(June 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

---

(June 22, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Metis Wrote: That much is true, but mary is believed to have been what we consider a minor today right? And she was thought to be married and what all that entailed to a far older man. Joseph is believed in the Catholic/Orthodox traditions to have been a much older man.

If she wasn't having sex with Joseph, she was comitting scandal surely? Making people think she was his wife when she wasn't.

After all, according to Catholic teaching if you can't have sex....You can't get married! I'm serious, that's why guys who lose the ability to get a stiffy are barred from marriage since they can't "consummate" it.

So, bearing in mind the dogmas of immaculate conception (being free from all sin) and eternal virginity.... Co-habitation at the very least if not scandal right? Cohabitation for all the non Catholics here is the Catholic social teaching that it is a sin for a male and a female to live together if they have no direct relationship to one another by blood or marriage. Previously this included simply being in a room alone with no others present to "chaperone".

See post 1588

---

(June 22, 2015 at 4:41 pm)Metis Wrote: Catholic/Orthodox tradition in this case, both claim the marriage was essentially orchestrated by God as a cover so Mary had someone to look after her and to give the impression Jesus was Josephs child. So she wouldn't suffer stigma for being a single mother.

This is correct, thank you.

---

(June 22, 2015 at 4:44 pm)Metis Wrote: Catholics don't believe James was Jesus's brother. They don't claim to know what he was but most say cousin.

It's got a fair bit of a case behind it, the word used for "brother" in the original language and context could just quite as easily mean any male relative. It's only really the Protestants who ignore the original context who say James was Jesus' brother, and even then many don't.

^Yes.

1. Am I just blind or is this post I'm quoting #1588? If it is I'm not sure what I should be looking at
2 & 3. Pleasure

(June 22, 2015 at 4:59 pm)abaris Wrote: Which, again, only became dogma with Pius IX.

Wow, I'm turning into a Catholic apologist tonight Well....I've got a degree in theology, I'm gay, I speak Italian....Suppose all I need is a fancy dress and I'd be good for a pulpit somewhere

This ain't quite how dogma always works for Catholics Abaris. Sometimes a teaching can exist in Catholicism for centuries, but it's only when a controversy kicks off they make it a dogma.

The Orthodox and Catholic Church have both long held a traditio that Mary rose bodily into heaven at the end of her life; the main disagreement historically was if she was alive or dead when it happened. It was something that had always been around, all Pius (I thought it was XII?) did was say "we believe in this". They always did if you look back at Catholic art; most of the flying virgin pictures are from the 18th century long before the Dogma was pronounced. There's Byzantine icons of it long before them even still.

(June 22, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Metis Wrote: The Orthodox and Catholic Church have both long held a traditio that Mary rose bodily into heaven at the end of her life; the main disagreement historically was if she was alive or dead when it happened. It was something that had always been around, all Pius (I thought it was XII?) did was say "we believe in this". They always did if you look back at Catholic art; most of the flying virgin pictures are from the 18th century long before the Dogma was pronounced. There's Byzantine icons of it long before them even still.

Yes, being a historian, I know that. But it goes to show that dogma is at least as much public acclamation as real theological argument. It changes with the lay of the land. Otherwise we wouldn't have a careful acceptance of evolution nowadays.

And Pius XII held the papacy between 1939 and 1958. It wasn't that late.

(June 22, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Metis Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 4:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

---

See post 1588

---

This is correct, thank you.

---

^Yes.

1. Am I just blind or is this post I'm quoting #1588? If it is I'm not sure what I should be looking at
2 & 3. Pleasure

Haha, no!

Post 1588 is this one, copied and posted:

"I do not think there is a particular line drawn in stone on what kind of age differences a married couple can morally have. It is not always-and-everywhere-no-matter-what, ok. It can depend on culture, emotional/physical maturity of the girl, how respectfully the man handles it, etc.

Obviously in 21st century America this would be immoral, both because of the culture and because it is against the law. But I can see how in a totally different culture it can be different.

I do agree with all of you that this in particular is subjective.

Another thing I think is subjective is the standards of modesty. I think it'd be immoral if I walked around my neighborhood block topless wearing fig leaves over the bottom, but I do not think it is moral that the indigenous people do this in their "neighborhoods"."

Our numbers must be different for some reason.

(June 22, 2015 at 5:17 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Metis Wrote: The Orthodox and Catholic Church have both long held a traditio that Mary rose bodily into heaven at the end of her life; the main disagreement historically was if she was alive or dead when it happened. It was something that had always been around, all Pius (I thought it was XII?) did was say "we believe in this". They always did if you look back at Catholic art; most of the flying virgin pictures are from the 18th century long before the Dogma was pronounced. There's Byzantine icons of it long before them even still.

Yes, being a historian, I know that. But it goes to show that dogma is at least as much public acclamation as real theological argument. It changes with the lay of the land. Otherwise we wouldn't have a careful acceptance of evolution nowadays.

And Pius XII held the papacy between 1939 and 1958. It wasn't that late.

I just checked and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary was formally proclaimed in Munificentissimus Deus on November 1st 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary . Pius XII proclaimed it as a demonstration of Papal power, after WWII the Catholic Church was arguably at the strongest it had ever been since the glory days of Pius IX, hence why freethinkers like Paul Blanshard came out with books in the US during the 50's "warning" people about the increasing power the RC held over US society. The sexual revolution put an end to that of course.

I think you might be thinking about the Dogma of Papal Infallibility which was proclaimed during Vatican I which was led by Pius IX a few weeks before the destruction of the Papal States.

Also the Catholic Church hasn't accepted evolution, it abstains from having an opinion on the matter officially although I think John Paul 2 and Francis have both said they're for evolution. You'll find clergy all in good standing with Rome both for and against it.

(June 22, 2015 at 5:26 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Metis Wrote: 1. Am I just blind or is this post I'm quoting #1588? If it is I'm not sure what I should be looking at
2 & 3. Pleasure

Haha, no!

Post 1588 is this one, copied and posted:

"I do not think there is a particular line drawn in stone on what kind of age differences a married couple can morally have. It is not always-and-everywhere-no-matter-what, ok. It can depend on culture, emotional/physical maturity of the girl, how respectfully the man handles it, etc.

Obviously in 21st century America this would be immoral, both because of the culture and because it is against the law. But I can see how in a totally different culture it can be different.

I do agree with all of you that this in particular is subjective.

Another thing I think is subjective is the standards of modesty. I think it'd be immoral if I walked around my neighborhood block topless wearing fig leaves over the bottom, but I do not think it is moral that the indigenous people do this in their "neighborhoods"."

Our numbers must be different for some reason.

Ahh, thank you. Yeah I don't know whats up my end. Anyhow I see your point, but this isn't a case of culture is it? Co-habitation is forbidden in all cultures, some things are always sins according to social teaching right? Co-habitation is one of them, and unless some sexual action took place there was no marriage meaning it took place.

(June 21, 2015 at 8:46 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: As for the prohibition of slavery in the Bible, my response would be that general principles espoused in the Bible led to the elimination of slavery as it was practiced in times much closer to our own. It was the TRAJECTORY of Christianity that made this eventually possible.

Randy, you keep forgetting there are places in this world where your pet religion never traveled until very recently. If it were "the TRAJECTORY of Christianity" then would you care to explain why the Japanese never had the trouble with it that the chister world had?

Simple. Not every group in every age has struggled with the same issues.

However, one cannot help but wonder at the barbaric Japanese treatment of the Chinese and the Allied prisoners of war during WWII.

(June 22, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 8:46 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Randy, you keep forgetting there are places in this world where your pet religion never traveled until very recently. If it were "the TRAJECTORY of Christianity" then would you care to explain why the Japanese never had the trouble with it that the chister world had?

Simple. Not every group in every age has struggled with the same issues.

However, one cannot help but wonder at the barbaric Japanese treatment of the Chinese and the Allied prisoners of war during WWII.

Any worse than Charlemagne publicly torturing to death all of his subjects who refused to convert to Catholicism in 782 during the Massacre of Verden?

Sure the Japanese got to do it to more people, but I'm sure Charlemagne would have had a go if he'd had the same technology the Japanese had more than a thousand years later.

(June 21, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In case you haven't held one in your own hands, the Catechism is a big book, and we're all learning all the time.

I have actually done that, but only because our youth pastor wanted to let us know that memorizing the Lutheran and much smaller version was not such a very big project.  Though actually we not required to memorize it.  He had been though.  It was one of those walking to school uphill both ways stories.

That's pretty funny. And one more reason to be Protestant, I suppose!

Quote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:30 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I can't speak for CL here, but if I am shown something in the Catechism that contradicts something that I think, I recognize that the error lies within my thinking...not that of the Church.

That, right there is what I have against religion in general and Catholic church in big capital particulars.   If my thinking contradicts a recognized authority of some kind, or the opinion of someone I respect, I will listen to them and reexamine my thinking.  But I would never presume that anyone, anywhere, or any institution anywhere is always right.  If there is a god he gave us brains to use them.  And if as I think vastly more probable there isn't one of the many things that distinguishes humans is our ability to think critically.  Either way, it's a gift everyone should exercise regularly.

Let me put this in different terms to see if it makes more sense. Suppose you were a student at a major university, and you were studying some topic under a truly brilliant professor. In fact, the entire department is internationally recognized as being the best of the best. So, one day, your professor is chatting with you and a group of students about some research he has been doing, and he makes a statement that surprises you because it's counter to what you have been assuming about the topic.

Do you think, "Wow...Dr. Brightlight is the world's leading expert on this. But I can't trust what he says without verifying it for myself...even though I have no lab, no funding, no real expertise..."?

Or do you adjust your own thinking?

Or the burning of heretics in England and elsewhere on the theory that they were headed for an eternity of hellfire anyway so a little more wouldn't hurt and a demo of their pain might put the fear of god into the rest of them.

(June 22, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I have actually done that, but only because our youth pastor wanted to let us know that memorizing the Lutheran and much smaller version was not such a very big project.  Though actually we not required to memorize it.  He had been though.  It was one of those walking to school uphill both ways stories.

That's pretty funny. And one more reason to be Protestant, I suppose!  

Quote:That, right there is what I have against religion in general and Catholic church in big capital particulars.   If my thinking contradicts a recognized authority of some kind, or the opinion of someone I respect, I will listen to them and reexamine my thinking.  But I would never presume that anyone, anywhere, or any institution anywhere is always right.  If there is a god he gave us brains to use them.  And if as I think vastly more probable there isn't one of the many things that distinguishes humans is our ability to think critically.  Either way, it's a gift everyone should exercise regularly.

Let me put this in different terms to see if it makes more sense. Suppose you were a student at a major university, and you were studying some topic under a truly brilliant professor. In fact, the entire department is internationally recognized as being the best of the best. So, one day, your professor is chatting with you and a group of students about some research he has been doing, and he makes a statement that surprises you because it's counter to what you have been assuming about the topic.

Do you think, "Wow...Dr. Brightlight is the world's leading expert on this. But I can't trust what he says without verifying it for myself...even though I have no lab, no funding, no real expertise..."?

Or do you adjust your own thinking?

I myself question Dr. Brightlight, and try to verify what he taught; if I can't verify, then I continue with "I don't know" and "hopefully one day I can find out".  That's what everyone should do.  Thinking critically is one of the awesome things about being human, as Jenny pointed out.  It's too bad you and your ilk don't practice it as much as you should.