Not that I would ever want to get between a Catholic and a Protestant squabbling over who owns God ... and whose Church is the real Church but I think we should all be aware of the problems that churches have in their histories before we start taking the moral high ground.

Wobbles placed a most interesting link which regretfully shows a list of unholy evil people who have been charged and found guilty of abominable crimes in Australia.

Let me say that most people in most religions are good decent people who try to be honourable people in their daily lives.

So in an effort to keep to the topic Is honesty a Christian Value? I thought I might share these links with you.

If true this should be most worry some for honest catholics http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Popes.html

You can get another view from this Catholic encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

So many evil deeds have been done by those calling themselves Christians who belong to Allegedly Christian organisations that one has to wonder what attracts scumbags to Churches and why do churches ignore their histories?

You will note that in the Catholic encyclopedia they have stopped documenting what the modern day Popes did ... Most curious!
So from Benedict XV (1914-22) to Benedict XVI (2005—) they have decided for some reason not to comment on individual Popes.

You will note that is from WW1 (1914) onwards. Why?

Some people have called - Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) Hitler's Pope
as Hitler, who was allegedly a Roman Catholic was never excommunicated for causing the death of millions; whereas Martin Luther was excommunicated for criticism of the papal system. Strange but true!

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm Is worth a look!

Oh Oh now look at the problems we have with all things Biblical!

Somehow we have to get back to the original question relating it to modern politics but seeing some are claiming to own God I thought we might go for a stroll down memory (oops history)lane... lol

Hi there Webby..... welcome to OLO.

I appreciate that you took the effort to actually argue your case in contrast to some on this forum who resort to personal abuse to 'win' :)
I don't agree with your voluminous argument.. for reasons I will outline.

1/ Why is it neccessary to project 'back' a doctrine of perpetual virginity ? from when it was decided. It was 'decided' not revealed.
2/ What WAS revealed..is as follows:

Mark 6:1-3

1Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."

CONTEXTUALLY there is no reason NOT to read this as 'his own' brother.. James. The plain simple meaning... taken as we would intepret ANy text.. is that those referred to here are his immediate siblings. Real brothers and real sisters. If not... there is no point in 'singling' them out from the rest.. is there ? No..of course not.

continued in part 2

PART 2 Paul....

18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

Again...there is no reason whatsoever to read OUT of this that James is the Lords real and immediate brother. The only reason one might like to do that is to impose an artificial meaning on it.. as in the sense of a backward projection.

The absense of any specific teaching or even strong suggestion or hint of Mary not having any more children reduces the need to impose such a meaning. It just...does not matter. Plain and simple.

Mary could not possibly have been a technical virgin after Christs birth as the hymen would have been well and truly ruptured. Claiming that is may have been healed is again.. an argument totally from silence and 'dogma' rather than the plain meaning of the text.

Mary.. has been elevated to 'co-redemptrix' by the Catholic Church and this along with various other things (such as indulgences) is what differentiates it from the protestant tradition.
The idea that we can pray to any other than God... Father,Son and Holy Spirit.. is in direct conflict with the very first and second commandments.

CONCLUSION.. whether Mary had other children with Joseph.. simply does not matter.. it will not change an iota of the Lords saving work or teaching.. Salvation is still in the Christ who died for our sins.. conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.....

The only reason to add or invent any doctrine other the the simple plain language of the text would be to impose human tradition on it.
If it is not specifically taught... why even think about it ?
Will we be 'less' saved by the Lord if we believe his human mother had more children after him ? Would it change his miraculous birth ?
Is prophecy less fulfilled if she has more children ?
No to all :)
blessings.

Now I will enter the middle of a Protestant and a Catholic debate.

David ... I don't think praying to Mary is against the 1st and 2nd commandments ... I think it conflicts with Matthew 6.9 where Jesus, your Christ tells you expressly how to pray.

He says "This is how you SHOULD pray"

Is Jesus' precise explanation not enough? Also note he didn't say you can add bits to it or leave bits off... Can Christians simply follow there Christ' instruction?

Now I don't think praying to Mary is wrong or evil it just isn't biblical....

Is the Trinity biblical? .... Jesus said things like "Forgive them father for they know not what they do"... "If it be thy will" ... "Our Father who art in heaven" ... Um why would he say these things to himself...

Oh OH Christians re-interpreting the Bible again to suit their doctrines... God save me from your followers...lol!

So if you good men of Christ are going to fight on doctrinal matters... what does that say to us mere mortals sitting on the fence watching the silly debate?

See if my understanding is right... Christian = Christ's teachings... not Paul's, not the Vaticans, not Peters... but Christs! The others are man's interpretations...

You guys can't even understand and follow Christ's precise instructions. Who gave you the right to re-interpret Jesus' teachings?

There is only one ministry... It is the Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ... Why do Christians have to name ministries after themselves? Isn't this sheer arrogance and pretending to be equal to your Christ?

Now if you guys can't tell us the truth about Jesus... why would we listen to you about anything? Could we non-christians know more about spiritual matters than you with your heads in the Biblical soup?

Is honesty a Christian value? Is following Christ precise teachings honest? Is it Christian to vote for a known untruth teller? Is a liar on the public record like a Pharisee or a Sadducee and just a snake ...as Jesus called them? Could you guys be Pharisees and not realise it?

Dear David
Our Lady as co-redemptrix will be made a dogma in the future. Currently it is ordianary teaching status; so you will get your imposition in another century LOL. This teaching is based,once again from the earliest centuries.
Indulgences are still valid; don't confuse them with Tetzel's abuse of them. An abuse doesn't negate a teaching/principle.

You mention Protestant tradition. So you hold to a tradition nevertheless which is curious as Protestants are meant to negate traditions as being man-made. The true position of course is that there are not only man made traditions but also apostolic traditions. Many Protestants do not know the difference.

You and I have provided bible quotes however the Catholic Church preceded the New Testament. The decision on which books were accepted and which were not to be accepted was made by the Council of Rome and 27 books that make up the NT were declared.
Divine Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Scripture records here that we go to the Catholic Church; not read the Scriptures from outside of the Church nor make up our own ideas to form 'churches' contrary to the one and only visible Church.
On Our Lady as Mediatrix:

Much of the devotion to Mary shown by Christians of the Catholic and other Ancient Churches depends upon Mary's mediation. This mediation is seen in terms of Mary's assistance in prayer and in obtaining grace.

Many Protestants oppose prayer to Mary and the Saints, citing this verse:

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; " (I Timothy 2:5)

As in other cases, Protestant fundamentalists often tend to quote just one verse completely out of context. let's look at the whole passage.

"I urge then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings, for all those in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and holiness. This is good and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus."
1Timothy 2:1-5

From this full text of the passage we can see three important things:

1. Paul is asking fellow Christians to pray and intercede with God for those in authority and for other third parties.

2. These prayers and intercessions are being made on behalf of other people, and to God. This is a mediation of prayer. Christians are being asked to mediate between all people, Christian and non-Christian, and God.

3. Since this is all one passage, it is absolutely clear that when Paul refers to there being only one mediator between God and men, he is not referring to the mediation of prayer. Jesus's unique mediation is a different mediation - the mediation of our salvation.

Jesus is the one Mediator of our salvation, our only Saviour. But He is not our only intercessor, as the whole passage above clearly indicates. So the one passage that fundamentalists have used to deny intercessionary prayer, when read in context, actually backs up intercessionary prayer.

YES. BUT WHY SHOULD I ASK MARY OR ANYONE ELSE TO PRAY TO GOD FOR ME WHEN I CAN PRAY TO HIM MYSELF?

When we are ill, or someone we care for needs prayer, we ask other people to pray to God for us. Why do we do this if our own prayer is enough?
In James 5. 14-16 we are told to get the Elders of the Church to pray for us and to annoint us when we are sick. Reading on, we find: