Confusion with Mary

[chelseyek]

I have posted a thread on here before, with my confusion over Mary’s virginity. The verse in the Bible, “Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”. If they never had sexual relations wouldn’t it be must more understandable if it read “He knew her not until the day of his death”? That would make more sense, because just saying “he knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son” doesn’t prove she was a virgin after that, because they were both still living after Jesus’ birth. It’s like saying “Susie was a virgin until she turned 24” obviously, “Susie” wasnt a virgin after 24. For some reason, people think that, that verse proves she stayed a virgin, which in actuality it seems quite the opposite…but then again, I’m not a Bible scholar or anything, so I’m unsure about this…Also, the verses where it states Jesus had brothers and sisters are a little confusing…

And, why is Mary held so high in the Catholic church? She is not mentioned much in the Bible. And even when She, and Jesus’ brothers and sisters asked to speak with Jesus, he pretty much rejected to see her…i just don’t understand all of this…

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

This article addresses some of your concerns. Catholics should not use the Scripture you cited as a proof text for the Mary’s virginity. It only addresses the issue of Mary’s virginity at the time Our Lord was conceived. Likewise, non-Catholics should not try to use the verse as a proof text that Mary and Joseph had relations after Our Lords birth. There simply is no support in the text for either argument. With regard to the notion that the text somehow supports the latter argument, the problem is that modern day readers of scripture make some faulty assumptions about what they are reading in their native language. Unless you are a native speaker of ancient Greek, you have to take some things into consideration. First of all, Greek doesn’t always translate to English very well. For example, Greek has multiple words to describe different kinds of love. In English, those words are usually just translated to “love” and the nuances that are so apparent in Greek are then lost in the translation. In other words we would need several words in English to describe “agape”. One English word, “love”, simply cannot encompass all that “agape” means. Make sense? Secondly, modern readers have to learn that how we understand words now, isn’t necessarily how they were understood 100, 1000 or 2000 years ago. Nowadays, the word “until” often implies that there is “a change of the action in the main clause” . Here is an example, " I will be home until 1:00" implies that after 1:00, I will not be home. That is a perfectly reasonable use of the modern day word “until”. But consider this, Jesus says “Lo, I will be with you until the end of time”. Does that then mean that we can assume that He will not be with us after the end of time? Or consider Michal, the daughter of Saul, who “had not children until the day of her death”. Does that mean she had children after she died? Something to consider…

Here is another article you might find helpful. It also discusses the semantics of the verse you cited, but addresses some other issues that might be bothering you as well. Hope that helps…

 

[Canto]

I have posted a thread on here before, with my confusion over Mary’s virginity. The verse in the Bible, “Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”. If they never had sexual relations wouldn’t it be must more understandable if it read “He knew her not until the day of his death”? That would make more sense, because just saying “he knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son” doesn’t prove she was a virgin after that, because they were both still living after Jesus’ birth. It’s like saying “Susie was a virgin until she turned 24” obviously, “Susie” wasnt a virgin after 24. For some reason, people think that, that verse proves she stayed a virgin, which in actuality it seems quite the opposite…but then again, I’m not a Bible scholar or anything, so I’m unsure about this…Also, the verses where it states Jesus had brothers and sisters are a little confusing…

In the Greek until (heos hou) deals only with the time up to a certain point and not after, in this instance the birth of Christ and not after.

Up to the birth of Christ Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary. Did he afterwards? The Greek does not say.

Mt 18:34 And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt.

How can he pay the debt if he is with the torturers?

Mt 26:36 Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani. And he said to his disciples: Sit you here, until I go yonder and pray.

When Jesus went yonder to pray did the disciples leave?

2 Peter 1:19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.

When the day dawns do we no longer need to attend to the word?

Psalm 72:7 (LXX is 71:7) In his days may the righteous flourish, And abundance of peace until the moon is no more.

• When the moon is no more, will there be no more peace?*

And, why is Mary held so high in the Catholic church? She is not mentioned much in the Bible.

Not everything is in the Bible, if it was there would not be enough books to contain it all as St John says, St Paul told the Thesselonains to hold onto oral tradtion too as well as the written word.

Jesus honoured Mary and so do we.

At wedding feast at Cana she interceeded and Christ undertook his first miralce.

Mary carried God in the flesh in her womb for 9 months, held Him in her arms, raised Him as He grew in age and grace and wisdom, watched Him, her own flesh and blood, die on the cross.

Ave Maria I say!

And even when She, and Jesus’ brothers and sisters asked to speak with Jesus, he pretty much rejected to see her…i just don’t understand all of this

Surely you are not suggesting Jesus broke the commandmant about honouring one’s mother.

Jesus didn’t reject Mary. Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it. The Greek for rather means yes but in adittion to. So Jesus affirms not contradicts the scripture that says she is blessed among women, but adds that she is more blessed becuase she has heard the word of God and kept it.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hello!

You said:

"And, why is Mary held so high in the Catholic church? She is not mentioned much in the Bible.

I’m not understanding the relevancy about frequency of mention and being held in respect.

If we were to take this to the logical conclusion, based on this argument then, I would rightly ask you why Peter is not held so high in other christian churches. He is after all, mentioned more times (addressed) in the bible much more than any other apostle** by Christ.**

 

[Murray1105]

Mary can be a difficult thing to understand to modern protestants. I am a convert myself, though I didn’t struggle much with marian teachings I know many who have and still do. First let me sat that Mary’s perpetual virginity was held by most protestants until only a couple hundred years ago. Luther, Calvin, Wesley and many others supported atleast some of the traditional marian doctrines. All of them claimed the marian teachings they accepted to come from the Bible. Matthew 1:25 might be clairified if you read more of the context. For one thing the author seems to by trying to show in the verses surrounding 25 that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, so by saying “Joseph knew her not until after she had borne a son” most likely implies that the author wants to make it clear that Joseph is not the biological father. In ancient greek and many other ancient customs it was common to call the first born the “first born” even if they were an only child beacause they were the child who opened the womb. Although not common today it was then. So back then in ancient Hebrew and greek culture no one would assume by that verse that she had sex after his birth. The evidence is also found in the fathers. You can’t use modern english and our common way of language to understand an older culture’s. If I tell you to go “break a leg” on a performance you perform, no one would think I ment to literally go “break a leg”, however 2000 years from now in another language someone would have to try to put the phrase in an ancient context. As far as the brothers and sisters of christ, well on one level are not all christians his brothers and sisters. Second, they could easily be children of Joseph’s from before his marriage to Mary. Third, they could have been cousins like Abraham and Lot. (in genesis they are called brothers because there was no hebrew word for cousin so if you were alive in Jesus’ day you probably would have called all your cousins brother and sister. Also read carefully about all the Mary’s that were at the cross and who thier children were, you will see that they are not Jesus’ mother’s children.

Now you asked why is Mary so important to Catholics? Well it’s not just Catholics, but Orthodox and almost all protestants for the first 200 years of Protestantism. She was honored from the first century. So a better question is why don’t most protestants accept this 2000 year old teaching that is still held by close to 75% of the christian body today. God chose Mary to be his mother and to give the “Word” flesh. Her blood flowed through his veins and his through hers. How special was the old Ark of the Covenant. Could the new Ark that would house the Incarnate Word be anything less than Incedible? If Jesus ever rejected her and put her down, like many protestant claim, then there is a serious problem. Jesus was perfect(sinless) and under the law. The 10 commandments state to “Honor thy father and mother”. In hebrew it’s glorify them. If Jesus ignored her or put her down in anyway he would be guilty of breaking the ten commandments. If you look deeper into the scriptures about Mary it can seem like he ignored her like the wedding at Cana, but Mary’s response “do whatever he tells you” does not imply she thought he rejected her request. One last thing is to understand Calvary. If Jesus gave John Mary to take care of he would have completely disgraced and “brothers” in the modern sense of the word. If he is sinless that is unacceptable. John didnt just recieve an old lady to take care of he recieved her as “mother” and she recieved him as “son” and that is special. Just as john recieved her as “mother” so do we as the body of christ and as the body of christ we obey the ten commandmnets and honor our mother Mary as christ did. We the baptised faithful have proclaimed her blessed in every generation.Luke 1:48. Sorry it’s so long but I hope that helps. God bless.

 

[saskatoon]

I don’t understand what you mean by Jesus rejecting to see his mother. Jesus would never reject her nor be disrespectful to her in any way, shape or form. Mary is held so highly in the church because she is the mother of God. Jesus is the Word made flesh. God is Mary’s creator, but she is His mother. Mary is also our most powerful intercessor with Jesus. The marriage at Cana is proof of this. She hears that the wine has run out and lets Jesus know this. Even though it was not his time to start his public life he did as she wished. She told the stewards to do what He tellls them and we know the rest of the story. That is how it is now when we ask her for her help. Jesus might say no to our petitions, but if we ask Mary to bring our petitions before Jesus, he will not refuse her.

As for your question, Joseph and Mary knew each other. Joseph knew she was with child and was told in a dream by Archangel Garbiel (I think) that he (Joseph) was to take Mary as his wife. Both Mary and Joseph at early ages(well before marriage) vowed their virginity to God. They could not ignore their vows because they were married. It has been said that they lived as brother and sister, though appeared as any other married couple. They did not have other children because of their vows of virginity. Joseph was chosen to be the most chaste spouse to Mary, foster father to Jesus and protector and guardian of both of them. The big controversy over the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus is the problem. Our modern times, a brother and sister mean just that, brother and sister, same parents. It was custom, during the time of Jesus, to refer to cousins as brothers and sisters. He did not have brothers and sisters, but He did have cousins. Of course, this debate will go on for a long time because some people refuse to believe that Jesus did not have brothers and sisters. Actually, for the sake of argument, any siblings of His would have been step/half brothers and sisters since Joseph was not His father.

As you know Mary has many refernces, Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, etc… but she is also called Mary EVER virgin. You cannot be ever virgin if you have intimate relations with your spouse. I think it is an insult to Mary to question her and her virginity. I really do not know why we (some of us) cannot just accept the fact that Jesus Mary and Joseph were the Holy Family and were the only ones to make up this unique family. If there were other children of Joseph and Mary, why then, are they not part of the Holy Family? When we see pictures of the Holy Family, where are the “other children”?

In the end, the church’s teaching on Mary is that she is a virgin, (pre and post Jesus). For hundreds of years this has been taught. It has been fairly recent that the question/doubt has really taken hold. This is a protestant belief that is filtering into Catholic teaching and causing the confusion.

:manvspc:

 

[Cluny]

<<The verse in the Bible, “Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”.>>

This brings up two points. I will discuss them in order.

1. The Greek particle EOS is used in the same Gospel in Matthew 28:20. “Lo, I am with you always, EOS the end of the world.” If EOS in Matthew 1 means they had marital sex after the birth of Jesus, the EOS in Matthew 28 means that as of the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with us.
2. “Firstborn son” in Jewish context (and remember that Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels) does not mean the woman has other children, but has a technical meaning.

If a woman’s FIRST pregnancy ends in the delivery of a LIVING MALE CHILD, this is the “firstborn son” and is subject to the Law of Redemption of the Firstborn, even today.

If a woman’s first pregnancy ends in the delivery of a FEMALE child, stillbirth of either sex, a miscarriage, or an abortion, and then she has a son, this son is NOT considered “firstborn son” and is NOT subject to the Law of Redemption.

In other words, it is not necessary for a Jewish woman to have any other children to have a “firstborn son.”

 

[Cluny]

And, why is Mary held so high in the Catholic church? She is not mentioned much in the Bible. And even when She, and Jesus’ brothers and sisters asked to speak with Jesus, he pretty much rejected to see her…i just don’t understand all of this…

That’s right. You’re not understanding too much, are you?

First off, how many times must the Bible say something for it to be important?

Next, where did you get the idea that Jesus “pretty much rejected to see here”? Nothing like this is mentioned in the context. The point Jesus is trying to make is that mere biological relationship doesn’t mean much in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Remember what He said about loving one’s family more than Him? Or how claiming biological descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was now meaningless?

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

I’m pretty sure this verse has been explained many times in this forum, Matthew 1 the word until in Greek is ambiguous as to when the event ceases. In any case the primary objective of the Gospel writer was to say Mary and Joseph never has sex in that period of time, so we can know a Virgin was with child.

The word until is used in Matthew 28:20 to refer to something that continues passed what we would normally think would signify the end of an action:

“And behold, I am with you always, **until **the end of the age.”-

Concerning the brothers of the Lord notice the spelling of the name “Joses” only appears 3 times in the New testament and all in Mark’s gospel (Mk 6:3, 15:40, 15:47) and the pair Joses and James mentioned twice together:

Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?–Mark 6:3

There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome–Mark 15:40

So James and Joses are sons of A MARY, but not Mary, the Mother of Jesus otherwise the Gospel writer would have said “Mary, the mother of the Lord” or “Mary his mother” or “Mary, the mother of Jesus” as the Gospels do when referring to Mary.

Brothers can refer to close relatives, not necessarily only sons of the some mother for instance Mary has a ‘sister’ named Mary:

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.”–John 19:25

This Mary was in some way Jesus’ aunt, and she was the mother of James and Joseph, she was married to Alphaeus/Clophas (which is the same name)

Now the Judas and Simon mentioned in Mark 6:3 are also likely sons of Mary wife of Clophas. According to the Church Father St Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis (Pamukkale, Turkey) and disciple of ST John, wrote around the year 100, and all 4 of these names were listed as being sons of an aunt of the Lord, Mary wife of Clophas.

“(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel.** James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s.** James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason.[now we know they are linguistically the same name] Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.”

Matthew’s Gospel spells the name “Joses” as Joseph for these “brothers,” and Papias chose this spelling.

Notice Jesus has a brother named James that is an apostle in Jerusalem:

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.–Galatians 1:19

St Paul is most likely using the word apostle to refer to the 12, which would make James the brother of the Lord one of the 12, and one James is Alpheus’ son, other other Zebedee’s. I think this is James, brother of Joses, son of Alpheus and his wife Mary. But in either case James’ is called “brother of the Lord” though he is the son another mother and father.

This is a long complicated puzzle really to see that Jesus’ brothers were his relatives. Its an ancient tradition that Mary had no other biological children, but she did have spiritual children (eg the beloved in John 19:26, Rev 12:17) Luke 2:7 mentions Jesus as her “firstborn son,” this verse Church Father used to show Mary as our spiritual mother.

BTW a first born son can be an only biological son also since a tomb of a Jewish woman in Egypt was found written in Greek from the 1st century stating she died giving birth to her “firstborn child” catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea2.asp

 

[chelseyek]

I’m sorry if I have irritated anyone with my ignorant questions…but I’m 13 and I’m living in a house filled with people who don’t know the Catholic Church and don’t agree with the Church’s teachings on Mary, and I’ve been feeling very drawn to the Catholic Church, but growing up in a non-Catholic family, I have so many questions, and no one to talk to…

 

[StrawberryJam]

All questions are good ones, keep on!

 

[michaelsmth626]

Why not just go to the catholic library and read the bottom line.
The Catholics here are looking for scriptural evidence where the church says none exist.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
I would think they are including her virginity also. If you jump over here
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
All you get is quotes from some other source than scripture.

The Bible Only?

**Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, **Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Nice and neat don’t you think, If it isn’t there its isn’t their.
They even lay it out for you
Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. Sola scripture would be the Apostles witness and writings.

 

[JustaServant]

And, why is Mary held so high in the Catholic church?

In the ancient world, because the king had many brides, a woman did not receive the title of queen until her son took the throne. The queen was not married to the king, because there were far too many wives vying for such a title. And they couldn’t all be called queen. The position of queen was held by the king’s mother. She was known as the queen mother. If Mary’s Son has become the King of Kings (of both heaven and earth) then the Mother has become the Queen of heaven and earth
Pope Pius XII stated, “Mary is Queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest and by singular election. And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.”
Our Lord also gave to the Church and each individual soul His Mother, the Queen of Heaven. For many centuries Christians have been accustomed to meditate upon the ruling power of Mary which embraces heaven and earth, when they consider the fifth glorious mystery of the rosary which can be called the mystical crown of the heavenly Queen.
To love Jesus is to also love His mother.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I have posted a thread on here before, with my confusion over Mary’s virginity. The verse in the Bible, “Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”. If they never had sexual relations wouldn’t it be must more understandable if it read “He knew her not until the day of his death”? That would make more sense, because just saying “he knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son” doesn’t prove she was a virgin after that, because they were both still living after Jesus’ birth. It’s like saying “Susie was a virgin until she turned 24” obviously, “Susie” wasnt a virgin after 24. For some reason, people think that, that verse proves she stayed a virgin, which in actuality it seems quite the opposite…but then again, I’m not a Bible scholar or anything, so I’m unsure about this…Also, the verses where it states Jesus had brothers and sisters are a little confusing…

And, why is Mary held so high in the Catholic church? She is not mentioned much in the Bible. And even when She, and Jesus’ brothers and sisters asked to speak with Jesus, he pretty much rejected to see her…i just don’t understand all of this…

Respecting “knowing her not till,” translators are involved in an unending struggle between perfectly literal rendering, on the one hand, and what is referred to as “dynamic equivalency” on the other.

The Greek word rendered “till” or “until” in English does not have the same implication about AFTERWARDS that the English word “till” or “until” has.

Translators wondered, “Shall we ADD words that aren’t there, to clarify this?”

They have done this in the past – adding or subtracting whole phrases, for the sake of clarity.

But the response to doing that – popular rage when the change is discovered by comparison to older Bibles – is usually worse than the misunderstanding arising from literal translation.

The grounds for holding Mary in high esteem are in Scripture. I’ll lay that out a little later.

 

[FCEGM]

I’m sorry if I have irritated anyone with my ignorant questions…but I’m 13 and I’m living in a house filled with people who don’t know the Catholic Church and don’t agree with the Church’s teachings on Mary, and I’ve been feeling very drawn to the Catholic Church, but growing up in a non-Catholic family, I have so many questions, and no one to talk to…

Welcome to CAF, chelseyek. I won’t add anything to the already good answers you’ve received, but I do want to reassure you that all questions sincerely asked are welcome. As was already suggested, you can find information on your question about Mary - and any other areas of Catholic belief that you’d like to know more about - through doing a library search at the FAITH section at the top of the page.

I hope you find your time here of great help to you.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The Church Fathers says Ezekiel 44:2 as referring to

And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.

Again on Christmas Day: See the miracle of the mother of the Lord: A Virgin conceived, a Virgin brought forth. She was a Virgin when she conceived, a Virgin when with child, a Virgin after the birth. As is said in Ezekiel: “And the gate was shut and not opened, because the Lord passed through it.” [Ezekiel 44:2]–St John Cassian, On the Incarnation (Book VII)

But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. [Ezekiel 44:2]–St John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV)

“It is written [Ezekiel 44:2]: ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this - ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.”–St Augustine, De Annunt. Dom. iii:

Jesus,” as God does not break the virginal seals: in such wise he exits the womb as He entered through the ear; thus He was born, as He was conceived: without passion He entered, without corruption He exited, according to the prophet Ezekiel who says: ’This gate will remain closed.’–St. Proclus, Homily 1 on the Mother of God, AD 431:

most of these wrote around the year 400, so it was a common interpretation in the Church at the time Mary was a Virgin always and Ezekiel 44 demonstrated that

 

[Tomb54]

One more part chelseyek is that Jesus was a Jew which all know but as now it is important for them to Honor their Mother and Father which Jesus did (one reason why He changed the water into wine was His mother asked Him to help). Part of the honoring your mother is that if she is a widow the children are expected to provide for their mother. Jesus did this on the Cross giving His mother to John (and also to the whole church) but part of this gesture was to provide for His mother because He had no brother or sisters. If He had brothers as some people try to claim them this gesture would have been a slap in the face to His sibling and I do not think anyone would say Jesus would do this because it would have hurt His mother and not honored her, which is required by Jewish Law. So because of this gesture on the cross one of the last things Jesus did was to provide for His mother who had no one else to take care of her. From this gesture we can conclude Jesus had no brothers or sisters and thus Mary was still a virgin.

Several other posts here give much more knowledge intellectually why she had to be ever virgin like the early church believed but I think this simple gesture on the cross speaks volumes also.

 

[Good_Fella]

Hello!

You said:

"And, why is Mary held so high in the Catholic church? She is not mentioned much in the Bible.

Enough has been mentioned or alluded to about Mary in the Scriptures to affirm the Church’s four Marian dogmas and the traditional Marian teachings of the Church Fathers and of the Popes under the Ordinary Magisterium.

The high esteem in which the Church has always held the Blessed Virgin Mary rests on the profound significance of her own words (Lk 1:38) in the divine order of redemption: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.”

I’m not understanding the relevancy about frequency of mention and being held in respect.

If we were to take this to the logical conclusion, based on this argument then, I would rightly ask you why Peter is not held so high in other christian churches. He is after all, mentioned more times (addressed) in the bible much more than any other apostle** by Christ.**

What really matters isn’t the number of times a person is mentioned in the Bible, but rather what is revealed about him or her either explicitly or implicitly by the written word.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Church Fathers says Ezekiel 44:2 as referring to

And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.

Again on Christmas Day: See the miracle of the mother of the Lord: A Virgin conceived, a Virgin brought forth. She was a Virgin when she conceived, a Virgin when with child, a Virgin after the birth. As is said in Ezekiel: “And the gate was shut and not opened, because the Lord passed through it.” [Ezekiel 44:2]–St John Cassian, On the Incarnation (Book VII)

But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. [Ezekiel 44:2]–St John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV)

“It is written [Ezekiel 44:2]: ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this - ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.”–St Augustine, De Annunt. Dom. iii:

Jesus,” as God does not break the virginal seals: in such wise he exits the womb as He entered through the ear; thus He was born, as He was conceived: without passion He entered, without corruption He exited, according to the prophet Ezekiel who says: ’This gate will remain closed.’–St. Proclus, Homily 1 on the Mother of God, AD 431:

most of these wrote around the year 400, so it was a common interpretation in the Church at the time Mary was a Virgin always and Ezekiel 44 demonstrated that

It is so, so easy to yank a Bible verse out of its context to warp it in a way which makes it appear that it supports one’s position.

For centuries, Catholic Mariologists have claimed that Ezekiel 44:2 refers to Mary’s post-partum virginity.

But to do that, they have to ignore Ezekiel 44:3, which says, **"…the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the LORD. He must enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and leave by the same way," **thus appearing to describe a birth which violates the doctrine of in partu virginity.

There’s another problem of the same sort: Ezekiel refers repeatedly to a north gate and a south gate in the same temple. See Ezekiel 40:19-20, 24, 44; 44:4; 46:9.

What are those gates?

Do you see what I mean? The context has to be ignored to “see” this supposedly sacred interpretation supposedly referring to Mary.

I personally think that the Marian interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2 is not only wrong, but also a violently sacriligeous reference to the Holy Mother of God and of the Church.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

It is so, so easy to yank a Bible verse out of its context to warp it in a way which makes it appear that it supports one’s position.

**I agree with you!
Instead of wasting too much time on the Scriptures, after we’ve read them, we should , as catholics, turn to the Ecumenical Councils, who we are told explain and interpret these self same scriptures. If we do look to the early Fathers in Council, we find that the

First Ephesus, [431AD} defined The Lady Mary as The Theotokos,i.e. The Mother of God.
Second Council of Constantinople Twice refered to Mary as Ever Virgin!
Whilst the Seventh Council defined Mary as Spotless and Immaculate.

This is not to say they supported the idea of an Immaculate Conception, simply that The Lady Mary was cleansed from sin, by God the Holy Ghost, sometime after her birth!

Surely as catholics we are bound to take seriously the teachings of the Holy Ghost through the Ecumenical Councils?.****