Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $27,862
Woo hoo!! And the first 32% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by cothrige

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Against Walter Kasper (II)

    07/26/2014 12:36:55 PM PDT · 6 of 14
    cothrige to Nifster
    Hence the Roman Catholic church is not the largest religion on the planet

    Your post factually falls as the article never says that Catholicism is the "largest religion on the planet." It references it as "the planet's largest religious body" which is accurate. You are treating Muslims as all being members of one body, which is not so. They are divided into many specific sects and camps.

  • Catholics Just Be Calm About Obama's LGBT Executive Order

    07/22/2014 7:23:43 PM PDT · 6 of 14
    cothrige to freeagle

    I honestly don’t understand why religious organizations take money from the government, even when it used to help people. We should give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, not take from Caesar what is Caesar’s so that Caesar can control everything we do.

  • Cardinal O’Malley: housing illegals more important than protecting unborn

    07/21/2014 5:02:52 PM PDT · 45 of 45
    cothrige to CynicalBear

    No, it isn’t maintaining just because the numbers don’t change. When I get into my car the number of Catholics in the world is the same too, and yet getting into cars does not “maintain” the number of Catholics. It isn’t like people not getting into cars makes the numbers go down. And if somebody actually decides to make the absurd statement that “getting into cars is how Rome gains or maintains Catholics” they would be wrong then too. The fact that getting into cars causes no net change in the number of Catholics does not actually argue for it being a way to “maintain” the number of Catholics. Going to Mass and participating in the faith does maintain the number of believers because doing this actually does encourage retention, but simply moving form one place to another does nothing at all. Nothing. And doing nothing is not “maintaining.”

  • Cardinal O’Malley: housing illegals more important than protecting unborn

    07/21/2014 3:33:19 PM PDT · 42 of 45
    cothrige to CynicalBear
    That isn't maintaining numbers. It is simply not affecting the numbers, which is a different thing. If it had the effect of maintaining them then it would have to be demonstrably the case that immigration encourages people to remain in the Church, and that just isn't true at all. As a matter of fact, by moving from a traditionally Catholic country, such as Mexico, to a traditionally Protestant one, like the US, one would expect more people to leave the Church than would otherwise stay in it. So, if anything, as long as immigration is stronger from Mexico to the US than the other way one would be able to make a better argument that immigration is actually bad for the Church's numbers.
  • Cardinal O’Malley: housing illegals more important than protecting unborn

    07/20/2014 9:24:06 PM PDT · 40 of 45
    cothrige to CynicalBear

    If somebody actually thinks that people moving from one place to another is a way for a church to have “gained or maintained” it’s numbers then, yes, I would say we are dealing with kindergarten level thinking.

  • Cardinal O’Malley: housing illegals more important than protecting unborn

    07/20/2014 5:21:30 PM PDT · 37 of 45
    cothrige to CynicalBear
    Do Catholics not read or is it comprehension that causes problems? Did you not see the and maintained in that quote?

    And how exactly does a Catholic moving somewhere "maintain" the number of global Catholics? If you move from one state to another does that impact the total number of Protestants, or whatever, that there are in the world? It doesn't change it, or maintain it. It does nothing but put one of a number in a different place.

  • Cardinal O’Malley: housing illegals more important than protecting unborn

    07/19/2014 5:38:00 PM PDT · 28 of 45
    cothrige to daniel1212
    And immigration is how Rome has mainly gained and maintained her numbers.

    A Catholic in Mexico immigrates to the U.S. and that somehow increases the number of Catholics in the world? That must be some of that Common Core math coming out because I just don't see it.

  • What Pope Francis Meant to Say about the Origin of Priestly Celibacy

    07/14/2014 6:46:15 AM PDT · 70 of 108
    cothrige to piusv
    Ex Cathedra is not the only time the Pope and the Church is infallible. Granted, the Pope is not infallible every time he speaks, but I wish Catholics would stop pushing this error.

    Yes, there are other times, like the canonization of saints, but these are generally of a different quality and are not usually as relevant to the conversation. When people are arguing that we treat every word of the pope as if it were direct from God, as was done in the post, then it is the instance of the charism which is most germane.

  • What Pope Francis Meant to Say about the Origin of Priestly Celibacy

    07/13/2014 8:57:07 PM PDT · 36 of 108
    cothrige to metmom
    Can Catholics vote out a bad pope? Can they do ANYTHING about a bad pope?

    Huh? I don't follow. What does that have to do with having to support the statements of popes when they are wrong?

    I know of non-Catholic denominations where the pastor started teaching stuff that was off base and he was GONE.

    Not an option for Catholics.....

    No, not an option for us, but neither does it mean what you said above. There is no compulsion on any Catholic to defend erroneous statements from popes. It just isn't so. Our faith doesn't include that kind of cult of personality.

    Oh, and by the way, this from above is also way off base:

    Speak up and your eternal destiny is on the line. Believing as they do that their priests have the power to forgive or RETAIN a person's sin, or that the church can ex-communicate them, they're in a really tough spot.

    Where do you even come up with that? Do you think that priests have to call to Rome and ask the pope personally whether they can give absolution in confession because the penitent had criticised the pope's comments in an interview? And how would any priest, who doesn't see your face or usually know who you are in confession even know you didn't agree with a comment from the pope? What kind of clerical network do you think is in place, and what do you think happens in confession? Just to clarify for you there is actually no oath that we believe every statement made by the pope, even in private or in off the cuff interviews, is straight from God. You list your sins by type and number and he prays for you and absolves you. Period. No hotlines to Rome, and no clerical spy rings to monitor whether people are properly supporting the popes interview comments.

  • What Pope Francis Meant to Say about the Origin of Priestly Celibacy

    07/13/2014 8:27:12 PM PDT · 27 of 108
    cothrige to metmom
    They essentially have no choice but to support him.

    That's what happens when you believe that your magisterium is infallible and the pope is God's vicar on earth.

    I think you will find simply by reading the posts of Catholics here on FR that many feel no such compulsion as you imply. They are quite comfortable pointing out when he says something ridiculous, and I am confident it causes no trouble with their faith. That is because there is nothing in the Catholic faith which maintains that any pope is necessarily right in anything he says, outside of a very tiny sliver of very specific teachings. Consider this. In the time since Vatican I and its specific exposition of Papal Infallibility, i.e. about 144 years, there have been a grand total of two infallible statements from popes. Two. That amounts to some several sentences out of the what, millions, that popes have written or spoken in that time. So, no, there is essentially no requirement to support any erroneous papal statements whatsoever.

  • The Ugliest Churches In The World

    07/12/2014 7:03:19 PM PDT · 66 of 76
    cothrige to NYer

    Any moment Jawas are going to pour out of this thing.

  • Holy Smoke! Why do we use incense in worship?

    07/12/2014 6:56:46 PM PDT · 38 of 54
    cothrige to NYer
    Holy Smoke! Why do we use incense in worship?

    That's easy. We don't. Obviously the only person who would ask this is somebody who hasn't been to a Mass this millennium. What's next, why do we genuflect? Or maybe why do we receive Communion on the tongue? Talk about anachronistic thinking.

  • What does the new synod working document tell us about what will happen in October? (Cath Caucus)

    06/27/2014 2:48:23 PM PDT · 4 of 11
    cothrige to NYer
    The working document therefore focuses on pastoral rather than doctrinal questions. Throughout it assumes that it is the Church’s pastoral approach, rather than its fundamental teaching, that is up for debate in October.

    This should be interesting. There is, effectively speaking, no difference between these concepts. People speak of "pastoral" things, and then act as if it is all doctrinal anyway. And what can this synod do if it doesn't somehow affect the doctrines? Yes, this will certainly be very interesting.

  • Justina Pelletier's legal nightmare should frighten all parents

    06/19/2014 10:29:26 PM PDT · 3 of 8
    cothrige to Morgana
    His ruling ended a 15-month odyssey that I believe showed that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Boston Children's Hospital were willing to disregard the rights of her parents and, in essence legally "kidnap" her

    I believe this fails to address the situation adequately. These actions by the state do not simply disregard the rights of parents, but the rights of the children involved, and this is what we should be focused on as a people. The pretense is always to care for the child, but more often than not it has the opposite effect. It is senseless to pretend that children are indifferent to being ripped from the protection and care of their families and loved ones and have no interest in whether they are treated as somehow being chattels of the state. The rights of this 16 year old minor, as well as those of her parents, were absolutely trampled by the state and such should never be allowed to happen again. And certainly not under the pretense of caring for the person you are abusing.

  • Tuam septic tank story "debunked" means that the missing 796 children have therefore been found? No.

    06/18/2014 5:30:08 PM PDT · 9 of 14
    cothrige to Laissez-faire capitalist
    A.) The 796 children of the St Mary's (Bon Secours) Mother and Baby Home in Tuam, Co, Galway, Ireland being-buried-in-a-septic-tank-story has been "debunked." Therefore, that means that the 796 missing children are (as a result) no longer missing!

    No longer missing? What does that mean? I thought that these dead children were supposedly in a "septic tank." That doesn't sound like they are missing to me. What are you talking about?

  • Meet the ‘evangelical’ Catholics who are remaking the GOP

    06/16/2014 7:18:22 PM PDT · 5 of 22
    cothrige to posterchild
    Is that even possible?


  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/16/2014 2:22:46 PM PDT · 334 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    ...the peculiar Evangelical approach to the Bible which sees it entirely apart from its place within the faith community.

    There you go again!

    I am sorry, but it appears to me that you are just being contentious. I have said nothing here except that you do not believe that the Bible is subject to Church interpretation. How is that wrong? And why do you keep snatching portions of sentences and trying to infer bizarre and confrontational ideas out of them? You really should just read the entire post as a whole, without carving them up into little bits which are no longer connected to one another. That is not how I am presenting them. That you can even manage to be defensive about posts which are nothing more than observations of how different our two perspectives are is actually a bit alarming. You seem to be getting a bit punch drunk around here, and are seeing attacks in everything. Not everybody is trying to cast aspersions at you. Some of us are just having a conversation.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/16/2014 2:15:21 PM PDT · 333 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    In that it was clear that you saw the Church entirely from the perspective of one who did not equate it with the Bible but apart from it and out of a sense of a personal interpretation of what that book means and teaches.

    This is apparently mindreading; or else Strawman 1012.

    Sorry, but I just don't see this. Or are you really saying that you do equate the Church's interpretation of the brothers of the Lord as biblical? If so, then I am sorry, but I would have to ask why you are then arguing against a perfectly biblical understanding of these verses?

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/16/2014 2:11:50 PM PDT · 332 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    It is not apparent; except to this strawman that you are attempting to create.

    Why would I attempt to create a straw man? I haven't any axe to grind on this. I merely responded to something you did say about me and Catholics, and pointed out that it reflects a rather peculiar notion about the relationship between Church and Scripture. I am not trying to be defensive, or contentious, but simply pointed out that the way we appear to view these concepts and their connections creates something of a divide between how we can understand each other.

    And, as for your quote above, why do you take offense at it? In my experience Evangelicals see the Bible as something standing alone, and to be interpreted generally only by other verses within its own pages. They see the historic Christian Church's perspectives and traditional understandings of that book as extra-biblical, and therefore not applicable as a matter of faith. This very conversation is proof of that. The "community's historic perspective" on the Bible is that brothers of the Lord is not to be seen as children of Mary. Evangelicals, in my experience, "entirely reject" this idea, and any like it, and insist on only biblical proofs or interpretations. So, how is it not true when I say that Evangelicals "entirely reject any of that community's (i.e. the Church's) historic perspective (i.e. traditional understanding and interpretation) of its own scripture"? I really don't think this is either a straw man or even confrontational. It certainly wasn't mean that way, but merely as an observation of how it is hard for people coming from two such very different views on the Bible to really understand each other. Nothing more.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/16/2014 1:55:05 PM PDT · 331 of 335
    cothrige to Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
    Must be nice when you can pick and choose from the Bible which passages you believe in, which ones you don't ...

    What a bizarre comment. You say I "pick and choose from the Bible which passages [I] believe in" and quote a section from Mark which I have never suggested is anything but absolutely true. The Lord's Mother and brothers were outside waiting for him, and somebody went in and told him they were there. What about it? I haven't denied it and it seems very strange for you to just quote a random verse and then say somebody is denying it, or at least imply that.

    ... and then make up other things which simply aren't there.

    This is also odd. Let me ask you this, do you believe this verse: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. St. John 21.25 If you do how then do you assert that nothing can be known or believed that is not in the Bible? Among the many things believed by Christians it has never been thought that the Bible was exhaustive and contained all that God has ever done in the world.

    Of particular interest to me is the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that only what is in the Bible is true. Nowhere is it explicitly written that we are required to reject any teaching or tradition which is not explicitly contained in that text. If this is your contention then it would appear that it is you who are making things up which aren't in the Bible.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/16/2014 7:16:01 AM PDT · 325 of 335
    cothrige to Trapped Behind Enemy Lines; Elsie; ebb tide
    How about simply reading the Bible, instead of reading things into the Bible?

    May I butt into this and make a brief comment? This seems a strangely provocative suggestion. The Bible is not, after all, a set of stereo instructions. It is a gathering of diverse, in both content and perspective, grouping of letters and books. It was written under the inspiration of the Spirit, but isn't automatically read that way, and attests itself to the inherent pitfalls and difficulties in interpreting what it contains. As the Ethiopian eunuch himself recognized, how can one understand what is read without someone to show him? Consider all the pharisees and saducees who had spent their lives in scholarly study of the scriptures, and yet were so completely misguided.

    Your statement above strikes me as similar to what I was discussing with Elsie about the peculiar Evangelical approach to the Bible which sees it entirely apart from its place within the faith community. It sounds like you see the Bible as something you should read, determine what seems right, and then judge the entire 2000 year Church against. That is unnatural, if I may say. You say the Church reads into the Bible, but I see the Evangelicals as doing so, or at least reading it out of the Bible, so to speak. What you are saying here just sounds like a person coming to the Bible from the backside and then being shocked that others came from the front.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/16/2014 7:02:34 AM PDT · 323 of 335
    cothrige to Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
    You’re reading too much into that. Point is that there is always plenty of room for disagreement. No two people think the same way on everything.

    I am sure you are right about that. On both counts.

    Should a person be excommunicated from any Church if he does not agree with 100% of some of the teachings?

    That's an interesting consideration. I honestly don't know, but perhaps it depends on what one means by "teaching" and how crucial or central that teaching is? We are all sinners and we all, I have no doubt, misunderstand or get some things wrong in our life. How could we not? But, can a person simply reject a defined truth of the faith and still be a Catholic? How far does it go? I worked with a woman who said she was Catholic, and was raised that way, but denied that our Lord was God. I don't think she was any more Catholic than the Dalai Lama, formal excommunication or not. But, does the same hold true for one who rejects the primacy of Peter? Or the Virginity of our Lady? Or the indefectibility of the Church? I couldn't say. Maybe, but maybe not. That is not for me to say, thanks be to God.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/16/2014 6:42:19 AM PDT · 322 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    To think of it as somehow independent of the entire Christian tradition and community of faith is just so odd.

    I wasn't aware that Evangelicals 'think' this.

    It is apparent when one encounters the method of interpretation which entirely rejects any of that community's historic perspective on its own scripture. If the Bible were still considered a part of that tradition and community then tradition and community would be a part of reading scripture, but they aren't. The ultimate result is that scripture is seen as entirely independent of all else and is read as if it dropped out of the sky complete in red letter edition for all to read.

    This perspective, btw, was apparent in your criticism of the Church above, which I responded to. In that it was clear that you saw the Church entirely from the perspective of one who did not equate it with the Bible but apart from it and out of a sense of a personal interpretation of what that book means and teaches. It is just odd to me. I couldn't do that or ever come to that, which is what I was saying. For those like me, who come at it the other way round, that perspective is just impossible to fathom. I am not attacking or disparaging it (notice I don't use the language you do with things like "tossed into a blender" etc) but I just don't get it. That is all.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/16/2014 6:30:01 AM PDT · 318 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    What was unclear?

    ...the Evangelical idea of the Bible.

    Well, you'll get no argument from me on that one.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/15/2014 9:44:56 PM PDT · 314 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie

    I thought I was pretty straightforward in my response. What was unclear?

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/14/2014 8:16:15 PM PDT · 312 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    ..but it is NOT going to be a bunch of folks who have come up with stuff that has no basis in Scripture.

    Fine, though you really cannot do that. Scripture was, at some point, brought to the world via a "bunch of folks who have come up with stuff that ha[d] no basis in Scripture." It is unavoidable.

    The bible, tossed into a blender, and bits and pieces getting stuck together does NOT impress me.

    I am always intrigued by the Evangelical idea of the Bible. It is so completely strange to me. To think of it as somehow independent of the entire Christian tradition and community of faith is just so odd. How could it possibly make sense in that perspective? Personally, I view the Bible as inerrant and authoritative, but only because the Church witnesses to that. The Spirit lives in His Bride, and it is that which leads me to faith, and not the book. The book can only have its origin in the Bride, and it can never be otherwise, and so I could never think of turning these two around. I come to the Book because of the Church, and not the reverse. My approach is like that of St. Augustine, who said "As for myself, I believe the Gospels only because the authority of the Church had already moved me." Your statement above just doesn't reflect anything I can make sense of, and so I must think it is a product of that rather peculiar perspective that is itself so inexplicable to me.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/14/2014 12:04:48 PM PDT · 310 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    They have merely discussed which of several competing possibilities is most likely.

    And then, by decree, said "This is it."

    No, this is fiction. It never happened. There are no such decrees. With your insistence on evidence why do you feel so comfortable simply asserting historical falsehoods, and even manufacturing fictional "decrees"? If these "decrees" are so known to you perhaps you can, following the nickname of a particular state, show them to me? I would love to see them myself.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/14/2014 11:52:19 AM PDT · 309 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    If I choose to ignore it, I become like so many Catholics: relying on the assumed veracity of the Church.

    I make no pretense, but neither is there any contradiction. If you are a person of faith then you accept some authority greater than your own to witness to a reality which cannot, in this life, be seen. Some will say that they look to the Bible only, and others say they look to the Church. Though, of course, both of these views are really exaggerations since no Church follower doesn't believe in the Bible and follow it, and no Bible follower is not in some way a part of a church which they also listen to for guidance and interpretation. But, empirical evidence is not at question in either of these. It all just comes down to faith.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/14/2014 11:16:14 AM PDT · 308 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    Empirical reality that went again the Church's teaching, could get a person KILLED!

    Empirical reality that went against the Protestant Church's teaching could get a person killed too. It means nothing. People are sinners, and they do horrible things when their worldviews are threatened. But, none of this has anything to do with tradition in matters of history. Nobody has ever been killed, so far as I know, for suggesting that St. Matthew didn't write the Gospel that bears his name. And more than Catholics accept traditional associations regarding people in the Bible.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/13/2014 5:25:34 PM PDT · 304 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    What can I say?

    Other than Missouri's state nickname fits me to a tee!

    Are you a person of faith? If so how do you reconcile those two ideas? I have to tell you that, eventually, the one would have to impede on the other. After all, how do you know the Bible is authoritative?

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/13/2014 5:23:30 PM PDT · 303 of 335
    cothrige to Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
    I’m no great fan of the current Pope myself. I have been turned off by his many misguided comments on economic policy.

    Popes' have no particular guarantee to understand economics. I pay no attention to what clerics say about such non-ecclesial concerns.

    But if I decided to excommunicate everyone in the Church who disagreed with my views, I think I would be the only one left in the Church.

    Ouch! That seems to say something. I think I would have to stop and consider for a moment if I thought that were true about myself.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/13/2014 5:18:16 PM PDT · 302 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    Well, if I may, I would not call that a tradition, but merely a very old model about how people imagined things worked.

    Maybe YOU wouldn't; but ROME sure as Hell bet some BIG BUCKS on it!

    What about it? Does that prove it is of the same type and quality as traditions such as those surrounding who wrote the books of the Bible or how old St. Joseph was? I don't remember anyone betting "BIG BUCKS" on those? They have merely discussed which of several competing possibilities is most likely. Questions of how the universe works may be a big deal, but such are obviously a matter of empirical reality and not of historical witness. The type of tradition I am speaking of is not of the same kind at all, and is merely a question of historical facts and various witnesses of contesting value and trustworthiness. I really don't see how you could confuse them.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/13/2014 5:04:51 PM PDT · 301 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    Appeal to Authority - Because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

    I am sorry, but where did you come up with the idea that I was appealing to authority? I said that the Church does not teach authoritatively that St. Joseph was an elderly widow, but that it was merely a very ancient tradition. I said that I accept it only so long as evidence does not exist which refutes it. I said that ancient tradition is ancient, which means it has a stronger pedigree than the speculation of somebody living 2000 years after the fact. Do you really believe that the people who lived 1900 years ago were not a bit closer to the events than somebody writing about these things today? Sure, some people insist that some scholar musing about the bible being the work of people hundreds of years after the Lord lived know more than the people of the early Church. I am not one of them. I will go with the view which dates to the nearest time of the events in question, and all of you who want to jump on the bandwagons of historical revisionism can spend your time chasing after those other trends.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/12/2014 10:25:13 PM PDT · 285 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    And just how 'old' was the teaching that everything revolved around the earth?

    Turned out to be WRONG...

    Well, if I may, I would not call that a tradition, but merely a very old model about how people imagined things worked. It was like a flat earth, or where rain came from. These are more like rudimentary theories than what I have been referring to, which relate more to factual events and origins as opposed to hypotheses about things which cannot be seen. Does that make sense? One thing they do have in common though is that once evidence to the contrary comes to light they are abandoned. At least if one is rational they are.

    For something more analogous to what I have been speaking about consider the differing points of view about who wrote the various books of the Bible. Tradition is that St. Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name first, and in Hebrew, which was then translated into Greek. Modern theorists say that St. Mark's was first, and was not by St. Mark. I tend to stick to the traditional view because the modern theorists haven't really produced much in the way of evidence, or even convincing theories for my money. But, if somebody really does produce something concrete, or at least compelling, that what they are saying is true, then I will admit that the traditions are wrong and change my point of view. These traditions, like many, come from closer to the events than anything we have today which we think contradicts them. This is often the case, and so I tend to stick with them, not because I think they are somehow infallible, but just because they probably have a better pedigree than those which would deny them. But, again, that is just how I approach this stuff. What can I say? I am a traditional guy.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/12/2014 10:07:02 PM PDT · 284 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    I'm the opposite..

    Skeptical of ACCEPTING it unless there is ANY kind of evidence.

    Seems prudent to me. Though, in matters of faith, what I consider evidence and what another might may not always be identical.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/12/2014 7:37:55 PM PDT · 279 of 335
    cothrige to Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
    The Pope has said the policy is open to change. I agree with him. Is anyone suggesting he should be excommunicated?

    Well, . . . ;-)

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/12/2014 7:36:36 PM PDT · 278 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    Since I’ve not seen the DATA behind the reason the CHURCH decided to teach that Joseph was ‘elderly’; I’ll continue in my Unbelief of church ‘tradition’.

    I certainly have no problem with that. People have their own ways of coming at tradition. And, just for clarification, I wouldn't say that the Church teaches this particular view of St. Joseph; it is just a very old tradition. And I tend to be uncomfortable rejecting such unless there are good reasons, e.g. archaeological evidence. In the case of these particular ideas about St. Joseph, of his being an elderly widower whose children were the brothers and sisters of the Lord, we can say they are ancient indeed. The Protoevangelium of James, which is not accepted by the Church as being authentic or binding in any way, was written about the middle of the second century and it includes these details about him. Of course, it is a fraudulent document and so isn't authoritative, but its witness is still historically important. It demonstrates that at least by that time, about A.D. 145, these stories were established and being spread. I don't say this as a means of suggesting you should accept any of it, but only to give you an idea of how old it is, which for me is a very important factor for consideration.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/12/2014 7:14:37 PM PDT · 277 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    I went back and re-read all the replies in this line of thought and found I’d jumped in with commenting in the middle of a discussion you were having with others.

    Oh, no worries there. Personally I always enjoy it when as many people as possible feel comfortable contributing to a discussion. I may get a bit lost sometimes, but it is always good to have people say what they think.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/11/2014 9:25:57 PM PDT · 260 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    No comment on #222?

    Ok then...

    I suppose I overlooked it in the hustle and bustle. It seems you were asking me what error I was responding to? Is that right? If so, it was that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition which holds that St. Joseph was an elderly widower when he married the Blessed Virgin, and that the brothers and sisters of the Lord were his children from that previous marriage. That is why they are called the brothers and sisters of the Lord, because they were. I hope that clarifies it for you.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/11/2014 12:01:14 PM PDT · 246 of 335
    cothrige to daniel1212

    Well, I certainly can understand how painful hands would deter typing. You have my sincere sympathies on that.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/11/2014 10:36:30 AM PDT · 240 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    Who decides whether they are relevant or not?

    Oh come on. It was irrelevant to what I was saying, and I said so. You are free to infer whatever you want, but if you quote me and ping me I am equally free to respond pointing out it is irrelevant. How would I have less freedom to consider the "unknown reader" in pointing this out than you were in saying it? Or, how about looking at it this way, who decides who gets to decide whether they are relevant or not?

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/11/2014 12:09:31 AM PDT · 218 of 335
    cothrige to daniel1212
    First, let me say that the perpetual virginity of Mary v is not taught in Scripture, and while we can debate whether Scripture disallows, neither actual proof or the weight of Scriptural substantiation is the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, and thus the fundamental question is, what is the basis for your assurance of Truth as a RC?

    Well, I would say that this does veer a bit from what was written concerning contradiction. Something may not be in the Bible, which may be a compelling reason for some not to accept it, but that is still not quite the same as saying it is actually contradicted there.

    In any case, your appeal is to exception, but it is characteristic of the Holy Spirit to make manifest when there is an exception, for which multitudes of examples can be given, and thus the Holy Spirit is careful to provide the word "supposed" in Lk. 3:

    I am very doubtful about it being an appeal to exception, but as the first heir and the most prominent, even an exception disproves the suggestion that order of birth would bind God in regard to his own Son. The reasons for exception in the case of Solomon pale in comparison to the birth of God Himself in the flesh.

    Again, that is possible, but nothing is recorded of that abnormal situation, and which would belong in the area of speculation, not doctrine.

    I am assuming that you are speaking of alternative readings for John 19.25? I suppose it is entirely possible that four women were being described there, and not three, which would make "his mother's sister" somebody other than Mary of Cleophas. That seems entirely reasonable to me. But, I don't think it really changes my position. After all, I have not argued that the brothers of the Lord were cousins, but actual brothers, and so the sister here doesn't seem to be an issue. Or am I overlooking something?

    This is more appeal to silence in order to support a very notable (and essential according to Rome) aspect, which again would only allow it as speculative, not doctrine.

    I wouldn't really argue with this, or at least not in this situation. Personally, I would never try to convince anyone of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

    I distinctly said "between two persons who could procreate," and as for asking, that the marriage was procreated and the bride was a virgin was a issue that the OT law recognized and dealt with.(Dt. 22:13-21)

    Yes, but it begins with the protest of the husband. These rules were not about third parties demanding information, but demands made by the people involved. And these rules only demonstrate the norm as society generally had to deal with it. Nobody would argue that marriage, as a rule, is a sexually active relationship and is about procreation. But, people can and have been married for other reasons, and those marriages would only have been declared null and void by third parties if one of the people asserted their rights under the agreement. That is why I give the example of my elderly aunt. The status would only be challenged if one of them did so, and they wouldn't if they married for their own reasons and not for the purpose of procreation or sexual activity. And, being in their case eighty-something and ninety-something, I have doubts about theirs being a sexually driven connection.

    But, I am not saying there is good reason, on its own, to assume the parents of our Lord did this. All things being equal I think, for no other reason than statistical likelihood, it would be wise to simply assume that the marriage was like most of its time. I don't only because of the teaching of the Church, and I don't expect others to accept that themselves because of things I post on a forum. So I hope you won't misinterpret me on that.

    For two persons of opposite gender to live together as celibate is akin to keeping a cake in the refer and never eating it.

    Yes, but only if you are able to eat cake or are tempted by it. If St. Joseph were an elderly widower there is no reason to be amazed that he may not be so tempted.

    Thus an unconsummated marriage of perpetual virginity btwn Joseph and Mary (which i think would ascribe more virtue to the former than the latter) is clearly contrary both to the description of marriage and lacks precedent in any marriage btwn two souls able to procreated.

    I just don't see this. Unconsummated marriages have certainly existed, and people can and have lived lives of continence. It is hard, but that isn't a compelling argument against it. St. Simeon Stylites lived for almost forty years on the top of a pillar. That isn't something most of us could, or would, do either, but it did happen. And, even if this were so by your own words it would not apply here if the two souls were not able to procreate, or were not seeking a relationship in which to do that.

    This also impugns the Holy Spirit as a teacher and is basically special pleading, as in the rare exceptions in which "heōs" ("till") denotes continuity, then that is not hard to see. (Mat 11:12; 12:20; 26:36; 27:8; 28:20; Jn 5:17; 1Co 8:7; 1Jn 2:9;

    Well, honestly, I think this verse is much trampled by both sides. Scholarship does seem divided, and language is rarely quite as mathematical as people try to make it. And though I am not comfortable with the absolutism of the opposing side, I am equally uncomfortable with the apologists on the Catholic side who insist on using as examples different Greek words which happen to be translated as until. I would say that there is obviously a limit set by the use of this word regarding definite continuity, and even would say that in general it usually implies a loss of continuity at that point. But, that is true in English as well. As for this particular word I see definite exceptions to your position in situations such as John 5.17, and we also see usages in the LXX such as 1 Machabees where it does not indicate a change. The limits are always there, though the implied change can at times be variable or very unclear. Ultimately I am simply not convinced that this word requires the interpretation given to it by the opposition, and the examples I have read of other usages of it allow for the reading we see here.

    I am not inferring anything than the normal conveyance of the text, that of a mother with her children, rather than cousins,

    Okay, now this seems a bit inconsistent to me. Just above you demanded a very strict reading of a rather esoteric Greek conjunction with various argued interpretations, but here you seek to suggest that something as basic as "his" could mean something other than belonging to Jesus? His mother and his brethren. Both are related to him, not each other. There is absolutely nothing there saying they are her children, or even implying it. As I have said, if my father's mother and sister had been waiting for him they would be described and reported in just that way. It wouldn't mean they were mother and daughter by birth, which they are not.

    And, please recall that I have never argued that the brothers of the Lord were actually his cousins. I do not find that argument very compelling frankly, for several reasons.

    Note however, that is it not necessary that Mary had children in order to believe Mary had a normal consummated marriage, in the absence any teaching that she has an extraordinary marriage, and not simply in conceiving and carrying Christ, which extraordinary miracle is stated.

    Yes, I don't argue that, and haven't suggested you should believe it. I don't believe it possible to convince somebody of the truth of this doctrine by this kind of debate regarding such facts as these. It just doesn't work that way. I was only discussing certain claims regarding the alleged Biblical contradiction of one particular tradition, i.e. the brothers of the Lord were his brothers, but by St. Joseph and not His Mother.

    But your objection agrees with my point, as it would be unreasonable not to mention the most notable Child in this list (and another text is provided which clarifies it), as it would not to mention a unique cleave-less marriage and extended virginity and solitary child status of Christ, which is noted in other cases of notable, but less notable, characters.

    I am sorry but I fear you lost me a bit here. The Lord would not be reported in that list because he was not a child of that woman. I am a little confused about how that connects to the second half of the above assertion. Am I misunderstanding something in this? If so, if you clarify this for me I would be more than happy to share my thoughts on it, if I have any.

    Indeed, this careful attendance to extraordinary aspects is why in the novel absence of any record for such an aspect as perpetual virginity and a cleave-less marriage, when that noted when it occurred before, as did post marital virginity among a devout, then the norm is to be assumed.

    This is probably quite reasonable, but not really a contradiction. I would say a contradiction requires explicit denial, not mere silence.

    The fact is that Mary's parents did not need to be sinless to bear Mary, nor holy men to be channel's for God's pure words, nor would Mary need to either be sinless nor a perpetual virgin to bear the Christ.

    Well, no, the Blessed Virgin's parents would not seem to have needed to have been sinless to bear her, and I don't think it is commonly thought that they were. Am I wrong about that? And, more directly, I suppose that the Blessed Virgin probably did not need to be sinless or a perpetual Virgin to bear the Lord. But, need just does not seem to apply in these situations, and I would never use that word in that way. I just don't view such doctrines from that point of view. For me it is enough that the Church has spoken, and I accept it as it is.

    I suppose you may think that a cop out, but I really don't mean it that way. I just don't think about necessity in this as it seems to imply I can decide whether God needed to do as he did. I mean, do babies need to die? Did Christ need to die? Could God not forgive sins simply by deciding to, and then making it simply be so? Does hell or judgement need to exist? All these things invite an insidious kind of pretension and I am just not comfortable with going down that road. If something is consistent with the 2000 year witness of the Church then it is good enough for me.

    Instead it is part of the larger hyper exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism far "above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:6), which is the larger issue.

    Hmmm, I just don't see that. Honestly, I cannot imagine a more Christocentric idea than the Perpetual Virginity of our Lady. It doesn't seem to me to exalt the Blessed Virgin at all really. Many people have lived lives of virginity. It isn't that exceptional. But, just as your quote from Pope Siricius above reflects, the most compelling moral reason for desiring such a teaching would come from the incredible and unimaginable holiness of He whom she gave birth to, and not because of her at all. From my point of view, even if we are wrong, we are not wrong on this because we think so highly of our Lady, but because we think such of our Lord.

    Now i am too tired to say more.

    Well, thank you for having taken the time to say what you did. I appreciate the interest.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/10/2014 4:23:56 PM PDT · 212 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    I wasn't trying to say you were WRONG; but showing how the RCC seems to be able to conjure things up out of thin air; claiming WE wuz first; therefore we is RIGHT!

    No, you were arguing facts which weren't relevant. I know you disagree with the tradition, but agreeing and disagreeing are not what was at issue. The claim was that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition, which is not true. My post had nothing to do with your "we wuz first . . ." commentary. It was a response to a direct assertion which was erroneous. And, BTW, the Church conjured nothing up out of thin air. What I have posted regarding St. Joseph is an ancient tradition. You can reject it if you want, and I wouldn't argue with that, but it is not made up out of thin air.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/10/2014 4:13:52 PM PDT · 211 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie

    Should I ask them why they deny St. Peter and St. Paul a comfortable death at home?

  • Concerning the obsession for photos at Liturgies – A Consideration of a Liturgical and Pastoral...

    06/10/2014 3:01:58 PM PDT · 33 of 36
    cothrige to markomalley

    When I see these things Matthew 21.13 comes to mind. “My house shall be called the house of prayer; but you have made it a den of thieves.” Or, in this case, a photography studio. Recently my son graduated from the local Catholic school, and they had a big Mass for the event. Naturally, people had to take tons of pictures, and in so doing ended up wandering all around the sanctuary, and nobody gave any notice or thought to the Sacrament which was present there. Is that what the Lord wants from us? Trampling around his temple, and all around the altar at that, for a good pic? I find it obnoxious and scandalous. It teaches the young to disregard the truth of the faith for other worldly concerns, like having pictures. There have been two thousand years of saints, all of whom received the sacraments, and very few of which had pictures of those moments. Those moments are not about getting pictures, but God. Until we turn away from ourselves and toward the Lord we are lost.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/10/2014 2:48:52 PM PDT · 206 of 335
    cothrige to Elsie
    An awful lot of pure CONJECTURE in this statement; NONE of which is SUPPORTED by any facts.

    Forgive me, but I think you are forgetting some things. I am responding to the claim that the Bible directly contradicts the tradition that holds that St. Joseph was an elderly widower who already had children at the time of his marriage to the Blessed Virgin. It is no more conjectural than the argument that St. Paul's specific commentary on lust in marriage would apply to the marriage of our Lord's parents. It is no more conjectural than the argument that St. Joseph was a young man subject to such concerns. The difference between the conjecture that St. Joseph was young and lustful and that he was an old widower is that the latter is supported by tradition and the former is merely suggested as an argument against tradition. In the absence of any other evidence I see no reason to reject traditional teaching.

    I cannot 'procreate', but I sure like a roll in the hay!

    Please go back and read the context of what you are responding to. It has nothing to do with a "roll in the hay" as you so eloquently put it, but was put forth as a measure, by the poster, of all who were bound by the requirement of consummation. As a Christian from a Christian family I can tell you that consummation is also required for our marriages, and yet people do get married in old age for other reasons and those marriages are not considered null and void by people. When two octogenarians wed nobody is going to argue that they are not really married until they have "a roll in the hay." St. Joseph has traditionally been held to have been an elderly man past the age of procreation, and that his marriage was not for his own pleasure in the acts of consummation, but as a means of protection and care for the Blessed Virgin and the fruit of her womb. It was a pious act which was a response to the call of God, and not for his own benefit. That is why there was a discussion of "ability to procreate" and its impact on the status of any given marriage.

    Why does Catholicism deny this GOD given pleasure to Mary and Joseph?

    That is a bizarre question. That would be like asking why Catholicism denies St. Peter the pleasure of dying an old man at home with his grandchildren. How does Catholicism deny people from 2000 years ago some pleasure by merely recognizing what they did? Bizarre.

    I hope a bunch of us OLD coots pounce on you whippersnappers (whipper - not mackerel) and mention Abraham, Noah, and others who were 'old men', yet fathered children late in life.

    What is your point? Yes, older people have, by the grace of God, had children, but that doesn't affect anything. My elderly aunt who married very late in life also could have, by that same grace, become pregnant at eighty-five. Did she? No. And does that amazingly slim possibility actually mean that she must have had sex with the ninety plus year old man she married? Does it mean that he must have married her because he wanted to have sex and make babies? No, of course not. People do get married for other reasons, and I doubt very seriously there was ever a time when such was entirely unknown to society. That you or anybody else can or might want to have sex at any given age does not deny that some who are older might still desire marriage even if they cannot do as you may.

    The fact is that tradition teaches us that St. Joseph was not a young man but a much older one who had married previously and had his own children. You may not accept that, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that the Bible contradicts it. Nothing I have seen, including the post I replied to above, has ever demonstrated or produced any actual such contradiction.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/09/2014 9:55:53 PM PDT · 193 of 335
    cothrige to daniel1212
    If "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne.

    Why do you suggest that? Solomon was heir to David's throne, and he was not his eldest living son. Adonias was older but was not the king because God did not choose him. It seems silly to pretend that God would have to choose an older step-brother to be Christ when he rejected Adonias as king of Juda.

    The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name.

    Perhaps, but it is hard to deny that the scriptures tell us that the Blessed Virgin did in fact have a sister named Mary. It may be odd, but it is so. And, just to be clear, I did not actually suggest that the brothers of the Lord were his cousins, which is a common theory, but rather his step-brothers.

    Israel knew nothing of a marriage that was not consummated between two persons who could procreate, nor does the NT.

    Well, I don't see how one could say that. I will grant that it is atypical historically, but so is much we read about in the New Testament. And that there is perhaps no direct record of such in the scriptures does not mean such a marriage never existed. In Christian marriage consummation is also generally considered necessary and yet people have been married, especially in older ages, for companionship or other such reasons. I had an elderly aunt who did just that, and we have no idea whether they consummated the relationship physically. After all, who is going to ask? And, if, as has been traditionally believed, St. Joseph was an elderly man at the time of the marriage he could quite possibly not have been, as you say, able to procreate.

    Paul actually instructs the married to have sexual relations, and restricts abstinence in marriage to only a period of fasting, and then to come together again. (1Cor. 7:3-5)

    Yes he does, but it is in a context. He makes that clear from the start by stating that what he is saying is "in fear of fornication." We know from this that he is speaking to people who are still sexually active. They are struggling against lust. He is not speaking about marriages in which the partners are not afflicted by this danger. An elderly man called by God and the Mother of our Lord would obviously not be in his mind, and neither would their life have been applicable to the people he is speaking to in this instance.

    Except in rare instances "heōs" ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Matthew 1:25) indicates a terminus and a change, or allowing for that..

    It can allow for a future change, but it is not required. The word as used there only means that there were no marital relations up to that point, and it implies nothing about what follows. Yes, it allows for future relations, but it also allows for otherwise. This is not a useful verse for drawing conclusions in this case.

    Instead of any teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin, ,we have many texts which refer to Mary having other children. (Mat_12:46,48, Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40,47, Mar_16:1; Luk_24:10; Joh_19:25; Gal_1:19)

    I think you infer too much from these verses. Look at the first, Matthew 12.46-48. It refers to the Lord's Mother and his brethren, but it never says they are the children of his Mother.

    My father has an adopted sister, and she is always called his sister. Nobody in our family introduces her to people known to him without calling her his sister. She is not, however, the physical daughter of his mother. Calling her a sister only describes her relation to my father, not to his mother. It doesn't even imply one. And yet she is his sister, and she is not the biological daughter of his mother.

    Your second verse is much the same. Actually it is even weaker. Matthew 27.56 refers to "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" and you are suggesting, I am supposing, that this must be the Blessed Virgin. But, are we really supposed to believe that in the Gospel of our Lord he would not even deserve mention as a child of a woman in a list of her offspring? It would be strange enough to see him given in a list of other people in any way, as if they were all of the same level of importance, but not to be there at all? If this were the mother of the Lord I have no doubt she would be listed as just that, the Mother of the Lord. Not the mother of James and Joseph. These people are obviously not children of the same Mary. Mark 15.40, and 16.1 share the same problem, as does also the other verse from Luke. They are obviously not referring to the Mother of the Lord.

    Actually, one verse you list is very confusing to me, and that is John 19.25. There we are told standing by the cross was "his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen." This never suggests that there is another child born to our Lady, and instead names her sister. I am at a loss as to why you think this contradicts the perpetual virginity of our Lady.

    Jason Engwer states , Luke uses the word "supposedly" to describe Jesus' relationship with Joseph (Luke 3:23), but doesn't use any such terminology to describe Jesus' relationship with His brothers and sisters . . .

    The point about "supposedly" is interesting, but I don't think it works as he suggests. It must be remembered that this word appears during a genealogy of the Lord as traced through St. Joseph. Now, it is perfectly natural for the author to point out that such a genealogy, which would otherwise imply direct biological descent, was not meant to indicate that St. Joseph was the real biological father of our Lord or else he would risk confusing the reader regarding the Virgin Birth. That is not true in the case of brothers and sisters who were still brothers and sisters even if not born of the Virgin. It just wouldn't occur to most people to add "supposedly" in that situation, while it would be natural in a genealogy when relating to a person thought to be a father.

    There is simply no need for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, unless martial relations are sinful or necessarily denoting inferior virtue, as some CFs erroneously held , contra. Heb. 13:4)

    I don't like the word "need" in this context. Which dogmas are "needed" in that sense and which are not? Many people think certain moral teachings are not "needed" but I accept them anyway, because the Church teaches them. And I agree that there is nothing inferior or sinful about marriage, but that doesn't negate the value of one who chooses otherwise. St. Paul himself, as mentioned above, states he wishes all could be like him, but he knows not all can. He sees real value in continence, but also sees the danger for the weak. And just as there is no inferiority in marriage, given the Apostle's desire that all could be like him there is surely also no inferiority in the single life or a life of continence.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/08/2014 8:57:32 PM PDT · 149 of 335
    cothrige to aMorePerfectUnion
    An interesting story, but unsupported in Scripture and contradicted by Scripture.

    Could you share where it is contradicted in scripture? I find that suggestion rather interesting, and I have never come across such a text.

  • Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

    06/08/2014 11:02:01 AM PDT · 144 of 335
    cothrige to aMorePerfectUnion
    But Greek does have words for brother, cousin, uncle and aunt. God chose to inspire the use of the Greek word for brothers. Take it up with Him.

    You are right, and of course these were the Lord's brothers and sisters. However, they were not the Blessed Virgin's children. The reality that many miss is that, from the earliest history of the Church, it has been held that St. Joseph was an aged widower who married the Blessed Virgin, at the call of God, in order to protect her. He already had children of his own, and these are the brothers and sisters of the Lord because they are are the children of his earthly father. They may also be his cousins, as some maintain, but that is not why they are called his brothers and sisters.

  • Pope’s ‘Last Supper’ Mass Raises Jewish Hackles

    05/19/2014 7:33:19 PM PDT · 33 of 40
    cothrige to dangus
    Is the question whether there is any tomb at all, or merely who the tomb was for? I presumed that there must be SOME tomb if there’s even a question of whether it might be King David’s tomb.

    Not sure really. Mostly what I find online is focused on the question of King David rather than the tomb itself, if such a thing is even there. At there is a mention of a Benjamin of Tudela who, in 1173, tells of the miraculous finding of the tomb during renovations to a church there. This would seem to suggest that something like a tomb, at least, was uncovered at that time, though it may be impossible to actually physically confirm this today. Did these people have the knowledge to be able to identify such a Jewish tomb, or did they perhaps just find a hole and give into wishful thinking? Or were there perhaps bones or an ossuary of some kind?

    Benjamin is also mentioned at which goes further and explicitly says that this man's writings were the "first evidence that the site was viewed as David’s burial place." It would appear, then, that at the minimum there is no ancient witness that this location is the tomb of David at all, which certainly makes this whole episode a little dubious. At least to me.