If Our Lady wasn't perpetually virgin

  • Thread starter Thread starter adstrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Then how do you reckon Her hymen broke? Do you think that even though She was still sealed while She became pregnant, it was during delivery that she lost it? Are you of the opinion that it was like a light leaving, letting her remain intact, but later, if you hold to She isn’t still a virgin, it was broken the regular way? Do you think it was cut open before she gave birth?
Among the Fathers it does seem to be held that Mary remained physically virginal throughout her life, hence the picture of Christ’s birth as being like light passing through a window rather than by the more normal method.

I tend to think that “perpetual virginity” more importantly refers to the state of not having had sexual intercourse, rather than the physical condition of the hymen (which can be broken by means other than sex).

Those who hold that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus’ birth are usually talking about the latter definition of virginity, not the former; that is, they don’t care much when her hymen broke, but believe that she later carried on normal marital relations with Joseph.

Usagi
 
Original Quote: Leeann:
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.
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.
Good Fella: Honestly, Leeann, are you trying to flatter Jesus? 🤷 You’re actually offending him by your hostility towards his Blessed Mother.
No hostility towards Mary - therefore no offence towards Jesus.

He knows my intentions and spirit and mind and heart better than I do – or you for that matter.

It’s the “claimed”, holy inspired interpretation of God’s word by the Catholic church that bothers me, supported at times by dubious “wishful thinking” (to borrow a term of your own), in order to maintain and support its “claimed” position of being the “one church” that holds the “truth”.
 
Good Fella:
Not a great leap of faith?
I was referring to her consecrating and dedicating Jesus to God in the temple.
You made the statement below regarding how this tradition was established on Abraham’s “leap of faith” – perhaps I misread this portion and thought that you were drawing a correlation between Abraham’s “leap of faith” and Mary’s – by her act of presenting Jesus at the temple.
Good Fella:
Mary’s presentation of the infant Jesus in the temple fulfills Abraham’s consecration of his son Isaac to God at the altar of the holocaust. (Isaac was the only son of Abraham and the free woman of promise, Sarah.) In fact, this Judaic custom of consecrating and dedicating the firstborn to God is traditionally established on Abraham’s leap of faith. Mary played a key role in God’s plan of salvation in association with Jesus from the time she declared: " Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word."
If Mary had not consecrated and dedicated her only son to God in the temple, then our Lord could never have died in atonement for our sins.
My response to that quote: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.
Good Fella: 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.
There is no evidence that she was aware of even *that *much at that time.
That is your own opinion.
Good Fella:
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.
“when Jesus awaited her solicitation and intercession” …???.. are you suggesting that Jesus was “waiting” to begin his ministry and that it was part of Mary’s “divine role” to instigate it?
Now who are you trying to “flatter”? 🤷
 
Good Fella:
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.
Elizabeth’s experience must have been extremely similar with regards to her son, John,….he was busy living in the wilderness; proclaiming the arrival of Jesus, his own life cut short for doing so…Elizabeth’s own suffering and sacrifice of loss of familial time must have also been great not to mention his death.
Good Fella:
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.
See past post # 68
The bible itself at times does make things very simple and clear for anyone who reads it in a prayerful, humble, faithful spirit.
Have you, in your own experience never been a witness of this?
Good Fella:
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.
And you are limiting God’s power by your own limited understanding based on what has been spoon fed to you and accepted by you as truth…simply because you place your implicit faith in “the Church”……and whatever they tell you….instead of in God.
Good Fella:
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.
Nonsense – there is no indication of Simeon making any pronouncement of Mary contributing to our “salvation” by her suffering.
 
Good Fella:
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.
Amazing – yet Christ called out on the cross – ‘Father why has thou forsaken me’ – (at the time that all the sins of the world were laid on him) – did Mary share in that too then…bearing the sins of all the world on herself “with” Jesus – as ‘God had forsaken Him’ – but Mary hadn’t? - Is that what you’re saying?
Good Fella:
He willed that his Blessed Mother would have to spiritually suffer with him by dying to the self.
All true believers, to experience His presence and life, must “die to”self.
Good Fella:
Mary’s sacrifice of her Son contributed to our salvation. The Church invokes her as co-Redemptrix in this capacity.
As described by Pope John Paul II, Mary was “spiritually crucified with her crucified son” at Calvary, and “her role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” [2] Even after the accomplishment of the acquisition of the graces of redemption at Calvary, Mary’s co-redemptive role continues in the distribution of those saving graces to the hearts of humanity.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/co-redemptrix1.htm
*Now *who’s applying “wishful thinking” here….and again, for what purpose?
Away for awhile - Turkey Dinner is ready!!! 😃
 
This seems to me be one of those Are-we-really-so-different? moments.

As you observe, Catholic have “dogmatized” the perpetual virginity of Mary.

But on the other hand, haven’t Protestants “dogmatized” salvation-by-faith-alone? (One could ask "If adherence to Sola Fide wasn’t demanded of Christians in the first century, why is it demanded now?) Well…when anyone, other than God Himself “demands” anything of them…I say you better check it out…I’m not sure that all Protestants actually adhere to Sola Fide…so I don’t know.

Catholics and Protestants have both been “innovative”, so the question has to be, not “How can you dogmatize something that wasn’t originally a dogma?” but rather “Which side’s innovations are a further development of the truths of the faith, and which side’s innovations are a departure from the faith?”
Yes…and I suppose that will always be the question - or they could both be one and the same.

Without getting into a lengthy answer to that question, I would like to point out that, historically, when Catholics “dogmatize” something, it usually follows centuries of consensus on the matter; when Protestants dogmatize something, it rarely even follows decades of consensus.
I agree wth you - both have been innovative.
Maybe both should just stick to the main programme?
Wonder what God is thinking about it all?
🤷
 
I just don’t get it my friends, why go through Mary to go through Jesus to come before our Heveanly Father? I think all Christians struggle with our affections for our great and awesome Triune God. Why such adoration for Mary and the Catholic Saints when we all struggle with our religious idols?
The Bible is very clear that we must pray to the Most Holy Ever Virgin Saint Mary. Check out these verses:

[Rom 16:6] Venerate Mary, who has worked hard among you.
— TNIV

[Rom 16:6] Pray to Mary our Lady, who has worked hard among you.
— NRSV

The TNIV is clear that Christians must venerate Mary, while the NRSV is very clear that Christians must to pray to Mary as she has worked hard among the Roman Diocese by interceeding with Her Son, Christ our Lord.
 
The Bible is very clear that we must pray to the Most Holy Ever Virgin Saint Mary. Check out these verses:

[Rom 16:6] Venerate Mary, who has worked hard among you.
— TNIV

[Rom 16:6] Pray to Mary our Lady, who has worked hard among you.
— NRSV

The TNIV is clear that Christians must venerate Mary, while the NRSV is very clear that Christians must to pray to Mary as she has worked hard among the Roman Diocese by interceeding with Her Son, Christ our Lord.
Must have a different translation?
The TNIV and NRSV - at least the ones accessible online - indicate nothing of the sort - but use “greet Mary” or “salute Mary” and of course goes on to list a lot of the others who were assisting - all by name too. Does that mean that you are to “venerate” and "pray to each and every on of them too?New American and Douay Rheims versions use “greet” also.

NRSV online:

5Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert in Asia for Christ.
6Greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you.
7
Greet Andronicus and Junia
*,* my relatives* who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
8Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.
9 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys.
10 Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. 1
11 Greet my relative Herodion*. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus.
12 Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord.
 
No hostility towards Mary - therefore no offence towards Jesus.

He knows my intentions and spirit and mind and heart better than I do – or you for that matter.

It’s the “claimed”, holy inspired interpretation of God’s word by the Catholic church that bothers me, supported at times by dubious “wishful thinking” (to borrow a term of your own), in order to maintain and support its “claimed” position of being the “one church” that holds the “truth”.
You seem unaware of what your intentions actually are. You swear that you harbour no hostility towards Mary, and that you don’t offend Jesus, but not once have you said anything in her favour other than she was “a holy vessel used by God to carry a holy cargo,” if one can call that a compliment. If that doesn’t offend Jesus, I don’t know what does. Your total, cold indifference towards Mary, lack of appreciation, and denigrating use of language tells me that you harbour ill will towards her. Keep in mind whose divine mother she is. Jesus wasn’t Joseph’s son. Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. And for that reason above all, she remained a virgin.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Song of Songs 4, 12

Wishful thinking is done by private interpreters of Scripture like yourself who have absolutely no authority to formulate doctrines or declare what amounts to as anti-dogmas. The Catholic Church has existed for almost 2,000 years since Pentecost. How old are you? If the Catholic Church isn’t Christ’s bride, then Jesus never established a Church at all. He certainly never abandoned his one visible and institutionalized Church. He promised that he would never leave her children orphaned, would guide his Church in all truth, and the gates of hell would never prevail against her because of the keys that were given to Peter - not you or me. Both Scripture and history are against you. I strongly recommend that you study Church history with an open mind by reading the works of authors of different persuasions. I’ve already done my fair share of objective study while in college, and I can assure you that Catholic historians and some agnostic historians hold an irrefutable position against Protestants. This is not wishful thinking.
😉
 
– perhaps I misread this portion and thought that you were drawing a correlation between Abraham’s “leap of faith” and Mary’s – by her act of presenting Jesus at the temple.

There is no evidence that she was aware of even *that *much at that time.

are you suggesting that Jesus was “waiting” to begin his ministry and that it was part of Mary’s “divine role” to instigate it?
The Presentation of the Infant Jesus in the temple was an act of an ongoing faith that Mary had already possessed by the time of the Annunciation. It was because of her perfect faith and trust in God that she declared:
 
Elizabeth’s experience must have been extremely similar with regards to her son, John,….he was busy living in the wilderness; proclaiming the arrival of Jesus, his own life cut short for doing so…Elizabeth’s own suffering and sacrifice of loss of familial time must have also been great not to mention his death.

See past post # 68
The bible itself at times does make things very simple and clear for anyone who reads it in a prayerful, humble, faithful spirit.
Have you, in your own experience never been a witness of this?
And you are limiting God’s power by your own limited understanding based on what has been spoon fed to you and accepted by you as truth…simply because you place your implicit faith in “the Church”……and whatever they tell you….instead of in God.

Nonsense – there is no indication of Simeon making any pronouncement of Mary contributing to our “salvation” by her suffering.

Elizabeth suffered too in her own way, and Catholics honour her as the mother of our Lord’s precursor. But there’s a big difference here which we must take into account: Mary’s suffering directly contributed to our redemption. John the Baptist did not die for our sins. If Mary had said “No, I don’t need the agony” to the angel Gabriel, he would have departed as instantly as he did after receiving Mary’s free consent. God does not not depend on Mary for our salvation, but he ordained that it would be sufficient for her to say “Yes” before he would send his Son into the world through her. God chose Mary because he has known from all eternity she would freely give her humble and faithful consent to his will. For God desires to save us all. Without Mary’s ‘Fiat’ we’d all be eternally damned, for God willed no other course, and what God does will cannot be otherwise. You terribly underestimate God’s infinite wisdom and omniscience. And you fail to appreciate Mary where human merit in God’s grace is due.

How do you know that what you have read in the scriptures is simple and clear? What appears to be simple and clear can be nothing more than your own understanding acquired through your own private interpretation of the texts. And interpretations can be wrong. Church doctrines do not originate from an interpretation of the written texts. They originate from the activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and her Tradition. God’s deeds are not wrought within the confines of a book. The Holy Spirit does guide the faithful through the reading of the scriptures as a pastoral mentor in our personal spiritual life and relations with God, but, as I said, the greater essential mysteries of our faith pertaining to doctrines rest with the Magisterium.

Look at Protestantism. With no institution of an apostolic central teaching authority the result is chaos in faith and morals. God is one, the divine truth is one, and so the Church was established by Jesus as one unity of faith on Peter and the Apostles and through them on their valid successors: the Episcopacy. Independent religious leaders with your attitude have scattered Christ’s sheep. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, (etc.) all believed he was led by the Spirit in his reading of the scriptures. But they disagreed with each other on many essential doctrines and were divided. Now which one of them can honestly claim to be guided in all truth by the one Spirit? None of them. And I doubt any one of them can, since Jesus established one universal Catholic Church about 1500 years earlier.

It is Christ who speaks to us through his Church. That’s why he established it and sent the Paraclete. Your problem is that you’re limiting God’s power by refusing to listen to him speaking to you through the sacrament of his Church, by spoon feeding yourself with fabricated lies based on your own limited understanding. You are an individual competent-soul and church unto yourself. The me-opposed-to-the-traditional-community religious mentality is a symptom of neo-gnosticism.

Nonsense. Mary’s soul was pierced as she stood at the foot of the cross. If she had spared herself this sorrow of watching her beloved Son die a cruel death by refusing the angel Gabriel, then Jesus wouldn’t have been born, and we wouldn’t have been saved. Simeon wouldn’t have alluded to Mary’s sorrow in his prophecy if it weren’t significant. He could have focussed strictly on Jesus without mentioning Mary. She is included in this prophecy just as she is in the Protoevangelium because of her vital contribution to God’s plan of salvation. The Gospel is an historical narrative, not an actual historical account with all the details. Luke is teaching us something about Mary’s participation in the economy of salvation as perceived by his church. His gospel is a confirmation of a traditional belief that began to take form. (Lk 1:1-4).

*"There is one Physician who is possessed of both spirit and flesh; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; * *both of Mary and of God; * first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, 7 (c.A.D. 110)
 
*Originally Posted by Leeann

No hostility towards Mary - therefore no offence towards Jesus.

He knows my intentions and spirit and mind and heart better than I do – or you for that matter.

It’s the “claimed”, holy inspired interpretation of God’s word by the Catholic church that bothers me, supported at times by dubious “wishful thinking” (to borrow a term of your own), in order to maintain and support its “claimed” position of being the “one church” that holds the “truth”.*
Good Fella:You seem unaware of what your intentions actually are.
I’m sure you do know though and will now go right ahead and state what they are.😉
My goodness – such amazing powers that have been bestowed upon you Good Fella!
Good Fella:
You swear that you harbour no hostility towards Mary, and that you don’t offend Jesus, but not once have you said anything in her favour
Post # 68 Leeann: I love and respect Mary.
…other than she was “a holy vessel used by God to carry a holy cargo,” if one can call that a compliment. If that doesn’t offend Jesus, I don’t know what does.
I apologize if this offended you Good Fella – calling Mary a “holy vessel” ??? and while it may be offensive to you that I referred to Jesus as a “holy cargo”…as I stated before He knows my heart and spirit and mind and all my intentions – as he does your own – better than I do – or you do.

If I’m not mistaken, I believe that “self-righteousness” is a big offence to Jesus, Good Fella – something we must all take in to consideration! :sad_yes:
Good Fella:
Your total, cold indifference towards Mary, lack of appreciation, and denigrating use of language tells me that you harbour ill will towards her.

I clearly stated my dislike (above) - but I’ll post it again for you -
It’s the “claimed”, holy inspired interpretation of God’s word by the Catholic church that bothers me, supported at times by dubious “wishful thinking” (to borrow a term of your own), in order to maintain and support its “claimed” position of being the “one church” that holds the “truth”.
perhaps I should have added…and what they’re doing to Mary…our Lord’s mother.
Good Fella:
Wishful thinking is done by private interpreters of Scripture like yourself who have absolutely no authority to formulate doctrines or declare what amounts to as anti-dogmas. The Catholic Church has existed for almost 2,000 years since Pentecost. How old are you? If the Catholic Church isn’t Christ’s bride, then Jesus never established a Church at all. He certainly never abandoned his one visible and institutionalized Church. He promised that he would never leave her children orphaned, would guide his Church in all truth, and the gates of hell would never prevail against her because of the keys that were given to Peter - not you or me.
Well….the Catholic church (as we know it today)……try a bit later than Pentecost….First Council of Nicaea 325 A.D.???
Good Fella:
He certainly never abandoned his one visible and institutionalized Church. He promised that he would never leave her children orphaned, would guide his Church in all truth, and the gates of hell would never prevail against her because of the keys that were given to Peter - not you or me.

And He never has left His church, or will…. He knows His sheep and they know His voice….and He guides them in all truth and the gates of hell will never prevail against His church. He will always be with His church of believers, *whatever *denomination, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Lutheran, etc. – where ever they may be….He knows His sheep and they know His voice….and He guides them in all truth and the gates of hell will never prevail against His church.

Good Fella:
Both Scripture and history are against you. I strongly recommend that you study Church history with an open mind by reading the works of authors of different persuasions. I’ve already done my fair share of objective study while in college, and I can assure you that Catholic historians and some agnostic historians hold an irrefutable position against Protestants.

Of course they would!
Surprise!!!??!!! :eek:
Good Fella:
This is not wishful thinking.
😉

Because it serves their (and your purpose)?
🍿
 
It’s the “claimed”, holy inspired interpretation of God’s word by the Catholic church that bothers me, supported at times by dubious “wishful thinking” (to borrow a term of your own), in order to maintain and support its “claimed” position of being the “one church” that holds the “truth”.
1 Tim. 3:15
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
Ummm . . .'nuff said . . .
Well….the Catholic church (as we know it today)……try a bit later than Pentecost….First Council of Nicaea 325 A.D.???
**PLEASE show me the documented proof that the Catholic church wasn’t established until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. **
Most anti-Catholic posters on this board won’t even claim that anymore as they have been humiliated with the historical facts.
Please enlighten me. This ought to be good!

And He never has
left His church, or will…. He knows His sheep and they know His voice….and He guides them in all truth and the gates of hell will never prevail against His church. He will always be with His church of believers, *whatever *denomination, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Lutheran, etc. – where ever they may be….He knows His sheep and they know His voice….and He guides them in all truth and the gates of hell will never prevail against His church.
First of all, the Catholic Church is not a denomination.
It is the Universal Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Baptist, Presbyterial, Lutheran, etc. - THOSE are denominations.


**Secondly, you’re not a part of my Church (sadly) and I’m not a part of yours. We are both (hopefully) Christian, in that we both believe that he died for our sins and rose from the dead. **
The difference is that you have chosen not to be part of the one - yes - the ONE Church Jesus established on earth, the Catholic Church. the same Church for which he prayed fervently for unity in John 17 - that they remain ONE as he and the Father are ONE.

So, sorry sister - you ain’t part of the Church. You are part of the separated brethren - one of the divorced factions whom we pray will one day come home.
 
– perhaps I misread this portion and thought that you were drawing a correlation between Abraham’s “leap of faith” and Mary’s – by her act of presenting Jesus at the temple.

There is no evidence that she was aware of even *that *much at that time.

…are you suggesting that Jesus was “waiting” to begin his ministry and that it was part of Mary’s “divine role” to instigate it?
Good Fella:
The Presentation of the Infant Jesus in the temple was an act of an ongoing faith that Mary had already possessed by the time of the Annunciation. It was because of her perfect faith and trust in God that she declared:
“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me (I freely consent to your will.) according to your word.”
Luke 1, 35
Good Fella:
I may have confused you by my use of a Protestant expression coined by Kierkegaard: “leap of faith”.
Yes…I can see how **I **would get confused by a phrase coined by Kierkegaard (the Protestant) that **you **posted:
*Good Fella:
In fact, this Judaic custom of consecrating and dedicating the firstborn to God is traditionally established on Abraham’s leap of *faith. Both Mary and Abraham did not initially take “a leap of faith” at the time they offered up their sons at the altar. /B]
Good Fella:
Their faith was an ongoing faith that was acquired before these moments and then expressed.
“Ongoing faith”, who would have coined that phrase and what faith would they have subscribed too? (*or is that irrelevant? *):rolleyes:
Good Fella:
Unlike Abraham, Mary may not have been aware that she was called to sacrifice her son’s life. We don’t know for sure how much she may have known. God may have granted her a private revelation, since she was chosen to be the mother of God’s son. But certainly she knew that Jesus was the Messiah who would dedicate his life to God in a divine mission. The angel Gabriel made that clear, and she did miraculously conceive Jesus. He was not Joseph’s son and no ordinary child. As a devout Jew who expected the Messiah, Mary must have made a connection with the prophecy of Isaiah 7, 14, though the Jews expected a messiah of paternal lineage. She could have inferred more by contemplating on the “Suffering Servant” song of Isaiah 53. I’m making a conjecture, not giving an opinion. Anyway, it turns out that Mary had made the greater sacrifice. Jesus took the place of Isaac. Does this offend you, too? 😉
Does what offend me? Your “non-opinion” conjecturing?🤓
Good Fella:
Jesus must have waited for his mother to solicit him, for she knew what he was about to do. They acted in concert together.
“Do whatever he tells you.”
Mary spoke these words to the servers right after she and her Son acknowledged the Father’s will. Mary’s concern did “affect” Jesus, and both of them (mother and son) knew that our Lord’s hour had indeed arrived for him to face his Passion and Death by beginning his ministry. When Mary spoke these words, she knew that it was time for her Son to perform his first miracle that would herald the coming of the kingdom. Her request was not merely for the benefit of the wedding guests that Jesus took advantage of. Our Lord could have performed his first and most important miracle without his mother’s active participation if he had wanted to, just as all his other miracles were performed without Mary’s intercession. It is only here at the wedding feast, of all occasions, where we find Mary acting in concert with her Son. John is telling us something very important about Mary’s role in God’s plan of salvation. The evangelist recorded nothing that was purely incidental and mundane. Jesus didn’t send his disciples to the nearest merchant to fetch wine, did he?
Moreover, our omniscient Lord must have known there was no more wine left, so he could have set the stage for his first miracle without his mother’s participation. However, John teaches that Jesus waited for his mother to intercede on behalf of the guests, meaning Mary has a vital role to play in the economy of salvation, a factual mediatory role to play in association with her Son. After all, Mary freely consented in faith to bring the Saviour into the world. She is our co-Redemptrix. God hasn’t imposed salvation upon us. Adam and Eve freely turned their backs on God. We are not merely spectators in our redemption. Anyway, Mary took no part in any of the other miracles our Lord had performed once he began his ministry. And the subsequent miracles were performed by Jesus out of compassion for those who were in temporal need of being relieved of their sufferings. It was at the wedding feast where Mary had to let go of her Son and give him in marriage to the Church, his bride. Here she acted as a mother to us all in a sublime spiritual capacity, as is obvious by the more generic appellation (Woman) Jesus used to address his mother in allusion to Genesis 3:15 and John 19:26-27: our Lord’s final hour. The wine we have received through Mary’s participation and mediation is the precious blood of Christ.
Tell me where your conjecturing ends…and the church’s begins?:whistle:
 
Good Fella:
Elizabeth suffered too in her own way, and Catholics honour her as the mother of our Lord’s precursor. But there’s a big difference here which we must take into account: Mary’s suffering directly contributed to our redemption. John the Baptist did not die for our sins. **If Mary had said “No, I don’t need the agony” to the angel Gabriel, he would have departed as instantly as he did after receiving Mary’s free consent. **God does not not depend on Mary for our salvation, but he ordained that it would be sufficient for her to say “Yes” before he would send his Son into the world through her. **God chose Mary because he has known from all eternity she would freely give her humble and faithful consent to his will. **For God desires to save us all. Without Mary’s ‘Fiat’ we’d all be eternally damned, for God willed no other course, and what God does will cannot be otherwise.
Re-read the high lighted parts of the paragraph you posted above.

Basically what you’re saying is that it was “a given” all along anyway – which is fine – but then it raises the question as to why all this honor and glory and deep veneration should be offered to Mary, based on her giving her “Fiat” - because she was going to do it anyway – there was no question to her not giving her “Fiat” – was there- at least as stated above.
Good Fella:
You terribly underestimate God’s infinite wisdom and omniscience. And you fail to appreciate Mary where human merit in God’s grace is due.
Now that last statement is definitely “conjecture”! 🙂

(Reality check – I’m the one that’s been trying to impress just how “human” Mary was.)
Good Fella:
How do you know that what you have read in the scriptures is simple and clear? What appears to be simple and clear can be nothing more than your own understanding acquired through your own private interpretation of the texts. And interpretations can be wrong. Church doctrines do not originate from an interpretation of the written texts. They originate from the activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and her Tradition. God’s deeds are not wrought within the confines of a book. The Holy Spirit does guide the faithful through the reading of the scriptures as a pastoral mentor in our personal spiritual life and relations with God, but, as I said, the greater essential mysteries of our faith pertaining to doctrines rest with the Magisterium.
And you just stated above that I underestimate God’s infinite wisdom and omniscience???🤷
Good Fella:
Look at Protestantism. With no institution of an apostolic central teaching authority the result is chaos in faith and morals.
Well – I’ve never witnessed a “chaos of faith”, some pretty strong, faithful Christians out there…and as for the morals….yes…I can see your point…nothing pertaining to a “chaos of morals” has happened or gone on actually within the Catholic church…has it?:yup:

Good Fella:
God is one, the divine truth is one, and so the Church was established by Jesus as one unity of faith on Peter and the Apostles and through them on their valid successors: the Episcopacy. Independent religious leaders with your attitude have scattered Christ’s sheep. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, (etc.) all believed he was led by the Spirit in his reading of the scriptures. But they disagreed with each other on many essential doctrines and were divided. Now which one of them can honestly claim to be guided in all truth by the one Spirit? None of them.I agree…just as the Catholic church can’t…but it tries anyway!
Good Fella:
Your problem is that you’re limiting God’s power by refusing to listen to him speaking to you through the sacrament of his Church, by spoon feeding yourself with fabricated lies based on your own limited understanding. You are an individual competent-soul and church unto yourself. The me-opposed-to-the-traditional-community religious mentality is a symptom of neo-gnosticism.
Gee…did you learn all that in “college”- Judgment 101 - or are you practicing your own form of “omniscience”?:rolleyes:
Good Fella:
Nonsense. Mary’s soul was pierced as she stood at the foot of the cross. If she had spared herself this sorrow of watching her beloved Son die a cruel death by refusing the angel Gabriel, then Jesus wouldn’t have been born, and we wouldn’t have been saved.
But this wasn’t going to happen, was it…as you stated above…God knew beforehand that she would say yes.
Good Fella:
Simeon wouldn’t have alluded to Mary’s sorrow in his prophecy if it weren’t significant. He could have focussed strictly on Jesus without mentioning Mary.
And surely he would have mentioned a lot more about her if it was thought to be significant enough…but he didn’t.🙂
 
elvisman:
PLEASE show me the documented proof that the Catholic church wasn’t established until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
Most anti-Catholic posters on this board won’t even claim that anymore as they have been humiliated with the historical facts.
Please enlighten me. This ought to be good!
Well…first of all….I’m not an “anti-Catholic” poster…as in individual practicing Catholics.
Historical facts are wonderful, but then of course you get to “whose” historical facts are accurate don’t you? Look at the initial catholic church – take the one after Pentecost….and then take a look at what happened at the Council of Nicaea – and then take a look over the next few hundred years….and then take a look at the next few hundred years….and eventually you’ll come to the Catholic church as we know it today.

May I quote you elvisman….Ummmm…’nuff said….

First of all, the Catholic Church is not a denomination.
It is the Universal Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.
That is your opinion….and mine is different.
Secondly, you’re not a part of my Church (sadly) and I’m not a part of yours. We are both (hopefully) Christian, in that we both believe that he died for our sins and rose from the dead.
Praise God!
The difference is that you have chosen not to be part of the one - yes - the ONE Church Jesus established on earth, the Catholic Church. the same Church for which he prayed fervently for unity in John 17 - that they remain ONE as he and the Father are ONE.
That’s correct…I’ve chosen not be a part of this particular body of believers.
But I’m definitely a part of the church Jesus prayed for in John 17 and as you stated above, we are ONE in our belief that He died for our sins and rose from the dead….as He and the Father are one.
 
Getting back to the topic of the thread on the “perpetual virginity of Mary”…I asked a question quite awhile ago…a couple of times and no one responded.

Are there any scripture verses that refer to Mary as a “virgin” after Jesus’ birth?

I can see ones that call her Jesus’ mother and Mary, the mother of Jesus and coupled in with Joseph (as in His parents), but nothing that states for instance:

Mary the virgin and the mother of Jesus - or – the Holy Virgin Mary, Jesus’ mother.

I ask, as we are often directed to verses in the Old Testament with regards to proof of her virginity and of course in the gospels (the Annunciation) prior to His birth – but is there any reference *after *His birth that would suggest that Mary was still a virgin, by way of how she was described in the writings.
 
Good Fella:
  • “Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
    Luke 1, 45*
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:

21And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

23(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord)

24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

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.🤷

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.

Luke 2:

25And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

26And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

27And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

28Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

30For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

32A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

33And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
34And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

35(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

36And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

37And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

38And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.

39And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villan with a smiling cheek.” 🙂
William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, 1. iii. 93
 
Getting back to the topic of the thread on the “perpetual virginity of Mary”…I asked a question quite awhile ago…a couple of times and no one responded.

Are there any scripture verses that refer to Mary as a “virgin” after Jesus’ birth?

I can see ones that call her Jesus’ mother and Mary, the mother of Jesus and coupled in with Joseph (as in His parents), but nothing that states for instance:

Mary the virgin and the mother of Jesus - or – the Holy Virgin Mary, Jesus’ mother.

I ask, as we are often directed to verses in the Old Testament with regards to proof of her virginity and of course in the gospels (the Annunciation) prior to His birth – but is there any reference *after *His birth that would suggest that Mary was still a virgin, by way of how she was described in the writings.
John 19:26-27

Why does Mary’s virginity bother you? Do you find her chastity repulsive? Do you even question Mother Theresa’s virginity? You Fundamentalists are pathetic.
 
Getting back to the topic of the thread on the “perpetual virginity of Mary”…I asked a question quite awhile ago…a couple of times and no one responded.

Are there any scripture verses that refer to Mary as a “virgin” after Jesus’ birth?
Why would they be necessary?
I can see ones that call her Jesus’ mother and Mary, the mother of Jesus and coupled in with Joseph (as in His parents), but nothing that states for instance:
Mary the virgin and the mother of Jesus - or – the Holy Virgin Mary, Jesus’ mother.
I ask, as we are often directed to verses in the Old Testament with regards to proof of her virginity and of course in the gospels (the Annunciation) prior to His birth – but is there any reference *after *His birth that would suggest that Mary was still a virgin, by way of how she was described in the writings.
The better question is this: Is there even one iota of scripture that even vaguely implies her lack of virginity. Please don’t play the “brothers” card…that was resolved centuries ago. Lets not pick at nits. There is nothing that remotely supports anything other than the writings of the Early Church Fathers, whom we all can agree are far wiser and versed in this issue than contemporary “theologians”.

Given that “virginity” by no means requires an intact anything, and barring the proof that Joseph actually had conjugal relations with Mary…even though she bore Jesus to term, she was still a virgin. Splitting hairs over miniscule semantics is much like discussing how long it would take a single ant to devour an elephant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top