Comon sense will tell you why Virgin Mary had no other Child but Jesus

[sola_scriptura]

Dear Sola - I’m surprised that you use the quotation that you do!

29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed. - St. John, 20: 29

Ummmm…this is poor Doubting Thomas’ dilemma, he needed PROOF that Jesus was indeed risen from the dead because he wouldn’t take the other Apostle’s word for it. As for me, I would put most of your theology in the position of poor Doubting Thomas - you expect PROOF all the time from the Bible about just about everything we believe, meantime blessed are those who don’t need everything proven to them from a Bible to believe!

gee how ironic – that’s how exactly how I would view your practices. I’m not the one who needs to see anything to believe, you do. You can try to twist & spin the logic all you want, I won’t be fooled by the sophistry of Rome.

I wouldn’t wait too much longer though. I highly doubt that Jesus will appear in your living room and ask you to put your hand in his side and touch the nail marks of His Crucifixion to affirm you in your stubborn refusals to BELIEVE. Fundamentally your faith is lacking and you cling to your Bible expecting the Body of Christ, the Church, to PROVE everything to you. Where is your faith man? Why can’t you just believe?

Peace,

Gail

I do just believe – without statutes, without paintings, just God in my soul. By grace I have been saved, not by meditating on your pictures of the saints, and not by venerating corpses (perhaps the most disturbing practice in Christianity today).

Golly with all the apparitions of Mary (I’ve heard of Catholics seeing her image on a tree in their backyard) I wonder what’s in that holy water anyway?

 

[guanophore]

No – my views represent a clear reading of the word of God. No images means no images. Faith in the unseen means faith in the unseen.

Yes we were created in God’s image – however, God commanded us NOT to create images for use in worship. It’s simple enough for me – it’s frankly saddening to me that so many wish to deny simple Christianity and turn to the traditions of men and philosophical sophistry filled with complex idioms alien to our faith.

Why are you here at CAF, SS? It does not appear that you have any questions or wish to learn about Catholicism.

You seem to have your strong opinions made up, and they are clearly anti-Catholic. Why hang here?

When I read posts like this, I cannot help but wonder how come someone can have a “plain read” like this of the OT, yet cannot have a “plain read” about John six. Or for that matter, the Last Supper account. When Catholics say “this is my Body” means just that, some say it must mean anything but…

Anyway, we are both off topic.The fact that God made us sensate and that we can appreciate and express our love for him with our senses has very little to do, I think, with Mary having only one child. If you wish to grind your axe on the “idolatry” of Catholic acceptance of images, shouldn’t it be on another thread?

 

[adstrinity]

Since this thread has moved off topic, are we all of the agreement that Mary, Daughter of God, was a virgin when she was born, that same Woman, Mother of God, was a virgin as a mother, that same Woman, Mother of the Church, was a virgin when she died, that same Woman, Mary: Mediatrix of all Graces is a virgin now, and that same Woman, Mary: Queen of Heaven, will, forevermore, be preserved as a virgin throughout eternity?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Since this thread has moved off topic, are we all of the agreement that Mary, Daughter of God, was a virgin when she was born, that same Woman, Mother of God, was a virgin as a mother, that same Woman, Mother of the Church, was a virgin when she died, that same Woman, Mary: Mediatrix of all Graces is a virgin now, and that same Woman, Mary: Queen of Heaven, will, forevermore, be preserved as a virgin throughout eternity?

That’s bizarre – are you trying to bait us protestants to get back on topic?

Mary was the mother of our Lord in the flesh. Blessed among women, and her name will be proclaimed and revered by Christians always. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit & Mary was a virgin at least up until she gave birth to Christ.

She is NOT a co-redeemer, mediatrix of all graces (or any grace), a queen of heaven, spouse of the Holy Spirit, the prototype of perfect love, or any of the other false labels given to her by the RCC and EOC.

 

[ralphinal]

That’s bizarre – are you trying to bait us protestants to get back on topic?

Mary was the mother of our Lord in the flesh. Blessed among women, and her name will be proclaimed and revered by Christians always. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit & Mary was a virgin at least up until she gave birth to Christ.

She is NOT a co-redeemer, mediatrix of all graces (or any grace), a queen of heaven, spouse of the Holy Spirit, the prototype of perfect love, or any of the other false labels given to her by the RCC and EOC.

How about Theotokos and Mother of God?

 

[sola_scriptura]

How about Theotokos and Mother of God?

Not a problem – as long as it’s taught properly (IMO the doctrine as promulgated by the Council of Ephesus is fine). If I had my choice I would use a title that is self-explanatory, such as: Mother of our Lord in the flesh. However, I still accept the Councils definition.

If one reads the way the council explained the doctrine it was done in a way that made clear God is eternal and hence Mary did not mother our eternal creator, however, at the same time when Christ was born and lived on earth He was both God and man (and the two cannot be divided). I’m paraphrasing of course – but is the general idea advanced by the council – which was perfect as far as I’m concerned.

 

[whiteknite]

The Bible says that Jesus was her FIRSTBORN and Joseph knew her not
(intimately) TILL she gave birth to Jesus. The Bible specifically says that Jesus had brothers and even mentions their names. Jesus had sisters too. Scriptural references are below:

Mathew 1:25: And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her
firstborn son: and he called His name JESUS.

Mathew 12:46-47: While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mathew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 3:31-32: There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Mark 6:3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James,
and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at him.

Luke 2:7: And she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke 8:20-21 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and
do it.

John:7:3: His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

 

[ralphinal]

Not a problem – as long as it’s taught properly (IMO the doctrine as promulgated by the Council of Ephesus is fine). If I had my choice I would use a title that is self-explanatory, such as: Mother of our Lord in the flesh. However, I still accept the Councils definition.

If one reads the way the council explained the doctrine it was done in a way that made clear God is eternal and hence Mary did not mother our eternal creator, however, at the same time when Christ was born and lived on earth He was both God and man (and the two cannot be divided). I’m paraphrasing of course – but is the general idea advanced by the council – which was perfect as far as I’m concerned.

So why are these Labels, which were added by the RCC and the EO, acceptable? What makes them true?

 

[Good_Fella]

That’s bizarre – are you trying to bait us protestants to get back on topic?

Mary was the mother of our Lord in the flesh. Blessed among women, and her name will be proclaimed and revered by Christians always. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit & Mary was a virgin at least up until she gave birth to Christ.

She is NOT a co-redeemer, mediatrix of all graces (or any grace), a queen of heaven, spouse of the Holy Spirit, the prototype of perfect love, or any of the other false labels given to her by the RCC and EOC.

“Behold, from now all generations shall call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”
Luke 1, 48-49

Mary’s Divine maternity is just one ‘great thing’ she has been blessed with. All the other great things she has been blessed with, which include her Immaculate Conception and Assumption into Heaven, rest on this singular privilege of being the Mother of God.

Since you are outside the Church which was founded by Christ, and are part of a tradition started by John Calvin and the Waldenses, you are in no position to question 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition in the Apostolic Catholic Church. These so-called false labels of Mary have been granted her by the Holy Spirit, who guides our Lord’s Church in all truth.

PAX

 

[adstrinity]

These so-called false labels of Mary have been granted her by the Holy Spirit, who guides our Lord’s Church in all truth.

PAX

HALLELUJAH and Amen. Blessed be His Holy Name for giving Her to us. Praise be Jesus Christ for keeping these truths preserved for all through His Church.

Thank You, God, for chosing Mary, whom you know would say Yes to Your Will.

Amen.

 

[TriuneUnity]

“Behold, from now all generations shall call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”
Luke 1, 48-49

Mary’s Divine maternity is just one ‘great thing’ she has been blessed with. All the other great things she has been blessed with, which include her Immaculate Conception and Assumption into Heaven, rest on this singular privilege of being the Mother of God.

Since you are outside the Church which was founded by Christ, and are part of a tradition started by John Calvin and the Waldenses, you are in no position to question 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition in the Apostolic Catholic Church. These so-called false labels of Mary have been granted her by the Holy Spirit, who guides our Lord’s Church in all truth.

PAX

For some reason, I just had a flash of the soundtrack to Man of La Mancha.

 

[Good_Fella]

Not a problem – as long as it’s taught properly (IMO the doctrine as promulgated by the Council of Ephesus is fine). If I had my choice I would use a title that is self-explanatory, such as: Mother of our Lord in the flesh. However, I still accept the Councils definition.

If one reads the way the council explained the doctrine it was done in a way that made clear God is eternal and hence Mary did not mother our eternal creator, however, at the same time when Christ was born and lived on earth He was both God and man (and the two cannot be divided). I’m paraphrasing of course – but is the general idea advanced by the council – which was perfect as far as I’m concerned.

So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.
Mark 16, 19

They said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.”
Acts 1, 11

Christ’s resurrection was not a return to life on earth in the temporal order, as were the resurrections of Jairus’ daughter, the young man of Naim, and Lazarus, who were miraculously restored to life by Jesus. Our Lord’s resurrection differs significantly. He passed from the state of death to another life beyond physical time and space. At his resurrection Jesus’ body was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. Our Lord shares the divine life in his glorious bodily state, having retained his human soul, mind, and will. Thus Paul can declare that Jesus is “the man of heaven” (Cf.1 Corinthians 15: 35-50).
Mary, who shares in our Lord’s divine glory by her glorious Assumption into heaven, is the Mother of our Lord for all eternity. For this reason especially Jesus resurrected his mother from the dead within days of her death, preceeding our own bodily resurrection from the dead. She is now in heaven body and soul together with her divine Son, who is still the God-Man but forever now in his glory. And he alone is her offspring - the Word made flesh.

*“it was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honoured by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.” *
John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96, 741) [ante. A.D. 749]

PAX