Behold Your Mother

[Bodyandblood999]

Yes.

The argument is illogical.

argumentum ex silentio: Arguing that because there is no evidence of something means it is not true. (i.e. because it’s not in the bible, it’s not true).
confirmation bias: Selecting only evidence that is in favor of the persons view and then arguing based only on that evidence while ignoring or rejecting all other evidence to the contrary (i.e. other historical, authentic writing are rejected because they are not in the bible).

The bible doesn’t contain everything that was taught, and it is not the authority. The bible is a teaching aid that was put together by the one True Church. The Church is the authority (as the Bible indicates). There is Oral Tradition and Sacred Tradition.

The Sacred Traditions were established by Jesus, and these are the Sacraments. The instructions on which the Sacraments were to be administered were both handed down in writing and orally, but most of it wasn’t written down until much later when their was a need. There were a lot of people for a very long time that did not know how to read, so having a book containing all the teachings of the Church to which people could reference whenever they had a question would not have been very practical. The Bible we have today wasn’t even officially put together until many years after the Church started.

Oral Tradition started with Jesus who did not write a book or instructions at all. Instead he gave instructions to the Apostles directly, who then did the same, but sometimes they wrote letters giving instructions when they could not be present to teach or correct people, and they needed to address something important. This is why you’ll see at the end of their letters that they would tell them more when they visit.

An example of evidence of oral tradition from historical documentation:

Concerning Mary’s Assumption, we have this from St. John of Demascus:

“St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” - St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96)

This is not in the Bible, but it is evidence that the Apostles did in fact hand things down via Oral Tradition, and they didn’t feel the need to write everything down, because it was not necessary for someone to have every single thing written down in order to believe if they in fact had faith in Jesus Christ.

Interesting that Holy Scripture, which, regardless of what you may try to say, trumps all subsequent decrees, says zero about such things. Scripture is so incredibly complete and full of, as Paul says, things “profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness”. It is truly remarkable that it would in fact be silent about these things if they were so important. Just sayin’ !!

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Interesting that Holy Scripture, which, regardless of what you may try to say, trumps all subsequent decrees, says zero about such things. Scripture is so incredibly complete and full of, as Paul says, things “profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness”. It is truly remarkable that it would in fact be silent about these things if they were so important. Just sayin’ !!

There is scriptural evidence everywhere. While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries—no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.”

At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions—they were added in the 12th century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.

What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child” (Rv 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rv 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.

But does this passage really refer to Mary? Some say the woman represents Israel or the Church, and certainly she does. John’s use of rich symbolism is well known, but it is obvious from the Bible itself that the woman is Mary. The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil)—and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rv 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.

In my heart I believe that we as CHRISTIANS (Yes Catholics are Christian) belong to a family of GOD. I believe that we share with the SAINTS, and the KINGDOM includes these SAINTS that are alive. Not according to me, but according to the promises of Christ. According the witness of John. Giving us glimpses of what the HEAVENLY MASS is. If we are going to be faithful to Christ, won’t the words of his prayer be fulfilled? When CHRIST says, “Thy KINGDOM COME, THEY WILL BE DONE…ON EARTH…AS IT IS IN HEAVEN?”

Which church imitates ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN?

Which one beholds our MOTHER as CHRIST SAID TO DO from the cross? If he did not mean for us to BEHOLD OUR MOTHER and those words were NOT ETERNAL, are we to really believe that everything else HE said was for an eternal purpose with the exception of that? Is that the rock I am to accept? Even though it affirms that we are the offspring of the WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH? I know many say that refers only to Israel. Well, Christ did not say from the cross with BEHOLD ISRAEL as our MOTHER. Did HE?

Revelation 12:17, it says, “The devil went off to wage war with the rest of HER OFFSPING. All those who bear witness to Christ, and keep HIS commandments.” Well, when we combine that verse with what Christ said from the cross to the disciple that was bearing witness and keeping his commandments in John, we can see how those words are indeed eternal. We can also see why John was at the foot of the cross in the first place. From what I gather, John was the only disciple of the 12 to take the first EUCHARIST in grace. Why? Cause he was the only one to acknowledge his unworthiness when he leaned on Jesus’s chest and asked him, Is it I when Christ said one of them was going to betray Him. That was not a small thing that happened between Jesus and John. In fact, later in Johns gospel, Peter asks Jesus about the disciple that reclined at His chest.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Interesting that Holy Scripture, which, regardless of what you may try to say, trumps all subsequent decrees, says zero about such things. Scripture is so incredibly complete and full of, as Paul says, things “profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness”. It is truly remarkable that it would in fact be silent about these things if they were so important. Just sayin’ !!

Illogical conclusion and proof-texting. Paul never claims scripture is complete, and his statement supports the fact that it is used as a teaching aid, not the authority. The Bible tells us it is not complete:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]

I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]

…what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]

BTW, why would you use argumentum ex silentio in your reply to my post, which clearly points out that the argument you shared with us falls under that logical fallacy? Are you attempting to use Argumentum ad nauseam to win some debate here? Perhaps my post made you start to think about something that scared you. If so, good luck with all that denial.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Illogical conclusion and proof-texting. Paul never claims scripture is complete, and his statement supports the fact that it is used as a teaching aid, not the authority. The Bible tells us it is not complete:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]

I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]

…what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]

BTW, why would you use argumentum ex silentio in your reply to my post, which clearly points out that the argument you shared with us falls under that logical fallacy? Are you attempting to use Argumentum ad nauseam to win some debate here? Perhaps my post made you start to think about something that scared you. If so, good luck with all that denial.

Those that argue sola scriptura confuse me a bit. I have had this discussion with my friend who walks around (proudly) with his sola scriptura shirt.

Here are a few things that I never see them consider.

The early Christians (for at least the first 400 years or so) never had an official canon to refer to. At least it was not the canon that we know today. The early Christians certainly did not have a convenient pocket bible to take out and thump at people.

95% of all Christians (if not more than that) for 1400 or 1500 years did not know how to read or write. Hence the reason for the stained glass windows for the congregations. It was their way to “read” what they were listening to. Also, the 3 dimensional pictures (better known as statues) that protestants love to hate.

What did the Christians rely on then? The oral traditions (the APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS) that have been passed on to us and which Paul said to hold fast to. It has been these traditions that have sustained Christians from the beginning, and even if one is SOLA SCRIPTURA, you would need to hold fast to these traditions. Not speak out against them.

If a protestant was truly sola scriptura then they would know that the church is the pillar of all truth, which is what it says in 1st Timothy 3:15. Again, they would need to adhere to the authority of the church…even if they were adhering to the authority of scripture.

The inability to consider things outside of what we have today is a real problem. When we do that, it lacks wisdom. It truly lacks humility and understanding. When I ask questions like, “What did the early Christians rely on for the first 3 or 4 centuries if there was no canon, or how most of them did not know how to read, or how there was no printing press to conveniently provide everyone with scirpture to read?”, and all I get are shoulder shrugs is also not wisdom.

 

[Augustine3]

I was pondering on this during this morning’s rosary:

The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross – CCC 766

I don’t think it was mere coincidence that Mary was present during the birth of the Church and at this event Jesus said to St John (who was representing the Church) “behold you mother” hence we can draw from this Mary is the mother of the Church intended and instituted by Christ.

I’m sure many people have thought of this before; I think the Holy Spirit chose to enlighten my little brain during the rosary as a sign of the benefits from praying the rosary

 

[PJM]

=Augustine3;10626706]I find it interesting Jesus gave Mary to be our mother at the foot of the cross. At that moment when all eyes were fixed on Christ, Christ gave us his mother to be our mother to see him through her eyes (and intercession!).

It’s interesting it was done at this time rather than any other time. Does anybody else see this?

Yes

NOT only that; but having done so He exclaimed “IT IS FINISHED!”

Amazing

Beautiful

Profound

& Our God’s Perfect Will. Amen

 

[Augustine3]

Yes

NOT only that; but having done so He exclaimed “IT IS FINISHED!”

Amazing

Beautiful

Profound

& Our God’s Perfect Will. Amen

 

[panevino]

Sarah/Isaac
Mary/Jesus

Name adjustment
gen17:15 - luke1:28-29 (hail “insert translation”)
Query
Gen17:17 - Luke 1:34(notev27)
Blessing
Gen17:16 - Luke 1:28, 42&48
Covenant
Gen17:19 - Luke 1:31-33, rev 12:5
Mother
Gen 17:16, isa51:2 - john19:26-28, rev 12:1-17(mat 2;1-23)]

 

[Bodyandblood999]

Illogical conclusion and proof-texting. Paul never claims scripture is complete, and his statement supports the fact that it is used as a teaching aid, not the authority. The Bible tells us it is not complete:

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25; RSV]

I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. [3 John 13-14]

…what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim. 2:2]

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us (Apostles), either by word of mouth (oral) or by letter (Epistle). [2 Thess. 2:15]

BTW, why would you use argumentum ex silentio in your reply to my post, which clearly points out that the argument you shared with us falls under that logical fallacy? Are you attempting to use Argumentum ad nauseam to win some debate here? Perhaps my post made you start to think about something that scared you. If so, good luck with all that denial.

First, you appear to have what would be referred to as a low view of Scripture. I memorized this passage decades ago. It is monumental. Have you studied it? “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
-IITim 3:16,17
Notice Paul is talking about Scripture. Was there a recognized canon yet? No. Would the Holy Spirit ensure that there would be one? You bet! Would the Holy Spirit, in accord with Jesus’ promise that He would bring to remembrance to the disciples all the He said, oversee the completion of that work? Absolutely (not debating oral tradition here). Would God make sure churches would be established with sound teaching all over the known world prior to the completion of the canon? Of course.

So let’s look at what the great apostle said about SCRIPTURE:

1. It is God-breathed
2. IT is SO profitable that any man of God may be competent AND equipped for (some?) EVERY good work!
3. Sacred Scripture is for teaching, reproof, correction and training.
   This is what God does for his children, and He didn’t wait for centuries to make sure the gospel in all its richness was available to those children. This is why they circulated the letters of Paul and Peter, James and John and Jude. This is what we be formalized as the Word of God.
   Of course you would draw a distinction, I hope, between sacred scripture and what popes and councils state.

Did the Holy Spirit leave out crucial, indespensible doctrines or teachings that the apostles might have talked about but weren’t recorded in Scripture? Ridiculous. Name one!
Apart from the canon of Scripture, tell us what great, important, and consistent-with-what-God-revealed-beforehand truths were brought to us by the evolved church in Rome.
Share that with us. It’s all there in the Bible! What does the RCC add?

Would it be the doctrine that Mary didn’t have sex–ever!!! What value does that have? But more importantly, why does it go against what seems to be clear in Scripture?!
Would it be that Mary never sinned? Really? What value does that teaching have? More importantly, did Paul or Peter or Luke or John or James teach such a thing? Absolutely not. Show me where they did.
Or would it be teaching that causes people to pray more to Mary than to Jesus? It certainly is new and outside Scripture, but is it profitable?
Or would it be insisting that bishops and priests and popes not be married? That’s unique. Especially since most of the apostles, including Peter, were married. Would the Holy Spirit lead men to do that? Maybe we should answer that by asking if it has been profitable for the church. Was there a reason Paul said elders and deacons should be husbands of one wife? (Marriage isn’t mandated, but it seemed to be the Scriptural norm.)
Was it teaching repetitious prayers that are rattled off over and over? Did Jesus promote or forbid that?
Would it be that you have a second chance to get to heaven after you die, after paying for your own sins? Did Jesus EVER teach that? Is it at all clear in the teaching of the apostles? Nay.

So you be the judge of the relative value of scripture and the merit of the major things that have come out of Rome that are new to Scripture!

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s interesting what you’ve brought up regarding Jesus’ birth right. On a theological level, perhaps Jesus had given his birth right to St John (and all humanity personified in John) the inheritance of the kingdom of Heaven?

I see a flaw in this reasoning because Jesus receives the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven anyway. I wonder what kind of inheritance had Jesus passed on to John if it wasn’t heaven?

I’ve pondered on this moment with awe many times also. I don’t see it so much as Jesus bequeathing His birthright or inheritance… as much as instituting the act of ‘adoption’ as equal to or more real than blood relationships in the making of ‘family’. John would no doubt have taken Mary on as his mother without any formalities you’d imagine, but in formalising the adoption so to speak, Jesus does something for all of us who are not blood descendents of the Chosen people. Even for people descended from gentiles and heathens are justified as family by ‘adoption’. I think it is really important for our relationship with God to know this on every level of our being.

In the light of this gesture of Jesus, I have a more full understanding of Pope John Pauls relationship with Mary. I believe it formed his faith and his pontificate very profoundly.

 

[billcu1]

I find it interesting Jesus gave Mary to be our mother at the foot of the cross. At that moment when all eyes were fixed on Christ, Christ gave us his mother to be our mother to see him through her eyes (and intercession!).

It’s interesting it was done at this time rather than any other time. Does anybody else see this?

Interesting question

 

[Jeanne1184]

Someone recently sent this out, and I am wondering how to deal with it:

The Holy Spirit saw to it that she is NEVER mentioned in ANY of the instruction of the New Testament written by Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude. Zip! When God had Paul and Peter and the rest lay out all the doctrine and all the necessities of Church practice for ages to come, He deliberately (all that God does is deliberate) excluded anything about Mary!

Other than in the gospels, she is mentioned only one time, and that is in Acts chapter one, in a list of people who were in the upper room with the disciples: “ These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”—Acts 1:14 So she in included in a list of followers and, by the way, she was with her other offspring—Jesus’ brothers!

In the one place where it might have looked like someone was attempting to worship Mary, Jesus quickly shut them down: “ While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”—Luke 11:27-29

There just isn’t any way, thus far, for me to see Christ’s responses to Mary as anything other than barely-veiled contempt. At the foot of the cross, in my mind, I hear, “Woman! He’s your son, not Me.” And to John, “This is your mother (not Mine).” It’s the only thing that makes sense in light of all the other encounters. To me, it’s like Christ was setting the record straight that whatever Holy Seed was planted in the vessel of Mary, neither she nor Joseph had a part in the Divinity of It.

(This line of thinking led me to question Abraham’s touching love of Ishmael and Isaac’s love of Esau over Jacob. The ‘promised’ children weren’t really ‘theirs’, perhaps. I don’t know, of course.)

Mary is never mentioned as having been baptized nor receiving the Holy Spirit. She is so non-descript that it has always puzzled me how she became elevated above Christ in many ways. I don’t care that the Catholic Church took that bent as there is much good in the Catholic Church, I just can’t wrap my head around Mary.

Mary was a normal woman. If I put myself in her place, it would never occur to me to think that my genes were used to make the Son of God. I was conceived in lust/sin like everyone else. Chirst was not. There are just too many paintings by the great artists that felt compelled to give women a hoofed right foot in Biblical works. Not to mention the overall contempt for women since the beginning of time as the Bible tells it. Mary wasn’t even on par with Boaz’ Ruth.

My mother was a convert when she married my father and she was the typical ‘over the top’ convert. She prayed to St. Anthony when something was lost, and I can still see the plastic statue of St. Christopher riding on our station wagon’s dashboard. To this day (she’s 90), she prays the rosary and loves all things Catholic.

Perhaps it was the priest we had as our high school chaplain who taught us to question everything, as well as the brothers who were also teaching at the new combined (male and female) high school. That priest also encouraged us not to use repetitive prayers but to personalize our relationship with God/Christ. It was the late 60s and that may have had some bearing.

 

[Jeanne_S]

There just isn’t any way, thus far, for me to see Christ’s responses to Mary as anything other than barely-veiled contempt. At the foot of the cross, in my mind, I hear, “Woman! He’s your son, not Me.” And to John, “This is your mother (not Mine).” It’s the only thing that makes sense in light of all the other encounters. To me, it’s like Christ was setting the record straight that whatever Holy Seed was planted in the vessel of Mary, neither she nor Joseph had a part in the Divinity of It.

(This line of thinking led me to question Abraham’s touching love of Ishmael and Isaac’s love of Esau over Jacob. The ‘promised’ children weren’t really ‘theirs’, perhaps. I don’t know, of course.)

Mary is never mentioned as having been baptized nor receiving the Holy Spirit. She is so non-descript that it has always puzzled me how she became elevated above Christ in many ways. I don’t care that the Catholic Church took that bent as there is much good in the Catholic Church, I just can’t wrap my head around Mary.

Mary was a normal woman. If I put myself in her place, it would never occur to me to think that my genes were used to make the Son of God. I was conceived in lust/sin like everyone else. Chirst was not. There are just too many paintings by the great artists that felt compelled to give women a hoofed right foot in Biblical works. Not to mention the overall contempt for women since the beginning of time as the Bible tells it. Mary wasn’t even on par with Boaz’ Ruth.

My mother was a convert when she married my father and she was the typical ‘over the top’ convert. She prayed to St. Anthony when something was lost, and I can still see the plastic statue of St. Christopher riding on our station wagon’s dashboard. To this day (she’s 90), she prays the rosary and loves all things Catholic.

Perhaps it was the priest we had as our high school chaplain who taught us to question everything, as well as the brothers who were also teaching at the new combined (male and female) high school. That priest also encouraged us not to use repetitive prayers but to personalize our relationship with God/Christ. It was the late 60s and that may have had some bearing.

 

[pablope]

First, you appear to have what would be referred to as a low view of Scripture. I memorized this passage decades ago. It is monumental. Have you studied it? “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

-IITim 3:16,17