The Dispensation of Divine Revenge

[Leo Volont]

I know many protestants and I have never once heard them insult her (The Blessed Virgin Mary) in any way.

I suppose you are THAT insensitive that you would not pick up on an insult if you were to hear one. For instance, you refer to the Blessed Virgin but you do not capitalize the 'H' in 'Her', which is in itself shows that you don't appreciate Her in anything better than human terms... and to simply think of the Virgin Mary as human IS an insult.

Have a discussion with a protestant regarding the Blessed Virgin. They will typically assert that She did not remain a virgin and had many children. They will quote Paul that She must have been a sinner and in need of Salvation for Herself. They will dismiss Her appointment as Queen of Heaven. They will quote scripture which they claim indicates that they are as important as Mary the Mother of God.

Insults are relative. A little slimy worm may think it is the pinnacle of Creation, but if a worm were to say that I am no better than it is, I would be insulted. When Protestants claim an Equality with the Queen of Angels, it is an insult.

You are simply too dense to pick up on it. We would expect the worms to agree with each other, wouldn't we?

 

[Leo Volont]

Is there a difference between what God wants and what God needs? Is God extraneous?

No, God was not 'extraneous'. Humanity at the time of Christ had the Free Will option to reject and murder Him. Jesus begged God to extend His Protection to the Messianic Ministry. Apparently Jesus felt that if given more time, He could turn the Opinion of the World. God refused. The Pharisees had attempted to murder Christ before and so God had already interceded to protect the Messianic Mission. But God, after awhile, must have determined in His Infinite Wisdom that enough was enough. Protection was withdrawn and Humanity was given unobstucted opportunity to Sin to the fullest extent. Christ did not die for our Sins but because of them. Christ did not die to Save us but rather to indict us before the severest Judge for the worst of all possible crimes.

 

[Bells]

I suppose you are THAT insensitive that you would not pick up on an insult if you were to hear one.

No Leo. I'm not like you. I tend to notice when I'm being insulted. But here in lies the difference. Who exactly was I supposedly insulting? Mary or you? Or are you both one and the same? So if I insult Mary, I'm also insulting you?

For instance, you refer to the Blessed Virgin but you do not capitalize the 'H' in 'Her', which is in itself shows that you don't appreciate Her in anything better than human terms... and to simply think of the Virgin Mary as human IS an insult.

I'm sorry Leo, but I don't capitalise every second word like you do. You use capital letters in words such as violence, history, cities, etc (and that was from just one paragraph in another thread that you started) throughout your sentences, that it seems to cheapen the capitalised term of "Her" when you do use it. And Leo, Mary was human. She was born of a human with human organs. She did not materialise out of thin air. She ate like all humans, she relieved herself like all humans and she gave birth like a human. And let me remind you of something Leo. If I or anyone else were to insult "Her", then it would be she that we insulted, NOT you. You can be quite happy that all of us 'slimy worms' will burn in hell alongside you as you roast for your judgemental ways. You are not Mary Leo, so do not speak for her. And you are not God Leo, so do not speak or pass judgement for him.

Have a discussion with a protestant regarding the Blessed Virgin. They will typically assert that She did not remain a virgin and had many children.

Many firm Catholics also believe that she may have had other children after the virgin birth. It is alluded to in the Bible also that had other children. I'd advise you to read Matthew 1:18 to 1:25.

They will dismiss Her appointment as Queen of Heaven. They will quote scripture which they claim indicates that they are as important as Mary the Mother of God.

Ah yes. And who appointed her? Pius IX in 1854 and this title was made official by Pius XII in 1954. So it was man who enthroned her as the Queen of Heaven. But do not forget, "Her" status as the Queen is one that was given to her because of her association with Christ and that it is only Christ who is to be seen as the King of Kings in "the full and strict sense". You are one of the many Catholics who seem to think that they can be saved not through repention but through devotion. Your devotion could be construed as an insult to Christ and God as you appear to believe that it is not God or Christ who has mercy or would show mercy.

And as to their quoting scripture that puts them in the same royal household as Mary, I'd assume this comes from the notion that all who are baptised share in Christ's kingly office. For example, as said by Christ in the following:

Luke 22:29-30 I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Peter 2:9 refers to man's kingly dignity in Christ But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

A little slimy worm may think it is the pinnacle of Creation, but if a worm were to say that I am no better than it is, I would be insulted.

What makes you think that you are better than the slimy worm in the eyes of God?

When Protestants claim an Equality with the Queen of Angels, it is an insult.

To her, not to you. It is not you who is being insulted. You are not Mary.

You are simply too dense to pick up on it.

No Leo, I think that you are simply too blind to see anything. Your blindness has resulted in you assuming that you are better than other people, thereby allowing you to judge others, when you honestly have no right to do so.

We would expect the worms to agree with each other, wouldn't we?

I wouldn't know Leo. You tell me. What do your fellow worms say to you?

 

[okinrus]

Many firm Catholics also believe that she may have had other children after the virgin birth. It is alluded to in the Bible also that had other children. I'd advise you to read Matthew 1:18 to 1:25.

Perhaps, but it's something that Catholics really shouldn't believe. Matthew 1:18-1:25 uses the Greek word for "until" which my footnotes explain does not necessarily mean that Mary had children after Jesus.

 

[Bells]

Perhaps, but it's something that Catholics really shouldn't believe. Matthew 1:18-1:25 uses the Greek word for "until" which my footnotes explain does not necessarily mean that Mary had children after Jesus.

It does not necessarily mean that she didn't not have children either (if that makes sense)... In other words, the term 'until' is ambigious and she may or may not have had children after the birth of Christ. She may very well have, we can't really know for sure. Okinrus, people will believe what they believe. It doesn't make them evil or 'minions of satan' for believing so. If they interpret those passages literally, they can believe that she did. If she did have children, it does not lessen the Virgin Birth nor the immaculate conception in any way, shape or form. I know of many Catholics who strongly believe that Matthew's verse shows an inclination that she did in fact have other children with her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ. That is their interpretation of the passage. It doesn't mean that they are evil or anything else for believing what is written as it is written in the bible.

Most importantly, it is not for any one person on this earth to judge others or to refer to them as minions of satan or as being evil because they may believe that she did have children after the birth of Christ.

 

[okinrus]

t does not necessarily mean that she didn't not have children either (if that makes sense)... In other words, the term 'until' is ambigious and she may or may not have had children after the birth of Christ.

Yes, I think in Greek the word is ambigious, lacking the information required to make this determination.

She may very well have, we can't really know for sure. Okinrus, people will believe what they believe. It doesn't make them evil or 'minions of satan' for believing so.

From only the text itself, we could never be sure. But the tradition from the Church Father's and appartions of Mary maintain that she remained a virgin.

If they interpret those passages literally, they can believe that she did.

This is why using the word "minion of Satan" is a bit farfetched. Note that my interpretation is literal because that verse does not imply that Mary had children.

There's another place where Jesus is said to have brothers. Here, St. Jerome argues that because the ancient Aramaic word for brother is the same as cousin and the Orthodox Church maintains that Jesus had half-brothers. I believe that both of these statements could be believed by Catholics.

If she did have children, it does not lessen the Virgin Birth nor the immaculate conception in any way, shape or form.

Belief that Mary does not have perpetual virginity will upon investigation mean that many saints who have claimed such were not really saints.

I know of many Catholics who strongly believe that Matthew's verse shows an inclination that she did in fact have other children with her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ. That is their interpretation of the passage. It doesn't mean that they are evil or anything else for believing what is written as it is written in the bible.

Are you sure your're not confusing biological children with spiritual children? Catholics believe that Mary is their mother(ie., Jesus said to John, "this is your mother" and there are passages that indicate that Christ is our brother). Hence, the belief that Mary had biological sons would confuse this issue.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Okinrus,

Good! It appears as though you have upheld The Blessed Virgin's Honor here.

But you present most of your arguments as though they have all been derived from Scripture as deliberated upon by the Bishops. That is misleading. Much of Marian Doctrine has been imposed upon the Church by the inescapable pressures of having to reconcile Church Doctrines to the Reality of the Real Marian Apparitions. The Catholic Church believe that Mary was the Immaculate Conception and Ever Virgin because that has been what She and Her Saints have repeatedly claimed and insisted upon many times over the last two thousand years.

I can offer one 'for instance' of the pressure Our Lady can exert... In the time of the Crusades it was found that there was an existing Holy Order in the Holy Land that was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin -- the Carmelites. It was a Religious Order founded by the Prophet Elijah centuries before Christ and it had been dedicated to protect the female line running up to the Messiah. They protected each girl child and then woman in the Line of Mary until they participated in the Immaculate Conception themselves -- providing the necessary Holy Thing that had been passed down from the Patriarchs for just this occasion. During Her Life they protected Her. When Paul began a Persecution and would have murdered Her, She was wisked off to Mount Carmel by Her Protectors and remained safe. The Order of the Carmelites never disbanded and remained at Mount Carmel. The Room they had given Her while She stayed with them became their Central Chapel.

Many of the Knights were impressed by the Carmelites and became Members of the Order. Other Religious became jealous and quarrelsome and made trouble by claiming that the Carmelites were not even Catholic but were a Jewish Order. Returning Carmelites were arrested and detained while their cases were sent for review to the Pope himself. Well, when the Pope was about to summarily decide for the Church, which meant against the Carmelites when Our Lady the Blessed Virgin appeared to him. She presented no grand argument, except that She made clear that in Her direst need and when She was in the most danger, it was the Carmelites who rescued and sustained Her, and therefore of all Religious Orders, their's would be the one most to be protected, in their turn, by Her Church. Then She threatened the Pope by telling him that as easily as She put Him on the Throne of Peter, She could take Him off it. Now of course we know that Popes are removed only by death. She was effectively presenting him with the choice of ruling for the Carmelites or dying. This is how a Jewish Order became what would be the Greatest Order of the Church. Not through the cogitations and deliberations of some wonky Bishops, but by the direct intercession of The Blessed Virgin Herself.

 

[Leo Volont]

I know of many Catholics who strongly believe that Matthew's verse shows an inclination that she did in fact have other children with her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ.

Such 'Catholics' do not 'strongly' believe anything anymore. You see, the Catholics lost the Civil War for control of our Civilization, and the Protestants won. After that the Protestants and then their spawn -- the secularists, the materialists and finally the downright atheists -- were able to propagandize the public with their anti-Catholic Propagandas. Especially in America the Catholic Church has not been able to protect itself from this inundation of satanic garbage. Additionally, The Church has been weakened in every successive generation as more and more Masons infiltrate into the College of Bishops. Also, misguided Vatican II ecumenism inclines many Bishops, who may still think of themselves as being sincere, into minimizing the Doctrinal Differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

So no. To understand what Catholics really believe you must go back to the time when Catholics understood their Doctrines free and without constaint. Ever since the Defeat and the duress placed upon The Church by the Wars of Protestant Rebellion, it would not be fair to characterize the Compromises of Cowardess and the Pollutions of an Enemy Propaganda as 'what Catholics believe'.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

...the wafer is Christ and I believe this was revealed to me. Leo is in error in this regard because the disposition that one must have before receiving the sacrament. The graces received are only receive inasmuch as one trusts in the efficacy of the Sacrament.

*************
M*W: Hi, okinrus. I'd like to offer a different perspective of the sacrements. The grace one believes to receive is by trusting in the literal transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the body and the blood of Christ. I always had doubts about the literal transubstantiation.

Loosely speaking he is correct that Christ did not *need* to be sacrificed because God does not need to do anything. However, the Eucharist proclaims the resurrected Christ, while Baptism proclaims his death. Death and resurrection are necessary to have Baptism and the Eucharist.

*************
M*W: I agree, Jesus did not NEED to be sacrificed, and I don't agree that he was. It just wasn't necessary. The god I believe in is greater than the god of Jesus. Sacrifice was just not needed. As I see (saw) it, the Eucharist represents the physical body of Jesus, and Baptism refers to the washing away of original sin. Therefore, death and resurrection are NOT necessary to attain salvation by the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. It was my understanding that Baptism and the Eucharist (as in first communion) give us the grace of new life and new wisdom when the child reaches the "age of reason."

As for what Leo is saying about Protestants, I've tried to ask him what's with his attacks on Protestants are, and he has yet to give a good answer.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Medicine Woman,

The trick to understanding Paul is in knowing that he was the Antichrist and so every single one of his doctrines, on thorough examination, must be evil somehow... and wrong!

Paul is the one who taught that the Holy Sacrament was subjective and conditional -- that the Body of Christ would become a poison to anyone who was not entirely prepared and pure. This sounds VERY Religious on its face, but when you examine the Fruits of this Doctrine we find that it only served to limit the distribution of the Holy Sacrament and to scare sincere believers away from it.

Then we need to look at Christ's Establishment of the Holy Sacrament. He never said that we needed to be perfect or that His Body would turn to poison in our mouths. Christ had intended the Sacrament to be our Spiritual Nutrition -- the Medicine which would transform us! If we were not Perfect then all the more reason to take even more of the Holy Sacrament.

Only the Antichrist could assign Evil to the workings of the Holy Sacrament.

 

[Leo Volont]

...the Eucharist proclaims the resurrected Christ, while Baptism proclaims his death. Death and resurrection are necessary to have Baptism and the Eucharist.

Baptism is an Initiation and a Purification. The Holy Sacrament was a Spiritual Nutrient, established before, not after, any resurrection.

The importance assigned to the Resurrection is again Pauline. It is Paul's way of saying "Aren't you all glad that me and the other Pharisees killed Jesus so that he could be Resurrected".

But by the time of The Resurrection already Christ had raised at least 3 people from the Dead. And the Transfiguration, by showing the Souls of a few Famous Dead Jews as being Spiritual Alive, had already established the facts of Personal Immortality. The Resurrection was a non-issue. Paul latched onto it for his own personal reasons.

 

[okinrus]

M*W: Hi, okinrus. I'd like to offer a different perspective of the sacrements. The grace one believes to receive is by trusting in the literal transubstantiation of the bread and the wine into the body and the blood of Christ. I always had doubts about the literal transubstantiation.

My comment is based upon what a saint said. Can you explain the distinction between "believes to receive" and receives?

 

[okinrus]

Leo, you're right. The Eucharist proclaims Jesus' death and resurrection.

 

[Leo Volont]

The Eucharist proclaims Jesus' death and resurrection.

No. The Idea of the Eucharist is to Eat Christ to Become Christ.

We cannot fall into the Trap of giving Positive Value to the Murder of the Messiah. Paul did so only in order to assuage his guilt for having voted to murder Jesus. We did not vote to kill Jesus, so their is no reason for us to find a silver lining around that very dark cloud.

Christ sharing His Substance with us has not reference to Death.

Christ never said "Oh, jee whiz, I wish somebody would come and kill me so that I can finally be of value and have a purpose. I simply feel so worthless and useless teaching these Doctrines, establishing these Sacrament and trying to build a coherent Organization. It will be so much better and I will be of so much more use when I am finally dead!" Paul assumes it, but Christ never said it.

 

[okinrus]

No. The Idea of the Eucharist is to Eat Christ to Become Christ.

No, the idea is that Christ dwells within us.

We cannot fall into the Trap of giving Positive Value to the Murder of the Messiah. Paul did so only in order to assuage his guilt for having voted to murder Jesus. We did not vote to kill Jesus, so their is no reason for us to find a silver lining around that very dark cloud.

If we debate whether Jesus' death has any value, we could debate whether our suffering and death will have any value. To say 'no' is to deny the reason why God allowed death into the world. To say 'no' is to deny our reason for being here.

Christ sharing His Substance with us has not reference to Death.

Yes, you misunderstand. The meaning of death is to die to the world.

Christ never said "Oh, jee whiz, I wish somebody would come and kill me so that I can finally be of value and have a purpose. I simply feel so worthless and useless teaching these Doctrines, establishing these Sacrament and trying to build a coherent Organization.

Christ said that his purpose was his death, and he gave other examples such as the seed of wheat.

 

[Leo Volont]

If we debate whether Jesus' death has any value, we could debate whether our suffering and death will have any value. To say 'no' is to deny the reason why God allowed death into the world. To say 'no' is to deny our reason for being here.


Christ said that his purpose was his death, and he gave other examples such as the seed of wheat.

Allowing Death into the World was concommittant to the First Curse of God upon us for our Disobedience. But I am not talking about Death now. I am talking about the Murder of Christ. You are smart enough to understand the distinction. The Ten Commandments makes it no sin to die, but only to kill.

yes, I understand the 'die to the world thing', and the 'grain must die' thing. But you cannot go from this to the notion that we will be Forgiven Our Sins and achieve Salvation every time we string up another Holy Man. It is ourselves which must die to the World, not the persons our Religious Teachers. Self Sacrifice is one thing, and hammering someone else up on the Cross is quite another.

This last Bloody Dispensation of the Last Two Thousand Years will not end until Humanity finally Apologizes for the outrage it committed against God Himself. The Antichrist may have convinced us all that it was Okay, and even to our Benefit. But NO. It was a Crime.

It is odd that people who would not dream of slapping Jesus Christ in the Face do not even blink an eye when they continue to nail Him the the Cross everytime they assert their Salvation by His Innocent Blood.

 

[Bells]

Good lord! Leo is the Catholic version of PM!

Leo Volont

Such 'Catholics' do not 'strongly' believe anything anymore.

How do you know? Some of those Catholics could even be very strict Catholics with a mind of their own and who have interpreted it in that manner.

After that the Protestants and then their spawn -- the secularists, the materialists and finally the downright atheists -- were able to propagandize the public with their anti-Catholic Propagandas. Especially in America the Catholic Church has not been able to protect itself from this inundation of satanic garbage.

Their 'spawn'? Christ, they're human beings like you and I. You call yourself a Christian and you dare call yourself a Marian Catholic but you come out with crap like this? You know Leo, it is people like you that have made me so glad that I left the Church.

Additionally, The Church has been weakened in every successive generation as more and more Masons infiltrate into the College of Bishops.

That is because the Church is greedy for money. Masons are seen to donate a lot of money to certain religions. Most Bishops, especially in the West, come from very wealthy families, many of whom are in fact Masons. Plus the Mason's being an all boys club suits the Church to a tee.

Also, misguided Vatican II ecumenism inclines many Bishops, who may still think of themselves as being sincere, into minimizing the Doctrinal Differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

It is the uniting of all Christian faiths. Learn to live with it. It will only get worse.

Ever since the Defeat and the duress placed upon The Church by the Wars of Protestant Rebellion, it would not be fair to characterize the Compromises of Cowardess and the Pollutions of an Enemy Propaganda as 'what Catholics believe'.

Yep! Really glad I left! You sound like a Nazi during the 1930's.

I can offer one 'for instance' of the pressure Our Lady can exert... In the time of the Crusades it was found that there was an existing Holy Order in the Holy Land that was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin -- the Carmelites. It was a Religious Order founded by the Prophet Elijah centuries before Christ and it had been dedicated to protect the female line running up to the Messiah. They protected each girl child and then woman in the Line of Mary until they participated in the Immaculate Conception themselves -- providing the necessary Holy Thing that had been passed down from the Patriarchs for just this occasion. During Her Life they protected Her. When Paul began a Persecution and would have murdered Her, She was wisked off to Mount Carmel by Her Protectors and remained safe. The Order of the Carmelites never disbanded and remained at Mount Carmel. The Room they had given Her while She stayed with them became their Central Chapel.

Are you kidding me? Have you ever read a history book? Ever? Or do you take any flight of fancy and think it fact? The Carmelite Order came together towards the end of the 12th century, when a group of hermits gathered on Mount Carmel for a life of prayer. They did not exist before Christ, in fact they are meant to live their lives in an imitation of Jesus Christ. Hence a bit hard to do that if Jesus wasn't born yet. The models for their order were the Prophet Elijah and the Virgin Mary. They were then driven off Mt Carmel in the 13th century by the Muslim resurgence. They then settled in certain areas of Europe and the UK, after which they abandoned their hermit lifestyle and adopted the monastic life of the cloister.

They were not some sacred order that protected the female line running up to the Messiah. Leo, you make them sound like a bunch of killer monks protecting the sacred line or sacred womb. You've watched a bit too much television. Here are some links I think you should read and it will teach you a lot about the Carmelites and where and when they came from:

http://www.helpfellowship.org/carmelites.htm

http://www.geocities.com/korvesem/carmel/carmhist.html

http://www.the-spa.com/vocations/vowed religous.htm Click on the link "Carmelites"... It's the second one at the top of the page.

That is a brief course on the Carmelites Leo. I'd suggest you read it before you make any more fanciful declarations.

Okinrus

There's another place where Jesus is said to have brothers. Here, St. Jerome argues that because the ancient Aramaic word for brother is the same as cousin and the Orthodox Church maintains that Jesus had half-brothers. I believe that both of these statements could be believed by Catholics.

Yes I agree with you. I'm aware that the terms 'brother' and 'sister' could denote a cousin, friend, etc as well as a sibling. But based on Matthew 1:25, Mary's perpetual virginity could have been limited to the birth of Jesus. But the ambiguity of the text cannot answer any such question. I can't think of one place (off the top of my head) in the bible where Mary's perpetual virginity is actually literally supported. It wasn't until several centuries later that the Catholic Church and also the Orthodox views became known on the matter. This is why I am saying that it could be either/or. There is not enough information available to us today to be absolutely sure.

Belief that Mary does not have perpetual virginity will upon investigation mean that many saints who have claimed such were not really saints.

And many may not be saints. And in light of the Catholic Church's explosion of declaring just about anyone a saint now days... well.. makes me wonder actually. Especially when one considers the amount of money the Church makes to declare someone a saint. hmmm...

But many of the ancient saints may in fact have been virgins till their death. That really should not have anything to do with it though, when you think about it in the whole scheme of things. Many saints were not virgins. It was the miracles they supposedly performed, along with many other deeds, that ensured their saintly status. But alas, who really knows for sure?

Are you sure your're not confusing biological children with spiritual children? Catholics believe that Mary is their mother(ie., Jesus said to John, "this is your mother" and there are passages that indicate that Christ is our brother). Hence, the belief that Mary had biological sons would confuse this issue.

No I wasn't confusing biological children with spiritual children.

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Bells,

What. So you know about the Carmelite Order. From a Protestant History book. I would rather believe my own information. I was brought into the Catholic Church by the Carmelite Order. I would imagine they know more about their Order then some ranting Atheist.

 

[Bells]

Dear Bells,

What. So you know about the Carmelite Order. From a Protestant History book. I would rather believe my own information. I was brought into the Catholic Church by the Carmelite Order. I would imagine they know more about their Order then some ranting Atheist.

Err no, I actually learnt about the history order from one of my mothers distant aunts who was a Carmelite nun. I was just a very small girl when she told it to me, and frankly, no where in my Catholic upbringing have I ever heard it told as you have just told it. So unless you're calling her a Protestant now? And believe me, I'd rather believe her than to believe you and your fanciful take on the whole thing. Even the Catholic Church believes differently to what you appear to believe. In fact, I'd rather believe the Carmelites themselves about their own history:

In the XII century (perhaps after the third crusade, 1189-1191), some penitents-pilgrims who had come from Europe, came together near the "spring of Elijah", in one of the narrow valleys of Mount Carmel, to live out their Christianity as hermits after the example of the prophet Elijah in the very land of our Lord Jesus Christ. Then and in later times, the Carmelites did not acknowledge anyone in particular as their founder, but remained faithful followers of Elijah who was associated with Mount Carmel through biblical events and through Greek and Latin patristic tradition which saw in the prophet one of the founders of the monastic life. In the middle of the cells they built a chapel which they dedicated to Mary, Mother of Jesus, thus developing a sense of belonging to Our Lady as Mistress of the place and as Patroness, and they became known by her name as "Brothers of Saint Mary of Mount Carmel". Thus Carmel is deeply associated with Elijah and Mary. From Elijah the Carmelites inherited a burning passion for the living and true God and the desire to make His Word intimately their own in order to witness to Its presence in the world; with Mary, the most Pure Mother of God, they are committed to live "in the footsteps of Jesus Christ" with the same intimate and deep feelings which were Mary's.

In order to have some juridical stability, this group of lay hermits turned to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Albert Avogadro (1150-1214), who was then living at St. John of Acre near Mount Carmel. Between 1206-1214, Albert wrote for them a formula of life. Successive approvals of this formula of life by various Popes helped the process of transforming the group into a Religious Order, a fact which took place at the time of the definitive approval of the text as a Rule by Innocent IV in 1247. Thus the Carmelite Order took its place alongside the Mendicant Orders.
The Carmelite Order

Hmmm very different to your take on it. And yes Leo, this is a Catholic site. In fact it's a site dedicated to the Carmelite Order. I found it by chance from the following link I'm about to give you. In fact, you can find out more about the Carmelite order from here:

http://www.catholic-church.org/apcarmel/links.htm

They have a range of links. I have a distinct feeling that if indeed you were introduced to the Catholic Church by the Carmelites, that they probably told you the truth about their history. I seriously think that it is you who has altered it to suit your warped view of how things should have been.

And Leo, you may classify me as a "ranting Atheist", but at least I'm aware of what constitutes reality aside from fiction and fantasy. I somehow doubt you could say the same.

 

[okinrus]

Yes I agree with you. I'm aware that the terms 'brother' and 'sister' could denote a cousin, friend, etc as well as a sibling. But based on Matthew 1:25, Mary's perpetual virginity could have been limited to the birth of Jesus. But the ambiguity of the text cannot answer any such question. I can't think of one place (off the top of my head) in the bible where Mary's perpetual virginity is actually literally supported. It wasn't until several centuries later that the Catholic Church and also the Orthodox views became known on the matter. This is why I am saying that it could be either/or. There is not enough information available to us today to be absolutely sure.

The consistent use of "Virgin Mary" in early writings suggest that she remained a virgin. Also, Christ said to John, while on the cross, "This is your mother" and to Mary, "this is your son". If Mary had other sons to take care of her, then it would not have been necessary for Jesus to do this.

Verses such as this from Ignatius suggest that Mary remained a virgin. Because if she did not remain a virgin, her virginity could not be revealed.
<blockquote>
Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown,(5) which were wrought in silence, but have been revealed to us. A star shone forth in heaven above all that were before it, and its light was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star. It far exceeded them all in brightness, and agitation was felt as to whence this new spectacle [proceeded]. Hence worldly wisdom became folly; conjuration was seen to be mere trifling; and magic became utterly ridiculous. Every law(8) of wickedness vanished away; the darkness of ignorance was dispersed; and tyrannical authority was destroyed, God being manifested as a man, and man displaying power as God. But neither was the former a mere imagination,(9) nor did the second imply a bare humanity;(10) but the one was absolutely true," and the other an economical arrangement.(12) Now that received a beginning which was perfected by God.(13) Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.</blockquote>

And many may not be saints. And in light of the Catholic Church's explosion of declaring just about anyone a saint now days... well.. makes me wonder actually. Especially when one considers the amount of money the Church makes to declare someone a saint. hmmm...

The Catholic church does not just declare anyone saint. But there is the Miraculous medal and those at Fatima along with just about every saint who has received a vision of Mary.

I'm also not sure how they would make money off of declaring someone a saint?