Enough, lets get things straight!

[Tantum_ergo]

Show me the first person to claim that Mary consummated her marriage with the Holy Spirit. I will be waiting please. I think it would need to be directly stated or at least strongly implied. Or something similiar to that teaching. In order for it to be the first 1500 years, you would need to show the first time it is asserted. Please do so. I will not assume 1500 years unless you prove that. That makes sense, doesn’t it?
Essentially you believe some form of spiritual union akin to what occurs at sex but on a spiritual level occured? I will ask further questions but I am trying to be concise.

. You note that I was careful to state, over and over, that God and Mary did not have physical sexual relations. . .but as you ‘copied’ my post you **also should have seen that ‘consummation’ does not refer to #3 in the definition alone. **

So unless you are going to hold by only that #3 definition, you would have to accept that Mary’s consummation with the Holy Spirit could be understood in either sense of definitions 1 and 2 --and that, indeed, can be seen in the writings of the ECF and in oral tradition and over the past 1500 years. Is that what you’re waiting for?

 

[Rightlydivide]

. You note that I was careful to state, over and over, that God and Mary did not have physical sexual relations. . .but as you ‘copied’ my post you **also should have seen that ‘consummation’ does not refer to #3 in the definition alone. **

So unless you are going to hold by only that #3 definition, you would have to accept that Mary’s consummation with the Holy Spirit could be understood in either sense of definitions 1 and 2 --and that, indeed, can be seen in the writings of the ECF and in oral tradition and over the past 1500 years. Is that what you’re waiting for?

First, I never thought once that they had a physical sex. So your emphasis is rather unwarranted for my benefit anyway.

You did not provide the information about who first said that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit and consummated a marriage with the Holy Spirit. I was hoping you would provide an ECF quote or two of that specific claim. Perhaps it is 1500 years but surely it is not too much to request that to be verified.

Okay, no. I am sorry. I do not understand your answer that well. Please answer these questions. If Mary and the Holy Spirit’s union can be termed spiritual sex, what does that mean? If spiritual sex **is not **an accurate term, what specifically is inaccurate about it please?
Thank you.

 

[rinnie]

First, I never thought once that they had a physical sex. So your emphasis is rather unwarranted for my benefit anyway.

You did not provide the information about who first said that Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit and consummated a marriage with the Holy Spirit. I was hoping you would provide an ECF quote or two of that specific claim. Perhaps it is 1500 years but surely it is not too much to request that to be verified.

Okay, no. I am sorry. I do not understand your answer that well. Please answer these questions. If Mary and the Holy Spirit’s union can be termed spiritual sex, what does that mean? If spiritual sex **is not **an accurate term, what specifically is inaccurate about it please?
Thank you.

Hi RD, I think that if you are asking where it is stated clearly in scripture I would Guess, I am only guessing here but it would probally be Elizabeth, don’t you think.

Because she said when she first saw Mary, Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.

Now if you read in the O.T. it was always predicted that There would be a virgin and she would bring into this world a Savior. Not sure if thats what you are looking for.

But I agree with you (I think) there was no sex. It was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit over the Blessed Mother, It was a Shadow of God that came upon her. Hope that helps.

 

[rinnie]

Show me the first person to claim that Mary consummated her marriage with the Holy Spirit. I will be waiting please. I think it would need to be directly stated or at least strongly implied. Or something similiar to that teaching. In order for it to be the first 1500 years, you would need to show the first time it is asserted. Please do so. I will not assume 1500 years unless you prove that. That makes sense, doesn’t it?
Essentially you believe some form of spiritual union akin to what occurs at sex but on a spiritual level occured? I will ask further questions but I am trying to be concise.

The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary at the Annunciation see Luke 1:35. Because she gave birth to the Son of God Mary made God visible. Through her the Holy Spirit MANIFESTED the Fathers Son to the world.

 

[GaryTaylor]

While the understanding may or may not be clear to many. Why not just read the short writtings of St Louis de Montfort in his book, “The Secret of Mary”. I’m 100% positive it will clear up any thoughts you may have about Mary and her position in the Catholic Faith and with God and Jesus Christ.

The book is on-line, you could answer all you questions this “minute”, and hear it from a Saint. And it also could be read and comprehended in one-day. Though you may really want to re-read it after first hearing the “truth”.

Mary is a very under estimated figure. And it is a “Grace” of God to truly understand and have her in your life.

God Bless, GT

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi RD, I think that if you are asking where it is stated clearly in scripture I would Guess, I am only guessing here but it would probally be Elizabeth, don’t you think.

Because she said when she first saw Mary, Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.

Now if you read in the O.T. it was always predicted that There would be a virgin and she would bring into this world a Savior. Not sure if thats what you are looking for.

But I agree with you (I think) there was no sex. It was the pouring out of the Holy Spirit over the Blessed Mother, It was a Shadow of God that came upon her. Hope that helps.

And when Mary heard what Elisabeth said, she immediatly referred “all” her Grace to God. But I hear you and thats an excellent observation and understanding.

 

[rinnie]

And when Mary heard what Elisabeth said, she immediatly referred “all” her Grace to God. But I hear you and thats an excellent observation and understanding.

Right! What People don’t quite understand and many Catholic’s I am afraid get confused on this too, is the Immaculate Conception.

People think the IC is it is when Christ’s Conception in Mary womb without a human Father, its not! Thats the Virgin Birth.

Others think Mary was conceived by the Power or the Holy Spirit like Jesus was. thats wrong too!

What they do not understand is Mary whose conception was in a normal way was conceived without original sin or its stain. That is why its immaculate which means without stain.

Because original sin consists in deprivation of sanctifying grace and its stain is a corrupt nature.

Then they say that we say Mary did not need as Savior. Also not true. Mary did have a Savior and it was God who at the MOMENT of her conception saved her from Original Sin.

The angels says Hail full of Grace the Lord is with you. Full of Grace means she was already full of Gods grace.

Since the angel said Full of grace which means she was graced in the Past. So it proves the grace was not a result of the angels visit she was already filled with Gods grace.

At the moment of her conception she was saved by God. That is why she was highly favored or full of grace by God.

Mary also needed a savior because all of the decendants of Adam she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But here is the big thing, By a special intervention of God undertaken at the second of her conception she was preserved from the stain of sin and its consequences.

She was saved a special way by anticipation. This is explained like this, say a person falls into a pit and is pulled out and saved. Okay now say the next person is walking by but is pulled away before they fall into the pit. Thats what happened to the Blessed Mother. She was saved from sin before she could have attempt it.

 

[bluemary]

That’s a very simplistic way to attempt to dismiss a clear argument. This was not written in 2010. Cousins, uncles, nephews, were all called “brother”. The Jewish people were tribal, any kinsman from the tribe was a “brother”. Even close friends are called “brother” or “brethren” in the gospels, Acts, etc. Throughout the New Testament, I believe there are something like 80 people referred to as the brother of the Lord.

Read St. John’s account of the passion. Now, on the cross, Christ said to John “Behold, your mother” and John took her into his home, right? How odd this would have been…if Mary had other children, like you are boldly claiming. Mary had other children…yet she left them to go live with John? Doubtful.

In Christ and Our Blessed Mother,
Frank

Well stated. John was clearly not a sibling of Christ, so it would have gone against their faith for John to take her if she had other children.

Also, there is some indication that Mary & possibly Joseph had already consecrated themselves to God. Some Jews did this and this was lawful. If she was a consecrated virgin she would already have committed herself to live a life of celibacy as a free gift to God, but she would still have needed a man to take her in to his home to look after her. There wouldn’t have been any other man acceptable accept another consecrated virgin. By law they would have had to marry, yet they would not be expected to have relations due to the consecration. This is why some feel that Joseph may have been a widower with his own children, therefore having no problem with taking on this task. It would also have been doubly bad for her to be found with child before marriage. As Christians we are usually very unaware of all of the Jewish beliefs and customs, interpreting for ourselves what the Old Testament means. Most don’t even understand the betrothal period and think it is like our current engagement period.

 

[ufamtobie]

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Rightlydivided,

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I am very busy and have a life. lol Yes you qoute scripture above. But what do you believe did Jesus Come in the flesh or Spirit?

Ufamtobie

 

[Todd520]

After Christ’s birth Mary was no longer a vessel to be untouched. And if all of the evidence supports that Mary was one of the MOST obedient people in biblibal history (when it comes to God’s commands), then she would also be MOST obedient to The Marriage Covenant - recognized by God - since she’s now a wife…which requires a wife to be fruitful and multiply with her husband, be faithful to her husband, submit to her husband…Joseph, as he submits to God.

…and yet even when there’s biblical evidence that details siblings, we explain it away saying, “oh they were cousins”.

Well stated.
It seems probable a close friend was entrusted to care for Mary (maybe not the custom but why is it seen as a crime)
It seems improbable Mary and Joseph did not live as husban an wife, after Jesus was born.