Confusion with Mary

[sbrueck]

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…

dearest girl, I admire you for searching and trying to understand Truth. you do not simply “swollow” what your family or people tell you. and you are right to ask questions. this is the only way we find true answers. SEEK AND YOU WILL FIND
many people don’t want to bother searching, and that’s why they don’t find truth.
again I admire you, b/c it can be pretty inconvenient and stressful to SEAK against the support at home. keep asking and I hope and pray that everyone in these threads will kindly answer.
Many teachings are hard to understand. that’s where FAITH comes in to help.
you are only 13- wow- I believe that GOD has something very special for you !!!
In Jesus’ love, your friend Sonja

 

[FCEGM]

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.

That would be true if there is only one way to read Scripture, the literal way. However, the Church teaches that there are four senses in which Scripture may be read: the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the analogical (cf. Catechism, nbrs. 115-119).

As the Holy Father wrote in his work, Jesus of Nazareth:

". . .it is necessary to keep in mind that any human utterance of a certain weight contains more than the author may have been immediately aware of at the time. When a word transcends the moment in which it is spoken, it carries within itself a ‘deeper value’.’ This ‘deeper value’ pertains most of all to words that have matured in the course of faith-history. For in this case the author is not simply speaking for himself on his own authority. He is speaking from the perspective of a common history that sustains him and that already implicitly contains the possibilities of its future, of the further stages of its journey. The process of continually rereading and drawing out new meaning from words would not have been possible unless the words themselves were already open to it from within.

“. . .There are dimensions of the word that the old doctrine of the fourfold sense of Scripture p(name removed by moderator)ointed with remarkable accuracy. The four senses of Scripture are not individual meanings arrayed side by side, but dimensions of the one word that reaches beyond the moment.”

So the holy Fathers and Doctors (including St. Ambrose) seeing this verse in Ezekiel as speaking to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is not to be so easily dismissed.

 

[PJM]

=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”?

BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF JESUS ?

Many non-Catholic people say that the use of the words brothers and sisters of Jesus, in the scriptures’ means that Mary had other children after the birth of Our Lord, and therefore did not remain virgin after His birth. This is false teaching, according to the Church founded by Jesus and guaranteed by Him to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore free from error in her teaching.

Church doctors and historians over the last nineteen hundred years have offered various explanations for the term. Some said that Joseph had been a widower and had children by his former wife.

A more logical and acceptable explanation could be that the Scriptures, written by the Hebrews in the Greek language, used the word adelphos, which is the same as the word 'ah in Hebrew, and has a broad base of meaning, from all forms of blood relationship to close friends and followers. New Testament writers used the term brother and sister in the same manner, but Jesus said that only they who follow the commands of My Father are My brothers and sisters.

Matthew 13:55 shows the brothers of Jesus as being James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, but they are identified in the Scriptures as having different parents, so the phrase does not apply to any children of Mary, our Blessed Mother. If Jesus had any blood related brothers and sisters, why did He designate, from the cross, Mary to be the mother of John and for John to be her son?

Hebrew writers of the Old Testament used the term brother in the same way as previously mentioned. In 2 Samuel 1:26, David, in his lament after the death of Saul and Jonathan, refers to Jonathan as his brother. Jonathan was the son of Saul and his wife Shinoam, so how could he be the brother of David? We see many other mentions of the word brother where no relationship exists, in 1 Kings 9:13, 2 Chronicles 29:34 and 1 Samuel 30:23, to mention just a few.

In order to have had other children, after Jesus, Mary could not have remained virgin, and this is antithetical to Church teaching. Pope St. Ciricius (384-398) covered the question very succinctly in his letter to Anysius in 392, when he said that Jesus would not have been born to the virgin if He thought that she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation, she would pollute the generative chamber of the Lords body, that palace of the Eternal King. He went on further to say that if we accept the Jewish priests’ authority , we sweep away the truth with great zeal.

A key point to remember is that this is dogma, an article of faith, and as such, it will NEVER be changed. We have no option in the matter of dogma, we must believe and confess our faith, or we are no longer able to call ourselves Catholic."

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…

Lk. 1: 26 "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35* And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will 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.

Because from all women throughout the history She mary was chosen By God Himself to be the Mother -literally of His Son Jesus. Becuase Jesus too is God, and because God is and must be perfect, Mary in a singular honor by God, made Mary Perfected, so that she could become the Mother of God, and that Jesus would too be Perfect both as God and as man. Were Mary not perfected, jesus would not be “perfect” which means that jesus then could not be God.

It is because of a litany of “Yes God” that Mary merited life long perfection as a sing of love and gratitude from God for her inwavering humility and constant Obedience.

Will you be the Mother of God? YES
Will you go the Bethelem" YES
Will you permit my son to be born in a cave and layed in a manger? YES
Will you move to the pagan land of Egypt to protect my son? YES
When the teenage Jesus was lost “for three days” Mary prayed “THY WILL BE DONE”
Mary encouraged the first miracle that jesus worked at Cana, knowing that it would mean losing Him. YES
Mary was with Jesus in His passion and death, and united Her Motherly suffering with His for our sakes. YES

Never in the history of the world has there been a more humble, a more Obedient and consequently as a GIFT from God a more Perfect human being. It is she more than any other human person that we must try to emulate. She never, ever said no to God!

Hope this helps your confusion?

Love and prayers,

 

[Peter_Dawson]

That would be true if there is only one way to read Scripture, the literal way. However, the Church teaches that there are four senses in which Scripture may be read: the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the analogical (cf. Catechism, nbrs. 115-119).

As the Holy Father wrote in his work, Jesus of Nazareth:

So the holy Fathers and Doctors (including St. Ambrose) seeing this verse in Ezekiel as speaking to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is not to be so easily dismissed.

You’re wrong. To show how the interpreters yank the verse out of context, I merely consistently continue reading the verses allegorically. I’e., if the east gate is an allegorical reference to Mary’s sacred person, what are the north and south gates in the same set of verses?

 

[FCEGM]

You’re wrong. To show how the interpreters yank the verse out of context, I merely consistently continue reading the verses allegorically. I’e., if the east gate is an allegorical reference to Mary’s sacred person, what are the north and south gates in the same set of verses?

An allegorical interpretation doesn’t have to run through the whole chapter or a section of a chapter; if a number of Fathers are able to connect the dots and is not against the teaching of the Church there is good reason to accept that understanding. One is not ignoring the context in seeing something more behind the text with the eyes of Faith.

 

[sdtouchton]

My Answer:

When we are baptized, sin goes out and GOD comes in. Baptism to remove sin and allow GOD to come in was not instituted until after Jesus had started His ministry (John 3:22-23, 4:2).

So The Blessed Virgin had to have a stainless sin-free body and soul in order for GOD incarnate to dwell within her "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in Him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

This verse is often cited as teaching that “genuine” believers will not practice sin. They will not sin habitually, 1 John 3:9 is said to teach.

(Job 1:1) - “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil.”

(Genesis 7:1) - "Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household; for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.”

(Luke 1:5-6) - “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6And they were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.”

The Bible clearly teaches that all people have sinned – except Jesus (1 Peter 2:22).

Romans 3:23 clearly condemns all under sin. But when it mentions people like Job, Noah, Zacharias, and Elizabeth as people who were “blameless” and “righteous” it is not saying that they are not sinners. It is saying that they were godly people, who kept the commandments of God and in that sense, they were righteous. But of course, we realize that no one can keep the commandments of God perfectly which is why all people are deserving of damnation (Eph. 2:3) and why we need a savior. If righteousness can come through the Law, then Christ died needlessly (Gal. 2:21).

The Immaculate Conception means the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived and born without original sin. However this verse does not even address ‘Original Sin’, which is imputed to almost all of mankind by the sin of Adam and Eve. I said almost all, simply because a few did not have original sin imputed to them, namely Adam, Eve, Jesus Christ, and the New Eve, Blessed Mary.

Romans 3:23 addresses only the sins that we commit of our own free will.

Are there any exceptions to the word ‘All’?

What about Jesus Christ? Did He in His humanity ever sin?

What about babies and those with a mental retardation who have no reasoning power? Have they sinned? Have children below the age of reason sinned? Have comatose and senile people sinned? As you can see, there are exceptions.

Luke 1:6, regarding Zachary and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, “Both were just before GOD, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord”.

Luke 1:15, regarding John the Baptist, “For he shall be great before the Lord; he shall drink no wine or strong drink, and shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mothers womb”.

Do these verses sound as if Zachary, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist have sinned?

You can readily see that there are many exceptions to the term ‘All have sinned’. Since I have shown there are many exceptions to the word ‘ALL’, why then should anyone not allow one more exception, the Mother of GOD?

---

The Greek word, ‘PAS’, meaning ‘ALL’, can have different meanings as shown in other verses of Holy Scripture.

John 12:19, “The entire world has gone after him!” Did everyone in the entire world really go after Christ?

Mt 3:5-6, “Then went out to Him Jerusalem, and ALL Judea, and ALL the region about the Jordan; and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.”

Were all of the people of Judea, and the region about the Jordan baptized?

The phrase ‘the whole world’, does not really mean everybody in the world. The words ‘whole world’ and ‘all’ are used in several different senses of Scripture, and seldom do they literally mean all persons.

Rom 11:26, “ALL Israel shall be saved.” We know for certain that ‘ALL’ in Israel will not be saved.

Rom 15:14, “…you yourselves are full of love, filled with ‘ALL’ knowledge…” Here we know for sure that the only person filled with ‘ALL’ knowledge is GOD Himself.

The Greek word ‘pas’ in many verses in Scripture simply means a ‘great number’, or ‘a lot’. Since there are exceptions for Jesus Christ, and for others as shown above, the meaning could be seen as, ‘ALL are subject to sin’. In the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a prevention of sin was brought about by a special grace from GOD.

“… the whole world has gone after him” [John 12:19 ] Did all the world go after Christ?

“then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” [Matt. 3: 5-6] Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?

“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. [1 John 5:19] Does the whole world there mean everybody?

The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts – some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …

. Grace saves us.

. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is to both be saved and to be exceptionally, completely holy. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions as follows:

1. To be full of the grace which saves is to surely be saved.
2. To be full of the grace which gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin, is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

Or, we could make the following deductive argument, with premises (#1 and #2) derived directly from Scripture:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
2. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, above sin.
3. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
4. Therefore, Mary is saved.
5. To be “full of” God’s grace is also to be so holy that one is sinless.
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

How could Mary be sinless when she sinned at Cana (John 2:3-4)? Jesus granted Mary’s compassionate request that He help the young couple (John 2:5-11). The Bible says that God does not grant sinful requests (John 9:31; James 4:3), so her request could not have been sinful.

sdtouchton.webs.com/apps/blog/show/1751580-mother-mary-was-a-sinner-and-fallen-short-glory-of-god-

 

[Peter_Dawson]

An allegorical interpretation doesn’t have to run through the whole chapter or a section of a chapter; if a number of Fathers are able to connect the dots and is not against the teaching of the Church there is good reason to accept that understanding. One is not ignoring the context in seeing something more behind the text with the eyes of Faith.

You’re wrong.

There are no chapters or sections of chapters in the Bible.

The inspired Final Redactors diod not even know what chapters were.

 

[PJM]

=BerhaneSelassie;5703398]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

Thank you so very much!

 

[FCEGM]

There are no chapters or sections of chapters in the Bible.

The inspired Final Redactors diod not even know what chapters were.

I know that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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…

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Other Examples of “Until” That Do Not Require Cessation of Action

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

1 Maccabees 5:54
“…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Were Judas Maccabeus and his troops killed when they returned?

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who, after as well as before he appeared in public, resided in the desert (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

Romans 8:22
“…the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.” Is it still groaning?

1 Corinthians 15:25
“For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning?

Ephesians 4:12-13
“…for the equipping…for the work of ministry… for the edifying…TILL we all come to the unity of the faith…” Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be necessary?

Hebrews 1:13
To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’”? After that time, the angels (or Jesus) could get up again?

1 Timothy 4:13
“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” After I arrive you won’t need to do any of those things?

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…” When Jesus comes back, we should disobey these commandments?

Revelation 2:25-26
“But hold fast what you have TILL I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I will give power…” Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I know that.

Maybe you do.

The point is that one has to look for indicators in the context respecting the boundaries of word pictures.

If the same temple has a north gate and a south gate only a few verses away from a discussion of the same temple’s east gate, the “temple” is not a discussion of Holy Mary’s generative region.

Not only is that ancient idea contrary to context, but it is obscene.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

I would not call the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church sacrilegious, having issue with this Ezekiel 44:2 is like having issue with St Matthew’s way of interpretation such as:

“That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son.”–Matthew 2:15

When one a non believing Jew opposed to the faith might say that Matthew way of interpretation is misleading and dishonest because Hosea 11:1 which Matthew quotes says

“When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son.”

While Matthew is saying this is a PROPHECY, and one referring to Jesus, whereas a plain reading of Hosea 11:1 is that it refers to the Israelites, even the next verse callings THEM sinners.

Ezekiel 44:2 is a similar way of interpreting the Scripture. And was mentioned previously there are many ways of interpreting one scripture.

 

[Good_Fella]

I would not call the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church sacrilegious, having issue with this Ezekiel 44:2 is like having issue with St Matthew’s way of interpretation such as:

“That it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Out of Egypt have I called my son.”–Matthew 2:15

When one a non believing Jew opposed to the faith might say that Matthew way of interpretation is misleading and dishonest because Hosea 11:1 which Matthew quotes says

“When Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt I called my son.”

While Matthew is saying this is a PROPHECY, and one referring to Jesus, whereas a plain reading of Hosea 11:1 is that it refers to the Israelites, even the next verse callings THEM sinners.

Ezekiel 44:2 is a similar way of interpreting the Scripture. And was mentioned previously there are many ways of interpreting one scripture.

Excellent point!

King David’s psalms, concering himself in their primary context, contain veiled prophecies about our Lord Jesus Christ which find a secondary fulfillment in Him, even though the psalmist was conceived in his mother’s womb a sinner. And the Jews have also criticized St. Matthew for distorting Isaiah 7, 14 by substituting the Hebrew word for “young maiden” for the Hebrew word for “virgin”. Aware of the virgin birth of Christ, the evangelist simply used the Hebrew word for “virgin” which is implied in the Hebrew word for a young maiden who may be betrothed to be married. Needless to say, the prince Ezekiel speaks of can be identified with the “Prince of peace” in the prophecy of Isaiah.

Pax Christu :harp: