 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 12:10 am |
|
What kind of marriage did May and Joseph have? I read in another thread that Mary's virginity was more of a spiritual nature than a physical one, and I wondered if that meant that her and Joseph could have consummated their marriage after Jesus was born. I am having problems understanding how they can be seen as having been married if it never was consummated.
I stopped attending RCIA classes around Christmas, and now I feel it is important to look at some issues that I feel that I never really understood. I owe it to myself to not run away from something just because it is hard to understand.
If this is in the wrong folder, then oops! 
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 12:26 am |
|
Daffodil wrote: What kind of marriage did May and Joseph have? I read in another thread that Mary's virginity was more of a spiritual nature than a physical one, and I wondered if that meant that her and Joseph could have consummated their marriage after Jesus was born. I am having problems understanding how they can be seen as having been married if it never was consummated.
I stopped attending RCIA classes around Christmas, and now I feel it is important to look at some issues that I feel that I never really understood. I owe it to myself to not run away from something just because it is hard to understand.
If this is in the wrong folder, then oops!
First of all, welcome to CHN. We're glad to have you here with us. Please feel free to ask any questions you have, and we'll do our best to answer them.
When we say that Mary's virginity was more spiritual than physical, we are referring to the possibility that her physical virginity was destroyed in childbirth, not that she ever had intercourse with Joseph or anyone else. This was through a singular grace given to Mary and Joseph. In their time, it was not unusual for an older man to marry a young consecrated virgin and bring her into his house to care for him and his children. Their relationship may have been of this variety. We simply do not know.
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary you might find interesting.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 12:43 am |
|
Thanks for the link, it has helped a lot. 
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2112 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 01:24 am |
|
What kind of marriage did Mary and Joseph have? I read in another thread that Mary's virginity was more of a spiritual nature than a physical one, and I wondered if that meant that her and Joseph could have consummated their marriage after Jesus was born. I am having problems understanding how they can be seen as having been married if it never was consummated.
This is a topic that gets kicked around quite a lot in discussions between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants seem to argue from the standpoint of what “normal” people like you and me do. Catholics, on the other hand, usually point to the belief of the early Church, using such materials as the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the pronouncements of the Councils of the first centuries. With such diverse starting points, it’s no wonder that there are differences between Catholics and others in how important Mary’s virginity really is.
For a Catholic, relying on the ancient testimony, two things are clear: First, Mary could not have been the mother of the Son of God if at any time she had had normal relations with her husband, and this for two reasons: a) a virginal birth was required to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity, and b) a virginal marriage was required to preserve that demonstration over time. Second, it was still necessary for Jesus to be born into a real human family, and this for two reasons: a) it established his legal legitimacy, and b) it affirmed his genuine humanity. Thus the questions of the Holy Family and Mary’s virginity both depend on the affirmation of the dual nature of Christ as true God and true man.
Regarding the first point: Catholics regard Mary as the New Eve and the Ark of the Covenant by way of biblical typology. She is the New Eve because, in a spiritual way, she is the mother of all the living — those who are born “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). She is the Ark of the Covenant because, in both a physical and a spiritual way, she is the vessel that carried our Lord’s earthly presence and brought about his incarnation into the world. Just as in the Old Testament God manifested himself in a pillar of cloud and fire hovering over the ark of the covenant, so in the New Testament God manifested himself by overshadowing the virgin Mary and entering into his own creation in human form.
Regarding the second point: Even if Mary and Joseph’s marriage seems abnormal in some respects, there are reasons why it had to be special and not “just like all the rest.” Protecting the legitimacy of Jesus’ claim to genuine humanity was one part: he had to have a family for that. But protecting his claim to divinity required that family to be virginal.
Do you think that the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (as we read in Luke 1:35) is not an indication of who Mary’s spiritual spouse really is? She conceived and bore a son, and as the angel told her, “therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (ibid). How is it, then, that Joseph, the upright man (Matthew 1:18), would not think it sacrilege to demand his marital rights? For this reason, he “knew her not” (ibid., v. 25).
What, then, of the marriage? Because it was fruitful, it was clearly valid. All marriages really involve three parties: the man, the woman, and their offspring. But they also involve God, because without God, marriage is less than the mating of animals. This marriage gave birth to God. In this sense, it was also consummated, although the manner of it was extraordinary. (Lest there be difficulties in someone’s mind, childless marriages are not thereby invalidated. This is a physical condition, not the intent of the spouses. But by the same token one can see how an intent to avoid having children can be seen as invalidating. Hence the Catholic condemnation of contraception.)
I stopped attending RCIA classes around Christmas, and now I feel it is important to look at some issues that I feel that I never really understood. I owe it to myself to not run away from something just because it is hard to understand.
You do well.
If this is in the wrong folder, then oops!
It’s fine. And if it were not, it takes only a few seconds for a moderator to move it.
David
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 07:06 am |
|
Do you think that the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (as we read in Luke 1:35) is not an indication of who Mary’s spiritual spouse really is? She conceived and bore a son, and as the angel told her, “therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (ibid). How is it, then, that Joseph, the upright man (Matthew 1:18), would not think it sacrilege to demand his marital rights? For this reason, he “knew her not” (ibid., v. 25).
Can you explain how it would be sacrilege for Joseph to have marital relations with Mary? I do not understand how Mary can be married to our Lord, at least not in any way different from how we as a Body will be married, or joined, to our Lord, someday.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2112 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 11:25 am |
|
St. John Chrysostom (4th century bishop of Constantinople) said that Mary is unique among mankind in that the is the daughter of God the Father, spouse of the Holy Spirit, and mother of God the Son. Luke 1:26–56 is the ultimate source of his statement. He speaks of a fruitful union, entered into voluntarily and validly by God and Mary. If, then, she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and by his agency gives birth to God the Son, then God has prior right. Joseph, being an observant Jew and fearing God, would understand her as the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6:6–7; cf. Matthew 1:18–19), as I explained previously. Yet he would also be obedient to God’s command, given through the angel (Matthew 1:20–25), that he be Mary’s legal spouse and her Son’s guardian.
Now as you say, we as Christians are joined to our Lord as the body is to the head (Ephesians 5:23), for we partake of Christ’s body and blood through the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 10:16–18). But Mary is traditionally described as the neck of that body, for just as God is our Father, so she is our mother through giving birth to God incarnate (Hebrews 2:14–16). For this reason, we are designated in scripture (Revelation 12:17; compare John 19:26–27) as “the rest of her offspring,” and the brethren of Christ (Hebrews 2:11–12, 17). So the Virgin’s family is immense, and we are part of it.
We are brethren of Jesus and children of Mary. How, then, can we claim to be the mother of all the living as she is? Do you not see the significant difference in our mode of being joined to our Lord? Does this answer your question?
David
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 05:45 pm |
|
We are brethren of Jesus and children of Mary. How, then, can we claim to be the mother of all the living as she is? Do you not see the significant difference in our mode of being joined to our Lord? Does this answer your question?
I have heard this in RCIA before, that Mary is my mother. Is this something that I would have to believe in order to be Catholic? This is where I am at: I have one earthly mother, and a parent in heaven who serves as both my mother and my father: the Lord. For me to place anyone else over me as a mother figure in heaven, would be for me to worship them. I am incapable of doing anything less.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2112 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 06:44 pm |
|
For me to place anyone else over me as a mother figure in heaven, would be for me to worship them. I am incapable of doing anything less.
Hmm. Are you saying that your other mother, Eve, is not in heaven? For she, too, is called the mother of all the living. The sense is somewhat different than with Mary, of course. But in spite of her faux pas early on, I believe she could well be there. Is Eve, in your opinion, to be worshiped?
Also, let us look more closely at our own earthly parents. I’m getting up in years, and my father passed on some time ago. (My mother is still living at age 87, bless her.) Supposing that he, too, is in heaven, are you saying that I must worship him?
I suspect that you are attempting to view Mary, the mother of Jesus, as some sort of goddess. This is not what Catholics believe. It is only what some Protestants claim that Catholics believe. We need to look at the doctrine of the Communion of Saints to correct this misunderstanding. This doctrine is mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed, so it is very ancient. It is covered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church here and here. The first link discusses the Communion of Saints in general; the second link discusses Mary specifically in her role as our mother.
Additionally, I see you saying “to place anyone else over me as a mother figure…,” which leads me to suspect that you are understanding “mother” solely as an authority figure and not as a source of life, love and wisdom. This seems to be a very distorted model of the human family and does not correspond at all to the Catholic understanding.
Finally, since as I have shown in my previous posts, the doctrine of Mary as our mother is biblical, specifically stated in several places, and not just something “dreamed up” by the Catholic Church, it seems that it is not only “something that [one] would have to believe in order to be Catholic,” but something that ought to be believed no matter what kind of Christian one is. So am I not following your logic here? Could you perhaps explain your viewpoint more fully, especially in relation to the passages of scripture that I have cited?
David
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 22nd, 2007 11:19 pm |
|
The only place in the Bible where I see Mary mentioned as mother, besides being Jesus' mother, is when Christ is up on the cross, and assigns John to take care of her. This applies to John alone. If others find great meaning in seeing her,or anyone else, as a mother-figure, then of course they should do so. But she does not perform any function for me that remotely resembles motherhood, that could not be better described in another way. Since this is a stumbling block for me (I do not want to go back to goddess worship as I did in my New Age years), then should I still be expected to do it? It feels like worship to me, and it would be worship if I did it. I just don't know how NOT to make it worship. This is not to say that I believe that all Catholics worship Mary; it just means that I would be.
If my mothers dies, she will still be my earthly mother. But she will never be my heavenly mother. Mary is my sister in Christ.
I am not attempting to see her as a goddess figure. I am attempting to see her as she is, which is a very faithful servant of God, who holds a very special place in Jesus' heart, and who can shed some light on Jesus' humanity.
I am trying to understand Mary's marriage with Joseph, and I think I do, thanks to CajunRick.
But what you have said, I do not understand at all.
I guess I will bow out on the off-topic part of this thread, but I am so glad to finally understand about temple virgins.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 228 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 12:13 am |
|
Let's be clear about the passage you just mentioned. I've seen many different translations of this passage, but I've never seen one that says "Jesus turned to John ....". Every version I've seen (even the JW) says some variation of "Jesus turned to THE DISCIPLE WHOM HE LOVED ..."
Now I've heard some theologians (even some catholic ones) write this off just as Johns way of referring to himself, and there may be some truth to it, but I would urge you to look at what it says in your bible, and then ask yourself if you are a disciple of the Lord, and if He loves you, and then ask yourself what your basis is for assuming that he was speaking to John and John alone.
Regards Dave
Last edited on Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 12:14 am by DrDave
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 12:26 am |
|
Daffodil wrote: This applies to John alone.
That is not how the Church sees it. Jesus gave Mary to all of us, through John, to honor as Mother. The Church declares her as Mother of God and Mother of the Church. Perhaps this Faith Fact from Catholics United for the Faith will help you to understand the Church's position.
We do not see Mary as Mother in the same way we see God as Father. God is our creator, a Divine being to whom all worship is given. Mary is human; she provided humanity to Jesus and instruction in how to be a man. It was Mary who taught him in his Divinity to never forget his humanity. We honor and respect her in a manner greater than any other human, but it does not even begin to approach the worship we give to God. The greatest honor and veneration we give to Mary is for her unfailing love of God, and her fidelity to God's will. We honor all the saints, of course, but the greatest honor is to Mary for her absolute and complete devotion to her Son.
We honor Mary as Mother because, as Mother of the Church, she is the Blessed Mother of us all. And as I am your brother in Christ, Mary is also your Mother in Christ because she is the Mother of the Christ. You cannot be his sister without acknowledging both his Father and his mother.
At the same time, you do not have to pray to her, pray the Rosary, participate in novenas in her honor, etc. But since Mary is central to the prayer life of the Church, you will have a hard time being Catholic without accepting Mary as Mother.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 10:14 am |
|
Now I've heard some theologians (even some catholic ones) write this off just as Johns way of referring to himself, and there may be some truth to it, but I would urge you to look at what it says in your bible, and then ask yourself if you are a disciple of the Lord, and if He loves you, and then ask yourself what your basis is for assuming that he was speaking to John and John alone.
Well, I say John because that is who my priest said it was (and that is who scholars guess it was, as well ) Whomever it was (because that is not the point), Jesus was talking to him, and not to all of humanity. He was making sure that his mother would be taken care of. I don't see any evidence that he was talking to me or to you. Is the Tradition for believing this older than the fourth century?
Rick, I will look at that link you provided.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 10:20 am |
|
I guess I will bow out on the off-topic part of this thread, but I am so glad to finally understand about temple virgins.
I really only intended to ask that one question at this time. I apologize to anyone who was offended by my remarks.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 228 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23rd, 2007 11:40 pm |
|
Daffodil wrote:
Well, I say John because that is who my priest said it was (and that is who scholars guess it was, as well ) Whomever it was (because that is not the point), Jesus was talking to him, and not to all of humanity. He was making sure that his mother would be taken care of. I don't see any evidence that he was talking to me or to you.
I fail sometimes in that I forget that sometimes the people that I am addressing weren't raised with the same preconceptions as me and don't have a similar way of looking at the world as me, as a result of this I sometimes am unclear, or worse cause offense and if this is the case let me apologize.
I was raised in a household where it was accepted as fact that the female of the species could do two things at the same time (as a typical male, I have never tried ). Accepting this and accepting that "Nothing is impossible for God" I have always thought that even though we are taught to call God "Father" that this does not necessarily limit him to doing only one thing at a time.
With this in mind lets look again at the passage in John 19:26-27
26When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home
John is commonly accepted as the author of this Gospel, so one might ask, if he was talking about himself, why didn't he say "Jesus saw Me" or "Jesus turned to John", rather than using the non-specific "disciple whom he loved". Some would suggest this indicates that John meant that Jesus spoke to "someone other than John". What I, perhaps poorly, tried to suggest earlier is that I think that God, through his evangelist John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is doing BOTH.
I'm not suggesting that it was anyone other than John at the foot of the cross 2000 years ago, what I'm suggesting is that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit there is some reason that John didn't write the words "Me" or "John" but wrote the phrase "the disciple whom he loved" to indicate that while in a physical sense his words were directed as John, that there is a spiritual dimension to his words as well, and that anyone who considers themselves to be both a disciple of, and loved by Christ, might also hear Christ asking them to "Behold, your mother!"
Regards Dave
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 465 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 6th, 2007 12:00 am |
|
| Mary has been, and is, a stumbling block to me as well, comming out of Protestant land. Much of it I'm begining to understand now from a Catholic perspective, two points of difficulty for me, immaculate conception, and perpetual virginity. Could you explain, or provide links, that defend these beliefs against Protestant attack, and the verses in scripture Protestants use to refute the Catholic position? Would be greatly appreciated!
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2112 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun May 6th, 2007 01:02 pm |
|
Mark, I’ll give you some links to peruse on Mary’s perpetual virginity, because it is close enough to the original topic to be included here. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception should be treated in another thread if you would like us to help you with it as well.
From the Catechism
RealPlayer audio files by Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner, a world renowned Mariologist
St. Jerome’s letter Against Helvidius
Wikipedia article (includes additional references)
From apologist James Akin’s website
From apologist Jim Seghers’ website
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 6th, 2007 03:15 pm |
|
Daffodil wrote: Now I've heard some theologians (even some catholic ones) write this off just as Johns way of referring to himself, and there may be some truth to it, but I would urge you to look at what it says in your bible, and then ask yourself if you are a disciple of the Lord, and if He loves you, and then ask yourself what your basis is for assuming that he was speaking to John and John alone.
Well, I say John because that is who my priest said it was (and that is who scholars guess it was, as well ) Whomever it was (because that is not the point), Jesus was talking to him, and not to all of humanity. He was making sure that his mother would be taken care of. I don't see any evidence that he was talking to me or to you. Is the Tradition for believing this older than the fourth century?
The Tradition is as old as the Church, or even older. Mary was revered as Mother by the entire early Church. She was present in the Upper Room on Pentecost as a special and unique guest. John maintained primary responsibility for her, probably as much because he was the youngest of the apostles, and this may well be the reason he was spared martyrdom, but wherever he went, she accompanied him, and she was revered and honored as Mother. A church was even built in Ephasus to commemorate the house in which she lived during her final years on earth. Does this sound like she was "nothing special"? There's no church anywhere to honor the home of Clement of Rome, or Iraneus, or even the apostles. There is no doubt Mary was accorded singular honor by the early Church. Catholics still accord her singular honor as scripture commands: "All generations will call me blessed."
Catholics United for the Faith have a Faith Fact called Mary's Role in Our Salvation that reads in part:
Mary is also known as the “Mother of all Christians.” This title refers to Our Lord’s words from the Cross to Mary and John (Jn. 19:26-27). At the time of His death, Jesus gave Mary to John and John to Mary. “From that hour [John] took her to his own home” (Jn. 19:27). John represented the Church at the foot of the Cross. Therefore, all of us are invited to welcome Mary into our homes as our mother. The Holy Spirit makes this point again through Saint John in Revelation 12:17, when “the woman,” the mother of the Redeemer, is also described as the mother of all who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. God chose to save us by becoming man and allowing the Blessed Virgin to be His mother. Our salvation comes by being grafted into the Family of God by faith and Baptism. In a family, the mother is necessary, and so Mary in this sense is necessary for salvation.
So Mary is our Mother as Christ is our Redeemer, and a necessary part of our salvation. Without a human mother, Jesus could not have assumed humanity and could not have saved us.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 9th, 2007 05:36 pm |
|
Cajunrick,
I understand the beliefs now. And agree with them. I had responded in PM, and neglected to say it publically. Oops!
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
Current time is 07:07 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
