How does Marian devotion save?

[PRmerger]

It’s not weird at all that Joseph should refrain from sexual relations with Mary during her pregnancy with Jesus.

Of course. Just like it’s not weird at all that Joseph should refrain from marital relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus.

You can’t have it both ways. Either they had a normal marital relationship and enjoyed relations during her pregnancy, or else Mary had a completely different relationship --as Catholics teach–in that she was the mystical spouse of God, virginal before and after the birth of Jesus, married to Joseph in a union which did not involve sexual relations but which was perfectly normal and natural to both as they were fully committed to God and His plan for them to raise HIS Son. (Originally posted, most excellently, by Tantum Ergo here)

---

 

[moondweller]

Virgin is attached to “shall be with child” not to “shall bring forth a son”.

The SAME virgin who conceived and was with child brings forth that child - as a virgin. Her status did not change with the birth of the Child.

That’s the Catholic Tradition you’re affirming.

That a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a Son is Biblical revelation. What’s Catholic Tradition is the assertion that she remains a virgin perpetually.

I know! Your paradigm that Joseph couldn’t have relations with his married wife IS creepy!

Where do you find the word “couldn’t” in Matt. 1:25? What I find creepy is your obsession with men having the right to have sex with their pregnant wives. I don’t get your obsession.

Unless, of course, you affirm that Mary was to be exalted and understand that which she was set apart for.

I don’t see any Scriptural evidence/teaching that she was set apart to be a perpetual virgin. In fact, the theopneustos Scriptures testify quite the opposite. After the birth of the Messiah God blessed them with children of their own. Hence, according to the Scriptural account she did not remain a virgin perpetually.

I understand your Tradition claims differently, and you must interpret the Scriptures to conform to your Tradition.

 

[moondweller]

Of course. Just like it’s not weird at all that Joseph should refrain from marital relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus.

Yes, that would be weird. And a mockery of marriage.

You can’t have it both ways. Either they had a normal marital relationship and enjoyed relations during her pregnancy,

See, I don’t get this obsession of yours. It is creepy.

Joseph was already committed to Mary in marriage. To be betrothed in those days is not like an engagement today. To separate would require a writ of divorce and Joseph was willing to “put her away secretly” (the equivalent of a secret divorce, Matt. 1:19). But an angel appeared to him in a dream and explained the situation to him. Like Mary, he knew nothing of it before hand. IOW, it’s absurd to assert that Joseph entered into this marital commitment with the idea that he would never have a true marital relationship with Mary. Nor did Mary with Joseph. They both had already committed to the marriage in the normal sense BEFORE they were visited by the angels and received the news. And after the birth of the Christ Child, God blessed their marriage with children of their own - according to the Scriptures.

 

[Pitcharan]

… have they embraced “Christianity” or “Christ?” Embracing “Christianity” is to embrace the religion. But personally believing in the

Are you so desparate to resort to such low grade argument. Embracing christianity has just one universal meaning and do not try to confuse anyone.

I have yet to read in the Scriptures where it’s taught that the way to belief in the Son (for salvation) is through devotion to the mother.

Have you forgotten about those who read the Scriptures daily and yet refused to believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah about whom the same Scriptures foretold. You too may continue in your unbelief.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, that would be weird. And a mockery of marriage.

But by your logic, the idea of Joseph and Mary abstaining for nine months or whatnot after their marriage, when Christ’s Godly status had been proven and scripture fulfilled by the circumstances of His conception, would be EQUALLY weird and EQUALLY a mockery of marriage.

To you, it seems, a marriage isn’t a marriage unless sexual consummation takes place. That obsessional insistence on equating marriage with sex is the only truly creepy thing about this whole exchange. Obviously to you if a couple who were in their senior years decided to marry for love and companionship but forego the sex because they were past being interested in it, that wouldn’t be a real marriage.

That being the case, according to you, a situation where a marriage isn’t consummated for three, six, nine months, should logically be every bit as weird as one that’s never consummated. The issue, the ‘obsession’ on PRs part, isn’t with having sex while pregnant, it’s the idea that a ‘normal’ marriage as you define it would remain unconsummated for so many moths when Mary’s virginal status didn’t matter, per your logic, once Christ’s miraculous conception had taken place.

Joseph was already committed to Mary in marriage. To be betrothed in those days is not like an engagement today. To separate would require a writ of divorce and Joseph was willing to “put her away secretly” (the equivalent of a secret divorce, Matt. 1:19). But an angel appeared to him in a dream and explained the situation to him. Like Mary, he knew nothing of it before hand. IOW, it’s absurd to assert that Joseph entered into this marital commitment with the idea that he would never have a true marital relationship with Mary. Nor did Mary with Joseph. They both had already committed to the marriage in the normal sense BEFORE they were visited by the angels and received the news.

I’m sorry, the very fact of those angelic visitations, the very fact of Mary conceiving Christ and Joseph becoming the foster-father of the Son of God, MADE both Mary and Joseph from that moment on the opposite of a ‘normal’ married couple (or ‘normal’ human beings full stop, for that matter). Their relationship with the child could not be, and was not, an ordinary relationship. Nor, as a result, was their relationship with each other. Nor could it be.

 

[PRmerger]

The SAME virgin who conceived and was with child brings forth that child - as a virgin.

Yes, and you know this because of Catholic Tradition :extrahappy:, since Scripture does *not *say that it’s a virgin who brings forth the child. Only that it’s a virgin that conceives.

Her status did not change with the birth of the Child.

That’s begging the question, isn’t it?

What I find creepy is your obsession with men having the right to have sex with their pregnant wives. I don’t get your obsession

You find sex between a husband and pregnant wife creepy. I get that. I think it’s part of the gift God has given to married couples.

I find it quite telling that you keep attaching the word “creepy” to sex.

I don’t see any Scriptural evidence/teaching that she was set apart to be a perpetual virgin.

So what? You’ve already acknowledged that *you *don’t need Scriptural evidence to show that she bore Jesus as a Virgin, for Scripture does not say that.

 

[Tim_in_MI]

What I’ve always found interesting is Mary’s reply to the angel: “How can this be, since I do not know man?”. She was betrothed to Joseph, entering into a marriage. If it were going to be a normal marriage, with normal marital relations, why ask a question which has an obvious answer? The angel said she would be with child in the future - which would be a very likely outcome, unless Mary and Joseph had other plans.

 

[crazzeto]

Can you give me a direct quote from the Apostles that Mary was “ever” virgin? Or can you quote for me someone who was taught by the Apostles directly quoting an Apostle stating that Mary was “ever” virgin?

Which students of the Apostles quote the Apostle’s teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity? Give me the names and the quotes please.

I have seen no proof that the Apostle John ever taught that Mary was “ever” virgin.I have no idea if they did. Nor do you.

You can find accounts in The Protoevangelium of James, as well as the writings of Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine etc.

Can you quote a student of his who quotes Mary telling him that she is “ever” virgin?I know, based on that account, that she pointed some waiters to Him for instruction.I’ve read the account many times in my own Bible.She states nothing about turning water into wine. She instructs Jesus on nothing.He kindly rebukes her. But His acquiescence states nothing about Mary’s perpetual virginity or men’s devotion to her for salvation.Neither that account or any account in Scripture ascribes to Mary a “role” in directing the resurrected Christ. Certainly men believe it, but it’s not a belief based on Scripture.

This is just a silly argument, are you seriously trying to argue that the Virgin Mary “never told him to turn water into wine”… You are seriously just trying to obscure the issue, probably because you’re running out of arguments. No, the Ever Virgin Mary never told him to turn water into wine, probably because she had no idea what he would do for them. All she did know is that he **could ** remidy the situation for this young couple, and that he would do so for her sake. That is the true issue at hand, not that she told him to turn water into wine, because she didn’t… Not that she knew he would do percisly that, because she didn’t. In fact, these points actually bulster the point I’m making all the more.

As with durring the Anunciation, Mary had no idea how it would happen. Rather, she had complete faith that it would happen, complete faith in Jesus Christ her son, her Lord, her saviour, and ours as well. Through her complete faith in Jesus Christ, she pointed all those around, his followers, the wait staff and all others present to a similar faith in our Lord. This is the role of the Ever Virgin Mary, to point us all towards this kind of complete faith in Jesus, to exhort us to make our own fiat as she made hers to the Angel Gabrial.

 

[PRmerger]

He is very far from being the Sola Scriptura advocate that he claims to be.

Indeed. He has recognized and acquiesced to Catholic Sacred Tradition.

(In fact, as we all know, each and every time he quotes Scripture he is affirming his obedience to the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition. )

 

[Tomster]

Indeed. He has recognized and acquiesced to Catholic Sacred Tradition.

(In fact, as we all know, each and every time he quotes Scripture he is affirming his obedience to the Catholic Church’s Sacred Tradition. )

Well, I will say, and have said, that he has acquiesced to Protestant oral and written tradition. Where you and I both agree is that Moondweller has given in to the fact that he relies on an extra-biblical tradition to support his claims. He, himself, has admitted to this fact quite a few posts back. He is not the illumined interpreter he thinks he is. He cannot literally interpret the Scripture verses I gave him some time ago.

 

[Fair_Lady]

The Ever Virgin Mary’s final words were written for good reason, because her role has always been to bring Christ too us, first by bareing him, then by constantly pointing us to him.

I find that statement “constantly pointing us to him” interesting and confusing at best. There is one instance in scripture where there was a desire for wine after it ran out at a wedding and Mary instructed the people to do what Jesus said to do. One instance. Now, apparently, Mary is constantly pointing us to him. How? What evidence is there?

Thinking that question might be answered by researching Marian apparitions, I did some research. I found that of the Marian apparitions which are approved by the church, most of the messages from “Mary” (I enclose her name in quotations because I don’t believe for one second that the apparition is Mary of the Bible) to her recipients of the messages point much more to “Mary” than to Jesus. Here is one example from the children of Fatima. I have taken it from salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-104.html:

“You have seen Hell,” Our Lady explained, “where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wants to establish throughout the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.” Then, in a frightening summary, Our Lady foretold what would happen to the world if men did not stop offending God, told how God was going to punish the whole world by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father. “I shall come to ask the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays.” She told how punishment would not come if her requests were granted, but threatened further if men refused to listen: “If my requests are granted, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, Russia shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecution of the Church; the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.” Then the Lady added: “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Now that’s a very different gospel from what scripture gives us! Don’t go to “Mary” to be pointed to Jesus. I would urge everyone here to go to God’s Word, which really does point to Jesus Christ throughout.

 

[PRmerger]

Joseph was already committed to Mary in marriage. To be betrothed in those days is not like an engagement today. IOW, it’s absurd to assert that Joseph entered into this marital commitment with the idea that he would never have a true marital relationship with Mary. Nor did Mary with Joseph. They both had already committed to the marriage in the normal sense

You ought to be very, very careful when going into these waters, Moon. Now you’re going to have to defend Mary’s questioning the angel as to how she’s going to conceive. Why would she ponder this if she’d “already committed to marriage in the normal sense”?

Again, you can’t have it both ways. If she and Joseph were already committed in a betrothal (and they were indeed!), then Mary’s question is a conspicuous, glaring indicator to: *I’m not ever going to have marital relations! *

 

[PRmerger]

I find that statement “constantly pointing us to him” interesting and confusing at best. There is one instance in scripture where there was a desire for wine after it ran out at a wedding and Mary instructed the people to do what Jesus said to do. One instance. Now, apparently, Mary is constantly pointing us to him. How? What evidence is there?

Thinking that question might be answered by researching Marian apparitions, I did some research. I found that of the Marian apparitions which are approved by the church, most of the messages from “Mary” (I enclose her name in quotations because I don’t believe for one second that the apparition is Mary of the Bible) to her recipients of the messages point much more to “Mary” than to Jesus. Here is one example from the children of Fatima. I have taken it from salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-104.html:

“You have seen Hell,” Our Lady explained, “where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wants to establish throughout the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.” Then, in a frightening summary, Our Lady foretold what would happen to the world if men did not stop offending God, told how God was going to punish the whole world by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father. “I shall come to ask the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays.” She told how punishment would not come if her requests were granted, but threatened further if men refused to listen: “If my requests are granted, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, Russia shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecution of the Church; the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.” Then the Lady added: “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Now that’s a very different gospel from what scripture gives us! Don’t go to “Mary” to be pointed to Jesus. I would urge everyone here to go to God’s Word, which really does point to Jesus Christ throughout.

Your link is not working. Could you relink, please?

 

[PRmerger]

Your link is not working. Could you relink, please?

Actually, I found the link on my own…

Did you know that Mary at Fatima invoked this prayer:

In June, Our Lady came again, this time after repeating the message of prayer, asking them to add between the decades the invocation: ''O my Jesus, forgive us our sins; save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of Thy Mercy."

[SIGN]It seems, that even in the link you cited, Mary is pointing to Jesus, yes?[/SIGN]

 

[Tomster]

I find that statement “constantly pointing us to him” interesting and confusing at best. There is one instance in scripture where there was a desire for wine after it ran out at a wedding and Mary instructed the people to do what Jesus said to do. One instance. Now, apparently, Mary is constantly pointing us to him. How? What evidence is there?

Thinking that question might be answered by researching Marian apparitions, I did some research. I found that of the Marian apparitions which are approved by the church, most of the messages from “Mary” (I enclose her name in quotations because I don’t believe for one second that the apparition is Mary of the Bible) to her recipients of the messages point much more to “Mary” than to Jesus. Here is one example from the children of Fatima. I have taken it from salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-104.html:

“You have seen Hell,” Our Lady explained, “where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wants to establish throughout the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.” Then, in a frightening summary, Our Lady foretold what would happen to the world if men did not stop offending God, told how God was going to punish the whole world by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father. “I shall come to ask the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays.” She told how punishment would not come if her requests were granted, but threatened further if men refused to listen: “If my requests are granted, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, Russia shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecution of the Church; the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.” Then the Lady added: “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Now that’s a very different gospel from what scripture gives us! Don’t go to “Mary” to be pointed to Jesus. I would urge everyone here to go to God’s Word, which really does point to Jesus Christ throughout.

'Going into the dwelling, they found the Christ child there, with His Mother, Mary, and fell down to worship Him." (Matthew 2:11)

The whole purpose of Mary’s life was to bring Christ to men. He received His body from her; she gave birth to Him and looked after Him. Far from being an obstacle between Christ and Christians, she is a link of union, and the Holy Spirit, author of Sacred Scripture, lets us get a glimpse of it in the pages of the Gospels. (Luke 1:41-45; Luke 2:16; Luke 2:20; Luke 2:27-32; Luke 2:36-38; Matthew 2:11’ Luke 1:46-55; Luke 1:38; John 2:5; See Luke 1:49)

 

[Fair_Lady]

Your link is not working. Could you relink, please?

Sorry, try this:
salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-104.html

 

[crazzeto]

I find that statement “constantly pointing us to him” interesting and confusing at best. There is one instance in scripture where there was a desire for wine after it ran out at a wedding and Mary instructed the people to do what Jesus said to do. One instance. Now, apparently, Mary is constantly pointing us to him. How? What evidence is there?

I already offered moondweller the wedding feast at Cana, at which Christ shows his blessing for marriage at the behests of his mother who felt an urgent need and great pity for that newly wedded couple. I offer you the same challenges I’ve offerend him with this scripture, try explaining it in such away that you don’t wash away completely the meaning of the scripture, while removing the Ever Virgin Mary from the scene. You really can’t do it fairlady, she’s integral to the story in many ways. To do so, is to lose all sense of the importance of faith in Jesus Christ.

Thinking that question might be answered by researching Marian apparitions, I did some research. I found that of the Marian apparitions which are approved by the church, most of the messages from “Mary” (I enclose her name in quotations because I don’t believe for one second that the apparition is Mary of the Bible) to her recipients of the messages point much more to “Mary” than to Jesus. Here is one example from the children of Fatima. I have taken it from salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-104.html:

I love Our Lady of Fatima, in fact I was born around her feast day. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us

“You have seen Hell,” Our Lady explained, “where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wants to establish throughout the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.” Then, in a frightening summary, Our Lady foretold what would happen to the world if men did not stop offending God, told how God was going to punish the whole world by means of war, hunger, persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father. “I shall come to ask the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communions of Reparation on the First Saturdays.” She told how punishment would not come if her requests were granted, but threatened further if men refused to listen: “If my requests are granted, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace. If not, Russia shall spread her errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecution of the Church; the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.” Then the Lady added: “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Now that’s a very different gospel from what scripture gives us! Don’t go to “Mary” to be pointed to Jesus. I would urge everyone here to go to God’s Word, which really does point to Jesus Christ throughout.

Are you so blind that you don’t understand that the following scriptures are for you as well? I suggest you meditate upon these scriptures in your translation of choice.

The seperating of the sheeps and goats:
Matthew 25:31-46

Story of Lazarus and the richman:
Luke 16:19-31

John 5:31-47

The message of fatima is not so different from the Gospels are, at least for those who decide they need not be obediant to the Word of God.

 

[moondweller]

You ought to be very, very careful when going into these waters, Moon. Now you’re going to have to defend Mary’s questioning the angel as to how she’s going to conceive. Why would she ponder this if she’d “already committed to marriage in the normal sense”?

There’s nothing to “defend.” Mary was not a fornicator nor an adulterer. At the time of the Annunciation she knew no man. IOW, she was still a virgin. It was obviously understood by her that the conception would take place very shortly. It did. There’s nothing to defend here. Her question was a legitimate one based on the fact that she was a virgin - she knew no man.

Again, you can’t have it both ways. If she and Joseph were already committed in a betrothal (and they were indeed!), then Mary’s question is a conspicuous, glaring indicator to: *I’m not ever going to have marital relations! *

It states nothing of the sort. You’re rationalizing. The question reflects the fact that she was a virgin - nothing more. She remained a virgin until after the birth of the Christ Child (Matt. 1:25). Then God blessed Joseph and Mary with children their own. For those children the Holy Spirit did not come upon her, He did not overshadow her as He did with her conception with the Christ Child. She conceived them through a normal marital relationship with her husband. Hence, she was no longer a virgin - according to the Scriptures.

I understand that your Tradition states otherwise. But it states it in spite of what is revealed in the Scriptures. Hence, your dancing.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s nothing to “defend.” Mary was not a fornicator nor an adulterer. At the time of the Annunciation she knew no man. IOW, she was still a virgin.

Indeed, there is something which MUST be defended, if you’re going to claim that betrothal was already a commitment to marry (which it was!).

The angel said Mary is GOING TO conceive. Any betrothed young lady at the time, planning to have NORMAL marital relations would not question how this is going to occur.

It was obviously understood by her that the conception would take place very shortly. It did.

How is it you know what Mary understood? Please cite the chapter and verse that states that Mary understood that conception would take place very shortly.

Doesn’t the Scripture say exactly contrary to what you’re claiming?

 

[crazzeto]

@Fairlady,

Additional scripture for you to consider, from today’s daily readings

Hos 10:1-3, 7-8, 12

Israel is a luxuriant vine
whose fruit matches its growth.
The more abundant his fruit,
the more altars he built;
The more productive his land,
the more sacred pillars he set up.
Their heart is false,
now they pay for their guilt;
God shall break down their altars
and destroy their sacred pillars.
If they would say,
“We have no king”—
Since they do not fear the LORD,
what can the king do for them?

The king of Samaria shall disappear,
like foam upon the waters.
The high places of Aven shall be destroyed,
the sin of Israel;
thorns and thistles shall overgrow their altars.
Then they shall cry out to the mountains, “Cover us!”
and to the hills, “Fall upon us!”

“Sow for yourselves justice,
reap the fruit of piety;
break up for yourselves a new field,
for it is time to seek the LORD,
till he come and rain down justice upon you.”

Referenced directly by Christ in the midsts of his passion

Luke 23

27 A large crowd of people followed Jesus, including many women who mourned and lamented him.
28 Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children,
29 for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’
30 At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’
31 for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when it is dry?”

Do you still insist that the message God instructed Our Lady of Fatima to convey, is inconsitant with the Gospel… Yes the Gospel is the good news, of our salvation… But still, we are told to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. The message of Fatima is one for a society turning secular which lost not only all sense of God’s mercy, but also his Justice. The message given to us by Our Lady of Fatima, is a timely reminder of the Lord’s justice.

Edit
Our Lady also gave us one of my favorite prayers, the Fatima Prayer:
Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy. Amen.

The world would likely be a better place, if we prayed it more often.