you want to say that God chose a less-than-perfect human to birth Him, which makes zero sense
So He chose a less-than-perfect human to somehow birth a perfect human? Or is it turtles all the way down now? (Anne was perfect in order to birth perfection, so her mother was perfect, etc... in case you missed the reference).
It makes sense in the way I explained already - if she was perfect enough to be assumed into heaven body and soul (so, y'know, perfect)... like Elijah, like Enoch... then she was a perfect enough vessel to carry God. She didn't have to be born with it; the others weren't.
IC also seems to contradict the analogy to the Ark of the Covenant, which previously held the presence of God. The Ark wasn't born holy; it was made holy.
Without Mary, a church with only men's participation ostracizes half of the human race
Hard to know where to begin with this one, but let's stay in the line of Christianity. First, somehow the Hebrews have managed to not ostracize women for millennia. Second, somehow the Catholic faith managed it for over 1800 years, and Christianity at large is still going strong without worshipping Mary. And you say "without Mary" as if she's not a major biblical figure that every Christian cherishes as the mother of Jesus... but to say she was sinless when it's not found anywhere in scripture is, well, again, unnecessary and wrong. At best, it's somehow luckily right, but completely unsubstantiated and unsupported in scripture.
Honestly, it really sounds like a progressive movement from that excuse. In fact, if it were to arise today, it would rightly be labeled as Catholics going "woke." Can't wait to hear the excuse for priestesses found in the penumbras and invisible ink of the Old Testament. Be hard to override St. Paul's teaching on the matter though, but hey, scripture apparently hasn't stopped the Catholics from inventing dogmas yet.
I value Catholicism for the sort of academic scrutiny of the Bible; I think the Catechism is an excellent resource. And the Catechism falls short here too, continually citing Luke 1:28 and then the Lumen Gentium (which is not scriptural).
And of course we're still ignoring Levitical law which, presumably, was still in effect since Jesus hadn't been born. So are we assuming Mary had never menstruated and therefore become unclean? While of course menstruation itself isn't a sin, it's certainly not fit for worship or to enter the the temple.
men follow God, women follow Mary
Straight up blasphemous. You can make an idol out of Mary all you want; I won't be a party to it. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." I guess Catholicism isn't for me, which is unfortunate, because I'm not much for Lutheranism or most Protestantism either. I like the Catholic Bible and the history, but... maybe I'll just be a heretical Catholic. Suppose I'll get my communion somewhere else though.
InYourFaceNancyGrace 0 points 7 months ago
So He chose a less-than-perfect human to somehow birth a perfect human? Or is it turtles all the way down now? (Anne was perfect in order to birth perfection, so her mother was perfect, etc... in case you missed the reference).
It makes sense in the way I explained already - if she was perfect enough to be assumed into heaven body and soul (so, y'know, perfect)... like Elijah, like Enoch... then she was a perfect enough vessel to carry God. She didn't have to be born with it; the others weren't.
IC also seems to contradict the analogy to the Ark of the Covenant, which previously held the presence of God. The Ark wasn't born holy; it was made holy.
Hard to know where to begin with this one, but let's stay in the line of Christianity. First, somehow the Hebrews have managed to not ostracize women for millennia. Second, somehow the Catholic faith managed it for over 1800 years, and Christianity at large is still going strong without worshipping Mary. And you say "without Mary" as if she's not a major biblical figure that every Christian cherishes as the mother of Jesus... but to say she was sinless when it's not found anywhere in scripture is, well, again, unnecessary and wrong. At best, it's somehow luckily right, but completely unsubstantiated and unsupported in scripture.
Honestly, it really sounds like a progressive movement from that excuse. In fact, if it were to arise today, it would rightly be labeled as Catholics going "woke." Can't wait to hear the excuse for priestesses found in the penumbras and invisible ink of the Old Testament. Be hard to override St. Paul's teaching on the matter though, but hey, scripture apparently hasn't stopped the Catholics from inventing dogmas yet.
I value Catholicism for the sort of academic scrutiny of the Bible; I think the Catechism is an excellent resource. And the Catechism falls short here too, continually citing Luke 1:28 and then the Lumen Gentium (which is not scriptural).
And of course we're still ignoring Levitical law which, presumably, was still in effect since Jesus hadn't been born. So are we assuming Mary had never menstruated and therefore become unclean? While of course menstruation itself isn't a sin, it's certainly not fit for worship or to enter the the temple.
Straight up blasphemous. You can make an idol out of Mary all you want; I won't be a party to it. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." I guess Catholicism isn't for me, which is unfortunate, because I'm not much for Lutheranism or most Protestantism either. I like the Catholic Bible and the history, but... maybe I'll just be a heretical Catholic. Suppose I'll get my communion somewhere else though.