How does NOT accepting any of the Marian dogmas affect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ?

[Cachonga]

FCEGM – This is not on topic (sorry I let it go this far). Just one final word on this – I never said saints in Heaven cannot or will not intercede for us. I just do not believe you can contact them directly and let them know what you think you need (or want).

Leopard – Interesting reasoning. I took the time to check with a Rabbi (I would think a Rabbi would be familiar with the Mosaic Law). The sin offering (according to my source) was generally for “unknown sin”. The general belief was that, during the pain of childbirth, the mother may curse her husband, God, the baby, etc…, but not remember doing that afterward. You might also check out Lev 15:19-30.

Love is Patient – Isn’t Mary a part of the Bride of Christ (just like all other Christians)? Matt 12:47-50 says, “Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother”. This is repeated in Mark 3:31-34. Note – Jesus did not disrespect his mother (He would NEVER do that). So, if Mary is part of the Bride of Christ (as are all Christians), what do in-laws have to do with the discussion? I have already explained how I view Mary, so I don’t feel I need to repeat it here.

LilyM – John’s baptism was for repentance. Repent is not just for sin. It can mean to “change one’s mind”. Before baptism, Jesus was a carpenter. After baptism, the Holy Spirit came upon Him, and He began His public ministry. That sounds like a change to me. The fact that many people who were baptized confessed their sins doesn’t matter (it’s not required in the Mosaic Law, and Jesus didn’t confess any sins (even unknown sin) when he was baptized). Good point, but still doesn’t answer the question.

Mark77 – Nice sentiments. Doesn’t answer the question, but a nice sentiment. I would point back to my answer to Love is Patient and ask, in light of the Scriptures, how does NOT accepting any of the Marian dogmas affect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ?

PJM – I walked away from the God that created me? While I appreciate the concern (I have family members that share your view), I have to wonder how does anything you wrote answer the question?

AmbroseSJ – Calls ‘em likes he sees ‘em! Still no answer to the question, though.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM – John’s baptism was for repentance. Repent is not just for sin. It can mean to “change one’s mind”. Before baptism, Jesus was a carpenter. After baptism, the Holy Spirit came upon Him, and He began His public ministry. That sounds like a change to me. The fact that many people who were baptized confessed their sins doesn’t matter (it’s not required in the Mosaic Law, and Jesus didn’t confess any sins (even unknown sin) when he was baptized). Good point, but still doesn’t answer the question.

Jesus was God incarnate from His conception. He always knew who He was and always had an idea of what His ministry was to be - even the episode where He teaches in the Temple at age 12 shows this.

He was never just a carpenter, for sure. And the idea of God incarnate needing to ‘change His mind’ - or anything else about Himself - in order to fulfil His destiny is laughable. Again, John knew that He had no need of baptism, not for any reason - John’s words indicate as much.

I did raise the issue of the circumcision as well. Why was He, who as God had no need to enter into the Abrahamic covenant, given the sign of that covenant? Certainly Mary and Joseph knew who He was - He was worshipped by shepherds and Magi at his birth.

 

[Cachonga]

LilyM - Best I can do is agree to disagree with you on the Baptism issue. In regard to the circumcision, Jesus came to fulfil all the Law. That’s all I’ll say about that, since it is not on topic.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM - Best I can do is agree to disagree with you on the Baptism issue. In regard to the circumcision, Jesus came to fulfil all the Law. That’s all I’ll say about that, since it is not on topic.

You’re telling me that God Almighty came to earth in the flesh - and for 30 years blundered around with no idea of what He was on about? No idea of why He was really here? No idea of what His life’s work was to be? Had to ‘repent’ - even if that means merely ‘change His mind’ - about ANYTHING? God does no such thing, God need do no such thing.

And the circumcision is entirely on point. It wasn’t just a matter of fulfilling the law. Jesus had had no need to offer animal sacrifice, for example, since He fulfilled that part of the law by HIMSELF being the perfect sin offering, and offering His own flesh as sacrifice.

So He had no need for circumcision, baptism or anything similar - He certainly could fulfil those laws without going through the ceremonies. But He CHOSE to do these things for our sake, even if they weren’t strictly necessary for Him.

And so did Mary. And so do many Christians - such as Anglicans who, while not believing that confession to a priest is NECESSARY for forgiveness of sins, nonetheless DO choose to confess to a priest. I’m surprised that you don’t understand this concept of going above and beyond what the Law requires, and assume that the only reason Mary did her purification was because she was personally sinful.

 

[kaws]

Cachonga,

Forgive me because I know this post is a bit rambling but I will try my best to give my take on the topic for what it is worth - keep in mind this is just my take and I am not speaking for the policy of the Catholic Church as a whole -

(A little of my background…even though it is off topic) My Dad is Catholic and my Mom is Presbyterian. I was baptized Catholic and went to Catholic school but was raised in both denominations. Like you I fell away from the Catholic Church and toward the Presbyterian Church for a time, but I rejoined the Catholic Church when my husband decided to become a Catholic and go through RCIA. There are many reasons why I left the Church but I’m not going to get into that right now (way off topic).

In many ways I truly think Protestants do not give enough respect to Mary. It seems like they think about her at the nativity and then they put her back away in the box after Christmas and don’t think much about her the rest of the time. As the Mother of God Mary plays a huge and important role and I think it is good that the Catholic Church does a much better job at recognizing her role. I had and still have no problems with saying the rosary and honoring Mary. I think many Protestants misunderstand that Catholics do not (or at least are not supposed to - sometimes I have run into Catholics that seem to get dangerously close or even over the line in my opinion) worship Mary and the saints but instead hold them up as role models and ask for their prayers and intercession with God. I know you have expressed that you do not believe in saintly intercession. I do - the way I see it asking for intercession from the saints is not really different from asking your friends and relatives for prayers except that the saints are already in heaven with God and have an “in” more direct contact with God. Does this mean that we can’t pray directly to God? No. In fact we should. However if the saints prayers are heard in addition to my prayers, more prayers certainly can’t hurt right?

On the other hand, like you, I will admit I have some issues with some of the Marian doctrines also. I absolutely believe that Mary was and is the Mother of God, giving birth to Christ who is both fully human and fully God. I believe that she was a Virgin before and until Christ was born. On the other hand I have never really been fully convinced by the arguments for the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity or for the assumption. This used to bother me a lot and was one of my concerns with rejoining the Church. I came to the personal conclusion that I have great extremely great admiration and respect for Mary whether she was conceived immaculately or whether she was a normal, yet extremely holy woman. I have great respect whether she was a Virgin until she died or whether she had children with her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ. I would have great respect for her whether her body was assumed directly into heaven or not. Considering her important role and her level of holiness it does not seem too surprising or illogical that she could have been assumed body and soul into heaven.

Has this affected my relationship with Christ? Yes and No. I do think it is possible to have a good relationship with Christ without believing the Marian doctrines. However, I think respect for Mary and following her example as a role model absolutely will lead a person to be more like Christ. I am very thankful for her powerful intercession. I think getting hung up on the Marian doctrines, among other things, drove me away from the Catholic Church. I think my relationship with Christ is stronger now that I have returned to the Catholic Church.

While I still am not fully convinced on the reasons given for some of the Marian doctrines I am glad to have her intercession and I try to work on developing my relationship with Christ. Not sure if this helps answer your question or not…

 

[TMC]

I’ve been involved in a thread that has gotten very large and not entirely on topic. I’ve noticed some diversity among the different responses (Catholic and non-Catholic alike). I thought I might start a new thread with a topic that could go just as wild, but I am truly interested in the responses that this will generate. I am a Bible-Believing, Born Again Christian. I was born and raised Roman Catholic, and, in fact, have received 6 of the 7 sacraments (never considered being a priest). However, I left the Catholic Church years ago (primarily because I found contradictions between the Bible and church teachings). I want to know – as a Christian, how does NOT accepting any of the Marian dogmas affect my relationship with my Savior, Jesus Christ? I look forward to your responses!

Accepting or rejecting any or none of the Marian dogmas does not necessarily affect your relationship with Jesus.

I think we are called to know the truth. If you continue to seek the truth in sincerity, with an open mind and open heart, then you are fine. Obstinately denying the truth (out of pride, or for other reasons) is a different matter. I can see how being very wrong on some of the basics could hamper one’s relationship with God, but I don’t see these falling into that category.

I have a somewhat similar instinct coming from the other direction. I don’t see much that’s very convincing in the way of “evidence,” whether from scripture or other early writings to support the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, or Bodily Assumption. I also don’t find very convincing the arguments that they are required by a reasoned analysis of other Christian beliefs. I also don’t see that any of them make any difference to my faith or my relationship with God.

On the other hand, I don’t think any of them outside of the realm of what is possible in God, and I don’t see how any of them are incompatible with any other aspect of my faith, or directly contradicted by scripture. Given the lack of evidence either way, and the lack of any discernable impact on … well, anything, I am happy to take the Church’s word on this one. If the Pope announced tomorrow that any of them were being reconsidered, it wouldn’t bother me in the least.

[The so-called 5th Dogma is a different story for me, but that is a subject for another thread (and there have been several if you care to take a look for them.)]

I know many will say that any deviation from Church teaching is heresy and thus damning. That is a point worth debating, but I don’t see that as the thrust of the question that is asked. I think the OP is asking if, setting aside the argument that any deviation from dogma is mortal, there are other reasons that these particular dogmas are vital.

As to the assertion that denying any of these is tantamount to denying the divinity of Christ. I don’t follow, but maybe someone that believes this could explain. There have been a lot of Christians that believed strongly in the divinity of Christ and yet rejected one or all of the Marian Dogmas.

Finally, two replies to the argument that denying these dogmas is disrepectful of Mary, which will annoy Jesus. 1. I don’t think the choice is between believing the dogmas and believing Mary was a bad person, or even an ordinary person. Many Christians disbelieve the dogmas and still think Mary was the second most remarkable person that ever lived. 2. I find it hard to believe Jesus would be upset by a truly well meaning misunderstanding.

Again, I believe these because 1) I can’t possibly know what is true, 2) I see nothing that contradicts them, and 3) they are not inconsistent with other important tenents of faith. Cachonga - do you differ on any of those 3?

 

[ApocalypseNow]

Great answer LilyM. And also let’s not forget the fact that Christ celebrated the Passover, which was a ritual sacrifice for sin. Clearly another example of “going above and beyond what the law requires” as you mentioned in your post.

Cachonga- Here is one of the 4 dogmas of Mary and how it would affect ones relationship with Christ.
1.Perpetual virginity of Mary
Answer: Christ represents to us a new order of being. He came to this earth by becoming a man and led a pure celibate life. Why? He could have married a good jewish woman and raised a whole truckload of kids. There would have been nothing morally wrong with this. But He did not, and the reason being is that as “He is the Author and Finisher of our faith”, He opted to lead a life of perpetual virginty, a life utterly devoted to God. This was to show and demonstrate to us that in the Ressurrection, we will be made like Him in this regards, as there will be no “marrying and giving in marriage”. We will instead be married to Christ. Now here is where Mary comes into the picture. Would it not be fitting for the Mother of our Lord to be like Him in this manner, a woman, of whom the Church teaches is a type of the body of Christ, the Catholic Church? As she was pure, so shall we be when God shall have completed and perfected the Bride of Christ at the Beatific vision. It would have been unfitting for Mary to do otherwise, seeing that her body was the pure tabernacle of the God-man, Christ Jesus. If one believes that Mary decided to have marital relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ, then this false belief would impair ones understanding of what it means to be a citizen of Heaven. There are many Christians(outside of the Catholic Church) for example, who have the mistaken notion that there will be marriage in Heaven(a contradiction of Christs’ teaching). This is not accidental, for these are the very same people who deny the perpetual virginity of Mary. Both denials are related.This reveals a defective understanding and underappreciation of the extremely high value of virginity. The New Testament has several passages from the mouth of Christ and St. Paul that testify to the fact that a life of perpetual virginity is a virtue and a sign of blessedness of the Heavenly kingdom. So to sum up, if one denies the perpetual virginity of Mary, then this affects his or her relationship with Christ in such a way as deprive that person of those extra Heavenly graces, graces that are needed to direct ones heart and mind more firmly onto Heaven, our true home.

 

[Leopard]

…Leopard – Interesting reasoning. I took the time to check with a Rabbi (I would think a Rabbi would be familiar with the Mosaic Law). The sin offering (according to my source) was generally for “unknown sin”. The general belief was that, during the pain of childbirth, the mother may curse her husband, God, the baby, etc…, but not remember doing that afterward. You might also check out Lev 15:19-30…

Well, it would make sense that the priests in Herod’s temple would expect Mary to go through the complete purification ritual including any customary sin offering. They would have had no way of knowing she was free from sin.

 

[Cachonga]

LilyM – You misunderstand what I am saying. In brief, Jesus knew why he was here. He was raised my Joseph and Mary. He was trained to be a carpenter by Joseph (as was customary in those days) Mark 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” After His baptism, he began His public ministry. He turned from private life to public life; from building furniture (or whatever carpenters built), to building His Kingdom. Matt 5:8 says, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” You bring up the idea that Jesus made an animal sacrifice. Perhaps. However, He never made a sin offering (though He did BECOME a sin offering on the cross, in OUR place). If you think Jesus made a sin offering, please produce your evidence. In regard to Mary’s sin offering, I do believe it is proof that she (like all of us) was a sinner.

Kaws – I really appreciate your answer, and we seem to be (almost) in the same boat on this issue. I do accept that Mary was called “The Mother of God” as a means of indicating that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man. This title was meant to point to Jesus, not elevate Mary. I do not agree with it because it can be misleading. For example – if you found a group of people who have been completely isolated from the outside world, and never heard of Jesus, Mary, King David, Abraham, etc…, and you put 50 adults in a room, told them “Jesus is the Son of God, and Mary is the Mother of God”, then asked if they knew the relationship between Jesus and Mary, I would suggest you would get 100% who would think that Mary was the grandmother of Jesus. I prefer to go with what the Angel said at the Annunciation (Luke 1:35, “… therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”). In regard to the other dogmas, you should realize that the church anathematizes anyone who does not believe them. Thanks for staying on topic!

TMC – Well put. I do agree that belief or non-belief in these dogmas does not affect my relationship with Jesus Christ. I do acknowledge Mary as Blessed, and an excellent role model for faith, virtue and integrity. However, as I mentioned above, the Church has anathematized anyone who does NOT believe these dogmas, which would include you. If it was a matter of personal choice there would be no need for this discussion.

ApocalypseNow – the Passover is a sin offering? Excuse me, but what version do you get THIS out of? The Passover was a memorial of the deliverance of Israel out of bondage in Egypt (the first Passover for to protect the people from the Death Angel, and is a sign of Christ). In regard to Jesus remaining unmarried, he is referred to (by Himself and others) as the bridegroom. He has a Bride (His Church). As Paul says, we are espoused to one husband, Jesus Christ (see 2 Cor 11:2). Keep in mind, Mary was espoused to Joseph BEFORE the Angel came to see her. The scripture makes it clear that Jesus had brothers (though the church “infallibly” declares that “Brother” and “”Sister, in these passages, doesn’t mean “Brother” or “Sister”, but instead means “Close relative”, even though they continue to translate it as “Brother” and “Sister” in their own versions of the Bible). Let’s try this argument – Mary is blessed by God (we all agree on this, I’m sure); children are a Blessing (mixed and difficult to see sometimes, but a blessing none the less); therefore, Mary had other children. You will no doubt reject this analysis (which, I admit, is very simplistic), but the evidence I find in Scripture tells me Mary had other children.

Leopard – She would have gone through it because it was required by the Law. The point is, she HAD to put her hands on the sin offering and verbally confess sin (even if it was simply “unknown” sin). If she had no sin, then she lied when she made that confession, and a lie is a sin, isn’t it? (Think carefully. Remember who the “father of lies” is.)

 

[Leopard]

…Leopard – She would have gone through it because it was required by the Law. The point is, she HAD to put her hands on the sin offering and verbally confess sin (even if it was simply “unknown” sin). If she had no sin, then she lied when she made that confession, and a lie is a sin, isn’t it? (Think carefully. Remember who the “father of lies” is.)

As I said, neither of us was there, so this is speculation on your part. Whatever happened, Mary did not have to lie. The Church teaches authoritatively that Mary never sinned. The Bible you are using to question this teaching is a product of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the right to authoritatively interpret and teach what her own Scriptures mean, not individual readers. If an individual reader thinks a Scripture means something in conflict with what the Church authoritatively teaches, then that person is mistaken.

 

[Cachonga]

Leopard – I got my interpretation on this in part from a Rabbi who knows what the Mosaic Law required and how it was carried out, as well as from Scripture itself. The Church claims the authority to interpret Scripture, but what about the inconsistencies? Why is it that when the Bible talks clearly about the brothers and sisters of Jesus, the Church WON’T tell us who they are, but WILL insist that they are NOT actual brothers and sisters. I guess, what it comes down to is this – you will adhere to the authority of the Church regardless of the evidence, while I prefer to go with the evidence of Scripture, even when it conflicts with the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This is why I left the Catholic Church, and I doubt I will ever come back.

 

[Leopard]

Leopard – I got my interpretation on this in part from a Rabbi who knows what the Mosaic Law required and how it was carried out…

This does not mean he knows any more about what Mary actually did than you or I do, and certainly not that he is better qualified to interpret the Catholic Scriptures than the Catholic Church.

I wonder why you would consider a Jewish rabbi to necessarily be a better authority in this matter than the Church? He is no less distantly historically removed from the first century than Catholic theologians and Scriptural scholars today, and there is no logical basis to assume that Catholic scholars have made less of a study of Mosaic Law than he.

…The Church claims the authority to interpret Scripture, but what about the inconsistencies? Why is it that when the Bible talks clearly about the brothers and sisters of Jesus, the Church WON’T tell us who they are, but WILL insist that they are NOT actual brothers and sisters…

Mainly because we don’t know exactly who they are, except that they are not uterine (or as you say, actual) brothers and sisters of Jesus. If the Church doesn’t know something, she doesn’t just make something up for the sake of answering questions.

We do know that the Hebrew/Aramaic terms for brother were used to indicate relationships other than children having one or both parents in common. There are also traditions (which while they are not official Catholic teaching, Catholics are free to consider) that St. Joseph, before he married Mary, may have been a widower with children who may have been socially identified as brothers and/or sisters of Jesus in a sense closer to that in which we use the word today.

…I guess, what it comes down to is this – you will adhere to the authority of the Church regardless of the evidence, while I prefer to go with the evidence of Scripture, even when it conflicts with the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This is why I left the Catholic Church, and I doubt I will ever come back.

That’s not quite it. It would be more correct to say that I accept the teaching authority of the Church, and if my personal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with this, then my interpretation is in error and needs to be corrected.

You, on the other hand, accept your personal interpretation of the Bible as authoritative, and if the Church’s teaching conflicts with this, then you consider the Church to be in error and in need of correction. It is a major difference in viewpoint and I can understand why one who holds it would not want to identify themselves as Catholic. It is an honest decision and I respect that. But you have not burned your bridges behind you. someday you may reconsider your views and your decision. When you are ready, you will be welcomed back.

 

[Cachonga]

Leopard – what part of Leviticus is Catholic Scriptures? The books of Moses give details on how things were to be done, including how offerings were to be made. I asked a Rabbi because the specific question involved the Mosaic Law. I have no doubt there are Catholic scholars who could give an interpretation on how things were done, but in this case, I believe a Rabbi (someone who studies and observes the Mosaic Law) was the best source (other than the Scriptures themselves). Your argument about the Hebrew/Aramaic usage of the terms doesn’t work; the New Testament was written in Greek. I would assert that if the line “his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him” (Matt 12:46) were found in something attributed to Homer or Plato, anyone who claimed brothers didn’t mean brothers would be laughed at. Simple question – does God understand human language? Most certainly! Does God say what He means? I believe so! Would God be ambiguous on such a crucial subject? Absolutely not! One last item to consider – what do you do when Roman Catholic apologists disagree on Scripture? Listen to this - tquid.sharpens.org/staples_madrid_luke_16.mp3. Luke 16:23 says, “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” (KJV - other versions say “Hades” instead of “hell”). How can it be OK to believe the rich man is in purgatory in light of this verse? Yet, your “authority” says it’s OK for you to believe what you want about this passage?

 

[Cachonga]

Leopard - sorry, I forgot to add this bit. The idea that Joseph had other children from a previous mariage causes all kinds of problems. Joseph was in line for the throne of David, and therefore, his first-born son would be the next in line. If Jesus was not counted as Joseph’s first-born, then He would have no legitimate claim to the throne of David. I know there have been exceptions to the first-born son taking the throne, beginning with Solomon. However, it was necessary for Jesus to be the first-born of Joseph to give Him a legitimate claim that could not be disputed. I would also point out that the source of this idea (along with Mary’s perpetual virginity) comes from gnostic writings, not Scripture or Tradition. (I may get an argument about the Tradition. Fine! Just back up any argument to the contrary with something better than “the Church says so”.)

 

[Leopard]

Leopard – what part of Leviticus is Catholic Scriptures?..

All of it. The Catholic Church decided which Books were inspired Scripture, including the Old Testament canon. I am aware that Jews regard the Torah as holy and inspired. This means that Leviticus is also Judaic Scripture, it does not mean Leviticus ceases to be Catholic Scripture.

…Your argument about the Hebrew/Aramaic usage of the terms doesn’t work; the New Testament was written in Greek…

As the authors of the New Testament Books and Letters were describing social relationships within a Hebrew/Aramaic speaking culture, and since many of the authors were probably native Hebrew/Aramaic speakers themselves, it is not surprising that these authors may have used Greek words that closely approximated the original language used.

…I would assert that if the line “his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him” (Matt 12:46) were found in something attributed to Homer or Plato, anyone who claimed brothers didn’t mean brothers would be laughed at…

Very possibly. As far as I know, neither Homer nor Plato were native Hebrew/Aramaic speakers, nor did either write any known works describing social relationships within a Hebrew/Aramaic speaking culture.

…Simple question – does God understand human language? Most certainly! Does God say what He means? I believe so! Would God be ambiguous on such a crucial subject? Absolutely not!..

There is no indication that the original readers of the New Testament books and letters failed to understand the authors’ meaning when they wrote about the brothers of Jesus, nor that they found it ambiguous. If Later readers have found this ambiguous, it is because they have not looked for an explanation of what these Scriptures mean from that source which has the authority to teach this - the Church.

…One last item to consider – what do you do when Roman Catholic apologists disagree on Scripture? Listen to this - tquid.sharpens.org/staples_madrid_luke_16.mp3. Luke 16:23 says, “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” (KJV - other versions say “Hades” instead of “hell”)…

Listen to it yourself. Mr. Staples said, several times, that the general sense in which this parable is understood by the Church is that Dives is an example of a man who died in mortal sin and is in hell. This does not mean, however, that this passage may not also be used to illustrate some truths about purgatory.

…How can it be OK to believe the rich man is in purgatory in light of this verse?..

Well, if you want to get technical, I believe the general Church opinion is that Dives is a fictional construct that Jesus used in a parable as a teaching device, so in reality he isn’t in hell or purgatory.

…Yet, your “authority” says it’s OK for you to believe what you want about this passage?

Depends on who you mean by my “authority”. If you mean Mr. Staples and Mr. Madrid, Their private opinion, while interesting and useful, is not Dogma. If you mean the the Magisterium of the Church, as far as I know, the Church has not officially defined one particular meaning for this parable and said it may not be used to illustrate any other truths.

 

[Leopard]

Leopard - sorry, I forgot to add this bit. The idea that Joseph had other children from a previous mariage causes all kinds of problems. Joseph was in line for the throne of David, and therefore, his first-born son would be the next in line. If Jesus was not counted as Joseph’s first-born, then He would have no legitimate claim to the throne of David. I know there have been exceptions to the first-born son taking the throne, beginning with Solomon. However, it was necessary for Jesus to be the first-born of Joseph to give Him a legitimate claim that could not be disputed…

Those are some of the reasons that many Catholics propose to support the idea that St. Joseph was not an elderly widower, but was, together with Mary, a lifelong virgin. Both traditions date from Apostolic times. The Church has not defined any official teaching in this matter, so Catholics are free to believe either tradition or to have no opinion on this matter.

…I would also point out that the source of this idea (along with Mary’s perpetual virginity) comes from gnostic writings…

You are refering to the Protoevangelium of James. This work and other similar works, while not Scriptural, do record these and other traditional thoughts about Jesus, Mary and Joseph that date back to Apostolic times. The Protoevangelium of James is not gnostic.

…Just back up any argument to the contrary with something better than “the Church says so”.)

Why? You’re positing your arguments on your personal interpretation of Scripture. I haven’t tried to limit what you’re allowed to post

 

[provofam]

Cachonga, I struggle with this email because my thoughts sometimes are hard to put down. I do not claim to be able to quote chapter and verse why your right or wrong. Simply put, I don’t know how your denial of the Marian dogmas would affect your relationship with Jesus Christ. My thoughts are that Christ did not want to leave us without a shepherd. How easily we can be misled, fall astray, become lost. How many friends and family have we known who have differing opinions on the meanings of Sacred Scripture. You mentioned earlier that you cannot believe that God would have “brothers & sisters of Jesus” written so that it could be misread. But if that is true how come so many good people come away with so many different understandings of the Scriptures? Doesn’t it make sense that God would leave us a teacher, an authority to decipher the meanings so that we would understand correctly? I don’t pretend to have all the answers or even to tell you how to correctly decipher the Bible. But, I also believe that God wouldn’t leave us without a shepherd. I believe that Peter was the first Pope and he was the “rock” that Jesus built His Church on. I will trust the teachings of the Catholic Church because it has the ring of truth to my ears. How will your disbelief affect your relationship Jesus Christ? My answer would be to ask the Church if you want an authorative answer. Whatever happens, I hope that God blesses you and that your relationship with Christ stays strong and continues to grow.

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae – “And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:24. Compare to “And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This [is] the law for her that hath born a male or a female. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.” Lev 12:6-8. Notice, one was a burnt offering, the other was a sin offering.

Note in Luke 2 that Mary brought two turtledoves in place of the lamb of purification, and no sin offering.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, it would make sense that the priests in Herod’s temple would expect Mary to go through the complete purification ritual including any customary sin offering. They would have had no way of knowing she was free from sin.

Actually, Simeon would have been perfectly well aware of that fact, and there is no evidence of Mary giving him a sin offering - there is mention only of the offering for purity.

 

[Leopard]

Actually, Simeon would have been perfectly well aware of that fact, and there is no evidence of Mary giving him a sin offering - there is mention only of the offering for purity.

Not that I want to argue Cachonga’s side of the issue, but Luke does not indicate that Simeon was one of the priests. If not, it would not have been appropriate for Mary to have made any ritual offering to him.