A Question for Catholics

[BlestOne]

How can Mary be without sin? That doesn’t make sense. The Bible says ALL have fallen short of God’s grace. And didi you say that James was Jesus’ cousin? I’m lost there too. The Bible says that he was Jesus’ brother. I never realized that the Catholic church teaches things which are contrary to the Bible. I never knew this.

Mary was sinless because God is outside of time. God knew she would be the bearer of God (Jesus). To be worthy of that task, one would have to be pure and devoid of sin.

To say ALL have fallen short… is like me saying everybody likes vanilla… just about everyone does, but I am positive there is someone who doesn’t. ALL is still an accurate term because God set Mary aside from birth for this purpose, so she is like one in a billion… we don’t say all except that one when talking about that many in comparison to 1 exception.

The Bible says brother because in Biblical languages there was no separate word for brother… In essence, the word that was interpreted as brother means kinsman… could be a brother, could be a cousin. Catholics maintain that Mary had no other children but Jesus, there are many theories on this, but is seems the most plausible is that Mary, was dedicated at birth to be a temple virgin. When she hit marriageable age, an elder “husband” was found for her, most likely a widow, that would support her and honor her vow of celibacy.

 

[po18guy]

Not long ago I heard a Protestant preacher make the following humerous statement to emphasize how Jesus was perfect, and I am relating this as well as I can remember:

How would would you like to have been one of Jesus’ brothers or sisters? Mary would be saying, “James, why can’t you be more like Jesus?” James would probably answer, “Why can’t you be more like Jesus?”

My question: Would you or would you not be affected by this anecdote?

Not at all. Following is a private revelation that erased my last objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity. A little language and culture study helps, and this was revealed to me at a Catholic bible study. In those days, a woman relied on her husband for support. When he died, the children then supported her. If she was childless, she was in dire straights, because she had no one to rely on for support. Even worse, society considered her to be cursed by God, who gave her no children. Such women were shunned, and suffered greatly, reduced to begging for subsistence.

Jesus had great love for widows. This was evidenced by the “widow’s mite” story in both Luke 21:1-4 and Mark 13:41-44. Christ was so impressed at the widow in the temple that he made a point of teaching His disciples about her selflessness, for the sake of God. Again, Jesus showed His great love for the widow in Luke 7:11. When He and his entourage met the funeral party leaving the gates of the city of Nain, He took Heavenly pity upon the now childless widow who was enroute to bury her only son. He, as God in Christ, raised her only son to life and presented him to her. God raising an only Son to life. See any similarity? Imagine the awe!

Then, in John 19:26-27, Jesus’ last physical act on earth was to give Mary to John, telling him, “This is your mother” and saying to Mary, “This is your son”. Why did He do this at all, and why as He was dying on the cross? If Mary had any other children, they would have supported her for the remainder of her life. For Jesus to do this would have been a great insult and disrespect to Mary’s other children, IF SHE HAD ANY. There’s the rub! She had no other children to support her, as John “took her into his home from that hour”

Again, in the Aramaic, there was no word for “cousin”. So, “brother” and “sister” were used to describe various relatives. Remember that in some cultures, to this day, brother and sister can be used to address even those from the same town or village. Union members, did your mother actually give birth to all those “brothers” and “sisters” in the photos at the union hall?

The evidence goes against Mary having human children and in favor of her perpetual virginity, inspite of what Protestants love to claim. Remember that Protestants have to attack the Catholic faith, so as to justify their separation from the One True Church. Pray for them, that their hearts may be illumined.

 

[krissy343]

Simply put, why would GOD create a woman to bear His human form, His son, that was a sinner? God HATES sin! God’s power is infinite and to think that he would allow a sinner to bear and raise Jesus is ridiculous and surely an insult to Him and his Divine power. Come on, think logically! Sorry to get bent out of shape but it’s pure logic! Also, I’m sorry if i’m reiterating what someone else has already said.

 

[BrewMax]

Simply put, why would GOD create a woman to bear His human form, His son, that was a sinner? God HATES sin! God’s power is infinite and to think that he would allow a sinner to bear and raise Jesus is ridiculous and surely an insult to Him and his Divine power. Come on, think logically! Sorry to get bent out of shape but it’s pure logic! Also, I’m sorry if i’m reiterating what someone else has already said.

You present a good argument and you are right, God hates sin. Mary was sinless at the time of Jesus’ birth because she was given grace, but to assume that she remained sinless her whole life is neither provable or Biblical. Nice bit of logic, but Scripture is supreme in all things and issues.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<<Again, I didn’t mean to offend anyone, it just looks very obvious to me that the church kind of stretches or just ignores much of what the Bible says,>>

My observation is that it’s very obvious that Protestants in general and pop-evangelicals in particular stretch, or even outright ignore, much of what the Bible says.

 

[Jordan_Francis]

You present a good argument and you are right, God hates sin. Mary was sinless at the time of Jesus’ birth because she was given grace, but to assume that she remained sinless her whole life is neither provable or Biblical. Nice bit of logic, but Scripture is supreme in all things and issues.

BrewMax,

It is quite natural that Mary would remain sinless for the rest of her life. Not only did bearing God in the flesh require a state of total purity, but think for a minute about how that fleshly union would have raised her to a level of holiness (by God’s grace) that no other human will experience until the coming of the Kingdom. Mary carried God in her own womb, shared her own blood with the Incarnate Son, Who took from her flesh in order to offer salvation to the world.

If Mary was sinless when she bore Christ (through Christ) , then that means she was free from the stain of Original Sin. The logical implication of this is that **her nature would not compel her to sin **in the manner that our nature compels us to sin, even after we have accepted Christ.

Mary is the New Eve. To argue that Mary had to fall into sin, even though she was not tainted by Original Sin, **would also mean that Eve had no choice but to fall into sin **(which, ultimately, makes Original Sin a flaw on God’s part and not ours).

 

[thecoach]

You present a good argument and you are right, God hates sin. Mary was sinless at the time of Jesus’ birth because she was given grace, but to assume that she remained sinless her whole life is neither provable or Biblical. Nice bit of logic, but Scripture is supreme in all things and issues.

Well, according to your logic, how do youprove MAry was sinless at Jesus’ birth? Where in Scripture does it SPECIFICALLY say that she was sinless? Full of grace, according to your logic, should meanonly that,not sinless.

 

[Jestocost]

You present a good argument and you are right, God hates sin. Mary was sinless at the time of Jesus’ birth because she was given grace, but to assume that she remained sinless her whole life is neither provable or Biblical. Nice bit of logic, but Scripture is supreme in all things and issues.

Eve (and Adam) were in a state of total grace and had never sinned. One day Eve submitted to temptation and was followed by her husband. This was the most cataclysmic event in all of history. Everything we are discussing her is a result of it.

Mary was in a state of perfect grace and was sinless to adulthood and even motherhood. You say she sinned after that. Where is the story of this second fall from grace? Where are it’s reprocussions?

 

[cranster]

I always think about St. Joseph – he had to live with two sinless people – can you imagine the frustration!!!

Yeah, but could you immagine having those two with you when you died?

 

[Cran]

Our priest refers to St. Joseph in his sermons usually as: The poor man whose fault it was when something wrong happened at the dinner table…

But of course, he isn’t entirely serious

 

[John_Hiner]

You present a good argument and you are right, God hates sin. Mary was sinless at the time of Jesus’ birth because she was given grace, but to assume that she remained sinless her whole life is neither provable or Biblical. Nice bit of logic, but Scripture is supreme in all things and issues.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

The customary response to this is to ask: Where does it say in Scripture that “Scripture is supreme in all things and issues”?

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[krissy343]

You present a good argument and you are right, God hates sin. Mary was sinless at the time of Jesus’ birth because she was given grace, but to assume that she remained sinless her whole life is neither provable or Biblical. Nice bit of logic, but Scripture is supreme in all things and issues.

That would be like God saying, “OK I’m done with you now, you’ve served your purpose. Now, my child, I will take back that grace that was once given to you. You’re on you’re own, good luck!” That sure wouldn’t make God out to be a loving God now would it?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The Bible says that he was Jesus’ brother. I never realized that the Catholic church teaches things which are contrary to the Bible. I never knew this.

Hi Brewmax,
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach contrary to scripture.
Having existed since apostolic days, the Catholic Church
understands the correct sense of scripture a little better than others.

Now, the early Christians used the SEPTUAGINT Greek bible as their Old Testament scriptures and often copied it’s usage of Greek words. The underlying Hebrew had no specific word for cousin. In the Greek Septuagint, the Greek word for “brother” was used to describe cousins and nephews, etc. etc. For example, Abraham’s nephew Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” in the Septuagint Greek Old Testament the early Christian believers and writers used. So they, when speaking of near-relatives of Jesus, used (like the Greek Old Testament) the Greek word for
“brother” instead of anepsios. Moreover, anepsios means only a cousin, but most ancient Catholics believed that the “brothers” of Jesus were a) sons of St. Joseph who was a widower and also some of them were definitely sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Cleophas, according to Eusebius the ancient church historian, was St. Joseph’s blood-brother. That is why, in the Gospel of John, Mary the Wife of Cleophas is called the virgin Mary’s “sister.” She was actually the virgin Mary’s sister in LAW, since no mother (except maybe deep in the Ozarks) would name BOTH of her daughters, Mary.
So, the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were a mixture
of Joseph’s children by a prior marriage (he was much older than the virgin Mary and was dead by the time of Christ’s ministry and crucifixion) and also some cousins by the wife of Saint Joseph’s blood-brother Cleophas (Mary wife of Cleophas, the virgin Mary’s “sister”).
The Catholic Church is not teaching contrary to scripture.
The early church, taught directly by the apostles and who knew the true identities of these relatives of Jesus, ALWAYS regarded Mary as a perpetual Virgin (with the exception of 2 writers,
Tertullian who apostasized from the Church into Montanist heresy, and Vigilantius). The fact that Joseph was dead when Jesus began his ministry is pretty well established by the fact that Jesus’s relatives (loosely called his “brothers” and “sisters” following the practice of the use of “brother” in the Greek Septuagint Old Testament) often followed him around, sometimes in the company of Mary his Mother who, with Jesus busy traveling most of the time, would be associating more frequently with her stepsons and the sons and daughters of Mary the Wife of Cleophas , her “sister.”
Whew!! Hope that helped.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Tonks40]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

The customary response to this is to ask: Where does it say in Scripture that “Scripture is supreme in all things and issues”?

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

This is worth repeating

 

[cranster]

I apologize for the long post.

I read an interesting phrase that got me thinking. “Stop using pretzel logic!” So I looked up the history of the pretzel, and found that it was first created by a monk between the 5th and 7th century which led me to think that even using the concept pretzel logic is something that really would only be understood in modern thought.

So I thought, when I look at faith as a Christian, how do I view it? Do I view it through the eyes of my 21st century thinking, understanding, culture, and language? Now how can I apply 21st century thinking, understanding, culture, and language to 1st century Judea. I can’t unless I truly understand the thinking, understanding, culture, and language of that time. I would have to look very deep into the history, thought, and language use of that time to understand it. One example is the word “brother”. It didn’t have a counterpart from 1st century Judea to 21st century fundamentslism. Yet it is the understanding of the 21st century that is applied to the ancient use of the word.

Every aspect of 1st century Judea is 2000 years removed from us. Was the thought “Scripture is the supreme rule and authority” a thought in 1st century Judea. How could it be? It hadn’t even been written yet, and wouldn’t be formalized for another 3 centuries or so. Then how could the first century Christian have survived without it? They had it by word of mouth from Jesus to the apostles and their successors and preserved in it’s proper context and understanding from the very beginning.

The concepts of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the Trinity, The Eucharist, and Purgatory to name a few were part of the thought of that time and were fiercely guarded and protected from the beginning by the apostles and their successors. They were The oral tradition that Paul talks about in 2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” Tradition that the New Testament itself came from.

Some of the traditions are scripturaly implicit i.e. The immaculate conception, the assumption, and some are explicit like the Eucharist in John 6, and that one screamingly so I might add. I fully understand that you don’t agree with our interpretation, which doesn’t contradict or violate the integrity of the written word.

Now fast forward 2000 years and look at sola scriptura since it is the foundation of most of the arguments here. Did it exist in 1st century Judea. Utterly impossible since the written word didn’t exist at that time. Paul was in Jail writing some of them. So the very first Christians had the Whole Word of God both oral and written as some of the letters were beginning to be disseminated, and we Catholics believe that the whole Word of God is both written and oral, and meant to be taken and understood together as a whole and not separated, and rightly so because that’s the way the very first Christians knew it to be.

So here is my question. If Paul told us, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” and you reject the oral traditions established by the Church that Jesus founded on the rock Peter which is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, Then what oral traditions are you holding fast to, given that it is a commandment from Holy Scripture itself and all?

 

[Teflon93]

Not long ago I heard a Protestant preacher make the following humerous statement to emphasize how Jesus was perfect, and I am relating this as well as I can remember:

How would would you like to have been one of Jesus’ brothers or sisters? Mary would be saying, “James, why can’t you be more like Jesus?” James would probably answer, “Why can’t you be more like Jesus?”

My question: Would you or would you not be affected by this anecdote?

Affected how?

I’m not sure I even get the joke, and not because I think the pastor was somehow demeaning Mary—it’s simply such an odd attempt at a joke that I simply don’t get it.

 

[jmcrae]

Not long ago I heard a Protestant preacher make the following humerous statement to emphasize how Jesus was perfect, and I am relating this as well as I can remember:

How would would you like to have been one of Jesus’ brothers or sisters? Mary would be saying, “James, why can’t you be more like Jesus?” James would probably answer, “Why can’t you be more like Jesus?”

My question: Would you or would you not be affected by this anecdote?

No, since I would never be present in a Protestant church to hear it, in the first place.

Regarding the anecdote itself, it reminds me of a funny song by the Arrogant Worms called Jesus’ Brother Bob, which, to my way of thinking, shows God’s wisdom in preserving Mary from having other children besides Jesus, through her vow of perpetual virginity. (You have to scroll past the ads to get to the actual lyrics of the song.)

By the way, it is God’s own law that if a woman becomes pregnant, then the one by whom she became pregnant must become her spouse. Since God cannot sin, it is unthinkable that He did not become Mary’s spouse. Joseph, being a man of honour, would not have had other children with Mary after the birth of Jesus - he, too, understood the law. (After all, it is the very reason that he originally was going to divorce her - so that she could marry the father of her child.)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I apologize for the long post.

IThe concepts of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the Trinity, The Eucharist, and Purgatory to name a few were part of the thought of that time and were fiercely guarded and protected from the beginning by the apostles and their successors. They were The oral tradition that Paul talks about in 2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” Tradition that the New Testament itself came from.

I’m first trying to wrap myself around the concept coming in your list at all, let alone first (in front of the Trinity and the Eucharist).

The IC was condemned as a novelty with it first appeared about a thousand years ago. I’m not going to go into the late date of Purgatory.

The Assumption was a tradition protected in Jerusalem until the 5th century. Why Rome decided to make it a public issue in the 20th century we can’t fathom.

 

[cranster]

I’m first trying to wrap myself around the concept coming in your list at all, let alone first (in front of the Trinity and the Eucharist).

The order was arbitrary and not in the order of importance.

The IC was condemned as a novelty with it first appeared about a thousand years ago. I’m not going to go into the late date of Purgatory.

The concepts were understood in the early Church and formaly defined in later centuries.

The Assumption was a tradition protected in Jerusalem until the 5th century. Why Rome decided to make it a public issue in the 20th century we can’t fathom.

I understand you can’t fathom it, but that does not make it any less true.

What I’m interested in are what are the oral traditions you hold fast to Since it’s a command from Sacred Scripture?

 

[guanophore]

How can Mary be without sin?

She did not have any concupiscence

That doesn’t make sense. The Bible says ALL have fallen short of God’s grace.

You are misunderstanding the meaning of the verse.

And didi you say that James was Jesus’ cousin? I’m lost there too. The Bible says that he was Jesus’ brother.

He may have been the son of Joseph from a previous marriage. In any case, Jesus had no uterine brothers, because he was an only child.

I never realized that the Catholic church teaches things which are contrary to the Bible. I never knew this.

You still don’t know this. The Catholic Church produced the Bible, and there is nothing in it that contradicts the TEachings of the Church. One of the requirements for a book to be included was that it was entirely consistent with the Teachings.

Again, I didn’t mean to offend anyone, it just looks very obvious to me that the church kind of stretches or just ignores much of what the Bible says, thats all.

It appears that way because you have not been adequately informed about the Apostolic Teachings.

My Bible doesn’t say Hail Mary full of Grace, it says, whom God has found favour with.

This is a common Protestant translation, to combat the meaning of the original language.

I also thought that the early Christians in Christ’s day formed the Bible. Just some thoughts there.

Yes. They were all Catholics. No books were included that do not reflect Catholic Teaching.

So then you refute Scripture?

Certainly not! We just understand that it was produced from the Sacred Oral Traditions-the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles. We interpret it in the light of what was taught by them.