Are Marian dogmas wildly un biblical?

[Roy5]

To CopticChristian

 As you are well aware, we differ substantially in our views. But I feel privileged to dialogue with you and others. Thanks. I trust that God is in charge, and ultimately we will know the truth in a better place. Meanwhile, my faith is in God and neither in a book or a church. I respect that book and the church, but believe that neither of them are infallible.

GaryTaylor

 Sorry, but if God knows in advance everything we will do, say, etc. - well, then we must be robots. Otherwise, we would really have a choice. God's preknowledge, something emphasized in a fashion by Calvin, means that we must do this or that, so we have no freedom in making decisions. 

 True, some scriptural verses seem to say that. For example, the hairs on our heads are numbered and the Lord keeps track of every sparrow (Luke 12:7)?. To me these verses spoken by Christ bring free will into question. I am balding. Does that mean the Lord determines whenever I lose a bit of hair? This sounds more like some variation of pantheism than Christianity. I suspect it actually has more to do with genes than any super plan of the Almighty. Maybe God planned the genes??? 

 I hesitate to believe that God micro-manages everything. But maybe? We'll know for sure once we gather in that world beyond. This determinism v. free will debate goes on forever, and it will be interesting to know who is right. Certainly much in life is beyond our control. Someone born in the ghettos of Calcutta rarely if ever has the same opportunities as someone born on fashionable Park Avenue in Manhattan. What about slavery? The Bible tells slaves to obey your masters (Eph. 6:5, etc). That certainly doesn't suggest free will. Enough for now. 

God bless everybody.

 

[Good_Fella]

:tanning:

Let me know when we’re back on track, and I’ll hop on the next plane.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe it would make an interesting topic Roy. But due to the context of this thread and the OP, and respect to Eric, I digress.

God Bless you also my brother.

 

[jlhargus]

“I AM” means God is in the immediate moment all the time. So He knows the past, present, and future always, thus He knows yours and my judgement already, and already see’s you in the Grave. There is no mystery here.

The Free-Will is a option that the Lord will not remove and has existed since time existed. If it did not exist then all would simply be prefect robots. Look at the Cross or at Marys Annunciation. Perfect example’s of Free-Will.

However to get back to Our Lady. She would have known the OT for sure since the NT became a result of Her “Free-Will”. Even through the trials of the last three years in Christs life, no-where does she condemn Her own people. There’s a bigger picture focused on that She see’s as do others in these moments. Obviously there are those who see nothing at all in these moments but the immediate chaos.

In this sense it no different than today. Never are we not instructed as to the right direction. It simply isn’t a truth. At every moment and at every thought you make a Free-Will choice. In the end those free-will choices will seal your fate. But you have that choice in every moment. So to you have that choice to see Our Lady as God see’s Her correctly. I understand this is not easy.

So then how important is the Mother of God today? I’d say so important that we could state for sure, this is the period in “time” God gave man to make a choice in regards to His Mother.

The Mother of God didn’t appear on top of the Coptic Church and Bless it for no reason. Perhaps that Blessing is the known to the result of the santification of the Blood being spilled today. What we know for sure is Her last words to the seers. “In the End my Immaculate Heart will Triumph”

Your living in the period now to witness this happen. If one can’t see the forest from above the trees? Its nothing new in history. It doesn’t change the truth, or the facts or the message’s given to mankind. Just as that day Christ died on that Cross, so to it is today. Some just do not understand they play an active role in the time frame of time they live in.

Mary is the Mother of God, and in no way, shape or form after completing Her life as She did. would He (GOD) not hold Her in the Highest regard, just as all the Apostolic Churchs claim. In that sense, the Catholic Church has spoken in high regards in this area to the astonishment of many? This is only because the Lord has continued to send seers to continue to confirm Gods message. So to they have continued to search the Bible and the centurys to confirm Truth. They have confirmed no new truth, only those which have always existed and always will. There is no new truth, no contradiction, only much to be learned and accepted or rejected by your Free-Will.

What new have we come upon that in truth was not here from the begining? The CC did not invent nothing new. Surely by now that folly is put to rest.

If you cannot see it? Perhaps its no different than that day on the Cross that so many also did not see they stood in the presence of God. So too then this is not uncommon. Judas broke bread and was Blessed with being in the presence of God and hearing His teaching in person? And look what resulted through his Free-Will and perhaps by a simple thought in error which sealed his fate, and erupted in more compounded thoughts and errors? Could he not have done exactly as the Thief did on the Cross with Christ? Without a doubt he had been given a period of Mercy, so to all here today are given that period of Mercy.

jlhargus, I’m simply adding to your comment, not commenting on your comment.

Here perhaps we can get on track.

Peace

JL: No problem Gary. I didn’t reply to Roy’s last post so the line could get back on topic.

 

[Todd_Martin]

The virgin birth is in Sacred Scripture and some protestant denominations have taken a vote in their congregations and decided to deny it.

Noncelibate same sex attraction is talked about as sinful in Sacred Scripture. Some denominations deny that as well, hiring homosexual partnered pastors.

I agree that many Protestant denominations out there are denying scripture to satisfy their liberal politics.

Just to clarify though, all orthodox christians (including Protestants) believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the Holy Trinity and the Resurrection. She is the mother of God and has a unique place in the history of the human race. Roman Catholics have traditionally believed that the Virgin Mary continued in youth and virginity to her non-death and had no other natural children after Jesus. I would agree with the quote made by the original poster. There is no biblical reason and no theological necessity for Mary to have been “assumed into heaven”, or have lived in perpetual virginity, or to have been born of a virgin herself, or to be sinless, or to be a second Eve, co-redeemer, co-mediator, etc.

I know many Roman Catholics feel strongly about this topic and seem to sometimes view conversation on the matter as insulting or sacrilege. I think we should first realize where we agree and go from there. The new testament just doesn’t support some of this theology in my opinion. It seems to paint a clear picture as there being a gulf between all humans and Jesus Christ. And the picture of Mary is of a widow (not explicitly stated), who has other children (clearly named). We also know that she was lawfully married to her husband, Joseph, as God had it. The Gospel makes it fairly clear in any language that they had no knowledge of each other until after the miracle birth. We know the names of some of Jesus’s cousins and the names of some of his brothers who were martyrs in the early church.

What the Gospel says seems fairly clear and sufficient for me? So going back to the liberal protestants who twist scripture to satisfy their leanings…Why must we make scripture say something it clearly doesn’t and pretend it doesn’t say what it does?
Is not the Gospel alone sufficient?

 

[PRmerger]

It seems to paint a clear picture as there being a gulf between all humans and Jesus Christ.

This is very Catholic of you to say, Todd!

And the picture of Mary is of a widow (not explicitly stated), who has other children (clearly named).

It would be most helpful if you could cite the verse that says these children were “children of Mary”. Chapter and verse, please.

We also know that she was lawfully married to her husband, Joseph, as God had it.

Again, very Catholic of you to say!

The Gospel makes it fairly clear in any language that they had no knowledge of each other until after the miracle birth.

Check this verse out, Todd:

For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. -1Cor 2:25

Do you think that Jesus ceases to reign after he has put all his enemies under his feet?

Or this one:

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death." 2 Sam 6:23

Do you believe Michal gave birth after she died?

Clearly, the word “until” only indicates a particular activity up to a certain point of time. It has no indication of subsequent activity.

We know the names of some of Jesus’s cousins and the names of some of his brothers who were martyrs in the early church.

Perhaps they were brothers of Jesus, but they certainly weren’t sons of Mary.

There is NO verse in Scripture which says that these brothers came from the womb of Mary.

Lots of other possibilities, though: sons of Joseph, close cousins of Jesus.

I have lots of cousins in my native land. And it’s disrespectful for me to call them by their first name. I call each of them “Big Brother” and “Big Sister” before I say their name.

But they’re my cousins. Not my brothers or sisters.

Is not the Gospel alone sufficient?

It would be helpful also if a Bible verse for this paradigm were also provided.

I don’t think I’ve ever read that the Gospel alone is sufficient. I’ve read in the Scriptures that grace is sufficient. And that Scriptures are profitable. And that the Scriptures are inspired by God.

But nothing that says the Gospel alone is sufficient.

Unless, of course, by “Gospel” you mean the kergyma–the oral proclamation of the Word of God in its fullness. That, of course, is indeed sufficient, and, also the Catholic way.

 

[Anthony_V]

Aging is a product of original sin. It’s up to personal opinion, really. Likewise for the question on whether or not she was capable of becoming extremely ill. Father Sebastian Walshe has a wonderful podcast on the topic of Original Sin in general. I don’t remember what the time mark on the audio is that he speaks about it though, unfortunately.

 

[Todd_Martin]

This is very Catholic of you to say, Todd!

It would be most helpful if you could cite the verse that says these children were “children of Mary”. Chapter and verse, please.

Again, very Catholic of you to say!

Check this verse out, Todd:

For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. -1Cor 2:25

Do you think that Jesus ceases to reign after he has put all his enemies under his feet?

Or this one:

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death." 2 Sam 6:23

Do you believe Michal gave birth after she died?

Clearly, the word “until” only indicates a particular activity up to a certain point of time. It has no indication of subsequent activity.

Perhaps they were brothers of Jesus, but they certainly weren’t sons of Mary.

There is NO verse in Scripture which says that these brothers came from the womb of Mary.

Lots of other possibilities, though: sons of Joseph, close cousins of Jesus.

I have lots of cousins in my native land. And it’s disrespectful for me to call them by their first name. I call each of them “Big Brother” and “Big Sister” before I say their name.

But they’re my cousins. Not my brothers or sisters.

It would be helpful also if a Bible verse for this paradigm were also provided.

I don’t think I’ve ever read that the Gospel alone is sufficient. I’ve read in the Scriptures that grace is sufficient. And that Scriptures are profitable. And that the Scriptures are inspired by God.

But nothing that says the Gospel alone is sufficient.

Unless, of course, by “Gospel” you mean the kergyma–the oral proclamation of the Word of God in its fullness. That, of course, is indeed sufficient, and, also the Catholic way.

Thanks for replying. Funny, I don’t mind being Catholic on occasion as I have occasionally attended a mass while in the military due to the fact that the protestant chaplain corps is largely over-run with government subsidized liberals. Enough of that though, a different conversation.
On the subject of Mary though, you are right to say that the context can sometimes be rather ambigious, although I think that “adelphi” makes it fairly clear that the brothers are natural brothers or half-brothers. I doubt they would be cousins, for the reason that John the Baptist was a 2nd cousin and many of the people surrounding Jesus in his ministry were cousins. Let’s say for agruments sake though, that they were not natural children of Mary. There still is no theological requiste for Mary to have been perpetually a virgin her whole life, not that she certainly wasn’t, but doesn’t seem necessary other than some people would really, really like that to be the case.
As far as Mary’s sinlessness, there is only one that is sinless and that is clearly and biblicaly stated as God (God the Father, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit). All have sinned.
All die. Even if she was the greatest and most moral person that ever lived, she would be unacceptable and unworthy of a Holy God. Christ was her savior, no different fom any other Christian.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s say for agruments sake though, that they were not natural children of Mary. There still is no theological requiste for Mary to have been perpetually a virgin her whole life, not that she certainly wasn’t, but doesn’t seem necessary other than some people would really, really like that to be the case.

The teaching on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, as with all Marian doctrines/dogmas, has everything to do with our understanding about Christ.

[SIGN1]With a flawed Mariology, we come to a flawed Christology.[/SIGN1]

Mary’s PV serves to confirm and affirm the Divinity of Christ. If Mary’s womb were not set aside as a holy tabernacle for the Word Made Flesh, and held other human creatures, one might legitimately ask, “Was that firstborn child of hers really that unique? How divine could he have been, really, if that which supposedly held God Himself later held sinful creatures?”

It’s like the Ark of the Covenant, which once held the Word of God, now carrying around some dusty, dirty desert pebbles.

By denying the PV of Mary it presents an avenue for, say, a Muslim to say: “I don’t think that your Jesus could have been God Himself. For look at what you Methodists say about the womb which supposedly held God. It also held dirty human creatures as well? How holy then could that Jesus be?”

And I would have to answer that Muslim, “Well, sir, your question is a valid one.”

Now, of course, a Muslim has no leg to stand on in arguing against Jesus’ divinity with a Catholic on that grounds. We affirm and confirm Jesus’ divinity by saying that the womb which contained He Who Could Not Be Contained contained no other!

 

[PRmerger]

As far as Mary’s sinlessness, there is only one that is sinless and that is clearly and biblicaly stated as God (God the Father, Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit). All have sinned.

Not quite. Can you tell me how a 3 year old with Down syndrome sins?

And if “all have sinned”, and “all” means literally “all”, then, of course, you’ll have to include Jesus Christ in that.

Of course, if you mean that there are exceptions to that “all”, then you’ve become quite Catholic in your view.

All die. Even if she was the greatest and most moral person that ever lived, she would be unacceptable and unworthy of a Holy God. Christ was her savior, no different fom any other Christian.

Yes, she was saved from sin by her Savior, her Son Jesus Christ.

It’s like the proverbial metaphor of the difference between a man reaching down into the pit that we’ve fallen into and rescuing us from that pit (you, me and the rest of humanity)…

and a man preventing someone from ever falling into the pit in the first place (Mary).

Both men are saviors, no?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Publisher;7255543]I never stated Mary was “divine”…but her devotion filled the “gap” for the Roman worlds need of a “goddess”…Mary’s titles given to her are some of the very titles the Goddesses of ancient Rome…especially Isis and her iconagrpahy

I did not say Mary devotion was “goddess worship”…but goddess worship influenced her devotees and beliefs to a great extent. Christianity in Rome adapted to their pagan converts…pagan feast days became Christian feast days…pagan goddess titles were approriate for Mary by the church of the day.

Publisher; It would appear as do most protestant authors tend to confuse “those things which belong to God with those things which belong to Ceasar”.

Everything that God has revealed in the Son begins with Woman. It is the world and evil which influences men who quench their thirst by inventing and worshipping false gods to compete or deny God’s revelations.

Before man began to invent weapons to destroy one another or invent any false gods. God had already spoke his protoevangelium into existence in regards to the woman and her seed (see Genesis 3:15). And yet you falsify this revelation of the incarnation “through” the Virgin birth by attributing it to men who invented it? When the prophets reminded men that this sign was going to take place, long before the “Roman empire” existed (see Isaiah 7:14)

Have you read the Two Cities of God by St.Augustine? This Catholic saint can shed light on your false interpretations of history, (Who was living at the time) when it was the Catholic Church that these pagans you speak of who were converted from their man made ideologies, not the other way around.

The Word of God, Holy Spirit, the heavenly Angels revealed all what the Church believes about Mary. Man nor the Church ever invented these revelations of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Mother of God (Theotokos), Perpetual Virginity, Assumption into heaven body and soul. IF anything these revelations of the Woman from Genesis 3:15 has corrected what man was decieved into inventing false gods from what God had already spoken into existence by His Word, which in the fullness of time, reveals His Word in flesh.

It was the angel Gabriel from heaven who “Hails Mary full of grace”. The Church only follows the revelation from heaven, when the angel “greets Mary” as royalty by "Hailing her, followed by a new title from heaven reveals Mary to be “full of grace”.

It was through Elizabeth that the Holy Spirit himself reveals Mary to be “blessed among women” immediately what follows is not what the Holy Spirit is doing, but revealing what already is; "most blessed is the fruit of your womb!.

It was the Holy Spirit who revealed Mary to be "The Mother of (Elizabeths “adonai”) my (God incarnate) “Lord”. The Catholic Church only teaches what God has revealed.

I find your reading of history conflicting with what God revealed to his Church in the fullness of time through the blessed Virgin Mary. Yet you argue that paganology invented what God revealed in and through the blessed Virgin, what the Catholic Church teaches?

The Word of God “written” reveals “that all GENERATIONS will call Mary blessed”. Did paganology invent this? Or did God reveal that “all generations will call the Virgin Mary blessed”. Do you obey God’s Word by calling Mary blessed in this age? Do you follow heavens angels who “hail Mary full of grace”?

To call one blessed of God is to pay reverence of the holy of things of God. Catholics do not worship Mary. By you stating this revelation of God, was brought about through paganology only reveals you have a very great misunderstanding of the biblical Mary revealed in scripture from heaven.

It was Jesus himself who dignifies Mary “his mother” with the title of Woman. The Woman whom God speaks into existence from Genesis 3:15 to be revealed in the fullness of time, God sent His son born of a Woman.

It should be noted that these Marian revelations from God were already believed in long (400 years) before pagan Rome fell and became Christian. They do not become doctrine yet because these revelations from God were never contested among the only Christians living who were Catholic.

The doctrine’s of Mary reveal the True God incarnate Jesus himself. What God has revealed in Mary is a physical reality and promise God gives to each believer now and in eternity “full of grace”. Mary is the example of all Christians who call her “blessed” in every age until the parousia.

The liturgy of the Church was already in place long before pagan Rome fell, which celebrated the incarnation through Mary. These became feast days to be celebrated which replaced the pagan Roman emperors pagan feast days of false gods. To which you appear to be conflicting those things which "belong to God are given to God with those things which belong to Ceasar give to Ceasar. But history proves it was Ceasar (Constantine) who was giving back to God what the Ceasars falsely worshipped.

To answer the OP; The doctrines of Mary are biblical sound, revealed, supported and practiced from sacred Tradition long before pagan Rome lifted the persecution of the Catholc Church and became Christian “Catholic”.

Peace be with you

 

[Publisher]

Friend Gabriel…thank you for your explanation…it is a very Catholic explanation…I disagree with you concerning the matter…but your explanation IS Catholic through and through.

Peace friend.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

If Roman paganism influenced Marian devotion, then what should we make of other regions as well? Africa? Greece? Jerusalem herself? All had evidences of early forms of Marian devotions.

 

[Good_Fella]

There is no biblical reason and no theological necessity for Mary to have been “assumed into heaven”, or have lived in perpetual virginity, or to have been born of a virgin herself, or to be sinless, or to be a second Eve, co-redeemer, co-mediator, etc.

The fact Mary is our Lord’s mother and Jesus took his flesh from her is reason enough for her having been assumed into heaven. Imagine how Mary must have yearned to be reunited with her Son body and soul after he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, because of her immeasurable love for him. Unless the love Jesus has for his mother is not as perfect as the love she has for him, the two must have reunited in a sweet physical embrace.

St. Paul tells us that those who marry their betroths do well, but those who decide not to marry - which should include those who decide not to consummate their marriage - do better (1 Cor 7:8). And Jesus tells us that there are those who have chosen to be enuchs for the sake of the kingdom in heaven (Mt 19:11), for the sake of being in closer proximity to God (1 Cor 7:34).

The virginal conception and birth of Mary are not official doctrines of the Church taught by the ordinary Magisterium. But these events first find their place in the oral tradition of the Jewish Christians in Palestine as recorded in the Protoevangelium of James, a mid-2nd century work. Although the Protogospel is an apochryphal work written by an unknown author who has assumed the name of the apostle and cousin of our Lord, it nevertheless is a work of great historical importance by bearing witness to the beliefs of Christians in the nascent church at Jerusalem where James preached. At that time there was no NT canon of inspired Scripture, but only the oral tradition that served as a source of divine revelation. “The word of the Lord abides forever.” This is the word that has been proclaimed to you (1 Peter 2:5). In 2 Tim 3:8, Paul writes: “Just as Jannes and Jabres opposed Moses, so they oppose the truth – people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith.” The apostle is comparing the heretics of his time with two of Pharaoh’s sorcerers who had challenged Moses. We do not have their names recorded in Exodus, so even Paul drew from an oral tradition when he wrote his letter to Timothy. Meanwhile the Tipikon of St. Sabbas (485 A.D.) reveals that the virginal conception and nativity of Mary were already part of the sacred liturgy of the eastern Church and celebrated as a feast. The liturgy contains items of faith that belong to the sacred Tradition of the Church and so belong to the deposit of faith as a medium of divine revelation along with sacred Scripture. A theological reason for the virginal conception and birth of Mary is that the virginity and chastity of the Mother must fittingly be as perfect as the virginity and chastity of the Son. Nature should yield before grace, so that Mary could be a mother completely worthy of a divine Son in their shared humanity. For this reason, too, God granted Mary the singular privilege of being preserved free from the stain of original sin in the first instance of her conception and bestowed on her efficacious graces for leading a sinless life.

God decreed that the Saviour ought to come into the world to redeem humankind by the free consent of a woman acting in faith working through love (Gal 5:5-6), for it was by Eve’s unfaithfulness and indifference that Adam (mankind) eventually fell from God’s grace. In the divine order of redemption, by God’s wisdom, the recapitulation and restoration of humankind in God’s friendship should sufficiently be attained in the same manner by which the fall occured at the beginning of time. Mary is the new Eve, because by her* fiat *she became the mother of the spiritual living - all those who are alive in Christ, the new Adam. Eve brought sin and death to the world by enticing Adam to partake of the forbidden fruit. Mary has brought redemption and eternal life to mankind (Adam) by offering the fruit of her womb: the Source of all grace, which our original biological parents had forfeited and were unable to communicate to us after the fall. As the new Eve, Mary has had a mediatory and redemptive role to play in collaboration with the work of her divine Son, for we are all fellow workers with God (1 Cor 3:9). She has contributed to the restoration of the human race in God’s grace no less than Eve had contributed to mankind’s fall from grace. Eve turned out to be an unfaithful helpmate to Adam, whereas Mary proved to be a faithful helpmate to her Son, the new Adam. Both Jesus and Mary brought salvation to the world by their obedience to the will of God: Jesus in strict justice, and Mary by right of friendship with God, and not in coordination with the merits of her Son because of his divine nature.

The new testament just doesn’t support some of this theology in my opinion. It seems to paint a clear picture as there being a gulf between all humans and Jesus Christ.

But the gulf can be sufficiently narrowed by God’s sanctifying grace, which allows us to partake in the divine life and have a share in Christ’s glory.

By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through sinful desire.
2 Peter 1, 4

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

We also know that she was lawfully married to her husband, Joseph, as God had it.

We know that Mary was only legally married to Joseph, for she morally belonged to God as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in virtue of their begetting a child together in a covenantal relationship. The angel says to Joseph in a dream: "Do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:20). The infinitive “to take as a wife” is expressed paralambano gunaika in the Greek translation of the Hebrew text. It means Joseph is to take his betrothed home with him as his wife, but not to cohabit with her as a spouse normally should. And the reason is because she has conceived a child by the Holy Spirit. Joseph is given to understand that his marriage with Mary cannot be a moral bond between them, for she has conceived a child by another Person to whom she has already consecrated herself for life.

When the angel tells Mary that she will conceive and bear a son, she becomes perplexed and asks in reply:* “How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man?”* (Lk 1:34). Obviously Mary is conversant with the biological facts of life, so her question can make sense only in light of a vow of chastity she had made to God while she was a young girl serving in the temple, according to an oral tradition. To relieve Mary of her doubt that God has any intention of honouring her act of consecration to him, the angel replies: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (Lk 1:35). The word “power” (resuth), to lay one’s power over a woman, is a Hebrew euphemism for having marital relations. A woman who lays with a man as his wife belongs only to him in accordance with the moral precepts of Mosaic law. Likewise, the word “overshadow” is a euphemism for having marital relations. Ruth is just as concerned about her chastity as Mary is when she says to her master Boaz: "I am your handmaid (servant) Ruth. Spread the corner of your cloak over me, for you are my next of kin." (Ruth 3:9). To “spread one’s cloak over a woman” euphemistically means for one to lay with a woman or cohabit with her. The Hebrew word for cloak is tallith (literally “wing” kannaph], cf. Lk 13:34), which is derived from the word telal, meaning shadow. Thus a man overshadows a woman, by his power or right as a husband, by covering her with his cloak or coming together with her. As a chaste Jewish woman, Ruth refuses to lay with Boaz unless they are morally bonded as husband and wife. And it is after Boaz lays with Ruth as his lawfully wedded wife that God enables her to conceive and bear a son (Ruth 4:13). In the same righteous manner does Mary conceive and bear a son by the power of the Holy Spirit in accord with God’s law. We mustn’t presume that God would contradict himself by dismissing his own precepts in his acts. Thus in the spirit of Ruth does Mary declare: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.” (Lk 1:38). She is assured that she shall remain a chaste life long servant of God belonging exclusively to him as she consecrated herself to be by oath, and that God has honoured her vow by mutual exchange in ratifying the covenant between them. Joseph fully understands that he cannot consumate his marriage with Mary by having intercourse with her, now that the angel has spoken to him. Mary belongs exclusively to God as his bride like Israel does.

Again I passed by you and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I* spread the corner of my cloak over you*** to cover your nakedness. I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you; you became mine, says the Lord God.
Ezekiel 16, 8

The Gospel makes it fairly clear in any language that they had no knowledge of each other until after the miracle birth. We know the names of some of Jesus’s cousins and the names of some of his brothers who were martyrs in the early church.

First of all, Peter makes it very clear that not all Scripture is easy to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Second, Matthew writes "He had no relations with her until (not “until after”) she bore a son (Mt 1:25). So the passage isn’t as clear as you make it out to be. The Greek preposition *heos *(until) never references the future. Nor does the construction heos hou, which Matthew uses, always reference the future. It can be used interchangeably with *heos *to reference the time before a pivotal event. Third, if Jesus had younger brothers who were eventually martyred, he would have placed his mother in the care of the next elder son instead of John’s care before he died on the cross. Surely, he could have foreseen that his supposed brothers who disowned him during his public ministry would ultimately be converted to the Faith.

What the Gospel says seems fairly clear and sufficient for me?

Scripture is materially sufficient, but formally insufficient. Much of the written word is ambiguous and unclear, and so it can be infallibly interpreted only by the appointed teaching authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in light of sacred Tradition. Scripture itself does not claim to be formally sufficient as the sole rule of faith to go by.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[PRmerger]

IWe also know that she was lawfully married to her husband, Joseph, as God had it.

We know that Mary was only legally married to Joseph, for she morally belonged to God as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in virtue of their begetting a child together in a covenantal relationship.

Hi, GF,

What’s the difference between “lawfully married” and “legally married”? Are they not synonymous?

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi, GF,

What’s the difference between “lawfully married” and “legally married”? Are they not synonymous?

Hi. :tiphat:

The marriage between Mary and Joseph was technically a putative one, for she had conceived a child by another person during her betrothal which legally invalidated their marriage. We know that Joseph took responsibilty for the conception of the child Jesus, so the marriage was regarded as legally valid by everyone else: “Is this not the carpenter’s son?” However, Joseph understood by his dream that if he ever had relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus, their marriage would become morally unlawful by the precepts of Mosaic law, for there already existed a marriage between God and Mary. Morally Mary was lawfully God’s bride, but technically the legal wife of Joseph as long as he claimed to be Jesus’ father. Thus, the difference is that the marriage was lawful in the eyes of God as long as Joseph and Mary remained continent, although legally invalid because of a pre-existent marriage, but was kept hidden and so remained technically valid. Their marriage was a legal arrangement, but not a morally lawful bond that permitted consummation.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi. :tiphat:

The marriage between Mary and Joseph was technically a putative one, for she had conceived a child by another person during her betrothal which legally invalidated their marriage. We know that Joseph took responsibilty for the conception of the child Jesus, so the marriage was regarded as legally valid by everyone else: “Is this not the carpenter’s son?” However, Joseph understood by his dream that if he ever had relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus, their marriage would become morally unlawful by the precepts of Mosaic law, for there already existed a marriage between God and Mary. Morally Mary was lawfully God’s bride, but technically the legal wife of Joseph as long as he claimed to be Jesus’ father. Thus, the difference is that the marriage was lawful in the eyes of God as long as Joseph and Mary remained continent, although legally invalid because of a pre-existent marriage, but was kept hidden and so remained technically valid. Their marriage was a legal arrangement, but not a morally lawful bond that permitted consummation.

PAX
:heaven:

Sounds Beautiful.

I never really though about the link which Anthony V posted either. However from the Assumption and Original Sin I see its logic. I remember the Assumption teachings very early on in grammer school. Which is exactly why I get where Gabe is coming from in that regard.

See, at youth I was stuck on the idea that the Sisters would suggest you pray the Five Decades of the Rosary. I had no problem with the Rosary. I had a problem with the idea I had to recite “all those” prayers at one time. My theology was I could go to the tabernacle of Jesus Christ at the CC, then sit in front of the Cross and literally speak to God through prayer. Trust me, I was in awe of that alone for a very long time.

How things change, today I’m running to confession in an hour, as its the First Saturday of Reparartion.

Thats why they call them the “mysteries” a theological reality you can spend a lifetime contemplating. Truth is, is it not the better to say, I do not understand, than to state I do not believe?

Peace

 

[PRmerger]

Hi. :tiphat:

The marriage between Mary and Joseph was technically a putative one, for she had conceived a child by another person during her betrothal which legally invalidated their marriage. We know that Joseph took responsibilty for the conception of the child Jesus, so the marriage was regarded as legally valid by everyone else: “Is this not the carpenter’s son?” However, Joseph understood by his dream that if he ever had relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus, their marriage would become morally unlawful by the precepts of Mosaic law, for there already existed a marriage between God and Mary. Morally Mary was lawfully God’s bride, but technically the legal wife of Joseph as long as he claimed to be Jesus’ father. Thus, the difference is that the marriage was lawful in the eyes of God as long as Joseph and Mary remained continent, although legally invalid because of a pre-existent marriage, but was kept hidden and so remained technically valid. Their marriage was a legal arrangement, but not a morally lawful bond that permitted consummation.

PAX
:heaven:

Ah, very good, then.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

benidict

“on another thread, a poster, stated that the dogmas relating to our Blessed Mother were “wildly un biblical.” to go into this would have derailed that particular thread, and out of respect to the posters wishes not to pursue this debate, i have decided it would be interesting to hear from anybody at all, Catholic or protestant who believe that the Marian dogmas are un biblical. i myself, do not see them as such. when a side by side comparison is made between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. there is a very strong parallel…”

Many repeat the tired ol’ mantra: We WORSHIP Mary & yada, yada, yada…However, Tim Staples has a fresh, Fabulous CD series “All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed” & just a few thoughts from this:

1. The great, handpicked Angel of God Gabriel calls Mary “Hail”, in Greek “Kaire” = a title for Kings, Govenors, not for a little Jewish peasant girl from the back water town of Nazareth. this is the only place in the Bible where a woman is addressed as “HAIL”. Abram → Abraham, Serai → Sarah, Simon → Peter etc. got important name changes but Mary got the best of all, a “Title change”. This is a most STUPENDOUS moment in the history of the WORLD - GOD is taking HUMAN FORM & not just any ‘ol female body will do folks, Jesus’ Mother is NOT just like us, incredibly set apart I would say.
2. Gabriel recognizes this humble little teenager as his superior, the Mother of God, he is respectful to her (most artists depict Gabriel on one knee asking for her hand in marriage on behalf of the Holy Spirit - “Be it done to me…”). Gabriel doesn’t take her voice away, unlike Zechariah, for questioning, saying “how can this be”
3. Mary says “ALL GENERATIONS shall call me BLESSED.” A prophecy - if your denomination isn’t calling her that, then We’ve got a problem Houston; where is that denom in the scheme of things?
4. She is the NT fulfillment as the 2nd Eve “who unties the knot of disobedience” of the OT1st Eve (early Church Father ______?).

As per Kaire or Hail, check this out:
Hail in Latin is AVE
Eve in Latin is EVA
If you reverse EVA you get AVE or HAIL!!!
Those who say "Rejoice, Oh Highly favored daughter"in my estimation just don’t get “it” and are missing the full impact of Gabriel’s message

1. Kaire, Kecharitomene = the latter is FULL of GRACE forever and always & can’t take one drop more, she is FULL vs. St Stephen about to be stoned is “Pleres charitas” Full of Grace only at the time the stones are to be hurled at him. Now if you are FULL of GRACE, where is your ability to sin?.. But her spirit rejoices in “God my Savior” so she is saved by her Son.
2. OT Ark of Covenant carries the Word of God vs.
   NT Ark of the Covenant Blessed Mother Mary carries the WORD of GOD in her womb and is in Heaven with Him in Revelation from head to toe Rev 12:1. The Ark goes where the WORD goes.
3. OT David dances in front of the Ark and say “Who is it that the Lord should come to me”
   vs.
   NT Elizabeth exclaims when she greets Mary “Who is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me” & John in her womb dances for JOY!

and there is plenty more authentic biblical scholarship to be joyful over :flowers: - what was that about the Protoevangelium of James?