Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM ^ | Dave Armstrong compiles quotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al.,

Posted on 06/24/2003 3:49:56 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301 next last
To: Patrick Madrid
I am a traditional Catholic and I highly honor Mary, but I believe that trying to convince Protestants of her holiness and virginity is like trying to teach Advanced Calculus before subtraction. In my experience, Protestants who convert to Catholicism (including two close family members) generally accept the Marian doctrine last and they have the most trouble with it.

After generations of prejudice against Catholic thought and Mary, they just can’t accept it until after they begin to realize that the Catholic Church holds the truth. They have a knee-jerk reaction against Mary. I think you’d have to start with arguing against sola scriptura or something.
101 posted on 06/26/2003 6:54:25 AM PDT by ChicagoGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; OrthodoxPresbyterian; RobbyS; RnMomof7; drstevej; Corin Stormhands; Wrigley; ...
911 and a few others who keep beating their heads against the wall in a futile attempt to *prove* that Mary had other children besides Christ), they do two things. 1) Start the name calling (which is the fallacy of ad hominem) and 2) attempt to change the subject to something else they think they can do better on.

I have to admit - this one has me scratching my head in befuddlement......please illustrate for all (with links) where I laced the dialogue with ad homs and name calling. I made no mention of Mary's veneration or the plausability of the co-redemptrix notion, nor did I address the papacy.

Your assertion is baseless - teetering closely to a lie

Perhaps you are confusing me with RobbyS, who had a post deleted for same.

____________________

Posted by RobbyS to Revelation 911

On Religion 06/25/2003 9:50 PM EDT #89 of 101

Catholics are the only true Christians. All others who claim to be Christian are schismatics and heretics :-).

_______________

........Charming

Psalm 12:

3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips and every boastful tongue

Now, while Im responding to you for the last time, please note it is impolite to speak of another freeper with whom you agree or otherwise without including the freeper in the post mentioning him, her.

enjoy your day Pat

102 posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:01 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Moravians too ? - you may want to qualify that comment

Oh, I just looked them up. One of their websites states that they were formed in 1457. That's a pretty long time after Christ.

103 posted on 06/26/2003 7:25:50 AM PDT by ChicagoGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGirl
God would have blessed them with more numbers.

so numbers denote success?

Catholics - ....meet the LDS Mormons

104 posted on 06/26/2003 7:31:41 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGirl
One of their websites states that they were formed in 1457. That's a pretty long time after Christ.

....and solidifying doctrine in 1854 regarding Marys perpetual virginity isn't?

By that token - anyone who held that position beforhand was a heretic

So - taking it to another extension - Calvin - Wesley and Luther were "heretics" then for affirming Marys perpetual virginity and "ok" now, as it suits the argument and Pope Pius IX says its "kosher" (he he)

(quotation marks used figuratively)

....can you honestly grasp how nonsensical it looks from the outside

105 posted on 06/26/2003 7:39:38 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGirl
FYI - I was Catholic until my 35th
106 posted on 06/26/2003 7:41:34 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
....can you honestly grasp how nonsensical it looks from the outside

Yes, everything looks different from the outside. Can you imagine how Christianity looks to an outsider? To understand, you must shed your prejudice and be as a child: trust completely, be curious and have faith. Come inside, again, it can be done. That’s what happened to me.

107 posted on 06/26/2003 8:15:22 AM PDT by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Irony is obviously lost on some people. Guess my smiley face was not clear enough.
108 posted on 06/26/2003 8:20:50 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Too young to remember the case of Father Feeney?
109 posted on 06/26/2003 8:22:00 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
A decline in numbers, either from a failure to recruit or from a lowering birth rate, is surely a troubling sign. Witness what has happened to the Anglican Church.
110 posted on 06/26/2003 8:24:55 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Too young to remember the case of Father Feeney?

no salvation outside the church? - specifically what case?

111 posted on 06/26/2003 8:30:55 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Don't get your dander up.We are close to agreement. Obviously Christians will interpret the Scriptures in the light of faith in Jesus, just as others will interpret them in the absence of faith in him. Catholics read the New Testament in the light of faith in the Church and NCs in the absence of such faith. Total unbelievers, of course, will look at everything in the light of their total rejection of the supernatural and call them fantasy. There is no "objective" point of view.
112 posted on 06/26/2003 8:36:13 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
He was declared a heretic.
113 posted on 06/26/2003 8:37:43 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
A faithful Catholic can believe in a heresy. St. Thomas did not believe in the Immaculation Conception. Some Catholics are so poorly catechized that if they and a Methodist are each asked if they agree with a list of Catholic doctrines, the Methodist may score higher than the Catholic. The real test is, however, which part is more willing to yield his opinion in favor of the Church.
114 posted on 06/26/2003 8:51:43 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The real test is, however, which part is more willing to yield his opinion in favor of the Church.

My opinion is the Bible will never steer me wrong -

115 posted on 06/26/2003 9:46:59 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The real test is, however, which part is more willing to yield his opinion in favor of the Church.

spend a minute and look at what your saying - youve totally excluded Christ and faith

116 posted on 06/26/2003 9:48:20 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
-God would have blessed them with more numbers. -so numbers denote success?

No, but they say something about a church, "which the gates of hell will not prevail against."

117 posted on 06/26/2003 10:30:49 AM PDT by ChicagoGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
By that token - anyone who held that position beforhand was a heretic

I don't know where you get this idea. The church always believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and restated it in 1854, because heretics were refuting it. Not because it wasn't true before.

...can you honestly grasp how nonsensical it looks from the outside

To be honest, I think your bias against the Church has blinded you from the truth. Your argument is nonsensical. The Church has remained constant in its belief about Mary for more than 2000 years, and if you can't see that as proof of the truth, then I can't help you. God chose a human woman to bear His son and carry Him in her womb and give birth to Him and raise Him. The bible, 2000 years of faithful Christians and common sense all hold that Mary remained a virgin for life.

I believe that God wants us to honor and respect His Holy Mother.

118 posted on 06/26/2003 10:42:15 AM PDT by ChicagoGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
It's too bad that you had a bad experience with the truth. I will pray for you to come back home.
119 posted on 06/26/2003 10:44:17 AM PDT by ChicagoGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
And you have forgotten that the Church is defined as the body of Christ. He is the head, we are the members. And so we get to the meaning of that parable in which the Lord tells to cut off an infected member.
120 posted on 06/26/2003 10:55:31 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGirl
No, but they say something about a church

I disagree - they say nothing more than theres a lot of people attending. It speaks nothing to thier spiritual condition, thier faith or thier assurance of salvation.

Like I said - by that measure - Mormons are doing something right, when you and I know that not to be the case

Matthew 18:20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

silly me relying solely on Scripture again

121 posted on 06/26/2003 10:56:16 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGirl
It's too bad that you had a bad experience with the truth. I will pray for you to come back home.

I did ..... and I appreciate those prayers - I'd also appreciate them for my Catholic lesbian sister, my now dead Uncle who was excommunicated for marrying a Presbyterian (he was incidentally the finest Christian I have ever met) and my now deceased Grandparents who left the faith in the 40's after a priest made a pass at my Grandmother (They found a home in the Pentecostal movement).

Likewise, I will pray for you

122 posted on 06/26/2003 11:00:35 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
My opinion is the Bible will never steer me wrong - But has steered wrong everyone who differs with you?
123 posted on 06/26/2003 11:01:00 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
You didn't have very good examples, did you?
124 posted on 06/26/2003 11:03:19 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGirl
I believe that God wants us to honor and respect His Holy Mother.

No argument there - I think the fly in the ointment is the extreme to which it is carried in Catholicism (excepting of course the subject of our present chat)

125 posted on 06/26/2003 11:03:45 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
You didn't have very good examples, did you?

For preists, no - for devoutly faithful family - yes

126 posted on 06/26/2003 11:06:11 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
But has steered wrong everyone who differs with you?

just how many aspects of romanism are extrabiblical in origin -

man will steer you wrong

- Gods Word is the truth

I'll stick with truth

127 posted on 06/26/2003 11:08:06 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
What about a Catholic doctrine that is based on Scripture, the doctrine of the Eucharist? What about the verses in Matthew that related to papal claims?
128 posted on 06/26/2003 11:15:14 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Of course, I will pray for all. (Why was your uncle excommunicated for marrying a protestant?) I agree that the numbers argument is not convincing, I had just never heard of Moravians, is that your religion?

I agree that there are flawed people inside the Church, but the institution of the Church is not. Jesus founded the Church and I believe that it has been passed down to the present Catholic Church.
129 posted on 06/26/2003 12:10:08 PM PDT by ChicagoGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
There are a zillion different interpretations by Protestants, and you've already granted that every believer may simply look at the Bible and come away from it with whatever he will.

Almost all of those "protestant" interpretations are also held within the RCC. Is a charismatic Catholic acceptable, but a Catholoic traditionalist not? Is a liberation theologian acceptable as long as he's under Rome? We can draw Venn diagrams to show how different teachings have crossed the Romanist-protestant boundaries -- which is why I think you're comparing apples, oranges, bananas, kiwi, berries, and grapes in trying to contrast Rome from any other church.

Where is the Holy Ghost confirming the Church in all truth (John 14) in this scheme you propose?

With so much diversity and so many conflicting teachings within Roman Catholicism, I know He's not limited to serving in the Vatican.

130 posted on 06/26/2003 2:18:22 PM PDT by the infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
If I may request prayers from my non-Catholic and Catholic friends here, I'm headed to Dallas for the "Fullness of Truth" Catholic apologetics and evangelization conference at which I'll be giving four presentations. Please pray for my safe travel, to and fro. God willing, I'll be able to start reading/posting here early next week.

Also, if any of you will be in the DFW area this weekend, please feel free to attend the conference (bring your Bible!) and come say hello. I'd love to meet you Freepers in person! (The conference info is available at http://www.fullnessoftruth.org). Many thanks!
131 posted on 06/26/2003 3:21:34 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
Doesn't link. Can you give a time and address and/or phone no.?
132 posted on 06/26/2003 4:34:55 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Type in the link without the ")." at the end and it works fine. Or use this...

http://www.fullnessoftruth.org
133 posted on 06/26/2003 4:37:35 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Sorry. It should read:

http://www.fullnessoftruth.org
134 posted on 06/26/2003 5:01:01 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: the infidel
With so much diversity and so many conflicting teachings within Roman Catholicism, I know He's not limited to serving in the Vatican.

There is not a great diversity of beliefs among the hierarchy, and it is their beliefs that count for defining the Church. A Catholic who does not share the faith of His Bishop and the Pope is not really formally a Catholic, although materially he may remain within the Church.

Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic Faith is not subjectively defined by individual believers, but objectively defined by the Pope and Episcopal heirarchies Magisterium. The conformance of believers to these teachings shows their conformance to the Church.

135 posted on 06/26/2003 7:16:09 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic Faith is not subjectively defined by individual believers...

Are you lumping confessional Protestant churches in with ad hoc American neo-evangelicalism? I object to someone calling my faith "subjective" since my faith is hardly a relative matter. It's based on the same historical creeds yours is.

Please tell me how my church's confessions are "subjective"? Even Eck and other papal envoys didn't use that particular word.

You also didn't explain how you account for charismania/renewal within the Roman See. Is it any different than that which is present in certain American neo-evangelical sects?

136 posted on 06/27/2003 5:17:25 AM PDT by the infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: the infidel
My view - What authority does your Church have? What is its divine constitution, and how can you point to Christ's founding of it?

The Catholic Church alone was founded by Christ. You cannot with the Catholic Church point to a date and say, as with the Lutheran Church, for example, ahh 1517 - Luther nailed the theses up at Wittenberg - that's the start of the Lutheran Church. There was no Lutheran Church or Faith for the 1500 years prior!

Since your Church was admittedly founded by a fallible man, even an objective confession is really simply their subjective reading of that part of divine revelation that they accept.

Yes, you can accept the authority of creeds produced at early Church Councils. But will you also accept the Canons of those same Councils that support numerous Catholic doctrines? Will you accept their endorsements of the work of local plenary councils that laid down rules on celibacy, appeals to Rome, the canon of the Bible (including the Deuterocanon or Apocrypha), the perpetual virginity of Mary, relics and the veneration of saints and icons, etc., etc.? I doubt it! You'd have to become Catholic to do so. Your Church's objective confession is a subjective selection of historic teachings, just as the Protestant Bible is a subjective selection of the Old Testament that excises the Deuterocanon contained in the Septuagint that the whole early Church used (you know, Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, etc.).

I await your reply to my view of things.

137 posted on 06/27/2003 7:30:04 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; Patrick Madrid; RobbyS
Slow down guys, you're driving too fast. :-)
138 posted on 06/27/2003 7:48:25 AM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
I await your reply to my view of things.

I started to respond point-by-point, but I'm going to let it rest. I'll only say that Luther did not found any church, Christ did and that church is one. The church is not based upon succession alone, but on certain teachings -- teachings which, with Luther, I agree Rome departed. On matters where your denomination is still correct, I fight vehemently against those who'd throw the baby out with the bath water. It's too bad you cannot rise above your spite and do the same in return. After all, various Catholic scholars over the years have pointed out that Luther's confession at Augsburg was well within Catholic tradition.

Take it easy, separated brother.

139 posted on 06/27/2003 9:45:19 AM PDT by the infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: the infidel
I disagree with only two things you write - the idea that Rome departed from the Faith, and that the Faith upon which it is based is not handed on by Apostolic Succession in the Episcopate.

Of course much of what Luther wrote was Catholic. He certainly had a devout belief in the Real Presence and the privileges of Mary, for example.

The premise of all non-Catholic Christian denominations ultimately has to be that there is no authority in the Church heirarchy. For if you admit that there is an authority which must be heeded, then you immediately call into question the founding of that denomination against the authority that then existed. I can't see it another way.

The only possible escape is claiming there is authority, but that it is not without error. But an authority in matters of belief that can err is no authority at all, but simply an opinion with power behind it. I suppose what I would view as a cynical view of the Church could maintain this, and thus claim a continuity from the Apostles to Luther. But I have a difficult time squaring this idea with Christ's promise to be with us always, and to send the Holy Spirit to guide us in all truth.

Yes, Luther preached a doctrine from the Church Councils. But it is different from the Catholic Faith. Either he's right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and he's wrong, or we are both wrong. We can't be both right. Regardless of what you want to select, there is a need to seek out the truth in prayer, since where discord of belief exists, it cannot be the will of Christ.

140 posted on 06/27/2003 10:02:15 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
I disagree with only two things you write - the idea that Rome departed from the Faith...

Please don't misrepresent me like that. I said Rome departed from certain teachings. Specifically and most importantly, that would include the efficacy of Christ's suffering and death.

...and that the Faith upon which it is based is not handed on by Apostolic Succession in the Episcopate.

I'm saved by Christ alone, not saved by apostolic succession. Episcopacy is addressed adequately in our confessions.

Of course much of what Luther wrote was Catholic. He certainly had a devout belief in the Real Presence and the privileges of Mary, for example.

Nice of you to remind me. Luther got in as much trouble for his views on real presence as he did for his views on faith alone (didn't you know that?).

The premise of all non-Catholic Christian denominations ultimately has to be that there is no authority in the Church heirarchy. For if you admit that there is an authority which must be heeded, then you immediately call into question the founding of that denomination against the authority that then existed. I can't see it another way.

I won't correct you since the use of a strawman helps you justify your beliefs (per 1 Cor 8:13).

Yes, Luther preached a doctrine from the Church Councils. But it is different from the Catholic Faith.

How is it different? What you've ignored in your sophistry is that no early church council would have issued anathema against anyone who preached Faith Alone -- particularly since that's precisely what they believed, taught, and confessed.

Luther's teachings were very much catholic (small c), yet Leo X issued a bull (including a death warrant -- where is that acceptable in Scripture or tradition?) on Luther. Leo's teachings, and those of his envoys, weren't catholic (small c) despite their positions in the church. Go figure.

We are saved by faith through grace for Christ's sake ALONE, not by other men regardless of their office or efforts.

141 posted on 06/27/2003 12:05:57 PM PDT by the infidel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
I love humor, but I don't find this image very funny.
142 posted on 06/29/2003 12:56:57 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
I love humor, but I don't find this image very funny.

Just curious as to why?

143 posted on 06/30/2003 10:26:47 AM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
"Just curious as to why?"

Christ's death on the cross was the cause of my redemption and salvation (and yours). It's not appropriate or in good taste to use it in a flippant way as it is in this picture.
144 posted on 06/30/2003 11:25:51 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
Christ's death on the cross was the cause of my redemption and salvation (and yours). It's not appropriate or in good taste to use it in a flippant way as it is in this picture.

First of all his death was on a stake, not a cross. So if anything is flippant, its the way his death has been erronious been portrayed for the past hundreds of years.

145 posted on 06/30/2003 11:55:48 AM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
Furthermore, we have some serious problems because where are these kids during the sojourn to Egypt? That would also make Jesus Christ the youngest of the bunch, and I don't recall hearing about them stumbling around in the manger during Christ's birth. We also have other age difference according to Roman Catholic tradition that would make even the youngest child of Joseph older than Mary. Pretty wierd stuff if you ask me.

The Catholic church as far as I know believes that Joseph was a very old man and married her to take care of her as a ministry from God. They believe that he already had a grown family. He stayed in a platonic relationship with Mary as she stayed a virgin.

The most serious flaw with this belief I believe is that Jesus as Joseph's eldest son recieved the birthright from his father. He recieved his right to the Davidic throne through his position as the eldest (though adopted) son of Joseph. He recieved his Davidic blood line through Mary but his Kingship through his father Joseph. Do you have any thoughts on this subject?

146 posted on 07/04/2003 1:38:25 AM PDT by Bellflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
After all, James and Joses are called "brothers" of the Lord in Matthew 13, but we know that they were not the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but sons of another Mary, the wife of Cleophas (cf. John 19). That's a good example of a non-literal use of the word brother.

The name Mary was extremely common. The Bible does not say that the Mary in Matthew was the same as the Mary in John. Two common named Marys can have sons with the same popular names. I say this because you sound like you are stating that it is an assured fact that these two Marys are the same person.

147 posted on 07/04/2003 2:19:57 AM PDT by Bellflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
Matthew 1:21 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

1:22 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The Bible clearly says that he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son.

It seems that Catholics have the mistaken belief that knowing each other even in marriage is sinful. Adam and Eve were instructed to be fruitful and multiply before sin ever came into the world. The very definition of marriage involves two becoming one flesh. Joseph and Mary were married. The marriage bed is set apart and holy.

148 posted on 07/04/2003 2:55:26 AM PDT by Bellflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
Also names may be repeated often within families in particular as seen by two Marys being in the same family.
149 posted on 07/04/2003 3:08:56 AM PDT by Bellflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; Polycarp; BibChr; the_doc; RnMomof7; MarMema
Why are you trying to muddy the waters and distract attention away from the subject of this thread by introducing an irrelevant (at least as far as this topic is concerned) subject: the papacy? When someone (such as 911) has painted himself into a doctrinal corner he can't escape from because he can't vindicate his position (as has happened on this very thread to 911 and a few others who keep beating their heads against the wall in a futile attempt to *prove* that Mary had other children besides Christ), they do two things. 1) Start the name calling (which is the fallacy of ad hominem) and 2) attempt to change the subject to something else they think they can do better on. Anyway, regarding the papacy arguments you raised, if it's of any interest to you, I wrote a book on the subject that answers those arguments from Scripture and Christian history. It's called "Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy." I'm not looking to sell anything here. If you're sincerely interested in a Catholic response, I'd be happy to send you the book gratis and with my compliments. Just send me an e-mail and let me know where to send it -- no strings attached.

Mr. Madrid:

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I occasionally take a... hmm... "sabbatical" from FR. The relentless din of Political Cheer-Leading saps my interest, I'm afraid.

I tried "Christian Forums" as a respite; and I found there... pretty much what I had expected to find. A morass of Anti-Creedal Hyper-Individualists ("scratch an American Christian, and you'll find a Pelagian Heretic underneath"). Sighhhh....

All that said...

Without meaning to sound patronizing, sir...

Look, here's the scoop:

Respectfully, Mr. Madrid, I appreciate your offer of the book. You're welcome to send it to me if you would like, and I am grateful for the offer. IF you want to send me a copy at:

Then I'll be happy to accept.

But I admit I am put off a bit by the Title: "Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy." It sounds to me like recycled Roman responses to recycled Dave Hunt-style "protestant" argumentation.

"Protestant" so falsely-called.

At the moment, I am not interested in "30 answers". I am just interested in ONE.

Who was James?



Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) and Peter answered to James (Acts 15:13) and Peter was subordinate to James (Acts 21:18) and Peter feared James (Galatians 2:12).

You are invited to send me the book if you like, Mr. Madrid. My address is posted (rather publicly) above.

But as I said before, my interest is particular to James.

If Ya'akov Ha Tsedek is exactly the Person he is declared to be by both Scripture and Tradition...

Then, well....


150 posted on 07/06/2003 5:11:40 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson