And that is what you have been taught and told and believe…why…… because you also believe that they alone are guided by the Holy Spirit…why……because they have taught and told you to believe this……(trying out your style from your opening comments)If you believe that the Paraclete has personally enlightened you with a revelation that contravenes Sacred Tradition of the one universal Catholic Apostolic Church, established by Christ, you’re as gnostic as I thought. (or as you are??? – see your opening comment)Hi Good Fella
Good Fella:
Why do you raise the issue of Mary’s humanity? I can answer this question for you: You believe that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity somehow deifies her and impugns the glory of God. On the contrary, Mary’s soul “proclaims the glory of the Lord” and the Almighty “has done great things” for Mary.Amazing! You seem to be exhibiting special powers now, being able to state what I believe (or what you think I believe) - are these similar to those “gnostic” abilities that you have incorrectly afforded to me below?
Seriously though -
Why shouldn’t Mary’s humanity be raised?
Was not that a major point in God’s plan – see reposted statement below:
Indeed, God is just and merciful, but the humanness of Mary is important here too, or why else even bother going about it this way ….having a woman involved at all for the birth?
Leann, after you have examined the fundamentals of Arianism, please examine the basic teachings of Unitarianism, Sabellianism, and Tertullianism which have modern day counter-parts. Finally, take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Holy Trinity and tell me who you believe, if any one of the above. Since you’ve read your Bible and the Spirit has enlightened you, you should be able to tell me. Please cite verses to support your beliefs. Warning: If you accept the Catholic teaching then you must accept Sacred Tradition as a medium of divine revelation. Catholics interpret the Scripture in accord with Tradition. Thanks.
Not a problem
*(for the record - that is a conclusion you drew for yourself - I didn’t suggest that at all)
Which is it - first you post that you have nothing more to say,(above) :yup: and then you want me to respond?
Oh…that would explain why you didn’t respond to the absolutely “separate” question at the very end of my post - the one that wasn’t fused with your post.
“Gnostic” seems to be a new favourite word of yours…in fact you apparently have a slew of labels that you like to use I’ve noticed, when you don’t seem to “want to” - or maybe “can’t” respond to the questions or statements posted by others.
Sure…I’ll hop right to that! :bounce:
Piety is not piety when it requires us to be wilfully blind to facts.Ordinarily it isn’t possible. I don’t think anyone here is claiming that it is. That it happened in that one case can be regarded as miraculous.
Mark 10:18 “Why do you call Me good?” Jesus asked him. "No one is good but One—GOD.
I have responded to most of your questions. Change your format - fusing your replies with mine - and I’ll answer all of them. I don’t have the time to delete from your posts what I’ve already written in mine. Sacred Tradition is on topic here, since you question its validity with regard to Marian doctrines.
“Gnostic” seems to be a new favourite word of yours…in fact you apparently have a slew of labels that you like to use I’ve noticed, when you don’t seem to “want to” - or maybe “can’t” respond to the questions or statements posted by others.(for the record - that is a conclusion you drew for yourself - I didn’t suggest that at all)
“Have you given any thought to the question I asked - is there anywhere in scripture, that you are aware of, that Mary is referred too as “the virgin” after the birth of Jesus?”
“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Yes…and as I read back over some of the posts and came across a couple of Gottle of Geer’s (#55,56)…I then posted myself in reference to their content (#68) on the sacred tradition.
I have at no time ever stated that **everything **is explicitly revealed in Scripture, so you have no reason to try to “finally make me see this.”
I agree…no reason whatsoever….as it clearly wasn’t an issue or anything that they held to be of any “great importance” or of “necessity” in the Christians’ spiritual wellbeing or in their salvation or they would have made sure to bring it to light and begin to pronounce it as such then, so the churches could begin to incorporate and reap full benefit from this avenue to Jesus. If it had been important or necessary, in anyway whatsoever in assisting with their faith or ability of approaching the throne of God…they would have indeed mentioned it. The “absolute” virgin birth itself I mean - that would have indeed had impact on what rightly should have been Mary’s status and importance then too, would it not? Why hold back such important information, if right from the beginning Mary was so entwined with the whole concept of Christianity and the message they were trying to get across?
Which again raises the question: Why is it necessary or of such great importance to have to believe this then? Should our focus not be on salvation?
Sure you are…you just did it again.
Do you have a hypothesis on how the hymen broke or not?I don’t think that there was any doubt that Mary would do this, do you?
Or – Mary was humbly observing the practices prescribed by Mosaic Law, because she was a woman and very human and indeed had “finished her days of purification” after giving birth to a male that had opened her womb at birth.
Luke 2:
This seems to me be one of those Are-we-really-so-different? moments.I have at no time ever stated that **everything **is explicitly revealed in Scripture, so you have no reason to try to “finally make me see this.”
I agree…no reason whatsoever….as it clearly wasn’t an issue or anything that they held to be of any “great importance” or of “necessity” in the Christians’ spiritual wellbeing or in their salvation or they would have made sure to bring it to light and begin to pronounce it as such then, so the churches could begin to incorporate and reap full benefit from this avenue to Jesus. If it had been important or necessary, in anyway whatsoever in assisting with their faith or ability of approaching the throne of God…they would have indeed mentioned it. The “absolute” virgin birth itself I mean - that would have indeed had impact on what rightly should have been Mary’s status and importance then too, would it not? Why hold back such important information, if right from the beginning Mary was so entwined with the whole concept of Christianity and the message they were trying to get across?
Which again raises the question: Why is it necessary or of such great importance to have to believe this then? Should our focus not be on salvation?
Her ‘perpetual virginity’ – in the first sense, apparently was* not* a personal choice for Mary if one believes that she did not give birth in the ‘normal biological’ manner and she therefore ‘remained intact’. Stating that it was later a personal choice of hers, is something that can only be offered as a theory. Again….whether she did or not have other children is not the question at hand, as that is after the fact of Jesus’ birth.
What I’ve been addressing in my posts, is the teaching that Mary’s virginity was not affected during His birth, and is being taught and claimed at infallible “truth”…based on what…theories.
Sure you are…you just did it again.
As for the definition of Gnosticism, your viewpoint of what it is and your application of it in this instance is very “broad” to say the least and simply not true.
Good Fella:
I don’t think that there was any doubt that Mary would do this, do you?
This is not great feat of *faith *on Mary’s part, consecrating and dedicating Jesus to God in the temple….she was simply following the Judaic customs.
But Mary did more “than just consecrate and dedicate her only son to God in the temple” – she did what every woman did at that time after giving birth.
Luke 2:
It is interesting to note that Simeon, was enthused over Jesus and proclaimed His importance – but in doing so, Simeon made no mention or afforded any special honor to Mary at that time for her “key role” ( as you state above )…this was a man who was lead by the Holy Spirit – “Mary’s spouse” ?…. if Mary’s role was of such eminence and importance and one that would affect the lives of so many believers in the years to come by her being a “Mediatrix of the entire world”, or being the one that we should look too as an example in faith and purity, or go through in supplication or “easier” access to Jesus- it appears strange that Simeon, with “the Holy Ghost upon him”, didn’t either recognize this in Mary at the time – or it wasn’t to be an issue of any importance then or at any time.
Honestly, Leeann, are you trying to flatter Jesus?
Not a great leap of faith? How many other Jewish women offered up their firstborn sons to God as the Messiah? Even if Mary was unaware of the full implications of our Lord’s salvific mission at the time, she knew that she would eventually have to sacrifice her Son to God by letting him go when his hour arrived. Mary knew she had to let go of her Son at the wedding feast in Cana when Jesus awaited her solicitation and intercession before he would perform his first and most important miracle and begin his ministry. Mary (Mediatrix of grace, symbolized by the wine as Christ’s saving blood) typifies Abraham as Jesus typifies Isaac - the sacrificial victim. Other Jewish mothers had to let go of their sons when they themselves got married. The husband, wife, and children became part of a close extended family. Mothers saw much of their sons together with their adopted daughters and grandchildren and lived normal happy lives in each other’s company. Once Jesus began his ministry Mary hardly saw Jesus at all, and she lived alone as he traversed Judea and Galilee with his apostles. In a great leap of faith Mary made a tremendous sacrifice on our behalf. You should be more appreciative. At Cana the Church was wedded to Christ as his bride.
Mary was not in any need of purification as ordinary Jewish mothers were. But she was obligated to observe Mosaic Law. Your citation of the Presentation of the Infant Jesus is based on your rejection of Sacred Tradition as a medium of Divine revelation. You have merely provided your own literal interpretation of the text to support your rejection of Church dogma concerning Mary’s ‘virginitas in partu’ and declare your own anti-dogma.
Jesus did not give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. They were given to Peter. You have absolutely no authority to interpret the scriptures in contravention of Apostolic Tradition and Church teachings. I’m still waiting to see if you agree with Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church with regard to the Trinity or espouse one of the ancient heretical views or its modern variants. You haven’t yet replied to my request. I thought the Bible might make it clear and simple for you.
Simeon was a Jew, and the Paraclete hadn’t yet descended on the Church. Don’t expect God to have revealed the fullness of his truth to him. You’re engaging in wishful thinking, nothing more. But what Simeon did foretell was that Mary would contribute to our salvation by having to suffer through the Passion and Death of her only beloved Son. Jesus was her son as much as he was God’s, but Mary couldn’t possess him like any ordinary mother could. And in order for us to be saved, Jesus wouldn’t suffer and die all on his own. He willed that his Blessed Mother would have to spiritually suffer with him by dying to the self. Mary’s sacrifice of her Son contributed to our salvation. The Church invokes her as co-Redemptrix in this capacity.
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the Church.
Colossians 1, 24
PAX :tiphat:
Mary is not good or sinless of herself, but by the grace of God, just as any other Christian can theoretically avoid post-conversion sin by the grace of God (though most of us fail to take advantage of that grace at least sometimes).
Moments later, though, Jesus went ahead and provided what His mother had sought, as it seems she kind of knew He would (since she didn’t say anything to Him after that, but instructed the servants to obey whatever He commanded).
Well, she’s certainly sinless now, in Heaven. But Catholics believe that by God’s special gift she was preserved sinless throughout her earthly life as well.
The title “Mother of God” does not mean that Mary existed before God or was the origin of God the eternal Spirit. Rather, it means that Jesus’ humanity and divinity are so inextricably joined that it can truly be said that God was born of a human woman. That was not His beginning, of course, but He did experience gestation, birth, and childhood, and Mary was His chosen mother.