yourself…”

(Homer groans)

“But it ends with bread and wine”

Homer:“Woo-hoo!”

---

quote:

---

2) Can you think of any reasons I shouldn't convert?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I have experience, if it is worth anything, having gone from Lutheran to Roman Catholic to Orthodox. Ultimately, you have to make your mind up one way or the other. Staying in no man's land too long is dangerous. Obviously you're looking for someone to push you over the threshold but I'm not quite sure it works like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
One shouldn't think that if one does enter into full communion with the Catholic church that confusion will simply disappear.
We are thinking human beings and should continue to think for ourselves while trusting in God's mercy.
Believing and accepting that the Church teaches what it does - as contained in the historic creeds - doesn't necessarily mean that we understand,nor that we agree with everything and any thing that every bishop or some other'authority' has pronounced upon.

We must accept however that the Church has certain policies on things like women priests and gay marriage.If we disagree with these policies then we must try to ask ourselves why we disagree with them and then follow our 'informed' conscience.

The Church would claim that she aims in all things for justice and peace amongst the nations,the peoples and also individuals and we should struggle also for that in whatever way we find best.(That might just possibly be trying to explain why we favour,if we do, gay marriage and/or women priests.)

---

They are not policies, they are unalterable teachings.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Until they're altered, of course.
 

---

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
One shouldn't think that if one does enter into full communion with the Catholic church that confusion will simply disappear.
We are thinking human beings and should continue to think for ourselves while trusting in God's mercy.
Believing and accepting that the Church teaches what it does - as contained in the historic creeds - doesn't necessarily mean that we understand,nor that we agree with everything and any thing that every bishop or some other'authority' has pronounced upon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?

---

Aren't you conflating full understanding with acceptance? Which of Jesus's teachings did they outright reject? Surely there are many things which He taught that we cannot understand entirely - but which we accept on faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Both converts and cradle-Catholics alike are required not to reject outright the Church's teaching in favour of their own ideas. Both are required to work at their misunderstandings of the Church's doctrines, or at least not to let them stand in the way of their acceptance of the Church's teaching authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
What I'm really finding confusing is that although the Catholic church is supposedly far more specific and prescriptive about what one must believe, while the Anglican church is supposedly far more 'woolly' and allowing for many differences, I find in general the opposite when I actually talk to Anglicans and Catholics. The majority of Catholics I talk to are far more accepting of difference in understanding, while the Anglicans I talk to seem far more intent on trying to persuade me to see things exactly as they do. So while in theory the Anglican church appeals to me more, in practice - in terms of the actual people I want to be a part of - I'm far more drawn to the Catholic church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
This is the situation for some,possibly many, Catholics.We believe that the Church teaches in Jesus'name.If we accept that Jesus is the Son of God (in Catholicspeak the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) and that He has given the Church the commission to carry His message to the ends(and the end) of the world,then we listen with some respect to what the Church says.We may find it difficult to understand or sometimes impossible to follow - and some of us may even walk away,saying 'this is a hard saying'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Indeed, the requirement that one must agree with the whole faith to enter the Catholic church has the odd result that cradle Catholics agree with less doctrine than converts. Why should converts be "better" than Catholics who attend church every week? Or is it that the cradle Catholics aren't good enough either, but no one knows who it is who should be kicked out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
How is this strange? It is one thing to become a citizen of for example the UK, it is quite another to have such a naturalised citizenship revoked over offences against the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
But surely you agree that in practice short of an inquisition of the creepy kind cradle-Catholics will end up much less orthodox in belief than people who must as grown-ups decide that they believe (or will say they believe) everything the church teaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
Most Catholics,just like most Anglicans and most other Christians are brought into the family of the Church at an early age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It is one thing to become a citizen of for example the UK, it is quite another to have such a naturalised citizenship revoked over offences against the UK. In order to become a UK citizen it is requires that you have lived in the UK for several years, that you pass a test concerning your knowledge of British traditions and customs, that you swear allegiance to the crown... Whereas those who are born to British nationals can get their UK citizenship even if they never set foot on British soil, nobody tests them on their knowledge of British traditions and customs, and their allegiance to the crown is assumed rather than vowed. Furthermore, those who are naturalised UK citizens can have their citizenship revoked, can become denaturalised, over grievous offences against the UK as decided by its government. But the level of offence required for that is quite beyond for example a lack of knowledge of British traditions and customs.

Becoming a member of the RCC means to become a naturalised citizen of the City of God, and to swear allegiance to its Lord. As for any nation (or tribe, if you wish...), becoming part of it is rather different than getting thrown out of it. Unlike for a regular nation we are all born in exile, in the City of Man, and will not see our adopted country till our death. Yet just as for normal nations, there are special provisions made for the children of those who are already nationals, even though they are not born in the home country. They can gain citizenship from their parents, typically by walking into one of the local embassies...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
It's really no more difficult taking the Church on trust than taking Jesus on trust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nenuphar:
I wonder if it would be useful to to phrase it as "taking the Church's doctrines on trust," as it is those, rather than the all-too-fallible members, that are considered authoritative?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I guess I just don't get why complete doctrinal agreement is so important. Jesus' disciples certainly didn't completely understand his teachings. In fact, he was constantly being frustrated with them for that, but he never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it. And yet converts must have better understanding than that?

---

This is simply not true. In John 6, for example, Jesus absolutely requires a specific belief of his disciples. And he loses a lot of them because they just cannot believe in this. In Matt 16:23, he tells St Peter brutally what he thinks of his lack of understanding. And of course, if we count his various teaching encounters with the Jews, in particular with the Pharisees, then Christ cannot be accused of doctrinal "laissez faire" in the slightest. If you merely look at the apostles, then you are suffering from severe selection bias: you are then of course considering the very people that somehow made the cut. Many Jews who encountered Jesus didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
fineline =if you were to stoop down and enter the Church by the narrow gate , then you might find that it opens out onto a wide and open expanse within the big tent ,which is the Catholic Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I've flirted with Rome for over 45 years -when I was on the verge, an RC told me that I would either go to Hell or be 'invincibly ignorant' if I didn't go over.

That stopped me - what arrogance on behalf of the RCC.

I will never go over while that sort of thinking is in place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nenuphar:
I wonder if it would be useful to to phrase it as "taking the Church's doctrines on trust," as it is those, rather than the all-too-fallible members, that are considered authoritative?

---

Even then, it's completely different from taking Jesus at trust. It's taking the interpretation of fallible members on trust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This is simply not true. In John 6, for example, Jesus absolutely requires a specific belief of his disciples. And he loses a lot of them because they just cannot believe in this. In Matt 16:23, he tells St Peter brutally what he thinks of his lack of understanding. And of course, if we count his various teaching encounters with the Jews, in particular with the Pharisees, then Christ cannot be accused of doctrinal "laissez faire" in the slightest. If you merely look at the apostles, then you are suffering from severe selection bias: you are then of course considering the very people that somehow made the cut. Many Jews who encountered Jesus didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
OTOH, scripture can be found to support all manner of things, all manner of strange and mundane denominations. In the end, they are all personal accounts originating outside the borders of the Church. They may contain truths, may contain errors, but none are authoritative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
OTOH, scripture can be found to support all manner of things, all manner of strange and mundane denominations. In the end, they are all personal accounts originating outside the borders of the Church. They may contain truths, may contain errors, but none are authoritative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by StevHep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nenuphar:
I wonder if it would be useful to to phrase it as "taking the Church's doctrines on trust," as it is those, rather than the all-too-fallible members, that are considered authoritative?

---

Even then, it's completely different from taking Jesus at trust. It's taking the interpretation of fallible members on trust.

---

You take the fallible members who wrote Scripture and the fallible members who decided what was or was not to be in the canon of Scripture on trust don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
One could argue that the rest of us are being 'blithe' and arrogant by insisting that they adopt a looser and more fluid ecclesiology.

---

looks over shoulder to see if four horsemen are coming

Wowser: Gamaliel posted something I agree with.


And FWIW: thanks much to Ingo for having helped me begin to comprehend what the RCC actually says rather than what its critics say it says.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 


I'm not sure I'm comfortable having someone called 'Moron' agree with me, but thanks all the same ...


 

---

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, SCK, if Invicta88 believes his Church to be THE Church then he cannot do otherwise than state as much - even if gives offence to those who don't agree with him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thing is, though, SCK, if Invicta88 believes his Church to be THE Church then he cannot do otherwise than state as much - even if gives offence to those who don't agree with him.

One might equally accuse Steve Langton on other threads of 'blithely' assuming that the Anabaptist way is THE scriptural way ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.

---

There is scope, and increasingly I'm inclined to think it's largely because one institution unflinchingly sets the discussion boundaries.

You can have mealymouthed types all day long spouting their opinions but when it comes down to it someone has to make a stand.

And by God, they will. And bless them for it.


(sorry, Gamaliel... please note the lower case m)
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.

---

There is scope, and increasingly I'm inclined to think it's largely because one institution unflinchingly sets the discussion boundaries.

You can have mealymouthed types all day long spouting their opinions but when it comes down to it someone has to make a stand.

And by God, they will. And bless them for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron
There is scope, and increasingly I'm inclined to think it's largely because one institution unflinchingly sets the discussion boundaries.

You can have mealymouthed types all day long spouting their opinions but when it comes down to it someone has to make a stand.

And by God, they will. And bless them for it.

---

quote:

---

But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

---

(emphasis mine, of course)

It's wonderful to think that your godly institution doesn't "lord it over people".

Care to let us know which institution this might be?
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I assume that this institution, which is making a noble and courageous stand for the truth, will have the decency and grace to both explain and defend its position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I sense an irregular verb.

I am nuanced.
You are sloppy.
He is mealymouthed.

---

I never did do all that well in English.


 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I sense an irregular verb.

I am nuanced.
You are sloppy.
He is mealymouthed.

---

I never did do all that well in English.


 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
They know who they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
There's surely scope for Christians to disagree robustly on many matters of practice and doctrine (which inevitably, at heart, means I think my way more closely adheres to what God intends than your way does) without any implication of being unsaved or what have you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Do you really think all of church doctrine is as simple and essential to Christianity as what's covered in John 6?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Re Jesus telling Peter off, yeah Peter gets in trouble with Jesus quite a bit, but he doesn't say you can't be my disciple unless you understand and assent to everything I teach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Do you seriously not see a difference in degree between the doctrine Jesus specified and insisted on and a doctrine say on Mary, who Jesus did not talk about that I can think of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
It's not that Christ was laissez faire. It's that he had priorities and whether the disciples understood that he was coming back from the dead ahead of time apparently wasn't one of them. And most of us consider that Christ rose from the dead a reallybasic Christian teaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
But a few chapters earlier in John 4, Jesus reveals Himself to the Samaritan woman whose doctrine was totally wrong other than that she believed the Messiah was coming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I was calling IngoB out for using Scripture to make a point that simply cannot be made by Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The only way, truth and life is The Church of England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
IngoB - it would be helpful to understand what is "horrible" about my understanding of John 4.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
fineline - it is not wrong of your Catholic friends to see in you a Christian,if that is indeed what you claim to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
fineline - it is not wrong of your Catholic friends to see in you a Christian,if that is indeed what you claim to be.

---

Okay. So the catechism would allow that I'm a Christian but not part of the Church? What is the Catholic definition of the Church - because my non-Catholic understanding of the Church is that it is all Christians, including myself.

---

quote:

---

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[ in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Do you really think all of church doctrine is as simple and essential to Christianity as what's covered in John 6?

---

No, I hold to a complex gradation of doctrinal certainty. Why are you asking? You asserted that Jesus "never threw them over or told them they weren't accepted since they didn't get it." I proved you wrong from scripture. That's all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Re Jesus telling Peter off, yeah Peter gets in trouble with Jesus quite a bit, but he doesn't say you can't be my disciple unless you understand and assent to everything I teach.

---

Make that an "or" instead of an "and", and that indeed is what I see Jesus asserting time and again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Do you seriously not see a difference in degree between the doctrine Jesus specified and insisted on and a doctrine say on Mary, who Jesus did not talk about that I can think of.

---

Obviously I see a difference. But in this specific case, I do not see a difference as far as the requirement of faith goes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
It's not that Christ was laissez faire. It's that he had priorities and whether the disciples understood that he was coming back from the dead ahead of time apparently wasn't one of them. And most of us consider that Christ rose from the dead a really basic Christian teaching.

---

Jesus did not stop teaching after his crucifixion. In this particular case He clarified His words most drastically by actually returning to the disciples from the dead. And as the case of the doubting Thomas shows, Jesus was very keen indeed that His apostles believed in His resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Orthodox view, of course, is that the Church includes all those in communion with the various Orthodox Patriarchs and Bishops who claim Apostolic Succession. They believe that Rome has severed that link by acting unilaterally on the Creed (the notorious 'filioque' clause) and by - in their view - demanding obedience and submission from everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
fineline - all the baptised are members of the Catholic Church - by virtue of that baptism.
However you and many other Christians are in impaired communion with the Church,
The Catholic Church does not use the word 'Catholic ' for those who are in impaired communion with the successor of Peter partly because many non-Catholics don't want to be called Catholic in case people think that they are what many people understand by the word 'Catholic',

---

Okay. Can I just clarify this, to make sure I understand. Being a Christian who was baptised in a Baptist church makes me a member of the Catholic church (and therefore of 'The Church'), but I'm not allowed to take communion with the Roman Catholics. So is this more a case of not being a member of their particular segment of The Church?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, the RC position, Fineline, would be that you are not a member of the Church but a member of a church (small c) which isn't in communion with the RC Church. So you can be a Christian and a member of a church (small c) or an 'ecclesial body' as they sometimes refer to it, but you are not ipso facto a member of the Church, Big C.

From an RC perspective you can be a Christian and not a member of the Church. The two things aren't coterminous as they are in Protestant ecclesiology.

Back in the day, of course, some Anglicans wouldn't even have regarded Baptists and other dissenters as members of the Church (Big C) but members of 'conventicles' or sects. That wouldn't necessarily mean that they didn't believe them to be true Christians, of course.

From an RC or an Orthodox point of view you can be a 'better' Christian than any of them are whilst remaining in some kind of separated body.

So you could be a better Baptist, a better Methodist, a better Anglican, a better Salvationist, Pentecostal or whatever else ... but you are still not 'inside' the Church but remain in some kind of 'impaired communion' with Her.

It'd be a bit like saying that you can be British without living in the UK but you are fully British if you live here.

Or like saying that the Church is that town 15 miles down the road and that people who live just outside it aren't part of it but closer to it than those who are 15 miles away.

So, in practice, RCs and Orthodox would recognise some groups as being closer to them than others whilst still not being part of the Church.

That doesn't mean that those people aren't 'saved' because unlike in evangelical Protestant soteriology, you can be a member of the Church and still not ultimately be saved ...

Being 'saved' and being a Christian aren't coterminous.

In both the RC and Orthodox scheme of things there is scope for anyone to be saved - not simply those in communion with the Church (as they understand it). Under 'normal' circumstances they'd say that this is how God generally 'works' but ultimately salvation is his business and not for us to determine who is ultimately in or out.

The Orthodox often say, 'We can say where the Church is but not where it isn't.'

But I've heard them argue over that too ...


 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
He didn't throw the ones who left out though. They left on their own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Surely someone who is as logical as you sees that changing an or to an and radically changes the meaning of the statement. In other words, you agree that Jesus never says that. The Catholic church does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I, on the other hand, believe that if Christ required us to believe Mary was a virgin, he would have certainly bothered to tell us so. Christ said lots of hard things, say the sermon on the mount. He certainly wasn't one to mince words about what mattered to him, so I'm going to conclude that doctrine like the virginity of Mary wasn't what he needed his disciples to believe or act on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
He needed them to know once he had risen from the dead because he needed them to tell all the rest of us. But he didn't need them to take it on faith ahead of time. He certainly could have told them more explicitly and then expected them to believe him. It would have saved them a lot of pain and panic when he was crucified if he had. And if their beliefs were as important to him as their actions, I suspect he would have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, the RC position, Fineline, would be that you are not a member of the Church but a member of a church (small c) which isn't in communion with the RC Church. So you can be a Christian and a member of a church (small c) or an 'ecclesial body' as they sometimes refer to it, but you are not ipso facto a member of the Church, Big C.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The only way, truth and life is The Church of England.

---

We all know that you are desperately trying to pimp a thoroughly bland institution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Still, I think it would be good to stop short of outright blasphemy, wouldn't you agree?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
By remaining outside of Catholic unity you are a broken off limb of the Church,but still very much a limb of the Body of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Orthodox position is not dissimilar, but perhaps worded and understood differently, and whilst acknowledging that the rest of us can be Christians - and sometimes 'better' Christians than they are - their line is that we don't become part of the Church until we join ourselves to the jurisdiction of a canonical Orthodox Bishop.

---

Not quite. Though jurisdiction has its place, the Church is first and foremost defined by the Holy Spirit. That's why it's better just to say that whilst we can be sure where the Church is we can't be entirely sure where it's not.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, Ad Orientem ...

@Eutychus ...

I think an extension to the analogy would be that we can drink their Guinness, but only if we pays our subs and joins their club.

So, if we drink Guinness in the St Saviour's RC Social Club after we've joined, that's fine, because we've signed in and signed up for the rules.

What they'd say is that whilst stout can be found elsewhere it's not necessarily Guinness.

The analogy begins to break down, of course, as Guinness isn't only found in the RC Working Men's Club but at other tied-houses and Free Houses and so on ...

If Guinness were only available at RC social clubs then the analogy would hold more strongly.

Whatever the case, I no longer get offended that I'm not allowed to 'receive' at an RC or Orthodox Church. At least with the Orthodox, though, you do get the antidoron - some pre-sanctified bread? - or blessed bread (?)to munch.

You often get things to take home with you at Orthodox services too ... a postcard of an icon, a painted Easter egg, some special bread etc etc etc
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've known RCs express surprise that we might want to drink their Guinness, given that most of us Protestants wouldn't regard it in a transubstantiative way (if that's the right word).

Why partake of their Eucharist if we don't share their Eucharist theology?

Sure, they'd - generally - be welcome to receive at our services - although whether their clergy would be pleased about that is another matter - but one could ask the same question in reverse.

Why would they want to receive something that was simply symbolic and memorialist rather than what they would consider the real deal?

I'm aware that my language is a bit flippant here. I don't mean it that way. I have a 'higher' eucharistic theology than many of my fellow Prots.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Though jurisdiction has its place, the Church is first and foremost defined by the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Except that you won't let us drink your Guinness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
Sacramental Communion also expresses both individually and communally our common unity in the faith.If you do not wish to express that unity fully,why would you wish to receive Communion in a Catholic Church ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
Sacramental Communion also expresses both individually and communally our common unity in the faith.If you do not wish to express that unity fully,why would you wish to receive Communion in a Catholic Church ?

---

Personally, I do want to express that unity fully. And would love to receive communion in a Catholic Church. It just so happens that I don't think "expressing unity" must equate to "admit that everything your doctrine says is right".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
Sacramental Communion also expresses both individually and communally our common unity in the faith.If you do not wish to express that unity fully,why would you wish to receive Communion in a Catholic Church ?

---

Personally, I do want to express that unity fully. And would love to receive communion in a Catholic Church. It just so happens that I don't think "expressing unity" must equate to "admit that everything your doctrine says is right".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've known RCs express surprise that we might want to drink their Guinness, given that most of us Protestants wouldn't regard it in a transubstantiative way (if that's the right word).

Why partake of their Eucharist if we don't share their Eucharist theology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, all anybody has to do (in your eyes) is ask the Guinness bartender, who claims to be the sole dispenser of genuine beer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Does that convey the idea somewhat more clearly?

---

Well, sort of - and it made me laugh!

But then, to take it to its logical conclusion, if there is a group of die-hard Guinness-only drinkers, who won't allow anyone to ever drink with them unless they are drinking Guinness too, that doesn't exactly seem to me to be a positive thing. The analogy doesn't do anything to help me see the Catholic stance on Communion in a sympathetic light!
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by StevHep
Communion is a sign of unity achieved. The idea of giving Communion as a sign of unity desired is contrary to the nature of the thing. Sharing Communion means that we are One in belief and in sharing in the Lords Banquet if we are not One then we are not sharing Communion we just happen to be in the same place at the same time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
But then, to take it to its logical conclusion, if there is a group of die-hard Guinness-only drinkers, who won't allow anyone to ever drink with them unless they are drinking Guinness too, that doesn't exactly seem to me to be a positive thing. The analogy doesn't do anything to help me see the Catholic stance on Communion in a sympathetic light!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I have a high ecclesiology. Don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It would be more like saying that on Guinness day, when the Guinness fans meet in the Guinness hall to celebrate their shared love of all things Guinness with a pint of the most excellent Guinness handcrafted for this occasion in order to remember the founder of Guinness, affirm Guinness-dom and strengthen the commitment to Guinness among the united Guinness fans, then people who prefer to drink other things are welcome to watch but are not welcome to join.

There are other occasions where one could share a beer, without fixating on just how Guinness it precisely is. But not that occasion. That is our Guinness Time, always has been, always will be. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
I guess to me that's where the analogy breaks down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fineline:
To me that's a complete contradiction of what the Eucharist is about. It is the celebration of the communion of all Christians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The mystery here is that you feel the need to make us accept all stout, ale and lager drinkers - and perhaps even wine people or coke slurpers - to our Guinness Time. That seems really important to you. Whereas I don't particularly care how you drink your ale.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister
But a few chapters earlier in John 4, Jesus reveals Himself to the Samaritan woman whose doctrine was totally wrong other than that she believed the Messiah was coming.

---

quote:

---

The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I have a high ecclesiology. Don't you?

---

I have more an epistemology than an ecclesiology, really. But anyway, I certainly know better than to confuse the Head with the body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The ecclesial structure is integral part of what the RCC is about. In the analogy, the Church hierarchy and what it does is not the bartender, it is part of the unique flavour of the beer. That you think such ecclesial features are unimportant is consequently part of the reason why you are drinking ale or lager, not even stout.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
It would be more like saying that on Guinness day, when the Guinness fans meet in the Guinness hall to celebrate their shared love of all things Guinness with a pint of the most excellent Guinness handcrafted for this occasion in order to remember the founder of Guinness, affirm Guinness-dom and strengthen the commitment to Guinness among the united Guinness fans, then people who prefer to drink other things are welcome to watch but are not welcome to join.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The mystery is solved, perhaps, when you consider that many people in your analogy, certainly the stout, ale and lager drinkers, think they are also drinking Guinness. And they would like to drink it with you, whatever your opinion on the identity of their chosen beverage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
As a member of a protestant charismatic church, I think I'm drinking Guinness. Okay, maybe it's made in a different brewery from your Guinness, or it's served in a different kind of glass, but IMO it's still Guinness and I'd be glad to drink it with you if we ever find ourselves in the same place. You'd certainly be welcome to drink what we call Guinness (but you probably don't believe to actually be Guinness) if you came to our Guinness Time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oops. Logic fail. Your Guiness analogy belies that:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The actual mechanic here is that you can make the distinction perfectly well, but you simply don't accept its relevance. Equivalence is here in your mind not established by real identity, but by considering the differences to be non-essential. You say "Guinness, ale, lager - come on, it's all just beer in the end." But we disagree. It's all beer, true, but only Guinness is proper beer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oops. Logic fail. Your Guiness analogy belies that:

---

Nope, it doesn't. Since you did not provide any argument why it would, I don't need to give a counter-argument either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
you think that it celebrates the founder of Guinness just as well as Guinness,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The actual mechanic here is that you can make the distinction perfectly well, but you simply don't accept its relevance. Equivalence is here in your mind not established by real identity, but by considering the differences to be non-essential. You say "Guinness, ale, lager - come on, it's all just beer in the end." But we disagree. It's all beer, true, but only Guinness is proper beer.

---

No, I believe your church's Communion celebration to be just as valid as my church's (and thus both to be 'Guinness Time' in your analogy). I consider them to be equivalent in all the important matters (my opinion of important, of course), with any differences being about non-essential things which mean the essential 'Guinness-ness' of both remains intact.

It's you who considers there to be something qualitatively different about our respective churches' Communion celebrations. In your (your church's) desire for unity, you are the one being divisive, or so ISTM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Communion begins with unity of faith. You can't have one without the other. I really don't understand why people get so hot under the collar about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
"I want, I want" followed by toys being thrown out of the pram.

---

No, I've come to my current opinion through sincere thought and prayer, and I'm arguing in good faith.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
No, I believe your church's Communion celebration to be just as valid as my church's (and thus both to be 'Guinness Time' in your analogy). I consider them to be equivalent in all the important matters (my opinion of important, of course), with any differences being about non-essential things which mean the essential 'Guinness-ness' of both remains intact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Your association of the head with the body is very close indeed as the previous quotes showed and is (as I understand it) standard Catholic ecclesiology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
And only the proper beer can celebrate the founder of Guinness hmnnn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
We both agree that I drink Guinness and you do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Unity of faith means exactly what it says, that you confess the same faith: to believe the same, in some things explicitly, such as the Creed (among other things), and in others implicitly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
No we don't. I think we both drink Guinness, and the differences, while certainly being there, are essentially of a peripheral nature such that we are both still drinking Guinness. You think the differences are more significant, to the extent that what I'm drinking is not actually Guinness. In the analogy, the identity of what I'm drinking is not a statement of fact, it's a matter of opinion. I think it's the same as what you're drinking, just with minor differences (e.g. for analogy purposes, that we're using different types of container), while you think the differences are such that I'm actually not drinking Guinness at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview
...but these non-Catholics must also try to understand the importance of 'communion' to the Catholic church...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
But to achieve the same effect as Jesus, the Church has to do more. She has to exclude precisely those from her community who take the third option and will claim that they know better than the Church what Jesus wants of them. Only if she does that will she achieve the same separation that Jesus can achieve simply by demanding that His followers believe certain things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I, on the other hand, believe that if Christ required us to believe Mary was a virgin, he would have certainly bothered to tell us so. Christ said lots of hard things, say the sermon on the mount. He certainly wasn't one to mince words about what mattered to him, so I'm going to conclude that doctrine like the virginity of Mary wasn't what he needed his disciples to believe or act on.

---

I'm not entirely sure why we are now talking about the (perpetual) virginity of Mary. That certainly is not identical with her Immaculate Conception. Anyhow, this is really just some version of "sola scripture", a belief that I find nonsensical. While scripture certainly is a major part of the deposit of faith, perhaps even the major part, it simply isn't the be all and end all of Christian faith. If Christian tradition clearly transmitted Mary's virginity to us, and if this is confirmed by the Church, then that is as good to me as anything I find in the bible. One could even say that scripture is simply one particular kind of the same mechanism. It is written down oral tradition canonised by the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
He needed them to know once he had risen from the dead because he needed them to tell all the rest of us. But he didn't need them to take it on faith ahead of time. He certainly could have told them more explicitly and then expected them to believe him. It would have saved them a lot of pain and panic when he was crucified if he had. And if their beliefs were as important to him as their actions, I suspect he would have.

---

It's an interesting question to work out what Christ exactly knew, what He communicated, how it was understood and why He didn't force His disciples into a clearer understanding. Just about the least satisfying and least likely answer I can imagine is "because Jesus did not care about right belief but only about right action." In fact, that answer is obviously self-contradictory. If the pain and panic of the disciples could have been avoided, then "Action Jesus" obviously should have spared them this negative experience by telling them exactly what was going to happen. It would have been the right thing to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Simply, if you don't believe that the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of pur Lord, then we cannot believe the same thing, however much sophistry you use to convince yourself that we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You continue to fight me for ownership of the term "Guinness" in my analogy. I seriously cannot see any reason for doing so, other than an attempt to confuse my language to the point where I cannot clearly express my opinions any longer. That's just plain weird... And of course if you were to succeed that would not change my opinions at all, it would simply be frustrating and would force me to say the very same things in a different way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The example of what happens to the bread and wine, which was brought up earlier, is a good example. Simply, if you don't believe that the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of pur Lord, then we cannot believe the same thing, however much sophistry you use to convince yourself that we do. And yes, these things are important.

---

I agree; in this example we don't believe the same thing. I also agree that these things are important. But are they of such importance that unity is destroyed when there is a difference of opinion? My wish is for there to be as few issues as possible on which differences of opinion are of such importance, so my default answer is 'No' and will remain that way until I'm convinced to change it. Feel free to try and convince me if you like.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
<crosspost, referring to Gwai's post one further up concerning analogies>

That's fine, Gwai. If somebody else wants to make an analogy like that, then I would work with their analogy. I would say things like: "The style of drinking beer, and the seriousness with which it is done, is an essential part of our beer drinking experience. When we seriously stylish beer drinkers get together for our connoisseur taste test with a flown-in barrel of finest Belgian ale directly from Trappist cellars, we don't want someone shotgunning a six pack of cheap Budweiser cans to attend. Yes, they are also drinking beer, we appreciate that. Well done. But our beer meetings are not simply about getting drunk, rather they are about the culinary experience and culture of drinking this fine beverage together."

But this is not their analogy, but mine, so how about working with my terms?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I would perhaps compare them to the people who were healing, but were not directly Jesus' disciples. The disciples were bothered and asked Jesus to stop them. He said that if they did it in his name, it was of him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
It's that think that if God requires me to believe it, the Holy Spirit would have made bloody sure it ended up in the bible. I think tradition can teach us a lot about how to worship and can do many other things, but in the end I think that if it's not in the bible then God doesn't mind as much if we're wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Either way, I don't think Christ always insists on correct understanding yet, and I don't think he excludes us from his Church just because we are human and ineffably wrong, sometimes even on the very important things, like whether he was coming back from the dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
OTOH, scripture can be found to support all manner of things, all manner of strange and mundane denominations. In the end, they are all personal accounts originating outside the borders of the Church. They may contain truths, may contain errors, but none are authoritative.

---

I know you're only calling things as you see them, Invictus_88, but I wish you wouldn't blithely assert that your Church is the Church. It comes across to me as really arrogant and dismissive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
In the end, they are all personal accounts originating arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I was referring to the disciples before Christ died. They were completely confused on the topic, and yet he didn't reject him. They weren't the Church since the Church didn't exist, but they were certainly the closest thing there as to the Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I think I'd be considered heretical to any sola scriptura believer I know because I believe God has reveal herself outside of scripture, and that God still does. So in theory God might tell me something directly right now. I just believe God knows such messages are often less clear. Most of us do not get the clarity of revelation that Paul/Saul got.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88
Maybe my phrasing is arrogant, that may be a flaw of mine, but the bones of my assertion are no more arrogant than the status quo is (in its myriad forms of Lutheranism, Mormonism, Anglicanism etc etc etc).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
See the world from my eyes. My Church was there at the start, and I have to live in a Protestant country in which most people blithely reject the faith and teachings of Jesus, and His apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, and the Pope. Dismissing the whole deposit of faith, dismissing the authority of the Church, dismissing Christian moral precepts which have held until modern times, arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Do some of you believe that if you're not part of the Roman church that something is missing? Roman Catholic envy or something?

...Do people other than Roman Catholics think, feel and believe that Rome has something that other denominations lack?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But why does it "rankle" you? I just don't understand it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
But then reformed ecclesiology is rather incoherent, if you ask me.

---

quote:

---

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

---

quote:

---

For by correct ecclesiology you have been saved through Christianised Feng Shui, and that not just of God; it is the result of optimally aligning yourself with the favoured gurus and their spells and incantations, and it is not of grace, lest anyone should think that you could get it done through the wrong organisation.

---

Yeah. Much better, dontcha think?



BTW... what does the word 'incoherent' mean to someone who doesn't believe in logic?
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.

---

Now I'm curious! What prayers were those? Here is the RC Order of Mass, to refresh your memory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There seems to be a serious error in my Bible. I am really troubled by it. The offending verses are Ephesians 2:8-9 -

quote:

---

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This is clearly a grotesque mistranslation. Obviously it should read:

quote:

---

For by correct ecclesiology you have been saved through Christianised Feng Shui, and that not just of God; it is the result of optimally aligning yourself with the favoured gurus and their spells and incantations, and it is not of grace, lest anyone should think that you could get it done through the wrong organisation.

---

Yeah. Much better, dontcha think?



BTW... what does the word 'incoherent' mean to someone who doesn't believe in logic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.

---

Now I'm curious! What prayers were those? Here is the RC Order of Mass, to refresh your memory.

---

It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.


It lasted about five minutes and in between singing "Pray for me" she was named giver of hope, bringer of peace, light to the afflicted, and many other phrases I would reserve only for one of the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Strictly speaking the only proper object of contemplation is God. Only He is infinite Love and infinitely loving. Only He can raise up our hearts and minds into the unity which transcends all else and fulfils entirely our purpose for being. If we contemplate Mary in meditation we do so only and precisely because she draws us ever more closely into that unity with God in which she herself is immersed. It is impossible to consider her in contemplation without also considering the source from which she derives all her qualities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is no such thing as "human reason". It's just 'reason'. We didn't make it up, otherwise we would not be able to know anything. Reason itself comes from God (even though we can misuse it and draw wrong conclusions).

---

quote:

---

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by StevHep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.


It lasted about five minutes and in between singing "Pray for me" she was named giver of hope, bringer of peace, light to the afflicted, and many other phrases I would reserve only for one of the Trinity.

---

Presumably it was the Litany of Loreto

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Faith is a response to reason and evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It was a special devotion to Mary for the month of May. The characteristics attributed to her in my view bordered on crossing a line into worshipping someone other than God.

---

I'm sorry, but this is just LOL. You go to your first RC mass, and you just happen to pick a - really rather exceptional! - time and place where they run the one thing (veneration of Mary) that is most likely to get Protestant knickers into a twist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you suggesting I did this on purpose just to have something to complain about?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But why does it "rankle" you? I just don't understand it.

---

Hmm, why indeed... I guess it's just the assertion that my church (likewise all churches that aren't the RCC) is not a proper church. I know this assertion simply follows logically from the ecclesiology of the RCC so, yes, it is a coherent worldview in this regard, but it rankles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
... "singular vessel of devotion" ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
... "singular vessel of devotion" ...

---

Surely that's the *least* objectionable description of Mary? She is the only person who had Jesus, in his human form, physically inside her. I would have said it's a matter of fact that she is a singular vessel of devotion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Your wording and this sort of idea leads to all of the wrong sorts of thoughts for all of the awfullest reasons. Mary, like pieces of the true cross, Turin shroud, and body parts of saints etc, is the wrong focus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
What are the chances?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
There's a happy medium between "She obeyed God, anyone would" that extreme evangelicals take and "She is the Queen of Heaven and source of all joy" that the RCC does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's to point out that the differences between the RCC and say the Anglican church are not simply ones of doctrine and practice. An Anglican may consider Mary to been Queen of Heaven etc. A Catholic on the other hand must.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
The choice to convert to the RCC has to be based on willingness to accept 100% of church teaching on issues existing and to come. Anything else is just nitpicking. It's Mary today but it could be some technological advance in 50 years next.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And this queen, as his mother, had a privileged role for intercession

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
No Catholic is obliged to pray to the Virgin Mary .
The 'obligation' is to love God and to love our neighbour as our selves.

Our 'neighbours' include the Saints in Heaven and most definitely the Virgin Mary whom Jesus loved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
InboB - I'm not debating theology here. The definition of "Queen" is irrelevant. I do not believe I am called upon as a Christian to praise Mary as Queen of Heaven, whether she is or not. She may very well be but is my salvation in any way related to my acknowledgement of that? If not, then must I be bound to it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I like Mary quite a bit actually, more than my evangelical family would want to know I'm sure, but I am not going to attend any church that tells me what I have to think about anyone who is not God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
So the OP needs to consider that carefully. The entire role of the church in guiding the faith of the believer is different in the RCC from the Protestant church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But presumably by the same reasoning, Jesus loves my dead friend Fred, so I could pray to him as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Or perhaps there is no "net neutrality" and certain people have faster and more direct links to God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I don't mean to be flip with this, but it starts to get pretty weird with some of these exotic additions. Preferable as a starting point are the prayer instructions Jesus provided with the Lord's Prayer/Our Father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
But presumably by the same reasoning, Jesus loves my dead friend Fred, so I could pray to him as well.

---

quote:

---

Or perhaps there is no "net neutrality" and certain people have faster and more direct links to God?

---

quote:

---

-- I don't mean to be flip with this, but it starts to get pretty weird with some of these exotic additions. Preferable as a starting point are the prayer instructions Jesus provided with the Lord's Prayer/Our Father.

---

An excellent starting point. But that's not where it ends. We also have "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them and pray over him..." and "Always be alert and keep on praying for all the saints" and "Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, for the prayer of a righteous man has great power" and "keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints," and "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people," and "brethren, pray for us" and "strive together with me in your prayers on my behalf" and "finally, brothers, pray for us," and "at the same time, pray also for us" and many, many other verses.

We are called to pray for one another, and we are commanded to ask one another for each other's prayers. So it is not enough to say, "By golly, the Our Father is all we need to know about prayer." Scripture informs us quite firmly and emphatically that this is not the case.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
At some point, it doesn't sound trinitarian any more. For someone in a North America context with the RCs on one side and the holy rollers on the other, with the seeming joint efforts to channel divinity. As I posted elsewhere this week, saints are the retired sweaters hanging for the rafters: examples and merely part of the team with the rest of us.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
If they're part of the team, why wouldn't you ask them to pray for you?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Man ... this thread is messing with my head ...

Because I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides ...

It seems axiomatic to me that a 'higher' view of the sacraments - and particularly the eucharist - and of the Church will lead to some kind of acknowledgement or acceptance of devotion to Mary and the Saints to some extent. These things follow logically.

The issue, as I see it, is the extent to which we take them ... even the Orthodox would baulk at some aspects of RCC Marian devotion and also some elements of their eucharistic practices - such as Benediction and Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament - even though the 'elements' are venerated in their own services - but then consumed rather than put on display in order to be admired ...

At the same time I find a Sola Scriptura position to be increasingly untenable ... although I will accept that it isn't 'solo scriptura' and that a 'proper' outworking of Sola Scriptura is more nuanced than is often expressed - particularly by evangelicals.

What it tends to boil down to is a 'sola scriptura as I understand it' which effectively makes each Protestant his own Pope.

I s'pose I'm rather like Seeking Sister at the moment insofar as I have a more 'Anglican' take on things that doesn't quite stretch as far as Rome or Orthodoxy but at the same time heads further that way than, say EE or South Coast Kevin would.

I can certainly appreciate where both EE and South Coast Kevin are coming from.

What I would dispute, though, is EE's claim that the more Big C and Big T Catholic and Tradition views lack logic or 'evidence' - to use his terms.

It strikes me that beliefs like that of the Immaculate Conception among the RCs DO arise logically from the RC's position on other issues - such as original sin for instance. That doesn't mean that I agree with them. I don't think it's a necessary doctrine but I can see how they arrived at it.

The criteria I might use to reject it wouldn't be the kind of mathematical logic that EE is talking about but a whole range of criteria - taking account of the collective witness of other Christians - such as the various Protestant groups and that of the Orthodox. A kind of 'that believed everywhere, at all times and by all' approach.

Sure, I'd be the first to accept that there might be inconsistencies in my approach and that it's subject to subjectivity, partiality and all sorts of other things ... but I'd like to think that it's not all based on my individual whims and fancies.

I certainly agree that there is a collective Tradition aspect to all of this.

The difficulties come, it seems to me, in determining who is right on the Tradition aspect - because both the RCs and the Orthodox claim to have Tradition on their side on points that appear mutually exclusive.

Just as Sola Scriptura Protestants do.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Meanwhile, and apologies for the double-post ...

I thought IngoB's Guinness analogy was a good one, although like all analogies it will only stretch so far.

It strikes me, though, that it cuts both ways.

An RC friend of mine will receive communion at our local Methodist church, for instance, precisely because he doesn't believe it to be Guinness. He's happy to take it for what it is - some kind of beer that isn't Guinness.

But then, he's even told me that it'd be ok for me to 'receive' if I attended a Mass at his church. I have attended Mass there but not received. I'd never attempt to receive at at an RC or Orthodox service because I know I'm not supposed to.

By the same token, this RC friend feels less comfortable about receiving at our local liberal-catholic Anglican parish church - which his wife attends - because it looks more like Guinness than the beer served at the Methodist church.

Without taking the thread back on itself, I did find myself wondering when I read South Coast Kevin's posts about communion as to what he actually believes is 'going on' ...

If he takes a straightforward Zwinglian memorialist evangelical Protestant type approach then clearly communion isn't the same at his church than it is at a Church which believes in transubstantiation or in some kind of more 'realised' real presence.

That said, I can see EE's point too that it's inevitable that some Christians will emphasise some aspects and some will put more stress on others.

Perhaps it's another of these both/and not either/or areas ...
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel: Man ... this thread is messing with my head ...

Because I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If they're part of the team, why wouldn't you ask them to pray for you?

---

quote:

---

Above satirical link
Though some observers have questioned whether Smoler will be able to absolve Christians of earthly wrongdoings, having never died on the cross for humanity's sins, Christ dismisses such claims, saying that he has "complete faith in Dean."

---

quote:

---

Nothing can show more clearly than this passage that the Articles are not written against the creed of the Roman Church, but against actual existing errors in it, whether taken into its system or not. Here the sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken of, in which the special question of doctrine would be introduced; but "the sacrifice of Masses," certain observances, for the most part private and solitary, which the writers of the Articles knew to have been in force in time past, and saw before their eyes, and which involved certain opinions and a certain teaching. Accordingly the passage proceeds, "in which it was commonly said;" which surely is a strictly historical mode of speaking.

---

Masses
 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Gamaliel I'm not at all worried if some Protestants think that all RCs are condemned to Hell.
What I am worried about is that some Protestants,one on this board, has written that RCs have to believe (and that includes me !) that all non-Catholics are condemned to an eternity without God.
I,for one, do not believe this,nor is it the teaching of the Catholic Church.
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
I think we can recognise that there are many Catholics who don't believe the propositions that Protestants tend to find the most objectionable aspects of Catholic belief. And equally vice versa. Many thoughtful people on both sides of the divide hold nuanced views.

Once we've recognised - perhaps in a post-modern way - that some of the differences are to do with culture and tradition that emphasise some aspects over others, then it seems to me that there are 3 possible responses:
- imperialism - the True Church is those who adopt our culture- spreading our culture is doing the work of God
- minimalism - if belonging to the True Church is helpful for salvation then the True Church should empty itself of its own culture so as not to be a stumbling block to those from different cultural traditions
- pluralism - we are the church that worships God and seeks to do His will through the medium of our particular culture; other equally-True churches do the same through their own traditions and cultures.

I think you'll find that the asymmetry is between these positions - the minimalists and pluralists feel threatened by the imperialists - on both the Catholic and Protestant sides of the divide.

Best wishes,

Russ
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, Forthview, there are some Protestants, unfortunately, who think that they know and understand the teachings of the RC Church better than the RC Church does itself ...

That's the product of a particular fundamentalist mindset and not necessarily representative of Protestantism per se, of course.

Such fundies will dismiss any evidence that appears to contradict their view because they think it's casuistry or sophistry or simply the RC Church (or any other bug-bear, be it Islam or whatever else) trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

This tendency isn't restricted to some forms of Protestant. I've seen it among fundamentalists in other traditions too ...

'You're saying that there are moderate or liberal Muslims out there? Nah ... they must be lying to you or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I've read the Quran. I know what Muslims believe better than they know themselves ...'


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thanks for the PM, Forthview. Unfortunately, I can't reply to it as yet as it's blocked for some reason - perhaps it hasn't been reactivated after I returned after a period of banishment. I was marooned for bad behaviour ...

I will appeal to the hosts in the Styx to reconnect the PM reply function.

Suffice to say for now, that I appreciate your eirenic and balanced comments and hope that I can respond in kind and with as much grace as you show here.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
What I would dispute, though, is EE's claim that the more Big C and Big T Catholic and Tradition views lack logic or 'evidence' - to use his terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
With the between the two being pretty thin. I don't buy it. If you're praying to a person you are praying to a person.

Considering too, hocus pocus, hoc est corpus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
With the between the two being pretty thin. I don't buy it. If you're praying to a person you are praying to a person.

Considering too, hocus pocus, hoc est corpus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Most of those who rubbish the Eucharist...

---

And who might they be?

And in what way are they "rubbishing the Eucharist"?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
LC & TD -- you must admit that Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians tend to be higher up on the candle concerning sacraments and the calendar than the mass of other Protestants.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I was responding to "obviously they don't believe in it otherwise they would." Yeah, right.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was responding to "obviously they don't believe in it otherwise they would." Yeah, right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
See the world from my eyes. My Church was there at the start, and I have to live in a Protestant country in which most people blithely reject the faith and teachings of Jesus, and His apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, and the Pope. Dismissing the whole deposit of faith, dismissing the authority of the Church, dismissing Christian moral precepts which have held until modern times, arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.

---

I appreciate the Catholic church (my father was raised in it), and I pray for its ongoing existence until Christ's return. Not because I accept its claims about itself, but because it is the largest and most influential Christian church and is the way the vast majority of the world comes in contact with Christ's teachings.

Nonetheless, those of us who through prayer and study can not accept the extra-Biblical teachings that the RCC binds its members to, will never be able to join that group in good conscience without feeling that we are violating what Jesus actually asked of us. I attended my first Catholic mass not long ago and at several points I had to ask God's forgiveness for participating in prayers that I was unsure were acceptable.

Do not underestimate that many of us outside of the RCC feel we are in fact disrespecting God by binding ourselves to these doctrines. Unity is only possible when non-essential beliefs are not given equal standing with the core creeds and elements of the historic faith. What you see as rebellion, we see as a necessary separation from something good that has been corrupted.

---

quote:

---

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

---

Putting one's trust in an institutional succession, and building your righteousness on that basis, is the antithesis of the grace of God.

Furthermore, the claim that we have to submit without question to the dictates of the RCC, because that Church apparently "gave us the Bible", even when its teaching contradicts the Bible, is simply nonsensical. Firstly, the Bible is not the Word of the Church but the Word of God. God is the only one who can claim ownership of the Bible, and He, in His sovereignty, has used various people and organisations within history to establish His word. Those people and organisations were merely the tools which God used to communicate His message. The "institutional descendants" (whatever that really means) of those tools cannot then claim to have the right to interpret that Word however they like, simply on the basis that God used their "institutional ancestors" as a means of establishing that Word.

It's a bit like a builder using a hammer to erect a wall in a house, and then later taking another hammer from the same tool box to justify vandalising it. Because the second hammer was from the same tool box as the first, and because the claim is that "tools from that toolbox gave us the wall" (!), therefore we are justified in doing whatever we like to the wall, as long we use a tool from that approved tool box. And if over the course of time some damage occurred to the wall, and another builder using tools from a different tool box made the necessary repairs, he would be condemned as unqualified to do so, because he is not using tools from the correct tool box!

[ 25. May 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
But no one is saying, whether they be RC, Orthodox or whatever, that they can interpret the scriptures "however they like". Indeed, Tradition is a guarantee against conformism and arbitrariness, which is why when it's abadoned you end up with a lot weird shit.

As for succession, the Church is a visible body. The link back to the Apostles is also visible, a golden thread, so that we might know where to look, as our Lord says "No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they that come in, may see the light".
 

---

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :
 
Well, if the Church doesn't meet your standards, what does? The case for Catholicism is (at least in terms of Christian history, you must at least concede that much) pre-eminent. So what new body of teaching to you find to be more true?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The trouble is, though, EE, that this argument can easily be turned around and used in evidence the other way ...

For instance:

'This idea that the teachings, behaviour and status of an organisation can be validated by one's own, individual interpretation and preference, has to be one of the most dysfunctional and delusional arguments ever to circulate within Christendom.'

'Putting one's trust in one's own judgement and personal preferences and building your righteousness on that basis, is the antithesis of the grace of God in its more corporate manifestation.'

'Furthermore, the claim that we have to submit without question to the dictates of our own individual and personal interpretation of the Bible, even when this contradicts the general consensus of what other's believe, is simply nonsensical.'

And so on ...

Of course the Bible is the word of God but it was transmitted through the Church. It didn't drop down out of heaven on silver tablets.

Your toolbox and hammer analogy is a good one, but someone of a more 'Catholic' persuasion could just as easily use it to suggest that the correct way to use the tools it contains is to go by the received Tradition ... otherwise we might end up with gerry-builders rather than properly authorised and qualified plumbers, brickies, sparkies etc etc.

Of course, as an Anglican I'm caught somewhere in the middle on this one. Both/and not either/or.



I can certainly see what you are getting at but can also see what the RCs - and indeed the Orthodox - are trying to say.

The scriptures didn't come to us in a vacuum. The Rabbis used to debate and wrestle with the Torah. It's been the same in Christianity - with the creeds and councils and so on.

It's not all about personal illuminism and me and Jesus, me and my Bible - although the personal element is clearly very important - it's about wrestling with and working these things out in the context of a community of faith.

Which is one of the things we are trying to do here to some extent - but it's obviously far more important in real life than it is here in cyber-space.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88
Well, if the Church doesn't meet your standards, what does?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
The trouble is, though, EE, that this argument can easily be turned around and used in evidence the other way ...

For instance:

'This idea that the teachings, behaviour and status of an organisation can be validated by one's own, individual interpretation and preference, has to be one of the most dysfunctional and delusional arguments ever to circulate within Christendom.'

'Putting one's trust in one's own judgement and personal preferences and building your righteousness on that basis, is the antithesis of the grace of God in its more corporate manifestation.'

'Furthermore, the claim that we have to submit without question to the dictates of our own individual and personal interpretation of the Bible, even when this contradicts the general consensus of what other's believe, is simply nonsensical.'

And so on ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Well, if the Church doesn't meet your standards, what does? The case for Catholicism is (at least in terms of Christian history, you must at least concede that much) pre-eminent. So what new body of teaching to you find to be more true?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I don't know why you are enquiring about my standards. It is God's standards that matter

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
But you claim to know what those are, and that we do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Rather, it was intended to point out that many would and do not see that praying to a dead person is different than worshipping them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
But you claim to know what those are, and that we do not.

---

Where did I say that you do not know what God's standards are?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
My reference to hocus pocus is not about the eucharist and what it means and is, despite some of you taking it that direction.

---

quote:

---

I don't think prayer does more than comfort in a real human way,

---

quote:

---

Rather, it was intended to point out that many would and do not see that praying to a dead person is different than worshipping them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Rather, it was intended to point out that many would and do not see that praying to a dead person is different than worshipping them.

---

It seems you are unable to understand the difference between worship and asking others to pray for us. The difference is quite simple. Even a Millwall fan could get it. As for the saints being "dead", may I refer you you to an earlier post of mine: "I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob" and "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I am not persuaded that praying to one of these extra-holy people is not a form of worship. Reverence toward them. Thanking them for benefits received. Junior Jesuses sounds like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I understand what you and others are trying to say. If someone is alive, communication is very easy to understand. I may ask them. If they are dead, apparently they need to be particularly holy and declared saints, thus above the likes of me and the average person.

---

Leaving aside the fact that that's not what any of us are trying to say.... If the saints are too high for the likes of us, then what are Jesus and God the Father?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I say this as a Protestant, but it seems to me that one of the prevailing features within Protestantism is a form of dualism.

Things have to be either/or rather than both/and.

Hence, you can't have a high view of the authority of the Church without, the feeling runs, somehow diminishing the authority of the Bible or else violating one's own personal conscience.

Similarly, you can't invoke Mary or the Saints without somehow robbing God of the praise and worship that only He deserves.

You can't have faith and works - you have to have one or t'other (sure, I know that's a caricature of the Protestant position but it's how some of us do come across at times) - and any works that are not done 'in faith' (however we define that) are somehow sinful and shouldn't be done at all irrespective of how much benefit other people may derive from them ...

So therefore it's best not to do any works at all but simply sit in church and bang on about how we are all saved by grace, through faith and aren't trying to earn our salvation unlike those nasty RCs down the road ...



Of course, I am exaggerating to make a point. Most Protestants aren't anywhere near that caricature but there is a tendency towards not being able to 'hold truths in tension' it seems to me - hence the interminable hot-air over the predestination/free will debate, the fixation in some quarters as to what precise point one 'receives the Spirit' and so on.

On another site I've seen Orthodox banging on (again) about how the Reformed promote a subtle form of Nestorianism and are nowhere near as Chalcedonian in their Christology as their claim ...

On that one, I suspect the Orthoes are pushing things a tad too far - although I can understand their point-of-view because the kind of both/and position doesn't sit too comfortably with some forms of Protestant - both liberal and conservative. Things either have to be one thing or another, they can't be both.

It's a feature, I suspect of Western Scholasticism to some extent combined with the need to distinguish and differentiate oneself from a mistrusted system - late medieval and Renaissance Rome.

What to do about it is the $64,000 question. Either one goes in a more binary direction and rolls with the dualism or else one says, 'It's a fair cop' either to Rome or to Orthodoxy and heads that way or one adopts a fence-sitting Anglican position.

Those seem to the options. But I'm sure there must be more ...


 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
Why seek to drive a wedge between the scriptures and the community of faith which brought us the scriptures in the first place?

---

quote:

---

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
But you claim to know what those are, and that we do not.

---

Where did I say that you do not know what God's standards are?

---

When you say that the RCC or EOC doesn't live up to God's standards.

---

quote:

---

A corrupt and murderous church is not a church, irrespective of ecclesiastical pedigree, and this goes for Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy.

---

If a Church bears bad fruit, then it is a bad tree. I am not making a blanket statement that Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy are bad trees per se, but rather that they are bad trees when they bear bad fruit. Of course, they are good trees when they bear good fruit. It's pretty obvious from my post that this is what I am saying, and I am simply quoting the words of Jesus, which couldn't really be much clearer (and we know from Scripture what the fruit of the Spirit is. The list is so transparent, that no one but the most gymnastic of interpreters is left in any doubt as to what God is saying!)
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
EE, don't get me wrong, I can see where you are coming from and completely agree that we should check things out and not leave our brains at the door whatever church we attend or whatever tradition we belong to - whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

I don't think my own view here is as far from yours as might appear.

What I am suggesting is that because RCs or Orthodox may hold beliefs that thee or me might find questionable from a Protestant point-of-view, it doesn't automatically follow that they have switched off their brains or been bamboozled or hoodwinked by some kind of authoritarian heirarchy.

They could have come to those conclusions through the exercise of faith, reason and judgement - in the same way as we come to the conclusions that we hold.

Sure, I know it sounds a bit like 'Tradition says so, so there' but a Biblicist argument can easily sound the same, 'The Bible says so, so there.'

On the Mary thing - ok, I got the wrong end of the stick on that one with your comment about praying to Mary on another thread. But it does beg a further question ...

If you had 'experienced' something when experimenting with prayer to Mary - whether a nice warm, fuzzy feeling or an apparent answer to your request - then what would you (or I) have done about it? Adopted the practice of praying to Mary and the Saints?

What would we need to encourage us to adopt such a practice? Some kind of experience? Or else coming to the conclusion that it made sense theologically as a corollary of a high view of the Church and its activity through space and time and into eternity? Or both?

I'm not sure I have answers to these questions, I'm simply punting out some thoughts.

As it happens - and it's confession time - I do invoke Mary and the Saints and use liturgical material that inclines that way in my personal devotions. I haven't done so on the basis of flashing lights and experiences ... nor have I done so out of blind obedience to some kind of over-weening spiritual authority.

It simply follows on as a logical corollary of where I seem to be headed in theological terms.

So, in that case, I would argue that I have come to these conclusions based on similar criteria to those you'd advocate - scripture, reason and tradition ... whilst fully accepting that there is little by way of 'proof-texts' from the NT to justify the practice.

That doesn't stop me from doing it because I don't see the NT as entirely prescriptive.

Now, with the Immaculate Conception of Mary, for instance, I'd take a different view. I can't accept that because I don't see how it is necessitated if one's view of Original Sin and the operation of divine grace isn't predicated on some medieval Scholastic views of how these things work.

So, in that particular case I am exercising personal judgement rather than accepting the weight of a particular tradition - in this case the Roman Catholic Church.

Does that mean I think that RCs are 'blindly' following and accepting this doctrine simply because the Pope says they should? Well, that's for them to answer but I suspect it's not as simple as that. They do submit to Tradition but that doesn't mean that they have abandoned any semblance of reason or discernment.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Apologies for the double-post, but if you've read Newman's 'Apologia pro Vita Sua' you'll have seen how his cold, unflinching application of reason and logic led him to the belief that the Roman Catholic Church was the One True Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church and that such logic demanded that he join himself to it.

One might not agree with Newman's conclusions nor wish to follow him in that particular direction, but it'd be hard to counter assert that he wasn't using reason and logic at all but simply blindly following Tradition and Papal Authority.

Is this a case for one of those verb declensions we sometimes have aboard Ship?

I use impeccable reason and logic.

You don't use reason and logic at all but are impressionable and led by a craven submission to Tradition and authority ...



That said, I am reminded of an old joke that Frank Muir told. I can't remember all the details but the gist was as follows:

A well-heeled English aristocrat is converted to Roman Catholicism and travels to the Vatican for further instruction.

One day, he is being shown around the cloisters by his Italian translator and guide when he sees a knot of monks and clerics surrounding a figure in the corner. They are all laughing and clearly enjoying themselves immensely.

He asks his guide what is happening.
'Oh, that is Fr Fratelli,' laughs the guide. 'The wittiest man in all the Vatican. His jokes are so apposite, so well-observed, his sense of comic timing is impeccable - and as for his subject matter, mama mia! - he nails it every time. He has a knack for knowing what's current, what's topical and of sending it up mercifully. He really is a most amusing man, the funniest in all the Vatican ...'

So the Englishman goes over to investigate. Puzzled, the Italian translator watches him begin to snigger along with the monks and priests, then to begin to laugh, then guffaw. Soon he is gripping his sides with belly-laughs, rocking back and forth with mirth at Fr Fratelli's witticisms and banter.

Afterwards, the Englishman walks back along the cloister to where the guide is waiting for him.
'You were right,' the Englishman says. 'Fr Fratelli is the wittiest and funniest man in all the Vatican. His jokes are so apposite, so well-observed, his sense of comic timing is impeccable - and as for his subject matter - he nails it every time. It's clear that he has a knack for knowing what's current, what's topical and of sending it up mercifully to the amusement of the priests and friars. He really is a most amusing man, assuredly the funniest in all the Vatican.'

The guide is non-plussed, 'But Senore, I do not understand. How is it that you found Fr Fratelli so funny when you do not speak Italian?'
'I trusted him.'
 

---

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :
 
On the subject of the Bereans in Acts 17

quote:

---

Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so

---

quote:

---

that the sacred text was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that, if we would learn doctrine, we must have recourse to the formularies of the Church;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
What I am suggesting is that because RCs or Orthodox may hold beliefs that thee or me might find questionable from a Protestant point-of-view, it doesn't automatically follow that they have switched off their brains or been bamboozled or hoodwinked by some kind of authoritarian heirarchy.

They could have come to those conclusions through the exercise of faith, reason and judgement - in the same way as we come to the conclusions that we hold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If a Church bears bad fruit, then it is a bad tree. I am not making a blanket statement that Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy are bad trees per se, but rather that they are bad trees when they bear bad fruit. Of course, they are good trees when they bear good fruit. It's pretty obvious from my post that this is what I am saying, and I am simply quoting the words of Jesus, which couldn't really be much clearer (and we know from Scripture what the fruit of the Spirit is. The list is so transparent, that no one but the most gymnastic of interpreters is left in any doubt as to what God is saying!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel
But at the same time surely we can understand and appreciate how a non-RCC view can appear arrogant to RCs such as Invicta_88 here, particularly when we have the gall to turn the scriptures - which they (and the Orthodox together as the universal pre-Schism Church) produced, presented and preserved for us - around to use as a club to beat them over the head with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Your wording and this sort of idea leads to all of the wrong sorts of thoughts for all of the awfullest reasons. Mary, like pieces of the true cross, Turin shroud, and body parts of saints etc, is the wrong focus.

---

Indeed - and I don't raise this topic just to slam Catholics. I think Protestants often go too far the other way and completely ignore her pivotal role in the story of our salvation. There's a happy medium between "She obeyed God, anyone would" that extreme evangelicals take and "She is the Queen of Heaven and source of all joy" that the RCC does.

It's to point out that the differences between the RCC and say the Anglican church are not simply ones of doctrine and practice. An Anglican may consider Mary to been Queen of Heaven etc. A Catholic on the other hand must .

The choice to convert to the RCC has to be based on willingness to accept 100% of church teaching on issues existing and to come. Anything else is just nitpicking. It's Mary today but it could be some technological advance in 50 years next.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
RCs are materialists. We think physical things are important. Or as Pope Francis said in the recent Papal Exhortation, "Realities are more important than ideas" (it's possible I paraphrase a little here).

The reality, the physicality of Mary's mothering of Jesus, her physical closeness to the Fruit of her womb, bring me closer to Jesus.

---

This is not the difference, because Protestants DO believe that Mary's is blessed among women, that her faith in response to the angels and her love for Jesus is a shining example for all Christians.

The difference is that our theology does not include the Immaculate Conception or perpetual virginity. If one believed those things about Mary, then veneration would come as a natural consequence.

I understand that IC was not decreed an infallible doctrine until the later 19th century. So to someone considering becoming a Roman Catholic, they need to accept the church's role in setting binding doctrine first and foremost. The details of those doctrines are not important. Because there will be new ones and existing ones may change.

In short - no one should join the Roman Church just because he or she agrees with its current doctrines. They should join because they believe the Roman Church is the only one authorized to set doctrine.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The Orthodox don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, Seeking Sister, but they do venerate Mary. They do believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, though, but then until very recently, so did many Protestants - including Luther, Calvin and John Wesley.

Some Anglo-Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary too - although liberal-catholics in the Anglican communion probably wouldn't. Mind you, I sometimes wonder what liberal-catholics in the Anglican communion DO believe ...



I think the principle you raise is correct, though, that anyone joining the RCC must accept that it has the right to set, establish and decree doctrine.

That's fine, of course, if it felt it were only doing so for its own members/adherents but as EE says - and I do agree with him on this point - the RCC is making a bigger claim than that and saying that it has the right to set and establish doctrine that should really be binding on everyone ...

Of course, as a Protestant, I'm not very comfortable with that - and neither are the Orthodox, of course.

All that said, if it were a flat choice between Rome and certain extreme forms of fundamentalist Protestantism then I'd side with Rome any day of the week - particularly with the current Pope at the helm.
 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
On Ascension Day the Gospel Reading in the Roman Rite tells us that Jesus said :

Go,make disciples of all nations,baptise them....
teach them to observe all the commands I gave you.
And know that I am with you always, yes to the end of time.

From this the Church claims that she has indeed the authority to preach in Jesus' name.
With Jesus with the Church until the end of time
she will not teach as eternally binding upon he faithful what is contrary to the truth of the Gospel.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
In short - no one should join the Roman Church just because he or she agrees with its current doctrines. They should join because they believe the Roman Church is the only one authorized to set doctrine.

---

quote:

---

We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity. And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will probably be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law and worship than the Catholicism of the present day. A religious historian of the fifth millennium A.D. will without difficulty discover in Catholicism conceptions and forms and practices which derive from India, China and Japan, and he will have to recognize a far more obvious complex of opposites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I understand that IC was not decreed an infallible doctrine until the later 19th century. So to someone considering becoming a Roman Catholic, they need to accept the church's role in setting binding doctrine first and foremost. The details of those doctrines are not important. Because there will be new ones and existing ones may change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
In short - no one should join the Roman Church just because he or she agrees with its current doctrines. They should join because they believe the Roman Church is the only one authorized to set doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
In short - no one should join the Roman Church just because he or she agrees with its current doctrines. They should join because they believe the Roman Church is the only one authorized to set doctrine.

---

quote:

---

That's correct. RCs see this a basically the function of the apostolic Church, it is the institution authorised by God to bind and loosen the faithful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
This is not the difference, because Protestants DO believe that Mary's is blessed among women, that her faith in response to the angels and her love for Jesus is a shining example for all Christians.

The difference is that our theology does not include the Immaculate Conception or perpetual virginity. If one believed those things about Mary, then veneration would come as a natural consequence.

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Any examples of "loosening"? The way your explanation sounds to me is that in five millennia there might be quite a bit more "binding" laid on the church's members, but since decisions made are "once for all", life will only become more complicated, and that there will be more grist for confession, absolution, and penance. Perhaps I misunderstand what "loosen" means in Catholic parlance. A little unwrapping might help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I don't think either no prophet or seekingsister are picking up on what I see as the (or at least *a*) big difference between RC practice and Anglican practice.

RCs are materialists. We think physical things are important. Or as Pope Francis said in the recent Papal Exhortation, "Realities are more important than ideas" (it's possible I paraphrase a little here).

The reality, the physicality of Mary's mothering of Jesus, her physical closeness to the Fruit of her womb, bring me closer to Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Perhaps I misunderstand what "loosen" means in Catholic parlance. A little unwrapping might help.

---

Nicely turned.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I always thought "loose" referred to the forgiveness of sins.

[ 28. May 2014, 02:20: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
You know I'm really trying to stop posting so much but...

I am curious if any RCC members here who converted as adults had come to the point where they felt morally obligated.

I recall St. Clives'* comment about being the most dejected convert.


*Thanks very much to whoever first posted that.
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
I am curious if any RCC members here who converted as adults had come to the point where they felt morally obligated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Perhaps I misunderstand what "loosen" means in Catholic parlance. A little unwrapping might help.

---

Nicely turned.

---

Inadvertent.

But thanks.
 

---

Posted by Paul 2012 (# 17402) on :
 
Everything turns on your understanding of "one catholic and apostolic church".

Either you see the church as being a single roomed inn watched over by the holy spirit to the exclusion of all others or whether you see it as being a "house with many mansions" all equally watched over by the holy spirit.

More inconnecting doors would be a welcome improvement to the existing accomodation in Christ's universal church particularily between The CofE an the RCC.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Seekingsister - actually I have no issues with the veneration of Mary (though have issues with some ways of venerating Mary if that makes sense) but do struggle with the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity. Of course, being an Anglican I'm not obliged to believe in them anyway....
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seekingsister - actually I have no issues with the veneration of Mary (though have issues with some ways of venerating Mary if that makes sense) but do struggle with the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity. Of course, being an Anglican I'm not obliged to believe in them anyway....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
I really have a hard time understanding the VERY modern attack on the perpetual virginity. If it was good enough for Luther and Calvin, why isn't it good enough today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
I really have a hard time understanding the VERY modern attack on the perpetual virginity. If it was good enough for Luther and Calvin, why isn't it good enough today?

---

Well, apart from the small matter of whether the claim is actually true, I would suggest that the idea denigrates sex. The idea implies that it is unworthy of the mother of our Lord to have sex with her husband, as if that is a terrible sin. And, of course, the idea makes a mockery of the Catholic teaching on marriage and family life. Thus there is a contradiction at the heart of Catholic theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
I really have a hard time understanding the VERY modern attack on the perpetual virginity. If it was good enough for Luther and Calvin, why isn't it good enough today?

---

Well, apart from the small matter of whether the claim is actually true, I would suggest that the idea denigrates sex. The idea implies that it is unworthy of the mother of our Lord to have sex with her husband, as if that is a terrible sin.

---

quote:

---

And, of course, the idea makes a mockery of the Catholic teaching on marriage and family life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
This is pure bullshit. The Catholic Church does not teach that marriage and the family is the only possible and respectable life calling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Or only betrothed to be married, at least Blessed Jerome argued such in his tract against the heretic Helvidius.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seekingsister - actually I have no issues with the veneration of Mary (though have issues with some ways of venerating Mary if that makes sense) but do struggle with the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity. Of course, being an Anglican I'm not obliged to believe in them anyway....

---

I really have a hard time understanding the VERY modern attack on the perpetual virginity. If it was good enough for Luther and Calvin, why isn't it good enough today?

As for the I.C., come to the Plot™. We have baklava.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I, among others, have already shown that your objection to the perpetual virginity is built on a strawman and that as a protestant you have no comprehension of consecration. The objections come from a low/poor Christology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Mary was a normal woman and a normal wife. She had sex with her husband Joseph,

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Mary was a normal woman and a normal wife. She had sex with her husband Joseph.

MT: Yes, that is your interpretation. Pity it's wrong, but that is your interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It would seem to me that the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters creates a reasonable presumption in favour of a normal relationship between Mary and Joseph,

---

quote:

---

especially as there is no mention of those other children throughout the Nativity narratives; no mention, for instance, of them being involved in the flight to Egypt, if they were Joseph's children by a previous marriage.

---

quote:

---

I know that arguments can be constructed to explain this situation; but it is rather evident that these are arguments outside and beyond the data of the Scriptural account.

---

quote:

---

And why should such elaborate arguments

---

quote:

---

be needed when there is no evidence in Scripture of any concern about Mary being a virgin forever, or of any need for her to be so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I, among others, have already shown that your objection to the perpetual virginity is built on a strawman and that as a protestant you have no comprehension of consecration. The objections come from a low/poor Christology.

---

Except you have done nothing of the sort.

I do believe in consecration, but not superstition based on pagan Greek philosophy. Your Christology is deeply deficient, denying as it does the full meaning of the incarnation.

Mary was a normal woman and a normal wife. She had sex with her husband Joseph, and that was all part and parcel of her sanctified life, because sex - according to God's rules - is sacred.

Here's a comment I made on this subject some time ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Ad Orientem - I assume EE is referring to the ancient Greek idea that the bodily and the physical are inherently evil, with the associated belief that perfection entails the shedding or denial of the physical.

I agree with him that the eternal virginity of Mary idea seems more inspired by this Greek rejection of the physical than it is of the Hebrew / Christian redemption of the physical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Mary was a normal woman and a normal wife. She had sex with her husband Joseph, and that was all part and parcel of her sanctified life, because sex - according to God's rules - is sacred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
It's precisely because God became man, that is, he took on flesh (for our salvation) and dwelt in her womb that Mary remained a virgin.

---

Mary remained a virgin because of the incarnation??


'Fraid I can't see the logical connection there at all.

I suppose you'll come up with your consecration theory to make the connection. Trouble with that is that sex within marriage is not defiled, as the Bible says:

quote:

---

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled

---

quote:

---

As is EE's claim that Mary had sex with Joseph. Scripture doesn't say that. Funny how "sola scriptura" cuts both ways.

---

quote:

---

Hardly "elaborate." Unless you have a new meaning for "elaborate" that I'm not aware of.

---

quote:

---

There are a lot of things not in the Scriptures that you nevertheless believe, probably starting with the Trinity, an elaborate theory if ever there was one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
It's precisely because God became man, that is, he took on flesh (for our salvation) and dwelt in her womb that Mary remained a virgin.

---

Mary remained a virgin because of the incarnation??


'Fraid I can't see the logical connection there at all.

I suppose you'll come up with your consecration theory to make the connection. Trouble with that is that sex within marriage is not defiled, as the Bible says:

quote:

---

Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled

---

(Hebrews 13:4).

Therefore sex within God's law cannot defile anything, because it is something that God declares to be undefiled. It was good enough for Hannah, and good enough for Mary (and, like some in the RCC, I have noticed a clear parallel between Hannah and Mary as I explained in the post I linked to earlier).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB
If Joseph was a pious Jew and if he believed that Mary had given birth to the Son of God, literally, then he would have rather chopped off his penis with an axe than put it into Mary's vagina.

It's completely modern to assume that Joseph thought "Hey, cool, me and the Holy Spirit are fuck-buddies." An ancient Jew would have been obedient to the law not to touch holy things (Num 4:15), on the fear of being struck dead by the Lord (1 Chr 13:10). The elaborate procedure needed to approach the mercy seat (Lev 16) would have been present to his mind, as indeed would be the danger of not listening to the advice of angels (Lk 1:19).

---

quote:

---

If something has been given to God or taken by Him, has become sacred, man may not use it for mundane purposes any longer. Ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem
Who argued sex defiles? Another strawman. You're good at them, it seems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Matthew 1 v25 "(Joseph) knew her not until she bore a son..." - and by rather clear implication, did 'know her' afterwards....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The chalice is a good comparison (which I made earlier). Consecration, far from being a denial of the physical, actually confirms the physical. In the case of the chalice, that it really contains the blood if our Lord; in the case of the Blessed Virgin, that her womb really contained him who the whole universe could not contain. But once something has been consecrated it cannot be used for ordinary things again, and let me say it again: this does not deny the physical, nay, it affirms it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Matthew 1 v25 "(Joseph) knew her not until she bore a son..." - and by rather clear implication, did 'know her' afterwards....

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Matthew 1 v25 "(Joseph) knew her not until she bore a son..." - and by rather clear implication, did 'know her' afterwards....

QSJ: I would take "I didn't do X until Y happened" to suggest that after Y occurred I did do X. On your interpretation wouldn't "I didn't have sex with my boy friend until we got married" mean, (by rather clear implication) that I never had sex with my boyfriend?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My apologies if I wasn't as clear as I'd thought I was.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
The idea that her physical uterus was particularly special, so special that it must not have been used to nurture any subsequent children or to share in marital union with her husband, is a big step in the direction of idolatry in my opinion. She is blessed because she trusted and loved God, not because she had magical lady bits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB
This is the case for the English "until", but not so for the original Greek "heõs (hou)", which makes no clear prediction about the state after the specified time at all.

---

quote:

---

This is obvious from other uses of "heõs" in the bible, like the Septuagint for 2 Sam 6:23 "Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until [heõs] the day of her death." or Jn 5:16-17 "For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "My Father is working until [heõs] now, and I Myself am working." Obviously there is no indication of state change implied in either (Michal did not have a child after she dies, and the Father did not stop working). It is also true for contemporary sources, explicitly so in the Jewish "Joseph and Aseneth" writings: "And Aseneth was left alone with the seven virgins, and she continued to be weighed down and weep [heõs hou] until the sun set. And she ate no bread and drank no water. And the night fell, and all (people) in the house slept, and she alone was awake and continued to brood and to weep; and she often struck her breast with (her) hand and kept being filled with great fear and trembled (with) heavy trembling."

---

quote:

---

After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of sick people, blind, lame, paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had. Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”

The sick man answered Him, “Sir, I have no man to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; but while I am coming, another steps down before me.”

Jesus said to him, “Rise, take up your bed and walk.” And immediately the man was made well, took up his bed, and walked.

And that day was the Sabbath. The Jews therefore said to him who was cured, “It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed.”

He answered them, “He who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your bed and walk.’”

Then they asked him, “Who is the Man who said to you, ‘Take up your bed and walk’?” But the one who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a multitude being in that place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you.”

The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.

For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”

Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I really don't know where you conjured this "Holy Spirit as a fuck-buddy" idea up from. I doubt anyone who believes in the virgin birth imagines that the Holy Spirit had sexual intercourse with Mary! This is insane literalism, and the mother (no pun intended) of straw man arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You seem to think that because 'modernists' (whoever they are) are apparently obsessed with sex, that the 'ancients' saw the activity as rather dirty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Every believer is hallowed ground. Therefore none of us should ever have sex, because that would be a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore if Joseph had sex with his wife, he could not defile her, because sex (within marriage) does not defile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So I don't think you have made your case at all (in fact, quite the opposite!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If Joseph had sex with Mary, then he would have taken for his own what God had taken for Himself. It is not the sexual act itself that is the problem there, but rather what is done with the sexual act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If Joseph had sex with Mary, then he would have taken for his own what God had taken for Himself. It is not the sexual act itself that is the problem there, but rather what is done with the sexual act.

---

I thought Jesus had brothers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Matthew 1 v25 "(Joseph) knew her not until she bore a son..." - and by rather clear implication, did 'know her' afterwards....

---

I would take "I didn't do X until Y happened" to suggest that after Y occurred I did do X. On your interpretation wouldn't "I didn't have sex with my boy friend until we got married" mean, (by rather clear implication) that I never had sex with my boyfriend?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I thought Jesus had brothers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
In order to claim that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary, you would have to claim either that Joseph was not aware of her conceiving of the Holy Spirit, or that Joseph was impious and quite possibly an "atheist" of some description. On top of that, you would have to claim either the same about Mary, or that Joseph used his privileges as husband against her contrary to deep religious convictions in a manner that we would now consider as marital rape. If one considers ancient religious attitudes to the sacred and holds true what scripture writes about Joseph and Mary, then it is plain inconceivable that they had sexual relations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
So I would say that while I believe in Mary's continuing virginity as being very likely as a matter of history (for all the reasons you give), I wouldn't say that I believed it in the sense of believing in a religious dogma. Insisting on it as a matter of faith* is a stumbling block for me, even though accepting it as probably true is very easy indeed. (*which I mean in the general sense of teaching it as a religious belief - I don't know whether the RCC formally consider it a de fide doctrine. Is it?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If Joseph had sex with Mary, then he would have taken for his own what God had taken for Himself. It is not the sexual act itself that is the problem there, but rather what is done with the sexual act.

---

I thought Jesus had brothers?

---

Half brothers, from a previous marriage of Joseph. Joseph was quite a bit older than Mary. The Protoevangelium of James sheds much light on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The point is quite simply that what has been dedicated by man to God, and much more so what has been taken by God Himself for His purposes, must not be used by man for mundane purposes. And it matter not the teeniest bit what you think about that. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a pious Jew in 1stC Palestine would have affirmed that, indeed, quite likely would have put his very life on the line to defend sacred things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The reason why you think this is a stumbling block is because you are operating in a Protestant mode. You believe that behind every RC dogma there is a tick box which says "this dogma is perfectly and undoubtedly true, and I believe it with the utmost sincerity". And you believe that the way one becomes RC is by making one tick mark after the other in those boxes, until finally all are ticked and one can hand in the exam sheet and pass the test of RC membership.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If Joseph had sex with Mary, then he would have taken for his own what God had taken for Himself. It is not the sexual act itself that is the problem there, but rather what is done with the sexual act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
This position still requires one to believe:

[...]

- that sex with Mary would be a desecration and an insult to God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
This assumes that Joseph had full understanding of what was going on. In Matthew 1:20 he's told about it, but whether or not he fully understood it is not made clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
No it doesn't!

---

quote:

---

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a pious Jew in 1stC Palestine would have affirmed that, indeed, quite likely would have put his very life on the line to defend sacred things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB
Since moderns like you have lost all proper sense of the sacred, the sacrilege of such an action has to be mapped on something else that you (hopefully) still recognise as problematic - in this case then casual fucking around.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You seem to think that because 'modernists' (whoever they are) are apparently obsessed with sex, that the 'ancients' saw the activity as rather dirty.

---

This does not follow in the slightest from anything I have said, in fact I have explicitly denied that this is about sex being bad in the very post you are commenting on. It would be highly convenient for you if this was my line of argument, because then you could trash it by poetically praising sex. But it wasn't, and so all your counter-arguments reduce to empty rhetoric based on false attribution.

---

quote:

---

There is exactly one person in all of human history who has literally conceived by the Holy Spirit, grew in her womb a Divine child and gave birth to God. It isn't you, it isn't me, it isn't (somewhat less ridiculously) any other woman. The Incarnation is a singular event of human history, indeed it is the pivot point of human history compared to which all other historical events fade into nothingness. And the pivot was one specific woman, Mary. Now, you can go on comparing this to me and my wife having sex, but I just find that ridiculous. Not because I think sex is dirty, not because I think there is no Holy Spirit in us, not indeed because I think that sex cannot be an expression of our personal holiness. I'm all OK with sex as holy activity of a married couple. But because it is like holding up a candle to the Big Bang and saying "Look, they are just the same, both produce light."

---

quote:

---

The showbread is lawful to be eaten by priests, it is not dedicated to God as such, it is from the outset expected to be consumed by humans after its ceremonial use. What David did was precisely to violate a disciplinary religious rule, namely who gets to eat the showbread (just the priests), out of immediate human necessity.

---

quote:

---

..."on the third day the Lord will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. You shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, ‘Take heed to yourselves that you do not go up to the mountain or touch its base. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. Not a hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot with an arrow; whether man or beast, he shall not live.’"

---

quote:

---

If Joseph had sex with Mary, then he would have taken for his own what God had taken for Himself. It is not the sexual act itself that is the problem there, but rather what is done with the sexual act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
He understood enough to know that Mary had not been unfaithful and that the child was in some sense 'of God'. That's all we need.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
No it doesn't!

---

It certainly does, unless the definition of desecration has changed. It is: "the act of depriving something of its sacred character, or the disrespectful, contemptuous, or destructive treatment of that which is held to be sacred or holy by a group or individual"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
He understood enough to know that Mary had not been unfaithful and that the child was in some sense 'of God'. That's all we need.

---

Perhaps all **you** need, but don't speak for us all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
But is Mary blessed among women for her spiritual attributes, or her physical ones?

The womb of any fertile woman could have nurtured Jesus. Mary was chosen for two reasons:

1) her faithfulness to God
2) her betrothal to man in the line of David

The idea that her physical uterus was particularly special, so special that it must not have been used to nurture any subsequent children or to share in marital union with her husband, is a big step in the direction of idolatry in my opinion. She is blessed because she trusted and loved God, not because she had magical lady bits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As a provisional comment, if the intention was to say Joseph never 'knew' Mary - clearly extremely important if true - the phrasing is far from ideal. Why not say it clearly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, I would like to suggest that people who need to depend on smells and bells and fancy religious paraphernalia are the ones who have lost all sense of the sacred, because such physical accoutrements can function as a substitute for the Holy Spirit. I suppose they're OK as signposts, but a right relationship with God will not fall apart without them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, how filthy sex must be if it is supposed to defile the consecrated vessel called 'Mary'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What do you mean that God had taken Mary for Himself? Everything belongs to God. "All souls are mine" as the Scripture says, so God has taken everything and everyone for Himself. And especially He has taken all believers for Himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As a provisional comment, if the intention was to say Joseph never 'knew' Mary - clearly extremely important if true - the phrasing is far from ideal. Why not say it clearly?

---

I think in the Greek that *IS* clearly. Just as when Jesus is question about whether he is the messiah, and he says "you say that I am." In English that sounds like a dodge; in Greek, it is a direct affirmative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, I would like to suggest that people who need to depend on smells and bells and fancy religious paraphernalia are the ones who have lost all sense of the sacred, because such physical accoutrements can function as a substitute for the Holy Spirit. I suppose they're OK as signposts, but a right relationship with God will not fall apart without them.

---

An examle of the Protestant "what's the least we can get away with?" mindset.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
In fact, I would like to suggest that people who need to depend on smells and bells and fancy religious paraphernalia are the ones who have lost all sense of the sacred, because such physical accoutrements can function as a substitute for the Holy Spirit. I suppose they're OK as signposts, but a right relationship with God will not fall apart without them.

---

An examle of the Protestant "what's the least we can get away with?" mindset. Which has stripped most Protestant worship down to a shell of what Christian worship was for its first 1500 years, and still is for most Christians.

---

quote:

---

Again, a complete misunderstanding of holiness. The vessels in the Hebrew Temple were set apart for that special use. For the priest to take them home and use them to dig in the garden would be a misuse of them, because they were set apart for one use, and that's not it. Does that mean digging in the garden is filthy? Puh-leeze. Exactly the same principle applies here. Normal, ordinary sex between a husband and wife is not filthy. But it's not the purpose for which Mary's womb was consecrated when Christ became incarnate in her. So either this whole "filthiness" is just a canard, or you are saying that normal meals and gardening are filthy because the high priest was not allowed to use the utensils of the Temple to do them.

---

quote:

---

God is everywhere present and fills all things, and in him we live and move and have our being -- but he was in Christ in a way that he is not in you or me or any other person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I think mousethief's point is that the 'until' in 'he didn't have sexual relations with her until...' has a clear meaning in Greek that does not imply "...but he did afterwards."

I don't think he's saying that the bible is clear on perpetual virginity per se, but that the text providing what looks like an obvious knock-down counter-argument in the English translation doesn't reflect any similar implication in the Greek, and that the there's no scholarly dispute about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief
1. It was an analogy. Obviously analogies cannot be pressed too far. If you think God doesn't use people to bring about his desired ends on earth, then you clearly don't believe the Bible.

---

quote:

---

2. So, not having sex is being deprived? This is more of the 21st-century sex-soaked modernism that IngoB was decrying. "Oh my God, she didn't have sex, she wasn't fully human!" It's rather sick.

---

quote:

---

3. What you personally can or cannot assume to be the case really isn't relevant to the question of the right teaching of the historic Church.

---

quote:

---

4. You are right that God wasn't in Mary the way He was in Christ. I would never have denied that. This is a really stupid point. But he was also in Mary the way he was in no other person. No other person carried God in her womb. Ever. Before or since. He was in Mary in a unique way in all of creation. It's not like "oh, well, she happened to have a womb she wasn't using."

---

quote:

---

I note you pass over my analogy on mothers, wombs, and playmats. Care to give that a mangle?

---

Care to direct me to that comment? I can't seem to find it, for some reason.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Do we have the faintest idea what a couple of non-Roman Catholic, non-Orthodox, non-Christian, ordinary Jews from two millennia ago thought, apart from the certainty that they thought none of these things?

Just as we wouldn't if we were them. Just do the thought experiment.

Nothing in their culture - that's NOTHING, not some post-hoc, interpolation of I Samuel 2:22 - that would lend itself to such alien beliefs and behaviour with most in common with contemporary rural south Asia.

Mary and Joseph were chosen for their normality, their ordinariness, their humanity. How would a poor, rural Hindu or Muslim couple feel, think, behave today?

There's nothing modern about sex. The excruciating confliction about it in post-Jewish Christianity is relatively recent in evolution. It won't last. It isn't lasting.

[ 04. June 2014, 20:39: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
I never thought I'd say this, Biohazard, but you may have possibly written something I just about agree with.

Or maybe I've misread it. Dunno.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Uh OH!

Amanda B. Reckondwythe said it before me.

These ordinary people hadn't the faintest idea of what was going on.

Just as we don't.

So we tell stories and feed them back ignoring the cognitive dissonance they create. With every iteration.

As long as they don't stop us being kind, just, generous, tolerant, inclusive. Directly or in reaction to those of us who have to tell them.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'll tread carefully here, but whatever our views are on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - and as I've said, some Protestants including Luther, Calvin and Wesley were entirely comfortable with the idea - I'm not convinced that it HAS to lead inevitably to some kind of warped view of sexuality.

The RCC is often accused of that - and yes, one can understand why given its poor track record over the years on issues of that kind. However, by the same token, we could argue that those Protestants who blithely accept abortion as a regular means of contraception are showing singular indifference to the sanctity of life and so on ...

I've no dog in this fight, but it seems to me that the Orthodox somehow manage to combine a strong emphasis on virginity and chastity in the right context with a fairly healthy attitude towards sex. They don't seem fixated with it either in the modern kind of way nor rather ashamed or embarrassed about it as was certainly the case with the RCC - and yes, indeed some Protestant churches too - until more recent times.

It does seem odd to me, though, hearing EE castigating the RCs for an apparently low view of the Incarnation and both the RCs and the Orthodox for a rather 'mechanical' view of human nature and human response to the divine when both those Churches - when they were One Single Undivided Church - were the very bodies which passed on the scriptures and the accounts of God's dealings with human kind to the rest of us.

That doesn't mean that RC or Orthodox interpretations of the scriptures shouldn't be questioned or challenged - we should have robust debate as we are here.

But I certainly don't see any evidence to suggest that either the RC or the Orthodox Churches diminish or objectify our humanity when it comes to their understanding of the interaction between the human and the divine. If anything, one might accuse the more Reformed among us of such a thing as they effectively over-ride the synergistic aspects ... but that's another debate.

My own 'take' on these things is that the RCs and the Orthodox are no more simplistic or 'easily led' than anyone else. Heck, the sparks can fly when they get into debate among themselves ...

They do, however, handle scripture rather differently than most Protestants and its that which is causing some of the friction here on this board.

If we understand scripture from an RC or Orthodox perspective then both systems make complete sense. If we don't - and look at scripture in a Protestant way or what we take to be a Sola Scriptura way - then of course we are going to be at variance.

It all comes back to tradition and context. And we all interpret scripture through the lens of our own particular tradition and context. All of us.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
God does not 'use' people in the theologically fascistic way some churches seem to think He does. That's why God's ways are so complex, because we are not just pieces on a gigantic chessboard.

---

quote:

---

If you actually bothered to read my posts, instead of seeing what you want to see, you will have noticed that I affirmed that Mary may have given up her sexual life willingly.

---

quote:

---

Therefore I was affirming that positive celibacy has a place. But it doesn't follow from this, that Mary had to be celibate.

---

quote:

---

Actually, I am not the one who is obsessed with sex. I couldn't actually care less whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. It makes not one jot of difference to my life.

---

quote:

---

Likewise what you personally can or cannot assume to be the case is not relevant to what is actually true.

---

quote:

---

See I can write a snarky non-comment as well!p

---

quote:

---

Yeah, I agree. God was in many different saints in a way that He wasn't in everyone else. It doesn't mean that because of that, He told them that they were henceforth utterly forbidden to have sex.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I note you pass over my analogy on mothers, wombs, and playmats. Care to give that a mangle?

---

Care to direct me to that comment? I can't seem to find it, for some reason.

---

quote:

---

Being the place of gestation of the Incarnate Son for 9 months is a difference in kind to being a fork Jesus used at dinner. What mother would say that the mat her baby plays on has the same relationship to the baby that she did when she carried it inside her? That relationship is holy even with a normal mother and a normal child. With the incarnate Son and his mother, it's holy plus. No other womb ever did that (as IngoB either said or implied).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
You could persuade me (as a modern) that sex between them might not in fact have been displeasing to God - it would be very hard to persuade me (as someone with a modicum of historical empathy) that St Joseph would have thought that that was an obvious conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB
I don't think that I really need to argue this, AFAIK it is simply scholarly consensus that the Greek word does not give a clear indication of state change in what it references. You are trying to get around the counter-examples by pointing out that something has changed, but that's pointless. Of course something is happening, that's the usual point of using "until" or "till" to mark a specific time. The question is rather whether what has changed is just the thing referred to previously (as typically in English), or if it can be something else (as readily in Greek).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me from what's been said - and thanks to all those who've tried hard to explain why they believe as they do - that this idea of consecration of things is a pre-Christian element of Catholic (and Orthodox) culture, and is one of the elements of that culture that many Protestants reject in the light of the Christian message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

Our cultures are all hurtling beyond the postmodern where increasingly alien narrative traditions have no place except as an opportunity for inclusion of the other. And aye, if you want depth and breadth our ancestor churches have enough for forever still.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot:
I cannot quite see what all the hubbub is about.

While the doctrine of Mary's virginity prior to Jesus' birth is certainly important, I fail to see the theological import of her perpetual virginity. Rather, it appears to be one of those subjects where reasonable people can disagree on the correct interpretation, such as the meaning of Christ's words of institution.

Is all this commotion really called for?

---

I do remember getting quite heavily drawn into this debate a few years ago on the Ship and shortly afterwards our second child was born - I'm not sure what that proves but it must prove something...

Anyway, I did get rather heated debating against the perpetual virginity of Mary, but now... I think I'd take that line. It strikes me that the evidence in Scripture is inconclusive one way or the other, because that's not an important issue for the writers of the stories of the birth of Jesus*. So if Scripture doesn't give us "the answer" then I guess it depends on where else we go and then it probably all gets much more subjective.

But I'd agree (now) with GCabot: it's not an issue of first importance and perhaps not worth getting so worked up about?

* I'd argue that passage with the "until" in it that's been debated hotly above is more about making sure it was clear Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus, ie that Jesus was God's son, not Joseph's - it says nothing one way or the other about what happened afterwards.
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Yes, the "until" is only neant to show that St. Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father. As I understand it, it's a Hebraism translated into Greek. Blessed Jerome, for instance, provides other examples of this use of "until" from the scriptures in his tract against Helvidius.
 

---

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
But I'd agree (now) with GCabot: it's not an issue of first importance and perhaps not worth getting so worked up about?

---

quote:

---

See the world from my eyes. My Church was there at the start, and I have to live in a Protestant country in which most people blithely reject the faith and teachings of Jesus, and His apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, and the Pope. Dismissing the whole deposit of faith, dismissing the authority of the Church, dismissing Christian moral precepts which have held until modern times, arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GCabot
I cannot quite see what all the hubbub is about.

While the doctrine of Mary's virginity prior to Jesus' birth is certainly important, I fail to see the theological import of her perpetual virginity. Rather, it appears to be one of those subjects where reasonable people can disagree on the correct interpretation, such as the meaning of Christ's words of institution.

Is all this commotion really called for?

---

quote:

---

There is not and there will never be, either in God's creation or in his mind, a creature in whom he is so honoured as in the most Blessed Virgin Mary, not excepting even the saints, the cherubim or the highest seraphim in heaven. Mary is God's garden of Paradise, his own unspeakable world, into which his Son entered to do wonderful things, to tend it and to take his delight in it. He created a world for the wayfarer, that is, the one we are living in. He created a second world - Paradise - for the Blessed. He created a third for himself, which he named Mary. She is a world unknown to most mortals here on earth. Even the angels and saints in heaven find her incomprehensible, and are lost in admiration of a God who is so exalted and so far above them, so distant from them, and so enclosed in Mary, his chosen world, that they exclaim: "Holy, holy, holy" unceasingly.

---

quote:

---

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning (he) made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the use of 'until' (heos), I have presented my argument in detail, and no one has made any attempt to refute my analysis of the use of this word.

---

I realise that this is more tragic than comic, but still: ROTFL.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
I think that's called capitulation.

Well done!

Oh, by the way... those who think that Matthew 1:25 simply refers to the fact that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, really need a lesson in the birds and the bees. It's pretty embarrassing actually (not to mention comedic) when you think that such people obviously assume that a man has to continue penetrating a woman throughout the entire period of gestation "just to make sure" (presumably!). After all, the word 'until' is positioned at the point when Mary brings forth Jesus, not merely conceives Him!

To which I say:



[ 05. June 2014, 10:43: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the use of 'until' (heos), I have presented my argument in detail, and no one has made any attempt to refute my analysis of the use of this word.

---

I realise that this is more tragic than comic, but still: ROTFL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:


Oh, by the way... those who think that Matthew 1:25 simply refers to the fact that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, really need a lesson in the birds and the bees. It's pretty embarrassing actually (not to mention comedic) when you think that such people obviously assume that a man has to continue penetrating a woman throughout the entire period of gestation "just to make sure" (presumably!). After all, the word 'until' is positioned at the point when Mary brings forth Jesus, not merely conceives Him!

To which I say:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh, by the way... those who think that Matthew 1:25 simply refers to the fact that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, really need a lesson in the birds and the bees. It's pretty embarrassing actually (not to mention comedic) when you think that such people obviously assume that a man has to continue penetrating a woman throughout the entire period of gestation "just to make sure" (presumably!). After all, the word 'until' is positioned at the point when Mary brings forth Jesus, not merely conceives Him!

---

OK, I've read this several times and I'm still not sure what you're trying to say...

---

quote:

---

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

---

quote:

---

The whole emphasis of the Gospel assertion that Joseph did not have sexual relations with the BVM up to the point of her being delivered is directed to the period before the birth of Christ for a very good reason. The "until" is there to indicate that His birth had nothing to do with Joseph - and that is its whole point.

---

quote:

---

Yes, the "until" is only neant to show that St. Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I can't speak for EE, but I think that my Protestant mind-set is more "What's the least that I need to insist on?" than "What's the least that I can get away with?".

Originally posted by GCabot:
I cannot quite see what all the hubbub is about. While the doctrine of Mary's virginity prior to Jesus' birth is certainly important, I fail to see the theological import of her perpetual virginity. Rather, it appears to be one of those subjects where reasonable people can disagree on the correct interpretation, such as the meaning of Christ's words of institution. Is all this commotion really called for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Concerning dogma: as far as I know the perpetual virginity of Mary is not a dogma required to be believed for salvation in the Orthodox Church. It is nevertheless a universal teaching of the church and one who denies it does not have the mind of the church (to use the phrase we use).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Help me out, IngoB. What do you think is so laughable about EE's argument that means it clearly doesn't need any rebuttal beyond 'ROTFL'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Christian teaching is not simply a heap of disconnected propositions, to be accepted one by one individually (or not). Rather it all hangs together, like a network. Pull or push at one point, and the whole network is being affected, it all starts to distort and deform.

---

quote:

---

But those who seem not to be able to handle the idea that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage after the birth of Jesus, tell us that Matthew 1:25 indicates nothing more than that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the use of 'until' (heos), I have presented my argument in detail, and no one has made any attempt to refute my analysis of the use of this word. Making bald assertions (as Ad Orientem tends to do) does not count as a refutation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
But I'd agree (now) with GCabot: it's not an issue of first importance and perhaps not worth getting so worked up about?

---

It's a big deal in the context of this conversation, in which Roman Catholics have insisted that the only barrier to church unity is that we pesky Protestants won't just accept these binding doctrines that seem to us peripheral to the main issues of Christian faith.

I'll repost the comment by Invictus_88 that started the more contentious tone being taken in this thread:

quote:

---

See the world from my eyes. My Church was there at the start, and I have to live in a Protestant country in which most people blithely reject the faith and teachings of Jesus, and His apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, and the Pope. Dismissing the whole deposit of faith, dismissing the authority of the Church, dismissing Christian moral precepts which have held until modern times, arrogantly putting in their place errors from the 1500s, from the 1800s, from their own reading of the Bible, from their pastor who has never tried to root himself (or herself) in the soil of Catholicism.

---

---

Thanks, seekingsister, and yes I see that. I think (like you?) I can't get my head around why this is such a big deal for either side of the argument when it does appear to, as you say, a peripheral issue.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Chesterbelloc - agreed. Fine in theory.

And you are on the way to being truly apologetic in your apologetic.

But not quite

But very close: you're not being defensive, projecting, aggressive: blaming me for some moral failure or even suggesting I have some feckless incapability.

This is an open question, truly: what am I being? Where am I failing?

Not in not being born Roman Catholic or Orthodox, but in the meta-dialogue? Because I don't feel right.

Know what I mean?
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Mary was an ordinary young Jewish girl asked to do an extraordinary thing. I believe she went on to have an normal marriage with Joseph and gave birth to brothers/sisters of Jesus.

That's my belief, but that's all it is. I can't know for sure. Nothing in the Bible is certain about it. But that's true for those who believe that Joseph and Mary were celibate after marriage too.

It's a matter of belief - not fact.

If your whole edifice depends on Mary's 'purity' after marriage then maybe your edifice needs scrutiny?

[ 05. June 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
At most, it’s evidence that the gospel writer either didn’t know, or didn’t care to tell us, what level of intimacy applied afterwards. I don’t think that gets us very far, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
At most, it’s evidence that the gospel writer either didn’t know, or didn’t care to tell us, what level of intimacy applied afterwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab
Consider these three sentences:

A: “I was feeling hungry that evening, so I didn’t have sex with my wife until after dinner”.

B: “I got a divorce. My ex-wife wouldn’t have sex with me from 2005 until I left her in 2012”.

C: “I knew she’d had an affair when I found out she was pregnant in November – we hadn’t had sex from January until then”.

A and B are covered by your categories. In A, the strong implication is that the speaker did go on to have sex after his first priority of dinner had been addressed. In B, the implication is that no sex occurred after 2012, the opportunity for such having then come to an end. C, though, doesn’t imply either. The period defined by “until” marks the broad outlines of the times where it is important, for the conclusion of adultery to be valid, that the parties had not had sex. It tells us nothing about whether they subsequently parted never to speak again, or reconciled and went on to have a joyously fulfilling sexual relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
At most, it’s evidence that the gospel writer either didn’t know, or didn’t care to tell us, what level of intimacy applied afterwards. I don’t think that gets us very far, though.

---

That certainly would be relevant though. If true, that would imply it wasn't a super-important fact to him.

---