Mary and her Virginity

[zerinus]

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

There is something else zerinus, could you ever take these two passages to mean that Jesus was talking specifically in the direction of those who did not believe that the Eucharist is truly His Flesh and Blood? Do you think they could be unworthy because they do not believe in the power of our Lord and Savior to make himself whole again in our presence under the appearance of bread and wine just as he said during his last supper?

I’m sure you take this to mean Eucharist without Baptism. One has to “write that into Scripture to be so” and so if you do that, then you have all but lost the literal words of Christ anyway. But what would that mean if it were what Christ said? Why is your Baptism important if you’re only eating mere bread? Why would the absence of one symbol desecrate another *symbol *? If they are all just symbols, why take them seriously anyway? Jesus condemns this very thing in the previous text. (In most common translations such as KJV and DR and most others)

I’m not sure of the book of mormon. But again, anything else would have to be written-in and outside of the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.

Blessings.

~HC

Those quotes come from the Book of Mormon, and they have a parallel in the Bible, as a continuation of the words of Paul that I have quoted above:

1 Corinthians 11:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

We think that to partake of the sacrament “unworthily” is to do so in a state of transgression. When you are baptized into the Church you first must repent of your sins. That means stop doing them. Repentance comes before baptism. Baptism without repentance has no value. Baptism following repentance brings about a remission of sins, and a “newness of life”. Then you are worthy to partake of the sacrament. Now if you commit a serious sin after baptism, then you become unworthy again, and should not partake of the sacrament until your sin has been taken care of. That means confessing your sin to your bishop, and let him guide you through the process of repentance until he feels by the Holy Spirit that you have properly repented, and have been forgiven. Then you are worthy to partake of the sacrament again. That is what in our theology those verses mean.

 

[happilycatholic]

I don’t think that Jesus is speaking of something “other than His flesh and blood”. His flesh and blood, shed on the cross,

are very much efficacious for our salvation. What I do contend against is the idea that the emblems of the sacrament are literally converted into His flesh and blood; or that they need to be in order to become the conveyers of the grace of God to us.

The Eucharist doesn’t convey Christ, it doesn’t need to. It becomes Christ, just as he said it would.

The Oriental mindset is different from the Anglo-Saxon one. They use a lot of hyperbole and exaggerated speech to convey a message that cannot be understood or taken literally. A famous one is the camel passing through the eye of the needle. Here is another typical example, of words that Jesus spoke to His disciples in the night before He died:

Each one of the passages you quote are in reference to the same event. So let’s look at them as one example as they should be. Again no. Christ is speaking of worldly things of the flesh. Not his flesh.

I think you’d better go back to verse 57. I think you’d better look at the entire chapter again. Jesus is reiterating that He alone is the Bread of life and that he will be given up for them. And so he reiterates this very lesson in the Last Supper and proves to them that He is the Bread from Heaven that will be given up for them.

IMHO, When he makes reference to the quickening of the spirit, he is talking about his own spirit and the difference between what unbelievers will see them do and what they will know they are doing.

Exactly what is happening now. Unbelievers think that catholics are scandalous. Jesus knew this would happen. He was telling them to believe in Him and what he was saying, not the unbelievers who will see what they want to see.

 

[happilycatholic]

Those quotes come from the Book of Mormon, and they have a parallel in the Bible, as a continuation of the words of Paul that I have quoted above:
1 Corinthians 11:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
We think that to partake of the sacrament “unworthily” is to do so in a state of transgression. When you are baptized into the Church you first must repent of your sins. That means stop doing them. Repentance comes before baptism. Baptism without repentance has no value. Baptism following repentance brings about a remission of sins, and a “newness of life”. Then you are worthy to partake of the sacrament. Now if you commit a serious sin after baptism, then you become unworthy again, and should not partake of the sacrament until your sin has been taken care of. That means confessing your sin to your bishop, and let him guide you through the process of repentance until he feels by the Holy Spirit that you have properly repented, and have been forgiven. Then you are worthy to partake of the sacrament again. That is what in our theology those verses mean.

If this is your theology it is at least closer to the fullness of Truth as set forth by Christ himself and carried on through the ages by the Church. Christ is in every living thing. So I tend to trust that Christ is with you and will guide you. The path you choose to take is up to you. I choose to take the one laid out by the Church.

God Bless and Keep you always.

 

[happilycatholic]

zerinus:

We should probably move this discussion to PMs or to another thread. We’ve moved waaaay off course.

I’m happy to follow one you might open. ~HC

 

[guanophore]

Thank you guanophore for your comments. I have one general observation to make about them. Your definition and description of what is means to be a Catholic is so nebulous that it becomes meaningless. By the same token I could also argue that they were all Mormons, and your inability to understand that boils down to your misconception of what it means to be a Mormon.

Yes, I am sure you could!

However, you will not find any of the early Fathers or Councils of the Church referring to themselves as Mormon, whereas, they do call themselves Catholic. Also, you will not find 2000 years of unbroken Mormon history. Catholicism is not “nebulous”, but it is very comprehensive. What distinguishes modern Christian ecclesial communities is which part of Catholic Teaching they reject, so there is something missing from all of them.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, I am sure you could!

However, you will not find any of the early Fathers or Councils of the Church referring to themselves as Mormon, whereas, they do call themselves Catholic.

You like playing with words, I have noticed, and this word lends itself to being played with. The word Catholic in those days simply meant “universal”. It was not a “proper name,” or a nomenclature for a particular church or religion. That is what it is now; but it was not back then. It was an adjective that has now become a noun. You are committing the fallacy of mixing up the two definitions together. As an adjective that word now strictly applies to the LDS Church. It is the only truly universal church—or rather, the only universally true church in the world today. So the word “Catholic” as an adjective now strictly applies to the LDS Church. You can disagree with that of course if wish; but that is how we would see it from an LDS point of view.

Also, you will not find 2000 years of unbroken Mormon history.

Actually, Mormon history goes back a lot longer than that! Mormonism, as a new dispensation of the gospel, was established by revelation in 1830; but in actual fact it is a renewing of the covenant that God made with mankind in the days of Adam, Noah, Abraham and his descendants. Here is an interesting quote:

D&C 22:

1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

It is a renewing of the ancient covenants; therefore its true history goes back to the most ancient times.

Catholicism is not “nebulous”, but it is very comprehensive. What distinguishes modern Christian ecclesial communities is which part of Catholic Teaching they reject, so there is something missing from all of them.

That is an interesting observation. That may be true of the Protestant churches which have indeed broken away from the Catholic Church; but not of Mormonism. Mormonism is not a “breakaway” from either Catholicism or Protestantism. It is a new dispensation of the gospel. I will give you an interesting example. How many sacraments are there in the Catholic Church? There are seven, right? How many are there in Protestant churches? At most two! Most Protestant churches don’t recognize any sacraments at all. Those few that do, recognize only two. They have rejected all but two of the Catholic sacraments: baptism and Eucharist. How many sacraments to you think there are in the LDS Church? I haven’t counted them; but we certainly have more than seven! The LDS Church is the only Church on earth that has more sacraments than the Catholic Church does; we have around twice as many! And every single one of them requires priesthood authority to be performed; including baptism and marriage (for eternity). How do you explain that?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

That is an interesting observation. That may be true of the Protestant churches which have indeed broken away from the Catholic Church; but not of Mormonism. Mormonism is not a “breakaway” from either Catholicism or Protestantism. It is a new dispensation of the gospel. I will give you an interesting example. How many sacraments are there in the Catholic Church? There are seven, right? How many are there in Protestant churches? At most two! Most Protestant churches don’t recognize any sacraments at all. Those few that do, recognize only two. They have rejected all but two of the Catholic sacraments: baptism and Eucharist. How many sacraments to you think there are in the LDS Church? I haven’t counted them; but we certainly have more than seven! The LDS Church is the only Church on earth that has more sacraments than the Catholic Church does; we have around twice as many! And every single one of them requires priesthood authority to be performed; including baptism and marriage (for eternity). How do you explain that?

Quality over quantity

 

[happilycatholic]

You like playing with words, I have noticed, and this word lends itself to being played with. The word Catholic in those days simply meant “universal”. It was not a “proper name,” or a nomenclature

for a particular church or religion. That is what it is now; but it was not back then. It was an adjective that has now become a noun. You are committing the fallacy of mixing up the two definitions together. As an adjective that word now strictly applies to the LDS Church. It is the only truly universal church—or rather, the only universally true church in the world today. So the word “Catholic” as an adjective now strictly applies to the LDS Church. You can disagree with that of course if wish; but that is how we would see it from an LDS point of view.

The word “Coke” would fit your definition as well. But everybody knows when you ask for it by name, you want a Coka Cola. Not a version of it like RC.

Of course you could just fall for anything and any ole “pop” would do. I’m sorry, I was on a roll.

Actually, Mormon history goes back a lot longer than that! Mormonism, as a new dispensation of the gospel, was established by revelation in 1830; but in actual fact it is a renewing of the covenant

Pulling sacraments out of thin air does not an Apostolic Church make. So of these twice as many sacraments, which ones were performed by Apostles?

 

[Sellers1]

I think you will find, if you are ever brave enough to study the history of your faith, that there is none of my personal opinion involved in it whatsoever.

Scripture (NT) was written by, for, and about Catholics. The Catholic Church assembled, protected, promulgated and canonized the NT. They did not allow anything in it that was not Catholic. There were 400+ works floating about at the time, claiming to be inspired. Any that contained any elements that are not Catholic were not included.

I did not claim that it was. What I said was that Jesus only founded one church, and for 1000 years, it was exclusively CAtholic. Now, how do you account for that?

All other denominations defined themselves about what was CAtholic they did not accept.

Perhaps you have a need to believe what I have said here is false, so as to justify remaining separated from the Church Jesus founded. But, let us say, for the sake of arguement, that what I have said here is true. Would that change anything? Why is it a problem for you that Catholics wrote scripture, or that all of it represents what the Catholic Church believes and teaches?

Why is it a problem that all denominations are defined by how they depart from Catholic teaching?

Your arrogance doesn’t bode well. Catholics did not write Scripture. You seem to either have a problem with the truth or you have a problem with those of us who choose not to cowtow to these sorts of manipulative lies. I made the challenge some time ago to Catholics who can show me proof of the Marian dogmas being true, the primacy of the Pope being true and the other non-Scriptural things which Catholics profess as truth (Purgatory, Indugences etc). Still nothing beyond the good ole’ Catholics are the original Church and Jesus left the keys to Peter so that should be good enough. Well, it’s not for many reasons including the misinterpretation made about Peter. All I can say is prove what you try and force feed us. Chapter and Verse. Show me and you’ll win me over.

 

[zerinus]

Exactly where in the NT did the Lord state there would be a need to have yet another dispensation of his Word?

Ephesians 1:10.

Pulling sacraments out of thin air does not an Apostolic Church make.

We didn’t pull them out of a hat. We obtained them by revelation from the Lord.

So of these twice as many sacraments, which ones were performed by Apostles?

I can show you at least one, baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29).

 

[Good_Fella]

You like playing with words, I have noticed, and this word lends itself to being played with. The word Catholic in those days simply meant “universal”. It was not a “proper name,” or a nomenclature for a particular church or religion.

“See that ye follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles…Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2 (c.A.D. 110)

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1 (c.A.D. 110)

“All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna.”
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155)

“The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.”
The Fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177)

Actually, Mormon history goes back a lot longer than that! Mormonism, as a new dispensation of the gospel, was established by revelation in 1830; but in actual fact it is a renewing of the covenant that God made with mankind in the days of Adam, Noah, Abraham and his descendants. Here is an interesting quote:

“I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones.”
Jude 3

That is an interesting observation. That may be true of the Protestant churches which have indeed broken away from the Catholic Church; but not of Mormonism. Mormonism is not a “breakaway” from either Catholicism or Protestantism. It is a new dispensation of the gospel.

For if someone comes to preach another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough.
2 Corinthians 11, 4

PAX

 

[happilycatholic]

Ephesians 1:10.

Not by a longshot.

 

[Good_Fella]

Your arrogance doesn’t bode well. Catholics did not write Scripture. You seem to either have a problem with the truth or you have a problem with those of us who choose not to cowtow to these sorts of manipulative lies. I made the challenge some time ago to Catholics who can show me proof of the Marian dogmas being true, the primacy of the Pope being true and the other non-Scriptural things which Catholics profess as truth (Purgatory, Indugences etc). Still nothing beyond the good ole’ Catholics are the original Church and Jesus left the keys to Peter so that should be good enough. Well, it’s not for many reasons including the misinterpretation made about Peter. All I can say is prove what you try and force feed us. Chapter and Verse. Show me and you’ll win me over.

The burden of proof does not lie with the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church which had existed before the great schism of the 11th century and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century and still exists, having been founded by Jesus Christ on Peter and the Apostles. By the term “catholic” we mean “a common faith” shared by all members of this One Apostolic Church. Individual men who had initially separated themselves from the one universal Church created division in Christendom. But there is only one true Church of believers who form the mystical body of Christ in which our Lord is really present as the head and adored in the Holy Eucharist. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch describes the Catholic Church as a single place where Christ is truly and really present.

“But beyond these Scriptural sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.”
St. Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360)

To become better acquainted with the Church’s Marian doctrines and dogmas allow me to recommend that you read The Mother of the Saviour, by Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Perhaps you’ll discover for yourself scriptural affirmation of our Marian traditions and beliefs which have existed and developed since apostolic time. Meanwhile all the privileges of glory and grace which we believe the Blessed Virgin Mary received rest on the pre-eminent one of her Divine Maternity.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[dpgreen]

As I am posting from Australia, the backlog of posts are too numerous for me to spend time reading thoroughly. So I apologise in advance if this has already been mentioned.

There were no engagements in ancient times. So the word betrothed does not have the same connotation in those times as it does today. Mary was already married to Joseph. Joseph was, at the time of the annunciation, preparing a place for Mary to live. This was the way they did things in those days.

So - when Mary says to the Angel “how can this be, I know not man” - the Catholic understanding makes perfect sense and the protestant interpretation makes no sense.

Sellers1 - I think you protest too much. You have been given plenty of evidence. Why do you think your interpretation is better than ours. If, as protestants believe, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us to truth when reading scripture, then why so much opposition to an interpretation different to yours? You see, any disagreement on dogma will always come down to authority and whether the bible alone can lead us to truth. Fortunately, the bible does not support the bible alone as the sole rule of faith. In fact, the bible alone does just what is happening on this thread - disagreement.

I find it incredulous that Christians today can disregard the evidence, both physical and in the writings of the early Church, of so many Catholic doctrines, particularly the Marian ones. The Catacombs give us evidence that Mary was honoured with many carvings dedicated to her. I guess the Johnnies-come-lately know better:shrug:

 

[Good_Fella]

I find it incredulous that Christians today can disregard the evidence, both physical and in the writings of the early Church, of so many Catholic doctrines, particularly the Marian ones. The Catacombs give us evidence that Mary was honoured with many carvings dedicated to her.

I guess the Johnnies-come-lately know better:shrug:

In the catacomb of St. Agnes there is a frescoe of our Blessed Mother who is situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both of them. These two apostles being together has always symbolized the Church. This frescoe depicts Mary as spiritual mother of the Church and of all true believers in Christ (Rev 12:17) who intercedes for us all from her heavenly place. The early Christians regarded themselves as her other offspring, the brethren of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary’s spiritual motherhood of humankind is a privilege she had merited by divine grace because of her fiat on the morning of the Annunciation. As the new Eve, opposed to our original biological mother, Mary could not have been predestined from all eternity to bear offspring conceived in original sin by the seed of Joseph (Gen 3:15). The early Christians must have perceived this truth or else they would not have invoked Mary as spiritual Mother of the Church and our Advocata.

“For if Mary, as those declare, who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to his mother, ‘Woman, behold thy son,’ and not, ‘Behold, you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, ‘Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that everyone who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, ‘Behold, thy son Christ.’”
Origen, Commentary on John, 1:6 (A.D. 232)

You mean the Johnnies-come-much-more-lately. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli accepted the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[dpgreen]

You mean the Johnnies-come-much-more-lately. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli accepted the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Oh yes. I had in mind some of the “johnnies” that live amongst us. I guess my point is if we disagree amongst us about what the scriptures say, then look to the early church and their understanding of apostolic teaching. The Catacombs certainly witness, as do the fathers, to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Isn’t it interesting that the very people the protestants claim as heroes for the “true faith” are the very ones that they also disagree with on some issues. I just don’t get that at all. Even baptism today within many protestant circles is a far cry from what the reformers taught. Some even say baptism is not necessary at all and even abstain from it! Sorry, off topic!

Thank you for providing that information regarding the Catacombs.

 

[Good_Fella]

Oh yes. I had in mind some of the “johnnies” that live amongst us. I guess my point is if we disagree amongst us about what the scriptures say, then look to the early church and their understanding of apostolic teaching. The Catacombs certainly witness, as do the fathers, to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Isn’t it interesting that the very people the protestants claim as heroes for the “true faith” are the very ones that they also disagree with on some issues. I just don’t get that at all. Even baptism today within many protestant circles is a far cry from what the reformers taught. Some even say baptism is not necessary at all and even abstain from it! Sorry, off topic!

Thank you for providing that information regarding the Catacombs.

You’re welcome.

“The preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples…‘For in the Church’, it is said, ‘God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers’, and all the other means by which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace.”

“The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the world.”

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

“And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one.”
John 17, 22

PAX :harp: