Did Mary "truly" consent?

[vera_dicere]

This is one of those “I got into a debate on FB” threads…

Anyway, I’m currently embroiled in a discussion over whether or not Mary consented to become the mother of God. I’m of the mind she did. The angel Gabe told her what would happen, giving her a moment to say no, she didn’t, she said yes. The Protestant I"m discussing this with, cited some Greek words that implied a forced pregnancy.

Now, I’m not really interested in whether I"m right, but he raised a few points here. So either I’m not well versed enough to answer efficiently, he’s being obtuse, or he’s coming at scripture from a different view.

I am thinking that they might not be correct, as he keeps sidestepping issues and talking about Pharaoh and Elizabeth being barren. They seem to have a misunderstanding of “unplanned pregnancy” vs “forced pregnancy”.

Any tips would be appreciated? I’m quite intrigued by this now, actually.

 

[Mintaka]

There doesn’t seem to be any support for this guy in the Greek.

Here’s a Protestant source.
It also cross-references the Hebrew word, which doesn’t seem to be much different.

 

[TC2]

He’s very poorly taught, unless he came up with that argument on his own.
No one I know (all protestants) would ever say that she didn’t say yes.

This is just considered a fact among us. Weird of him.

 

[edward_george]

That Mary could answer the Lord’s call freely is why she was Immaculately Conceived. Anyone attached to sin because of being afflicted by Original Sin would be incapable of answering in total freedom as she did, because Original Sin makes one self-interested in his choices.

-ACEGC

 

[LEMAITRE]

Does your friend not believe in ‘free will’?

If he does, then he his in a qandry as his argument assumes that Mary did not use her free will to consent and therefore a contradiction.

“I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live, by loving the LORD, your God, heeding his voice, and holding fast to him.” Deuteronomy 30:19-20
***Not only is each individual free to choose, he is obliged to choose.

---

“No one experiencing temptation should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.” James 1:13-15
***This passage cannot make it much more clear. The Protestant position relieves each person of the responsibility of making a choice. But it is obvious that it is not God who tempts us and therefore not God who “makes” our choices for us.

---

“Because I called and you refused, I extended my hand and no one took notice” Proverbs 1:24
***Yes, God calls us but we can refuse. He invites us but does not compel us.

---

“But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Of course not!” Galatians 2:17
The Protestant doctrine begins to look more and more like an easy out for those that do not want to accept responsibility for their own salvation.

“Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.” Romans 1:20-21
Paul here warns us that the glory of God is evident to all but not everyone chooses to acknowledge it. Notice that all do have the choice. particularly like the line in the above passage “they became vain in their reasoning”. By what reasoning could the Protestant Reformers been using to “invent” their doctrine of "salvation by faith alone?"

 

[DeSanto]

Be it done unto me, according to Thy will. That means, “yes”.

KJV: Luke 1:38 "I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her.

 

[R_C]

She was free to say no.

She was not told that she was already bearing the Son of God.

Furthermore, notice a very subtle and yet extremely important difference:

Zechariah:

How shall I know this, for I am an old man, and my wife advanced in years?

Gabriel:

But now, since you didn’t believe what I said, you will be silent and unable to speak until the child is born. For my words will certainly be fulfilled at the proper time.

Our Lady:

How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Gabriel:

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God.

Elizabeth:

You are blessed, because you believed that the Lord would do what he said.

As you can see, there is a major difference in the behavior and response (both external and in the soul) of Our Lady: she was full of trust and love in the Lord, and while both are greatly confused by Gabriel’s message, her question is one full of faith and humbly seeking understanding in order to be able to fulfill God’s divine plan. Her soul wanted nothing more than to do God’s will, and this was already visible to God even before her formal fiat.

 

[vera_dicere]

That Mary could answer the Lord’s call freely is why she was Immaculately Conceived. Anyone attached to sin because of being afflicted by Original Sin would be incapable of answering in total freedom as she did, because Original Sin makes one self-interested in his choices.

-ACEGC

I actually had that thought, seeing as being free of sin, Mary would always say yes to God, as saying no to God is the basis of sin.

Of course, given what I was dealing with, I wasn’t ready to open the Immaculate Conception bag of worms. Heh.

I’m getting the impression this FB chap is self-taught.

 

[dmar198]

The Protestant I"m discussing this with, cited some Greek words that implied a forced pregnancy.

What do you call forced love? Not love. What your friend is talking about is more like rape. “But what if I don’t want to be pregnant…” “Too bad. You’re having the baby.”

One way to prove that Mary had to consent was that the angel did not leave her until she did. He didn’t appear and say “You’re having God’s baby” and leave. He waited for her questions, answered her concerns, and when she said “let it be,” only then did he leave. The chronology of the story illustrates Mary’s cooperation and the angel’s waiting for it. So there was no forced pregnancy.

 

[DeSanto]

I actually had that thought, seeing as being free of sin, Mary would always say yes to God, as saying no to God is the basis of sin.

Of course, given what I was dealing with, I wasn’t ready to open the Immaculate Conception bag of worms. Heh.

I’m getting the impression this FB chap is self-taught.

Eve was free from sin…she did not say yes.

 

[edward_george]

Eve was free from sin…she did not say yes.

Which shows that being Immaculately Conceived did not negate Mary’s free will; she could have said no but chose not to in ultimate freedom, free from sin and self-interest in her choice, a freedom that was only possible through God’s grace.

-ACEGC

 

[DeSanto]

Which shows that being Immaculately Conceived did not negate Mary’s free will; she could have said no but chose not to in ultimate freedom, free from sin and self-interest in her choice, a freedom that was only possible through God’s grace.

-ACEGC

Exactly!

 

[R_C]

Eve was free from sin…she did not say yes.

Which shows that being Immaculately Conceived did not negate Mary’s free will; she could have said no but chose not to in ultimate freedom

YES!

Thank you!

 

[sirach2v4]

That Mary could answer the Lord’s call freely is why she was Immaculately Conceived. Anyone attached to sin because of being afflicted by Original Sin would be incapable of answering in total freedom as she did, because Original Sin makes one self-interested in his choices.

-ACEGC

Last Saturday was 12/8/12 and I was in this church for the holy day Mass. The priest gave this (to me) weird explanation of “why” Mary was an immaculate conception viz that everyone wants his/her mother to be beautiful, so God created Mary that way.

That sounds too anthropomorphic for me. The Book says that God’s ways are not our ways, etc.

I cornered the priest for a moment to ponder something bigger than the IC itself, and that was to suggest why Mary was IC.

I suggested God’s purpose was to recapitulate or renact creation, or, to restore creation starting with Mary. There are echoes of creation throughout scripture, and the IC seems to be an obvious one. Drawing us back to creation is a teaching moment about God’s will.

There’s an award-winning book from the Jewish Publication Society called Subversive Sequels [in the Bible]. The idea is that some sequel comes along and subverts or undoes or reverses something earlier. So, this transcends the scope of the Jewish Bible, but that is what we naturally expect.

Mary’s IC restores the dignity of women in the most essential way and for a purpose.of divine order. Mary’s humble acceptance is the subversive sequel to Eve’s prideful ignoring of the divine command. Eve gives birth to a murderous son, but Mary gives birth to a son who overcomes death, etc.

(Pentecost is a type of subversive sequel, where the apostles are understood in foreign tongues, as a reversal of the confusion of tongues at Babel.)

Yes, Mary truly consented to the improbable truth, as Eve rationalized away the truth of God’s sovereignty.

 

[John_oxios]

This is one of those “I got into a debate on FB” threads…

Anyway, I’m currently embroiled in a discussion over whether or not Mary consented to become the mother of God. I’m of the mind she did. The angel Gabe told her what would happen, giving her a moment to say no, she didn’t, she said yes. The Protestant I"m discussing this with, cited some Greek words that implied a forced pregnancy.

… but he raised a few points here. So either I’m not well versed enough to answer efficiently, he’s being obtuse, or he’s coming at scripture from a different view.

I am thinking that they might not be correct, as he keeps sidestepping issues and talking about Pharaoh and Elizabeth being barren. They seem to have a misunderstanding of “unplanned pregnancy” vs “forced pregnancy”.

Any tips would be appreciated? I’m quite intrigued by this now, actually.

Hi,
Haven’t heard this one as of yet. What kind of Protestant is he? and what exactly were their points to discredit Mary’s Yes? They usually discredit her virginity after Christ’s miraculous birth.

 God Bless, 
             John

 

[Rosinante]

This is one of those “I got into a debate on FB” threads…

Anyway, I’m currently embroiled in a discussion over whether or not Mary consented to become the mother of God. I’m of the mind she did. The angel Gabe told her what would happen, giving her a moment to say no, she didn’t, she said yes. The Protestant I"m discussing this with, cited some Greek words that implied a forced pregnancy.

Now, I’m not really interested in whether I"m right, but he raised a few points here. So either I’m not well versed enough to answer efficiently, he’s being obtuse, or he’s coming at scripture from a different view.

I am thinking that they might not be correct, as he keeps sidestepping issues and talking about Pharaoh and Elizabeth being barren. They seem to have a misunderstanding of “unplanned pregnancy” vs “forced pregnancy”.

Any tips would be appreciated? I’m quite intrigued by this now, actually.

Your ‘friend’ is straight up ‘off the res.’ here, manifesting a patently neo-anti-Marian bent, pervasive amongst your more militant pros.

Here’s my tip (in addition to what has been posted above):

Google ‘martin luther quotes about Mary’. You will find that even their great founder had a deep seeded reverence for the VIRGIN Mary, and even subscribed to her perpetual virginity. The anti-Marian movement amongst pros, is not only not biblical–it’s anti-biblical–and the natural outgrowth of protestantism, which out of necessity, MUST differentiate and distance itself from the Church against which it protests.

The earliest symbol within the catacombs underneath St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City, is of the Virgin Mary holding the infant Christ.

Also worth noting–the typology of the Bible indicates that the Virgin Mary was the ‘Ark of the New Covenenant’–that is, just as the ‘Ark of the Covenant’ was used to keep the Old Law–the Word of God–the Tablets upon which the Lord inscribed the Ten Comandments–Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, in that in her Womb, was placed the Word of God, incarnate, in the Person of Yeshua. “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh, and the Word dwelt among us for a while” John 1:1. That’s why St. John chose to phrase it as he did. This was held so, amongst many of the Church Fathers.

VIVAT JESUS!

 

[LEMAITRE]

This is one of those “I got into a debate on FB” threads…

Anyway, I’m currently embroiled in a discussion over whether or not Mary consented to become the mother of God. I’m of the mind she did. The angel Gabe told her what would happen, giving her a moment to say no, she didn’t, she said yes. The Protestant I"m discussing this with, cited some Greek words that implied a forced pregnancy.

Now, I’m not really interested in whether I"m right, but he raised a few points here. So either I’m not well versed enough to answer efficiently, he’s being obtuse, or he’s coming at scripture from a different view.

I am thinking that they might not be correct, as he keeps sidestepping issues and talking about Pharaoh and Elizabeth being barren. They seem to have a misunderstanding of “unplanned pregnancy” vs “forced pregnancy”.

Any tips would be appreciated? I’m quite intrigued by this now, actually.

This short video does an excellent job explaining Mary’s role in Salvation and biblical support for the CC Doctrines regarding Mary.

I emailed this to my close Baptist friends who had issues with Mariology and they were intrigued by it.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

 

[R_C]

Mary’s IC restores the dignity of women in the most essential way and for a purpose.of divine order.

Beautiful remark.

 

[John_oxios]

This is one of those “I got into a debate on FB” threads…

Anyway, I’m currently embroiled in a discussion over whether or not Mary consented to become the mother of God. I’m of the mind she did. The angel Gabe told her what would happen, giving her a moment to say no, she didn’t, she said yes. The Protestant I"m discussing this with, cited some Greek words that implied a forced pregnancy…

I am thinking that they might not be correct, as he keeps sidestepping issues and talking about Pharaoh and Elizabeth being barren. They seem to have a misunderstanding of “unplanned pregnancy” vs “forced pregnancy”.

Any tips would be appreciated? I’m quite intrigued by this now, actually.

Hi,
As far as my experience as a lapsed catholic (20 yrs)who attended various Protestant faiths "seeking God outside the Catholic Church Another (10yrs).

Protestants tend to twist truths or flat out lie about Roman Catholic Doctrine, Why?
Because their Pastors, or teachers told them so and they believed without searching the truth for themselves.
I once heard a pastor who stated something as a definitive catholic teaching, and I quite didn’t remember it like that, so I looked it up, returned, and showed him he had mistaken, and placed the Correct Catholic teaching before his eyes and he turned away. I stopped attending those services, but continued his baptist bible study.

So when some suggests several Greek Words, and translates them for you, look them up for yourself, ask your Pastor. I got this Jehovah Witness who is Greek, speaks and reads the Language, who comes to my home regularly to discuss Scripture, I do not take for granted his translation or interpretations, I look them up for myself. Then through the Teachings in the CCC, or Catholic commentaries.

Be a be Berean (Acts 17:10,11) who examine the Scriptures everyday to see whether these things were so.

The problem with most Catholics is we accept the religion we are brought up in and not very steep in the wisdom of our faith, which protestants take full advantage of in bamboozling us into what they think Catholicism is.

God Bless,
John

 

[DeSanto]

Your ‘friend’ is straight up ‘off the res.’ here, manifesting a patently neo-anti-Marian bent, pervasive amongst your more militant pros.

Here’s my tip (in addition to what has been posted above):

Google ‘martin luther quotes about Mary’. You will find that even their great founder had a deep seeded reverence for the VIRGIN Mary, and even subscribed to her perpetual virginity. The anti-Marian movement amongst pros, is not only not biblical–it’s anti-biblical–and the natural outgrowth of protestantism, which out of necessity, MUST differentiate and distance itself from the Church against which it protests.

The earliest symbol within the catacombs underneath St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City, is of the Virgin Mary holding the infant Christ.

Also worth noting–the typology of the Bible indicates that the Virgin Mary was the ‘Ark of the New Covenenant’–that is, just as the ‘Ark of the Covenant’ was used to keep the Old Law–the Word of God–the Tablets upon which the Lord inscribed the Ten Comandments–Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, in that in her Womb, was placed the Word of God, incarnate, in the Person of Yeshua. “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was made flesh, and the Word dwelt among us for a while” John 1:1. That’s why St. John chose to phrase it as he did. This was held so, amongst many of the Church Fathers.

VIVAT JESUS!

May I just say there is argument regarding Luther as to his “earlier” writings compared to the “later” writings. Luther changed views on many issues. Protestants like to point out that Catholics will pull the Luther card when it agrees with their point, and do a 180 on him with we disagree on other points. Also, Lutherans, separate from other Christian denominations don’t have as much a an issue with the BVM. They do claim there is a separate “Lutheran” rosary that is used that does not use the phrase “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death”, as there is an issue with praying to the dead or the undead. Apparently that phrase was added after the death of Luther. In any case, Protestants to not regard everything Luther said as “infallible”, he was just another sinner with his own opinions. They believe in their own personal revelations and interpretation of scripture as Spirit inspired truth. Best to not put too much emphasis on Luther, IMO.