Enough, lets get things straight!

[Nicea325]

I sourced multiple passages here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6775928&postcount=8

As a point of fact; No, He can not do whatever. God can not do anything that would break is own established laws and word (which is the foundation of my entire argument) because His laws & word are His nature, and he can’t go against his nature (BTW this is why he can’t just “poof” Satan & evil away…Satan must be “proven” guilty with evidence and witnessess; a case must be built in heaven’s court of law). God is bound by his word.

Isaiah 55:11 - “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And will succeed in the matter for which I sent it.”

Isaiah 45:23 - “I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.”

John 17:17 - “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

Psalm 12:6-7 - “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Psalm 100:5 “…his truth endureth to all generations”

God gave his word on what “Marriage” is; a REAL union (oneness). There is no changing this…not even by God. God can’t change his rules.

So if you (and others) believe that Mary is the spouse of God (the HS), then YOU (and others) are also saying Mary and God are one, by default…because there are no exceptions to the rule.

Christ also said in John 10:30, that "I and my Father are one", which we then use to draw the conclusion that there’s a Trinity. So IF Mary is (by default) one with God who is of the Trinity…? You see my point? The Trinity can’t work if Mary is God’s spouse, so Mary is NOT the spouse of God.

This thread began with many suppporting the theme that Mary is the spouse of God (the HS). Even catholics who’ve replied have continued to address her as “spouse”. What is a “female spouse”, Nicea? What’s the term used for a “female spouse”? A female spouse is called a WIFE. IF you don’t believe Mary is the “spouse” of God (the HS) then you should’ve been helping me argue this point all along.

…I did read your later post where your conscience (God) later got to you and where you admitted that this was rude and unjust (at least to a degree), so I’ll ignore this.

I didn’t say this. You didn’t read what I typed yet again, Nicea. Once again you’re misreading what I wrote. But while some (like Ben) will apologize for drawing incorrect conclusions from misreading [even if he still doesn’t agree with me], I don’t believe you will do the same…either that or you’re purposely misreading my posts to discredit me with later viewers (or maybe avoiding my challenge to you). At this point it doesn’t matter.

Joshua,

With all due respect,I have heard all the arguments from fundamentalist over and over. They are nothing new and to be frank with you, I am tired of going in circles over the same arguments. I am not afraid of your challenge,I am simply to tired to carry on.

 

[JonNC]

=Joshua27;6800711]I …I did read your later post where your conscience (God) later got to you and where you admitted that this was rude and unjust (at least to a degree), so I’ll ignore this.

Is this a roundabout way of accepting an apology?

Just curious,
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
=Joshua27;6800711]I …I did read your later post where your conscience (God) later got to you and where you admitted that this was rude and unjust (at least to a degree), so I’ll ignore this.

Actually, someone who I have much respect for caught it and I admitted it was not the best of words,although some say it was okay. Nonetheless, I wrote it and apologized and owe the thanks to someone…

Quote:

JonNC: Is this a roundabout way of accepting an apology?

I hope he does.

 

[Rightlydivide]

One thing that still remains to be discussed is the Catholic belief that Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit.
If Mary is the mother of God because of the Trinity, how is she not also the wife of God if she is the wife of the Holy Spirit?
Is it possible for a Catholic to briefly explain that?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

One thing that still remains to be discussed is the Catholic belief that Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit.
If Mary is the mother of God because of the Trinity, how is she not also the wife of God if she is the wife of the Holy Spirit?
Is it possible for a Catholic to briefly explain that?

Well if she is the Mother of God because of the Trinity, how is she not also the mother of the Holy Spirit or the Mother of the Father? Eh?

If you can understand that she is the Mother of the Son (Second Person) yet not the Mother of the Spirit or the Father, you can certainly understand that as the Spouse of the Spirit she is not the Spouse of the Father or Son. . .can’t you?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Well if she is the Mother of God because of the Trinity, how is she not also the mother of the Holy Spirit or the Mother of the Father? Eh?

If you can understand that she is the Mother of the Son (Second Person) yet not the Mother of the Spirit or the Father, you can certainly understand that as the Spouse of the Spirit she is not the Spouse of the Father or Son. . .can’t you?

Uh…she is called the mother of God. So… that really just means she is the mother of the Son so how is mother of God accurate then? It should be…mother of the Son and the fact he is divine assumed I would think. But then again, I wasnt around 1600 years ago to participate in a meeting to hash these sort of things out…Ok I believe I get this now. NOt that I agree but I get it.
Why do Catholics use spouse instead of wife? Clarify please.
What is the difference in your mind?

 

[jmcrae]

Uh…she is called the mother of God. So… that really just means she is the mother of the Son so how is mother of God accurate then?

Because the Son is God.

It should be…mother of the Son and the fact he is divine assumed I would think.

He is not merely “divine” (angels are also divine) - he is God our Creator.

The Council that gave to Mary the title “Mother of God” was actually debating about whether Jesus was just a kind of angel, or whether He actually was God. They gave her that title in order to emphasize that Jesus is God our Creator.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Is it thought that because Mary is blessed and the wife of the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit loves her more than other people? I used the term overshadow earlier to show the word is used several times in scripture not denoting a special relationship for all time if you will.
I was wondering if Catholics believe the Apostles taught this or is is more conjecture based upon existing evidence so to speak?

 

[reggieM]

Is it thought that because Mary is blessed and the wife of the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit loves her more than other people?

It’s probably best to quote where you saw that. Otherwise it will look like you’re just making something up.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It’s probably best to quote where you saw that. Otherwise it will look like you’re just making something up.

I never read it. I am inferring. If wrong, I will be corrected. Although, if it is said the Holy Spirit does not love His wife more than others…that would be interesting. So then what exactly makes her the wife of the Holy Spirit? What does that specifically mean?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This may help:

Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: “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.”

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

Mary’s Protector

An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then “take [Mary] his wife” according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true “son of David” and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.

Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.

 

[Rightlydivide]

This may help:

Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: “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.”

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

QUOTE]

But the Holy Spirit overshadowing occurs in other passages.
As far as it being nuptial language, we know what it meant in the case of Ruth. What has not been clarified is what this nuptial language means in this case. It seems to me that if it is being asserted by such a tenious connection, there needs to be a pretty solid tradition support for it. Who is the first person to call her the wife of the Holy Spirit?

 

[reggieM]

I never read it. I am inferring. If wrong, I will be corrected. Although, if it is said the Holy Spirit does not love His wife more than others…that would be interesting. So then what exactly makes her the wife of the Holy Spirit? What does that specifically mean?

I think the first problem you’re going to encounter is in trying to determine the quantity of love the Holy Spirit has for any one person versus another. How would you determine and measure that?

It’s far simpler (and more correct) to say that God loves all of his creatures with an infinite love. You cannot have a greater or lesser infinite. So, your proposal is meaningless and false – and that’s why Catholics never say that the Holy Spirit loves Mary more than anyone else, since you cannot increase or subtract from an infinite.

Answering your additional questions: Mary gave birth “by the Holy Spirit”. She is, therefore, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit through that action.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I think the first problem you’re going to encounter is in trying to determine the quantity of love the Holy Spirit has for any one person versus another. How would you determine and measure that?

It’s far simpler (and more correct) to say that God loves all of his creatures with an infinite love. You cannot have a greater or lesser infinite. So, your proposal is meaningless and false – and that’s why Catholics never say that the Holy Spirit loves Mary more than anyone else, since you cannot increase or subtract from an infinite.

Answering your additional questions: Mary gave birth “by the Holy Spirit”. She is, therefore, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit through that action.

Oh…is that Catholic doctrine or your take?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantum ergo;6801418:

This may help:

Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: “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.”

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

QUOTE]

But the Holy Spirit overshadowing occurs in other passages.
As far as it being nuptial language, we know what it meant in the case of Ruth. What has not been clarified is what this nuptial language means in this case. It seems to me that if it is being asserted by such a tenious connection, there needs to be a pretty solid tradition support for it. Who is the first person to call her the wife of the Holy Spirit?

I’m not certain (since the early Christians had a lot of oral tradition. That means, by the time one of the Early Church Fathers, say, actually WROTE something down, usually because it was being disputed somewhere, it had been orally taught for some time before). However, St. Augustine (4th century AD) certainly spoke of Mary being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

The Blessed Virgin Mary," says St Augustine, “was the only one who merited to be called the Mother and Spouse” of God

. She became the Mother of God because she was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit: “the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee” (*Luke *1,35), said the Angel, explaining the mysterious, divine manner in which she would become a mother, the Mother of the Son of God. At that moment the Holy Spirit, who had already possessed Mary’s soul from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception, came upon her with such exceptional plenitude that He formed within her the sacred Body of Jesus. Justly, therefore, does Mary deserve the name of Spouse of the Holy Spirit: she is His possession, His sanctuary, His temple.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;6801682:

I’m not certain (since the early Christians had a lot of oral tradition. That means, by the time one of the Early Church Fathers, say, actually WROTE something down, usually because it was being disputed somewhere, it had been orally taught for some time before).

However, St. Augustine (4th century AD) certainly spoke of Mary being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Good find. Thanks. You google better than I.
Um…I do want to say one thing and you do not have to respond. The underlined part is often asserted by Catholic apologists but really…how could anyone every know this?
Do you see what I mean?
Its impossible, literally, to substantiate this. How can you know something was taught earlier if you have no record of it? Its really just an assertion based upon a hypothesis.
Oh but I like it…see, no one disputed Sola Scriptura until the 16th century. It was not neccessary to write it down because it had been orally taught for so long…
Anyway, hope that makes sense.

 

[reggieM]

How can you know something was taught earlier if you have no record of it? Its really just an assertion based upon a hypothesis.

The counter point to this would be that St. Augustine proposed a heretical, non-Scriptural teaching. But there is no evidence that this teaching was condemned by the Church, and it was retained and elaborated over the centuries as well.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The counter point to this would be that St. Augustine proposed a heretical, non-Scriptural teaching. But there is no evidence that this teaching was condemned by the Church, and it was retained and elaborated over the centuries as well.

Exactly. IF what St. Augustine was saying was NOT a teaching of the Church there would be a consistent ‘condemnation’ from that time to today from the Church. There is not.

So. . .if you start seeing ‘condemnations’ from the Church regarding teachings, it is a fairly safe bet that the condemnation comes fairly ‘quickly’ to refute a heretical teaching.

For example, the Church did not wait 700 years to condemn iconoclassicism because the condemnation came about in the 8th century. Even though a few isolated incidents had occurred and been dealt with LOCALLY, it was only when the Eastern Church had many of its members slip into this heresy (thus it became a major and NON LOCAL problem), that the Church had to address this.

So even if a few isolated ‘locals’ had come up with mistaken ideas that resembled SS in a few points, and were dealt with ‘locally’, SS as a ‘generalized’ teaching could only have come about (as the documentation we have shows) relatively ‘close’ to the point where the Church starts to condemn it. IOW, it was not taught from the time of the apostles, but from the time of the Reformation. . .IOW, it is a ‘new’ teaching, not an old one.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The counter point to this would be that St. Augustine proposed a heretical, non-Scriptural teaching. But there is no evidence that this teaching was condemned by the Church, and it was retained and elaborated over the centuries as well.

But once again…your counterpoint is based upon several presuppositions.

1. I do not agree with it but I never said it was heretical. In fact, I would be surprised if hardly anyone would view it as such.
2. It is non-scriptural. It, however, might not be anti-scriptural. In other words, it does not directly say nor do I think it infers it. I believe even those who support it would take it to the level of inference only.
3. I do not believe that all new teachings were condemned by the Catholic Church. That seems to be the presupposition you are operating under.
4. Nothing in your statement still deals with the fact that you cannot prove that something existed earlier without some form of evidence it did. How people react to something after it appears does not prove or disprove when it started. That position is untenable.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Exactly. IF what St. Augustine was saying was NOT a teaching of the Church there would be a consistent ‘condemnation’ from that time to today from the Church. There is not.
So. . .if you start seeing ‘condemnations’ from the Church regarding teachings, it is a fairly safe bet that the condemnation comes fairly ‘quickly’ to refute a heretical teaching.

For example, the Church did not wait 700 years to condemn iconoclassicism because the condemnation came about in the 8th century. Even though a few isolated incidents had occurred and been dealt with LOCALLY, it was only when the Eastern Church had many of its members slip into this heresy (thus it became a major and NON LOCAL problem), that the Church had to address this.

So even if a few isolated ‘locals’ had come up with mistaken ideas that resembled SS in a few points, and were dealt with ‘locally’, SS as a ‘generalized’ teaching could only have come about (as the documentation we have shows) relatively ‘close’ to the point where the Church starts to condemn it. IOW, it was not taught from the time of the apostles, but from the time of the Reformation. . .IOW, it is a ‘new’ teaching, not an old one.

That is based upon what?