Disregard of Scripture?

[Manphibian]

Ok, this is kind of heading down the wrong path. I’m looking for answers, not Catholic bashing. I honestly would like a fuller understanding of your beliefs, and yet this spirit of resentment seems to persist. Are there no first century writings on Marian dogma? I honestly do not know, I came here for answers, not to match wits over who’s write and who’s wrong. This forum has always been most helpful, but today it seems to be leaning more toward inclusiveness.

Hey I know ! How about all the lifetime God fearing members of the RCC refuse to answer and totally disregard these misinformed and less fortunate Baptists!

On three, on three, break.
(the Internet-Catholic huddle breaks)

I’m only trying to find out if Jesus is really yalls quarterback.
(I hear Mary has soft hands)

Amazing Love, how can it be? That You, my King, would die for me?

MaNPHiBiaN

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Manphibian:

Anyone have a link to a first century writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.? I’d like to read it.

Hello Manphibian;

I don’t know if there is a first century writing by the ECFs on perpetual virginity because it seems the concept was taken for granted up until the end of the fourth century when Helvidius first questioned Mary’s perpetual virginity and the Church fathers reacted in outrage.

For example, St. Athanasius - doctor of the Incarnation - who led the fight against Arianism, is highly respected by Protestants. He explicitly calls Mary “Ever-Virgin” - mentioning the title as if it is something Christians of the time take for granted. (AD 365)

St. Jerome defended the perpetual virginity of Mary in “The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Against Helvidius” and St. Augustine and St. Ambrose both strongly defended her perpetual virginity. St. Augustine calls her, “A virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin perpetual.”

See Discourses Against the Arians, 2, 70; Jurgens, Vol. 1, #767a
and Sermons, 186, 1; Heresies, 56; Jurgens, Vol. 3, #1518 and 1974d.

Also, Patrick Madrid’s little book - Where is that in Tradition - lists quotes from many different Church fathers upholding perpetual virginity from about the mid-second century on.

If I may ask - would a lack of writing from the early church prove to you that Christians widely accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity or that it was not taught. Because at that time in history most church fathers’ writings were written to defend doctrines that were under attack. So one can assume from a lack of writing that a doctrine was either not under attack, or not yet clearly developed.

My take on the dates of the writings is that the record and body of Church Fathers’ defending the perpetual virginity of Mary did not begin to develop until after the attack agains her divinity was in full swing. I’m curious to hear your perspective.

One final thought on the Perpetual Virginity issue: At the time of the Reformation, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all accepted the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

See Worsk of Luther, Vol. 11, pp. 319-320; Vol. 6, p. 510 (Luther)
Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published in 1562 (Calvin); and Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, p. 424 (Zwingli). I understand that you don’t hold these writings to be infallible doctrine, but it is certainly interesting to note that the men who first revolted against Rome did not turn their back on the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God.

-Peace

 

[MonicaC]

Manphibian:

Anyone have a link to a first century writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.? I’d like to read it.

Well for starters:
The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (*Protoevangelium of James *4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

(cont.)

 

[MonicaC]

And if that doesn’t help here are some of the early father’s writting:

Gregory the Wonderworker
“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David” (*Four Homilies *1 [A.D. 262]).

“It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’” (ibid., 2).

**Peter of **Alexandria
“They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs” (*The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria *[A.D. 305]).

“We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God” (*Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops *12 [A.D. 324]).

Methodius
“While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled” (*Oration on Simeon and Anna *7 [A.D. 305]).

“Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return. . . . Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . Wherefore, we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in you, and who in august hymns celebrate your memory, which will ever live, and never fade away” (ibid., 14).

**Cyril of **Jerusalem
“The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son. The Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove. The archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary. The Virgin Mother of God bears witness” (*Catechetical Lectures *10:19 [A.D. 350]).

Ephraim the Syrian
“Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and work of his wisdom became the Mother of God” (*Songs of Praise *1:20 [A.D. 351]).

Athanasius
“The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is he that is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God” (*The Incarnation of the Word of God *8 [A.D. 365]).

**Epiphanius of **Salamis
“Being perfect at the side of the Father and incarnate among us, not in appearance but in truth, he [the Son] reshaped man to perfection in himself from Mary the Mother of God through the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

**Ambrose of **Milan
“The first thing which kindles ardor in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose?” (*The Virgins *2:2[7] [A.D. 377]).

Gregory of Nazianz
“If anyone does not agree that holy Mary is Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead” (*Letter to Cledonius the Priest *101 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
“As to how a virgin became the Mother of God, he [Rufinus] has full knowledge; as to how he himself was born, he knows nothing” (*Against Rufinus *2:10 [A.D. 401]).

“Do not marvel at the novelty of the thing, if a Virgin gives birth to God” (*Commentaries on Isaiah *3:7:15 [A.D. 409]).

I hope this helps!

Monica

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello again Manphibian;

I’m only trying to find out if Jesus is really yalls quarterback.
(I hear Mary has soft hands)

God doesn’t play favorites when it comes to picking a football team, but His mother does? lol.

-Go Notre Dame!

 

[Manphibian]

Thanks Monica!

That’s what I’m after! Very convincing stuff, you’ve answered many questions.

P.s.

Notre Dame is Junior Varsity, every one knows that the Crimson Tide is the chosen squad in collge football.

Sometimes Love has to drive a nail into It’s Own Hand,
Matt

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Notre Dame is Junior Varsity, every one knows that the Crimson Tide is the chosen squad in collge football.

• lol -
  You are obviously a man of very deep faith - who believes in miracles.

 

[Manphibian]

tuely, it would take a miracle for either of our teams to do much this year.

So much you’ve alrady done,
Matt

 

[Church_Militant]

Manphibian:

Anyone have a link to a first century writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.? I’d like to read it.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

Mary Rver-Virgin

Mary, Full of Grace

Mary Mother of God

The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, all believed that Mary was the mother of God.

Mother of God

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them… Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, Vol. 7, page 572)

John Calvin: “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor…Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” (Calvini Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Vol. 45, page 348 and 335.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.” ( Zwingli Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. Comp., Vol.
6, I, page 639.)

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

 

[Church_Militant]

Manphibian:

Thanks Monica!

That’s what I’m after! Very convincing stuff, you’ve answered many questions.

P.s.

Notre Dame is Junior Varsity, every one knows that the Crimson Tide is the chosen squad in collge football.

Sometimes Love has to drive a nail into It’s Own Hand,
Matt

Yeah… right… dream on. Bear is dead…

 

[BibleReader]

MANPHIBIAN: Scripture says that Jesus had brothers, not cousins, trust me I know the cousin/kinsmen argument by heart now,…

BibleReader: By carefully reviewing Scripture, one can actually CONFIRM that these adelphos of Christ are mere kinsmen.

Two ways: The Long Way; and the Short Cut.

The Short Cut: The Bible speaks at the plaintext, or literal, level, and at the *sensus plenior *or “fuller sense” level, usually at both levels at the same time.

At John 19:26-27, the following occurs as Jesus hangs from the cross:

*26 **When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” ****27 ******Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. ***

What is going on here at the plaintext level is clear: With Jesus dead, aging Mary will need a caretaker. So, as He is dying, Jesus appoints John the Apostle her caretaker.

Question: If Mary had other children, why do so?

The Long Way: The verse most often cited by our Protestant brothers and sisters to prove that Mary had sex with someone after Jesus, so that her womb was supposedly a very busy place – like “Grand Central Station” – after Jesus, is Mark 6:3, in the story of Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth…

*1 **He departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples. **2 **When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands! ****3 ****Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. **4 **Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.” *

With Greek re-insterted it says, 3 Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the adelphos [singular] of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his adelphes [plural] here with us?"

At first bite, that seems pretty clear, doesn’t it.

But let’s note some things about this story…

First, where was Jesus’ “native place”? Nazareth in Galilee. See Matthew 21:11, Mark 1:9.

Remember that: **Nazareth is IN Galilee.
**
Also, remeber **the names of two of those “brothers,” James and Joses.
**

Now, flip your Bible over to Mark 15:40-41…

*40 **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. **41 **These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him. There were also many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. *

Look, look, look! There is another Mary, not Mary the mother of Jesus, who had two sons ***James ***and Joses!

And this Mary – and her sons, too? – were with Jesus in Galilee.

In other words, Mark 15:40-41 dramatizes that these “brothers” of Jesus were in fact the sons of another “Mary,” undoubtedly a relative of Jesus’ mother Mary.

Why would they have been accompanying Jesus’ mother Mary in the gospels? See Mark 3:31, Luke 8:19. Because Mary had no other children of her own!

Now stand back and look at the Long Way and the Short Cut panoramically: They fit together, don’t they?

 

[BibleReader]

MANPHIBIAN: and nowhere does it state that the dead should be prayed to.

BibleReader: I disagree. At Revelation 5:8 in the King James Bible, we see the dead interceding to God on our behalf by passing up to God our prayers…

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. Revelation 5:8.

 

[BibleReader]

So, Manphibian, now that you have seen Biblical support for two Catholic doctrines that you wrongly believed had NO Biblical support, are you now going to say…

(1) “You’re RIGHT! How could we Protestants be so mistaken! I’m going to seriously consider attending RCIA classes soon!”?

0r (2) will you, in a panic to preserve your Protestant position, try to design some kind of Biblical Rube Goldberg contraption out of Bible verses to avoid the Bible’s meaning on these doctrines, and so functionally do PRECISELY what you say the Catholics, here, do – ignore the Bible?

 

[BibleReader]

**MANPHIBIAN: And then there’s the Priesthood. Forbidding marriage is completely unBiblical. No wonder all the scandal within the priesthood over the centuries. These poor men and nuns are forbidden to enter into the first established covenant of God, to sell there earthly goods or give them to the Church to increase it’s own wealth and dominion, etc. I’ve also read of Bishops condoning extra-marital sex for priest’s as long as they never married and confessed the sin to one another, but sense I have no direct source for this info, other than John MacArthur, I won’t argue this point.
**
So, you argue your point, and then say that you won’t argue your point.

Okay, here’s your Biblical suppoirt from the King James Bible…

[1] Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband…
[6] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
**1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 6. **[Try to apply Verse 6 to Verses 3, 4 or 5. It doesn’t work. Therefore, it appears that Verse 6 applies to Verse 2. The next verse contains the confirmation of my Verse 6 analysis.]
[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.1 Corinthians 7:7-9.

**[25] Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
[26] I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 1 Corinthian 7:25-26.
**
**[32] But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
[33] But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:32-33. **[There it is – the core of the answer to your challenge.]

**[37] Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 1 Corinthians 7:37.
**

Celibacy doesn’t seem very “un-Biblical” to me, Manphibian. I think that you are absolutely mistaken, on this one.

Okay – time for your Rube Goldberg Machine, to avoid Scripture!

 

[BibleReader]

Catholics, note well how dramatically the King James Bible supports the Roman Catholic Christian Faith!

 

[RobNY]

Robert in SD:

My take on the dates of the writings is that the record and body of Church Fathers’ defending the perpetual virginity of Mary did not begin to develop until after the attack agains her divinity was in full swing. I’m curious to hear your perspective.

Uh. Rob, quick! He’s not supposed to know what us Catholics really believe until we initiate him!

-Rob

 

[Eden]

Hi Manphibian!

I wanted to answer your question about the Virginity of Mary, her Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. These things have all been a part of tradition handed down to us but were only later revisited and set as doctrine. Why? In the earliest centuries, the goal of the disciples was to spread the story of Christ. That’s how it should be, of course. Christ is the central figure in Christianity so, while the early disciples out of Jerusalem knew about Mary’s Assumption (for instance) it was not given the priority of being recorded. It was oral tradition.

Here are some excerpts from a great website that goes into detail on all of these questions surrounding the Virgin Mary:

As for the Assumption, the strongest evidence for Mary’s Assumption is, oddly enough, a complete lack of evidence.

That is to say, no early Christian ever claimed to have a bodily relic of Mary, and no city ever claimed to have Mary’s remains. And this is in STARK contrast to the early veneration of the tombs of the Apostles and the other saints of the early Church. For example, everyone knew that the graves of Peter and Paul were at Rome. Likewise, the graves of John and Timothy were at Ephesus. The grave of Luke was in Greece, whereas the grave of Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt; later being transported to Venice. Likewise, the grave of James was at Jerusalem; the grave of Mary Magdalene was at Marseille. And, even the graves of the Old Testament saints were similarly venerated – such as the graves of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at Hebron; the grave of Rachel at Bethlehem (Matt 2:18), and the grave of David in Jerusalem itself (Acts 2:29). So, why didNO early Christian ever speak about a grave of the Virgin Mary? Unless there never was one…

Truth be told, it seems that the earliest Christians chose to remain silent about Mary’s Assumption so that it would not take away from the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. In this, we have to remember that Christianity was still a very new thing, and the main tenets of the Gospel had to be revealed to the world first, before devotion to Mary could properly develop. So, as with the Shroud of Turin, things like Mary’s Assumption were kept as “family secrets.” Not that they were withheld from anyone, but they were simply not widely advertised.

Source: bringyou.to/apologetics/a28.htm

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert in SD:

My take on the dates of the writings is that the record and body of Church Fathers’ defending the perpetual virginity of Mary did not begin to develop until after the attack agains her divinity was in full swing. I’m curious to hear your perspective.

RobNY:

Uh. Rob, quick! He’s not supposed to know what us Catholics really believe until we initiate him!

-Rob

Whoops! Sorry for any confusion. My intention was to state that Christ’s divinity was being attacked (indirectly through an attack on Mary’s status as Ever-Virgin.)

Thanks for the “heads up” NY Rob.