Mary- other children

[Redbandito]

oudave:

Hi
We are not adament about getting rid of Mary. Mary was an incredible woman and was looked on with favor by God. The problem is that the catholic church places her importance with that of Jesus. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

With all due respect Dave, you need to do your homework, so that you will avoid such false claims in the future. The Catholic Church not only does not put Mary on the level of Christ, but in fact whole-heartedly rejects this tenet. This is a heresy known as Choleridianism (spelling?). Thus, as a Catholic we are FORBIDDEN to believe such things. Now, that doesn’t mean there are not individuals that do make this mistake. But do so is gravely heretical. There are three persons in the trinity, and Mary is not one of them. All faithful Catholics admit that, so that argument is falacious.

oudave:

You say that she was sinnless because scripture says that she was full of grace, look up grace in any dictionary and it has nothing that refurs to sinless, as a matter of fact I have heard grace explained from a priest as being unmerrited favor, unmerrited meaning not deserving or unearned.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

Dave, there are a couple problems with this quote. First, there are more reasons than solely the fact that Mary was “full of grace” that lead us to this conclusion. These have already been addressed, so go back and read over the thread and then ask questions. Secondly, grace is unmerited favor. It is also more than that. Do you know what sanctifying grace is? The process of sanctification is where God begins to make us holy through his grace (sanctifying grace). He is purifying and perfecting us. Thus, it is grace that makes us holy and righteous. Well, we Catholics, being the silly folks we are believe that Mary was “full of (this) grace” thus leaving no room for sin. No where does Scripture contradict it, and it is believed throughout history by the Catholic Church fathers and the Protestant Reformers. I don’t really see your basis for argument other than that you have completely cut yourself off from the historical and thus truly Biblical Christianity.

oudave:

You say she remained a virgin all her life, one problem is that it says nowhere in scripture that she died a virgin. Which brings me to my next point, you say she was taken to Heaven like Enoch, one more problem it doesn’t say that in the scriptures either. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

Dave, this is only a problem for you and other Protestants. As you well know, Catholics are not bound to the unBiblical proposition of sola scriptura. Thus, it is not a problem for a Catholic that you do not find certain things explicitly stated. Nevertheless, these truths are usually implicit in Scripture through typology or just less specific statements that are clarified through Tradition.

oudave:

Praying to Mary and claiming that she is the intersessor for us to Christ is taking away the importance of Christ. I mean do you think that Jesus is just to busy taking care of the worlds problems that he need someone to take prayers for him. Mary is probably mad at you for making her out to be Jesus’s secretary or thinking that her wonderful son who died for the sins of everyone, including hers (we know this because it is in scripture Rom 3:23 - 5:12) was not perfect. You need to trust more in the word of God and not so much in the falable oral traditions of man.
In Him and Him only, Dave. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

Again Dave, you need to get your facts straight so that you do not bear false witness". Catholics do not pray to Mary in the same way we pray to God. Catholics ask for Mary’s prayers. There is a fundamental difference that the majority of honest Protestants I have met can differentiate. Do you ask for the prayers of your family and friends or any other member of the Body of Christ? Certainly you do. Does this take away from Christ as the one true mediator? Of course not! That is absurd! In the same way, asking for the prayers of the saints in Heaven (see Heb 12:1), does not take away from Christ as the one true mediator. The saints in Heaven know how to pray better than any human on Earth possibly could. They know Christ in all His glory. Thus, you have made a false dichotomy. Intercessory prayers come from all the saints in the body of Christ, those in the Church militant and those in the glory of Heaven.

Finally, we do not hold to “man-made tradition” as authoritative. We do hold to Apostolic Tradition as such. You need to make the distinction as Paul did in 2 Thess 2:15. And remember that it is the CHURCH that is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). God bless.

 

[sfp]

oudave:

We say look at the Bible and you say look at some book written by some theologian hundreds of years later.
In Him, Dave.

No, we say look at the writings of ALL Christians and Fathers of Christianity from the first century through the 16th century, INCLUDING your beloved Martin Luther, and you will see that you are ghastly wrong.

The burden of proof is on those who decided to change the belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity over 1600 years later. Your “proof” of the word “brethren” of the Lord is not proof at all…just read this entire thread and you will see the error of this backwards logic.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Mary and Joseph had other children, and that’s what was understood for over 1600 years. The fact that the subject is not really addressed in the Bible is the exact reason why we need to quit being so arrogant in thinking that we somehow know more than those who were much closer to the time period.

Challenge:
Show me anywhere in the Bible where anyone other than Jesus is referred to “the son of Mary and Joseph,” or “the daughter of Mary and Joseph…” You won’t find it, although this would have been likely if Jesus in fact had others.

 

[Xavier]

Redbandito:

Xavier, I have really appreciated your attempts to have a good Biblical discussion. I know it is not easy coming to a “Catholic” forum and discussing these questions. Hopefully you feel as though you have been treated with the respect you deserve as a creation of Our Lord. As for your objections, I have noticed that you seem to mix up some terminology. The Ark of the Covenant contained the WORD of God. The law has always been written in our hearts. That has always been the case though. Rom 2:14-15 talks about the Gentiles having the law on their hearts outside divine revelation. This is not simply a new thing. The natural has always been in the heart of man. This really doesn’t address the issue though. The physical presence of the word of God was present in the Ark of the Covenant. God took great care to protect this Ark from any corruption. It was built of Acacia wood which was seen back then as incorruptible. In the same way, Mary’s womb housed the Word of God made flesh. It is no great stretch to see that there is a difference between Mary’s relationship to Christ and our’s.

Furthermore, we do house the Holy Spirit. But, you dimish the importance of the Trinity when you do not differentiate the persons of it.

I enjoy your statement that the Ark contained/contains the Word of God and wholeheartly agree.
I disagree that the law has always been written in our hearts, I suggest this is only a New Testament reality.
I also suggest that the real presence of Christ is in all believers.
I have given these scriptures before and give them again to show my point.

Jn14:23- Both Jesus and the Father will make their home with us.
Jn 15:4-5- Jesus promises to abide in us.
Jn17:26- not only Jesus’ love for us abides in us but he Himself.
2Cor13:5- Jesus Christ is in us.
Gal2:20- Christ lives in us.
Gal4:19- Christ ot be formed in us.
Col1:27 Christ in us.
Jn17:23- Christ in us the Father in Him, having Christ we have the Father.

 

[oudave]

Redbandito:

With all due respect Dave, you need to do your homework, so that you will avoid such false claims in the future. The Catholic Church not only does not put Mary on the level of Christ, but in fact whole-heartedly rejects this tenet. This is a heresy known as Choleridianism (spelling?). Thus, as a Catholic we are FORBIDDEN to believe such things. Now, that doesn’t mean there are not individuals that do make this mistake. But do so is gravely heretical. There are three persons in the trinity, and Mary is not one of them. All faithful Catholics admit that, so that argument is falacious.

Dave, there are a couple problems with this quote. First, there are more reasons than solely the fact that Mary was “full of grace” that lead us to this conclusion. These have already been addressed, so go back and read over the thread and then ask questions. Secondly, grace is unmerited favor. It is also more than that. Do you know what sanctifying grace is? The process of sanctification is where God begins to make us holy through his grace (sanctifying grace). He is purifying and perfecting us. Thus, it is grace that makes us holy and righteous. Well, we Catholics, being the silly folks we are believe that Mary was “full of (this) grace” thus leaving no room for sin. No where does Scripture contradict it, and it is believed throughout history by the Catholic Church fathers and the Protestant Reformers. I don’t really see your basis for argument other than that you have completely cut yourself off from the historical and thus truly Biblical Christianity.

Dave, this is only a problem for you and other Protestants. As you well know, Catholics are not bound to the unBiblical proposition of sola scriptura. Thus, it is not a problem for a Catholic that you do not find certain things explicitly stated. Nevertheless, these truths are usually implicit in Scripture through typology or just less specific statements that are clarified through Tradition.

Again Dave, you need to get your facts straight so that you do not bear false witness". Catholics do not pray to Mary in the same way we pray to God. Catholics ask for Mary’s prayers. There is a fundamental difference that the majority of honest Protestants I have met can differentiate. Do you ask for the prayers of your family and friends or any other member of the Body of Christ? Certainly you do. Does this take away from Christ as the one true mediator? Of course not! That is absurd! In the same way, asking for the prayers of the saints in Heaven (see Heb 12:1), does not take away from Christ as the one true mediator. The saints in Heaven know how to pray better than any human on Earth possibly could. They know Christ in all His glory. Thus, you have made a false dichotomy. Intercessory prayers come from all the saints in the body of Christ, those in the Church militant and those in the glory of Heaven.

Finally, we do not hold to “man-made tradition” as authoritative. We do hold to Apostolic Tradition as such. You need to make the distinction as Paul did in 2 Thess 2:15. And remember that it is the CHURCH that is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). God bless.

Heb 12:1 Therefore, having so vast a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, and throwing off everything that hinders us and especially the sin that so easily entangles us, let us keep running with endurance the race set before us,

Asking for prayers from the Saints in Heaven?

 

[sfp]

oudave:

Praying to Mary and claiming that she is the intersessor for us to Christ is taking away the importance of Christ.

Oudave, have you ever asked a friend to pray for you or anyone else?

Why? According to your logic, you are also taking away the importance of Christ.

Do you see the hypocrisy of your statement? Or are you going to suggest that St. Paul (or the Holy Spirit, rather) is wrong when he tells us to pray for one another?

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

oudave:

Heb 12:1 Therefore, having so vast a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, and throwing off everything that hinders us and especially the sin that so easily entangles us, let us keep running with endurance the race set before us,

Asking for prayers from the Saints in Heaven?

Actually recieving the prayers of the Saints Therefore, having so vast a cloud of witnesses surrounding usand throwing off everything that hinders us and especially the sin that so easily entangles us,I want you to look at what is being said.What is going on here is God recieved the prayers of the Saints for us and the fruit of their prayers are being made manifest. They are praying for you,too Dave.God Bless

 

[hlgomez]

Heb 12:1

Therefore, having so vast a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, and throwing off everything that hinders us and especially the sin that so easily entangles us, let us keep running with endurance the race set before us,

Asking for prayers from the Saints in Heaven?

Oudave,

DO you ask for prayers from your fellow worshippers? Do you say: “Please praye for me”…? Or has someone else asks for your prayers? Is this hard for you to understand?

Pio

 

[Redbandito]

oudave:

Hi-
Now I don’t know if Jesus had siblings or not, I would say that because the Bible refurs to his brothers and sisters that he might well have had a brother or sister.This is the main problem that I have with teachings of the catholic church. The Bible nowhere states that Jesus did not have any siblings, so the only thing left for catholics to do is assume the he didn’t. The fact that the Bible refurs to his brothers or sisters leaves the burden of proof on the catholic church, which it cannot prove.

Wrong Dave. CS Lewis once stated, “But wherever any precept of traditional morality is simply challenged to produce its credentials, as though the burden of proof lay on it, we have taken the wrong position” (The Abolition of Man, p. 48). That applies here. All 2000 years of Christendom have believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Of that, we have historical documentation. This includes, in an implicit manner, Scripture itself. Thus, like every other heresy that rears its head, the burden of proof is on the non-historical accuser.

Furthermore, you are arguing from a position of silence. This is potentially the weakest argument that can be used in any setting. Scripture is at worst SILENT on whether Christ had brothers and sisters, at best it tells us that he did not (Jn 19:27). The terminology for brethren has already been addressed and competently answered many times over on this thread. But again, you are asking Scripture to claim that Jesus did not have brothers or sisters. How ridiculous would that be if he really did not? Why would a writer feel the need to say that Jesus didn’t if he in fact didn’t? Should it not be assumed that he didn’t unless it is written that he in fact did? Seeing how Jesus is never connected to having siblings in Scripture (except in places where we know the “brothers” were really not brothers), than we SHOULD assume that he did not if we want to be reasonable. This fact is bolstered by the witness of early Christians who knew that Jesus did not have brothers or sisters. AGAIN, the burden of proof is firmly on your shoulders.

oudave:

This is the same case in many matters of difference between the catholic church and protestant church. We say look at the Bible and you say look at some book written by some theologian hundreds of years later.
In Him, Dave.

Dave, I love your fervor. Again, you are just begging the question though. Protestants call on Catholics to “back their beliefs up with Scripture” and then when we do, Protestants attempt to claim that it isn’t Scriptural. It is just a circular argument over and over again. Without going into a rant or tirade, I would just like to point out that this is the problem with sola scriptura. There is no consensus on what it is Scripture actually means. And as for your last comment, I find that a bit offensive. I have seen Scripture referenced by Catholics on this entire thread. You disregard it because you disagree with the interpretation. That is just begging the question though. Just because you disagree with it, does not make it wrong. I would also point out that it is Catholics that take Scripture at face value and not Protestants (i.e. Necessity of Regenerative Baptism- Jn 3:5, Tit 3:5, 1 Pet 3:21, Rom 6:4, 1 Cor 6:11, Acts 2:37-38, acts 22:16; Eucharist- Jn 6, Mt26:26, 1 Cor 10:16, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:17, 1 Cor 5:7, etc.; Sacrament of Reconciliation- Jn 20:22-23, Jam 5:13-16, etc.) The point is made. If you take the Bible at “face value” as you claim, then you would be Catholic. No other Church teaches that when Jesus says “this is my body” that he really means this is my body. All other churches say "yeah, but he really means it symbolically. Unfortunately, there is nothing symbolic about his language there. Likewise, when talking about Mary, you don’t want to accept the verses that we use to justify our position. But if that is the case, at the very least, you must not state that our position is not a Biblical one. It is based on the “tradition of mouth or letter”. Yes it is both Scriptural and of Apostolic Tradition. God bless.

 

[hlgomez]

The point is made. If you take the Bible at “face value” as you claim, then you would be Catholic. No other Church teaches that when Jesus says “this is my body” that he really means this is my body. All other churches say "yeah, but he really means it symbolically.

And I would like also to add that we believe that whatever God speaks, it came to be. So when Jesus says, “This is my body… this is my blood…”, then He truly says it and it came to be. Nowhere, I mean N-O-W-H-E-R-E in the Bible can we find something that Jesus said; “this is the* symbol* of my body…”

Pio

 

[Redbandito]

oudave:

Heb 12:1 Therefore, having so vast a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, and throwing off everything that hinders us and especially the sin that so easily entangles us, let us keep running with endurance the race set before us,

Asking for prayers from the Saints in Heaven?

I think that you have received your answer above. But are you open to it?

 

[Mickey]

Redbandito:

Look guys. This type of conversation is fruitless. I am not saying that apologetics does not have its place. However, if the people whom you are explaining the faith too are not really interested in hearing it, it is not respective to their human dignity or Christ to continue. These guys are not here to understand the faith. They believe (albeit falsely) that they understand Catholicism and it’s problems. Unfortunately, like many of their apologists, they are not arguing against Catholicism but rather a Catholic strawman. These conversations begin to get repetitive and frustrating. I can see it in many of the responses. Just remember guys, there is no truth outside of love. The second we start stooping to insults, the truth we are proclaiming becomes secondary.

Now to John1717 specifically. I have read the majority of this thread, and I must say that you disappoint me. You have not come over here to discuss Christ in a manner that would be pleasing to him. Sarcasm, false accusations, and completely disregarding the answers given to your questions is in no way pleasing to God.

Thank you so much for that post redbandito. I have refrained from the vast majority of this thread because of the very reasons you bring forth. Honest debate in love and charity can be fruitful, but argument and insult is fruitless and not worth a response.

 

[Benadam]

Xavier:

But Jesus is not the Law.
It is the Law that is written on our hearts.
The Ark of the Old Covenant housed the Law the Ark of the new Covenant houses the Law .
Mary was unique and blessed. We too are unique and blessed.

The Ark of the Covenant housed the Law because the law contained the vows not to be broken. Thou shalt not. Just like in a marriage the vows can be considered a law and the covenant between the spouses at the same time so it is with the Law.

In Jesus the Law written on the heart is reestablished and ‘He’ is a Law unto Himself that fulfills the old Law. Mary contains the New Law that fulfills the Old Law within her in a way we can’t.

“I am the Way the Truth and the Life”

 

[Tom]

John Chapter 14 is the Last Supper Discourse. It is the teaching of our Lord Jesus to His Church leadership. One common error is to attempt to apply this teaching here to every Christian; this is not what is intended. For example Jn 14, 15-17 tells us the Father will send another Advocate to His Church leadership and that this Advocate (the Spirit of truth, Holy Spirit) will be with the Church always and (Jn 14, 26) “he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I (Jesus) told you”. The Holy Spirit leads His Church to all truth; it does not claim to lead every individual Christian to truth. The result of this error is the thousands of different churches each teaching a different “truth”. As Paul tells us there are many gifts. This gift of the Spirit to lead to truth was addressed to His Church leadership.Jn 16, continues this teaching saying “12 I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. 13 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth. He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own. But he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.
Jn14:23- Both Jesus and the Father will make their home with us.
Jn 14, 23 is addressed to His Church leadership, by rejecting His Church leadership, you reject His Word. BTW, I do not disagree that He resides within each of our hearts, (see Jn 15, 4-5 response).
Jn 15:4-5- Jesus promises to abide in us.
Totally agree.
Jn17:26- not only Jesus’ love for us abides in us but he Himself.
amen
2Cor13:5- Jesus Christ is in us.
Gal2:20- Christ lives in us.
Gal4:19- Christ ot be formed in us.
Col1:27 Christ in us.
Jn17:23- Christ in us the Father in Him, having Christ we have the Father.

Thank you for pointing us to these beautiful Words. They don’t however refer us as the Ark.

 

[oudave]

sfp:

Oudave, have you ever asked a friend to pray for you or anyone else?

Why? According to your logic, you are also taking away the importance of Christ.

Do you see the hypocrisy of your statement? Or are you going to suggest that St. Paul (or the Holy Spirit, rather) is wrong when he tells us to pray for one another?

You can’t have it both ways.

Hi
Here is the difference, I don’t pray TO Mike our Minister to go to God for me, I ask Mike to go to God and pray FOR me. I have looked into the library on this website for some answers and I think you are wrong on this matter. There is a big difference in praying FOR someone and praying TO someone.
In Him and Him Only, Dave.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

oudave:

Hi
Here is the difference, I don’t pray TO our Mike our Minister to go to God for me, I ask Mike to go to God pray FOR me. I have looked into the library on this website for some answers and I think you are wrong on this matter. There is a big difference in praying FOR someone and praying TO someone.
In Him and Him Only, Dave.

To pray means to ask.Your taking prayer on a worship only basis.God bless

 

[john_doran]

oudave:

Hi
Here is the difference, I don’t pray TO our Mike our Minister to go to God for me, I ask Mike to go to God pray FOR me. I have looked into the library on this website for some answers and I think you are wrong on this matter. There is a big difference in praying FOR someone and praying TO someone.
In Him and Him Only, Dave.

whether or not you believe it, what catholics in fact do when they pray to mary, is ask mary to pray for them. saying “pray to mary” is simply a colloquialism for something closer to “talk to mary”; when the individual to whom someone is addressing a request is deceased, then we generally say that we’re “praying” to them, since, in the vernacular, “talking” is something that is done to someone when you’re in their physical presence.

in other words, don’t make anything of the way in which what catholics do is described - instead, concentrate on what catholics actually say they’re doing.

i mean, when i ask mary to pray for me, what difference does it make if i call my asking “praying to mary”, “talking to mary”, or “bleeming the creech”? it doesn’t ***in any way ***change the fact that what i am doing is asking her to pray to her son for me.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I can’t help detecting a note of quasi-Islamic thinking in people who object to intercession of the saints. That is, as if God is all majesty and we are just His muzzled lap dogs. Or that praise is finite like a pizza where if Mary gets to many slices God is left only with crumbs and an empty box to live on. Nonsense.

We are children in the divine family. Lets say my son wants something from me. He could just ask me sure, but if he asks his mother to ask me as well I am more inclined to grant the request. Do I get mad that the son ask his mother as if he is somehow going over my head? Not at all. In fact, I should praise him for being so wise. With all the familial excerpts in Scripture, it is not unreasonable to suggest that something similar (albeit ,far better as “the prayers of the righteous availeth much”) goes on in our relationship with the Heavenly Father.

Scott

 

[Mickey]

Scott Waddell:

I can’t help detecting a note of quasi-Islamic thinking in people who object to intercession of the saints. That is, as if God is all majesty and we are just His muzzled lap dogs. Or that praise is finite like a pizza where if Mary gets to many slices God is left only with crumbs and an empty box to live on. Nonsense.

We are children in the divine family. Lets say my son wants something from me. He could just ask me sure, but if he asks his mother to ask me as well I am more inclined to grant the request. Do I get mad that the son ask his mother as if he is somehow going over my head? Not at all. In fact, I should praise him for being so wise. With all the familial excerpts in Scripture, it is not unreasonable to suggest that something similar (albeit ,far better as “the prayers of the righteous availeth much”) goes on in our relationship with the Heavenly Father.

Scott

Well said Scott!

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

The Old Covenant was a pledge by Jehovah to bless His people, to be their God, to multible them to prosper them if they would obey His commands.
Jesus is not the New Covenant anymore than Jehovah was the Old Covenant.
The New Covenant is a pledge by God to give eternal life to whoever believes on Jesus.

So you are denying the words of Scripture. Did you read what is written in the Scripture? I posted the words of Jesus. He said it. The New Covenant is made in the Blood of Jesus Christ. He is the reason that we have a New Covenant.

Nice try. I remain unimpressed with such bad theology.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Xavier:

I was responding to a message directed to me.
geeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh do you have to be such a control freak?
Your husband must be a living saint.

The thread subject is Mary - other children. It is not concerned with accusations of idolatry based upon misconceived notions that are rampant amongst those who claim to be Christian but do not accept a majority of Scripture. If you want to discuss the charge of idolatry start your own thread and then we can all respond. Changing topics like you are attempting to do is what is termed hijacking,

The thread has been proving very interesting and we do not want it to be shut down because of going off topic.

Maggie