If you ever wondered what Martin Luther meant when he said, 'Every man hath a Pope in his belly,' go and see the discussions from these Protestant ministers mentioned below. They are having a debate on whether or not Mary had sexual relations with Joseph. There are a couple of writers, particularly in their comments, that may test your sanctification; but remember that it is Advent and pray! :-) On a more serious note, the hermeneutical and authority issues touching on our use of scripture and tradition come to a head in discussions like these. I must say that Bryan Cross and Taylor Marshall (US based) are giving it a go but I simply will not enter into their proof-texting schema of those prots. Well done to Bryan and Taylor for hanging in there!Funny thing is if one reads some of their writings on typology, which I have immensely valued from (10 years ago) in my past life on my own spiritual journey, one can see the complete cafeteria approach to how typology and theology governs their hermeneutic. BEWARE fellow Catholics as some of their language on our Blessed Mother is offensive and offending. Feel free to comment here on it if you wish. What is most interesting to me is what seems to be their present obsession with all things Catholic. I guess it gives them a platform from which to prove themselves 'not guilty' from their own present troubles and accusations of having papal leanings. Now, they go overboard in order to show their 'enemies' that they are not Catholic in the 'Roman' sense but are convinced that they are the 'true' Catholic Church. Here are a few titles of their most recent attacking posts:
Mary's Unbelief
The Impending Distress
Concerning BMEV
Protestants and BMEV
More Thoughts on the BMEV
Rome, Why Bother
Have fun!!!!!!
10 comments:
I consider these people ignorant. Perhaps it is the calling of some to try to reason with them.
I think most of us can spare ourselves. We know what the Church teaches and that it is the Church. We can rest in that.
It shows what happens when one is cut off from the vine. At first Luther and Calvin still lived to some extent in tradition, but their followers are completely divorced from it.
I would also comment that these folks have a too optimistic and not at all patristic understanding of sexuality. Considering that these are the folks who believe that our human nature is so radically deformed that we can do nothing really good, (even with God's grace, not good enough to be meritorious) it is rather ironic that they make this one exception, for sex in marriage! The taint of lust and use still threatens the purity of marital sex, and frequently does more than threaten it. Remember that the Pope (Was it JPII?) got in trouble with the media when he said that a man could sin by lusting after his wife? He meant, of course, that he could sin by making her an object of use. Who can really say that his (or her) sexual relations are entirely free from lust and use? If they were thus free, there would be no trouble in using natural family planning, and no temptation to contracept, for instance.
I read a bit where someone was trying to insert language into Paul, interpreting every statement giving positive value to virginity as only for those specific times when a great disturbance was thought to be soon to follow. But we are still in those times. We are in an in between time, between the ascension and the second coming, a time when we have the Kingdom in promise but not in fulfillment. Paul's statements apply to that time, which includes the present day.
I couldn't read more. Some remarks were indeed, "offensive to pious ears."
Susan Peterson
I guess I'll start by saying that neither interpretation is forbidden by reading Scripture. The problem with that is that pretty much any contradicting beliefs can be substantiated from Scripture. Granted that some are easier to defend than others. So the real question is what gives any individual the right to say that they are being carried by the Spirit to interpret these ideas correctly? Only one, the words and promises of Christ, namely to the Church built on Peter, which is a visible pillar of truth (1 Tim 3:15), a light on a hill that will not be overtaken by Hell. That Church is today called the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church endowed with the gift of total protection from error in truth. Therefore, what they say I believe. The teachings on the Blessed Mother do not contradict Scripture, and since it is the only Church I can trust, I place my faith in their teachings because I believe that Jesus did not lie to Peter.
Let 'em burn, I say. No, no, I know that mustn't be the Christians prayer,but it is the first 'feeling' that springs to my mind. If someone insulted my mother on earth, I would go for them, I just would. So when I hear Our Lady, who is partly responsible for their Saviour even entering the world, being talked about using their crude disgusting language, I wonder how Our Father in Heaven would react, if they tried to put Him on the spot and question His Authority.
If these jokers were aware of being in the Lord's presence (which we always are, seeings as in Him, we live, move and have our being) would they seriously talk in such a way? God would not allow it, surely? I won't read anything rotten about Mary. I'm getting too old to walk through mud by choice, not to say my own rags aren't filthy, but if I can exercise my will, I try to.
This is weird and off topic but I keep getting the urge to address you as Father. How very odd, or not, as the case may turn out to be. I better start praying the Rosary for you too!
The real questions is: why are you still reading these blogs from friends you left behind?
They were sent to me to comment on.
Joel said
The real question is: why are you still reading these blogs from friends you left behind?
No Joel, that's 'A' question. You don't get to have the definitive say on what is and isn't a real question.
By the way, I like your website Joel, some interesting posts. I've subbed. Do you pray the Rosary, by the way?
Jeffrey,
I think you are spot-on as to why there seems to be such anti-Catholicism on the site all of a sudden: to disassociate themselves from the charge that they are closet Romanists or that their thinking leads to Rome.
More honourable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim. Without loss of your virginity you bore God the Word. You, who are truly Theotokos do we magnify.
Amen.
Susan,
You talk of a "patristic" view of sex, but many of the fathers' views do not conform to church teaching.
St Thomas Aquinas' viewpoint, however, does.
I get a feeling from your post, with your question implying that everyone's even legitimate sexual relations are tainted with lust and are therefore sinful, that you suffer a tad from Jansenism...
+ Albrecht von Brandenburg
I wish for less needling (from both sides) about those considered 'hermeneutically challenged', and more compassionate action. See the 'Angel of Queens' - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-angel-of-queens-1847233.html. That's all.
Post a Comment