Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[PRmerger]

Let me ask you this, was Mary’s mother and her grandmother also born sinless?

No, the CC does NOT teach that Mary’s mother (St. Anne) and grandmother, and her mother et alia were born sinless.

While it was* fitting* for Mary to be conceived without any sin on her soul, in preparation for her to be the Holy Vessel of the Word Made Flesh, it was not a necessity. (Certainly, God can do what God wants to do with creation, yes?) Thus, while He did indeed create Mary, from the first moment of her existence, without sin, it was not a necessity that He do this for St. Anne, and her mom, and her mom’s mom. etc.

 

[PRmerger]

First catholics disdain symbols

We most certainly do NOT!

See this page for how many times “symbol” is used in the Catechism.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: Thank you for typing s-l-o-w-ly When I first read these verses years ago, I was not that well taught in seeing SYMBOLS in verse! So,I read, that the East Gate would be closed forever, because God had entered the Temple through that Gate! Your condescending tone, does nothing to clear anything up. First catholics disdain symbols, such as the bread and the cup(of wine), then cling to them to explain a THEORY about Mary’s perpetual virginityAs I stated, the bottom line is not whether she was a perpetual virgin, but rather, does one have to believe it to be saved? Many of us noncatholics have been accused of making our own list of “essentials” of salvation; when it seems that from the mouths of our accusrs, come the same thing. I still have a hard time believing that Jesus would teach His disciples that they, and WE had to believe this fact to be saved. So, I guess my answer is, NO, I do not believe that Ezekiel 44:1-2, is a SYMBOL of Mary’s womb. It is a creative approach, though, I must say

Well, there you go with yet another false accusation against Catholics. Since when do we have disdain for symbols?

It is the Catholic Church, my friend, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sees the symbols and types in the Old Testament fulfilled in the New.

BUT - we also see where the Word of God points to realities of the truth of God (i.e., the Eucharist).
There is not a lot of symbolism in the New Testament (the Book of Revelation notwithstanding) because the NT is the revelation of truth. It is the fulfillment of all of that symbolism from the OT.

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: Okay, well, someone, actually a bunch of someones(mostly catholics) have dismissed the idea, that the bread and the cup(Matthew 26:26) were not symbols of Jesus’s blood and body; even though He represented them as such, when He said(holding the bread) “This is my body,” or the cup,“This is my blood.” When someone mentions these references, they are quickly rebuked, and told that if they do not do it with wine and wafers, it is just a symbolAnd the East Gate still does not represent Mary; sorry pal!

 

[PRmerger]

elvisman: Okay, well, someone, actually a bunch of someones(mostly catholics) have dismissed the idea, that the bread and the cup(Matthew 26:26) were not symbols of Jesus’s blood and body; even though He represented them as such, when He said(holding the bread) “This is my body,” or the cup,“This is my blood.” When someone mentions these references, they are quickly rebuked, and told that if they do not do it with wine and wafers, it is just a symbolAnd the East Gate still does not represent Mary; sorry pal!

1beleevr, again, with Catholicism it’s not either/or. It’s not either the entire Bible is symbolic OR the* entire* Bible is literal. We understand when God was speaking literally, when He was speaking metaphorically, when He’s speaking poetically, etc etc etc.

So there are somet things which are symbolic (see the reference I gave above0)and some things which are NOT symbolic–such as in John 6.

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: I know (or should) by now, that catholics do not choose either/or! But, in your own words, explain to me the difference between John 6, and Matthew 26:26. When Jesus broke the bread in matthew(representing His body) and held up the cup of wine(representing His Blood), was He not using symbolism for His disciples?

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: Okay, well, someone, actually a bunch of someones(mostly catholics) have dismissed the idea, that the bread and the cup(Matthew 26:26) were not symbols of Jesus’s blood and body; even though He represented them as such, when He said(holding the bread) “This is my body,” or the cup,“This is my blood.” When someone mentions these references, they are quickly rebuked, and told that if they do not do it with wine and wafers, it is just a symbolAnd the East Gate still does not represent Mary; sorry pal!

Well - the Apostles and Early Church Fathers disagree with you:

1 Cor. 23-30 - (Pretty harsh words from Paul if this is simply a "symbol" . . .)**
**For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, ****and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” **
**In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” **
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
**A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. **
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.

Justin Martyr
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.

---

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Augustine
That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ(Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

According to the Apostles and Early Fathers - you simply have no faith, friend.

 

[Good_Fella]

Well - the Apostles and Early Church Fathers disagree with you:

1 Cor. 23-30* - (Pretty harsh words from Paul if this is simply a “symbol*” . . .)
**For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, **and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.

Justin Martyr
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.

---

Aphraahat
After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With His own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Augustine
That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ(Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

According to the Apostles and Early Fathers - you simply have no faith, friend.

St. Bishop Ignatius of Antioch was most likely a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. He passed away in the year the Book of Revelation was written (c. A.D. 110). Not only did he believe in and preach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by transubstantiation, but he was aware that Mary had no children other than Jesus. He wrote: “The virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world.” Mary’s virginity couldn’t have been kept concealed from Satan if she had in fact had other children by Joseph.

PAX :grouphug:

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: The problem here is, that I don’t abide by what the early church fathers said or did And I have as much, or more faith than you do(Hebrews 11:6) It’s just a difference of belief! Your basis for the eucharist is John 6, those of us who believe in a bond with Christ use Matthew 26:26; “For as often as you do this, do it in remeberance of Me!” Different thoughts, different ages, different philosophies, same wonderful Saviour! And besides, the early church fathers, did not know me; so they couls not judge the depth o my faith! I came to Christ by faith, because of God’s grace! And I do understand what Paul means when he says, not to take of communion unworthily; not necessarily not taking it the catholic way! Gonna miss ya, until the next thread, buddy! Your brother in Christ, 1beleevr

 

[1beleevr]

[St. Bishop Ignatius of Antioch was most likely a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. He passed away in the year the Book of Revelation was written (c. A.D. 110). Not only did he believe in and preach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by transubstantiation, but he was aware that Mary had no children other than Jesus. He wrote: “The virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world.” Mary’s virginity couldn’t have been kept concealed from Satan if she had in fact had other children by Joseph].

PAX :grouphug:

goodfella: I’m sure there is a point to this post; I just ca’t find it And someone in another thread, is claiming that ignatius was the child sitting on Jesus’ lapWhoo, boy; someone’s reaching on that one! How do we know who that child was? The discussion made a lateral move to whether or not belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is necessary for salvation(I mean, if you are not catholic).

 

[Good_Fella]

goodfella: I’m sure there is a point to this post; I just ca’t find it And someone in another thread, is claiming that ignatius was the child sitting on Jesus’ lapWhoo, boy; someone’s reaching on that one! How do we know who that child was? The discussion made a lateral move to whether or not belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is necessary for salvation(I mean, if you are not catholic).

The unintentional point is that as long as you are outside the Church and severed from the historic Christian faith, you will never be in possession of the fulness of the revealed truth. Anyway, by contesting an obvious divine truth out of religious pride and a false zeal, while claiming to see even though he is blind, one may forfeit his salvation by sinning against the Holy Spirit unless he repents. Pilate fell because of his contempt for the truth. I have the impression you harbour such contempt, which is evident by how you deny the evidence against your personal beliefs.

“For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.”
John 18, 37

“He that hears you hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; and he that despises me, despises him that sent me.”
Luke 10, 16

In the face of theology, history, and common sense, you don’t have a tongue to stick out.

PAX

 

[PRmerger]

elvisman: The problem here is, that I don’t abide by what the early church fathers said or did

But, what about all the other early Christians, 1beleevr? The early Christians (and the middle and late Christians, too! ) believed and celebrated and died for the Eucharist as Catholics believe it today.

If you went back to the 1st century AD the beliefs of those people are consonant with the beliefs which the CC professes today. These were people who knew the apostles!

So you’re not only disagreeing with the early church fathers, but with the early *church, *and with those who throughout history (800’s, Middle Ages, Renaissance, 19th century, etc etc etc) have proclaimed the truth about the Eucharist.

The beliefs you have (some of them) are relatively new.

As for Matt 26:26, we do indeed “do (the Eucharist) in memory of Me.”

And I have as much, or more faith than you do(Hebrews 11:6)

No doubt, dear brother!

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: The problem here is, that I don’t abide by what the early church fathers said or did And I have as much, or more faith than you do(Hebrews 11:6) It’s just a difference of belief! Your basis for the eucharist is John 6, those of us who believe in a bond with Christ use Matthew 26:26; “For as often as you do this, do it in remeberance of Me!” Different thoughts, different ages, different philosophies, same wonderful Saviour! And besides, the early church fathers, did not know me; so they couls not judge the depth o my faith! I came to Christ by faith, because of God’s grace! And I do understand what Paul means when he says, not to take of communion unworthily; not necessarily not taking it the catholic way! Gonna miss ya, until the next thread, buddy! Your brother in Christ, 1beleevr

Then you do NOT abide by Jesus himself.
Jesus said in Luke 10:16, "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me."

**So, do you ****discount **everything the Early Church Fathers taught?
**If so – what do you think their motive was for teaching error? **
Can you answer that?

Jesus didn’t espouse "different philosophies” – His was a hope for UNITY in all things. The Early Church was called to be of like mind and spirit – setting their differences aside. In Eph. 4:1-5, Paul CLEARLY states that this is the case:
I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

BTW - Yours is the typical response when an anti-Catholic get** slammed**** up against the wall with quotes from the ECF’s.**

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: Read these newsletters, and was impressed by how well schooled this man was in catholic theology! I kept hearing the word,“interpretation”, in my head while reading; which leads me to believe that this is the crux of all issues spiritual, between believers He says, there is no scripture which denies the "immaculate conception, and he doesn’t provide scriptural support for his position.I think the sticking point for most people, is that Mary was born of a woman, conceived through “normal” circumstances(you know,egg+sperm= baby). And as we know, everyone born after Adam and Eve, were born with a sin nature. It does not mean that God could not sanctify that particular womb, for the unblemished birth of His only Begotten:thumbsup:Let me ask you this, was Mary’s mother and her grandmother also born sinless?

Catholics DO NOT interpret the Bible, Protestants do. There are innumerable passages that we have provided you with that support Mary’s Immaculate Conception. You just refuse them because you were told not to believe in Catholic teachings. But you cannot deny that all what our Church teaches about Mary has Biblical support.

Here are the passages:

Luke 1:28 - “Hail full of grace [highly favored] the Lord is with you.”
If She had the original sin, which is erased by Baptism, She could not be “Full of Grace.”

Luke 1:30 - “you have found favor with God”
People in state of sin cannot find favor with God.

Luke 1:37 - “for with God nothing shall be impossible”
The Immaculate Conception is not impossible with God.

Genesis 3:15 - “I will make you enemies, you and the woman, your offspring and her offspring.”
This enmity is between Mary (called “woman” several times by Jesus Himself) and Satan. This enmity is not between the “feminine gender” and Satan. If God said it in Genesis, He cannot break His word and allow Satan to “be friend” with Mary. How do we know this “woman” is Mary? Her offspring will will crush Satan’s head. Jesus is that offspring.

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark was made of purest gold for God’s Word.
The Mother of the Son of God also had to be PURE. “And the Word was made flesh” (John 1:14) in Mary’s womb, Mary’s the New Ark.

The only persons to have been “born” without sin are Mary, John the Baptist and Jesus. Adam and Eve were created without sin. There is an old thread that discusses John’s case here. John the Baptist’s being born without sin is not a Church dogma.

God bless you

 

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: Okay, enough about Mary; but catholics do interpret the Bible How about you guys claiming that James 5:16, and John 20:20-23, support confession to a priest; or that 1John 1:9, does not necessarily mean that we can confess our sins directly to God? So, you see, we all interpret the Bible! And where did you come up with the “fact” that baptism washes away “original” sin? And I’m not giving up on the Mary issue, just realizing that we have hit a brick wall Besides, it has become more of an issue of whether or not belief in her perpetual virginity is a requirement for salvation My vote is N-O-T! Even if you believe she was, it is NOT a part of the Gospel! See you in some other thread!

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman:And you react like a typical catholic, always leaning on apostolic succession! But that is what makes us special, is that we are different! You confess to a priest, I confess to God; you call your wafer a host, I call my bread the Body of Christ. You gotta love us, pesky non catholics that we are!

 

[Arandur]

1beleevr, I hope on the next thread you will actually take the time and offer the respect of reading people’s posts and responding to their arguments. You usually just dismiss someone’s words with an offhand comment, frequently mischaracterize people or Catholic beliefs despite being corrected, and just generally refuse to engage in a real back and forth discussion. I find that disrespectful, in addition to doing yourself a disservice by not being open to a pursuit of truth.

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: When, and if you get that plank out of your eye, perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion! Most catholics that I have had personal contact with, are arrogant, and pushy; often belittling those who disagree with them! I have also noticed that theyuse a lot of profanity! I have not and do not paint people with the same broad brush, however, elvisman is a bit diferent than the rest of you! And there are plenty of you here who are compassionate, and do believe that us noncatholics are worthy and can go to Heaven!

 

[elvisman]

elvisman:And you react like a typical catholic, always leaning on apostolic succession! But that is what makes us special, is that we are different! You confess to a priest, I confess to God; you call your wafer a host, I call my bread the Body of Christ. You gotta love us, pesky non catholics that we are!

WRONG - I lean on the Word of God and the promises of Christ to his Church.

I call my “wafer” a host and not the Body of Christ? How can you make such ignorant comments without thinking twice about it?

We call it the Body of Christ because it truly is the body of Christ.
You call yours a symbol, whereas we have the REAL thing.

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman: I too, have the real, living Christ inside of me! And you and others have said that symbols were acceptable! Wafers, unleavened bread; did Christ use wafers at the Last Supper? If I don’t run into you before then, see you in Heaven:thumbsup:Jesus sent an Advocate, to lead me into Truth!