Mary- other children

  • Thread starter Thread starter glow8worm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Xavier:
Until was not needed if Mary remained a virgin.
One would say Maggie never devulged the secret or She never told the secret when she was alive.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily Xavier. You keep trying to put Scripture into 21st century language. Until was used exactly as Maggie stated. BTW, she did answer you. Whether you agree with her is beside the point.
 
I’m reading The Virgin Mary Jean Guitton. It is apparently a Catholic book.

It states that Mary could not possibly have been a consecrated virgin and her presentation and service at the temple could not have happened because there was no such service at the temple reserved for women.

Any writings claiming such are really “imagery”. Ideas and attitudes about the Virgin Mary were developed by monks and nuns who projected their own lives onto the Virgin Mary.

Any thoughts?
 
My logic of A=B=C in regards to Mary and Jesus is not flawed at all. Jesus is one of three persons in the Trinity. Each is called God and God may be used to express the three as one. No, Mary is not the Mother of the full Trinity, only one third of it, but that third, Jesus, is God. My full post made mention that Mary was not the mother of the Word before He became Man, however she is without a doubt His mother from conception onward and He did not cease to be God. You cannot deny any of this as being logical. I did not use the Father or the Holy Spirit in my equation as you did because I understand that only Jesus was Mary’s son. You maybe need a little education on the Trinity as you don’t seem to understand that they are three in one and distinct in nature.

You all try so hard to discredit this doctrine and to de-emphasize Mary’s place in salvation history. Why? What does it matter to you if I as a Catholic believe what the Church declares about Mary? And FYI, the Church does not force or require Catholics to pray the Rosary or to give any homage to Mary over and above her holy days. The Marian doctrines are important because they reaffirm beliefs that relate to the person of Jesus.

For some reason, it seems that protestants are almost jealous of Mary and all the other saints and will not give them any of the honor that God Himself gave them by giving them the grace to lead the lives and often to die the deaths that made them saints.

Mary had no other children. She was made to be the mother of Jesus. Her life was His life. It does not diminish any truth of Jesus to believe this. What I think scares you is that if this is true, then all of the other Church doctines are also true and you would have to give up your vain proud belief that you are right and for nearly two thousand years all of the millions of Catholics who came before you have been wrong.
 
mark, I haven’t heard of this book nor the thesis in it but I can tell you that there are many liberal Catholics who are set about being subversive to the doctrines of the Church to soften the way for their own agendas. Mary has clearly been an important part of the church since the beginning. There may have not been the complete clarification of her place and all of the doctrines pertaining to her since the earliest times, however, she was the subject of many of the writings of the ECF. We also know that in the catacombs beneath Rome, there are portraits of her on the walls. Early Christians understood her role even if they did not have the theological capacity to describe it. Maybe a new thread with the specifics from the book would be interesting.
 
mark a:
I’m reading The Virgin Mary Jean Guitton. It is apparently a Catholic book.

It states that Mary could not possibly have been a consecrated virgin and her presentation and service at the temple could not have happened because there was no such service at the temple reserved for women.

Any writings claiming such are really “imagery”. Ideas and attitudes about the Virgin Mary were developed by monks and nuns who projected their own lives onto the Virgin Mary.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Hi mark,

I tend to agree but not for reasons backed by scholarly research. I feel that the Gospel story doesn’t allow for that degree of intimate involvement with Temple officials in Mary’s life and vow.
 
mark a:
I’m reading The Virgin Mary Jean Guitton. It is apparently a Catholic book.

It states that Mary could not possibly have been a consecrated virgin and her presentation and service at the temple could not have happened because there was no such service at the temple reserved for women.

Any writings claiming such are really “imagery”. Ideas and attitudes about the Virgin Mary were developed by monks and nuns who projected their own lives onto the Virgin Mary.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Hi mark,

I tend to agree but not for reasons backed by scholarly research. I feel that the Gospel story doesn’t allow for that degree of intimate involvement with temple officials in Mary’s life and vow.
 
The writing(s) I referred to are The Protoevangelism of James (and possibly others). The reaon I recalled this one is that Scott Hahn referred to it in a debate transcript I once read.

I am no expert on Mary, and I was surprised to read the author’s claims.

I should also mention that I just started the book. It was copyrighted in 1952.
 
mark a:
I’m reading The Virgin Mary Jean Guitton. It is apparently a Catholic book.

It states that Mary could not possibly have been a consecrated virgin and her presentation and service at the temple could not have happened because there was no such service at the temple reserved for women.

Any writings claiming such are really “imagery”. Ideas and attitudes about the Virgin Mary were developed by monks and nuns who projected their own lives onto the Virgin Mary.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
There might be some truth in what he says because we have not been able to find real evidence that this took place.

The story that Mary was in the Temple came from the Protevangelium of James. We do not know much about the author of the document or the source for this story. What I do know is that the author was neither a nun or the Apostle James 😉

At the same time there have been at least two other sources that have more or less confirmed some aspects of the story concerning Mary being in the Temple. The two accepted sources are Bl. Mary Agreda and Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich. Both of these women received visions that were supposed to be on the life of the Holy Family. There is another source that supports in principle the same story but this is a source that has not as yet been recognized by the Church.

Your author may or may not be correct in his statement. Until we can find some evidence that there were girls who went into the Temple as virgins we cannot possibly verify this story.

MaggieOH
 
40.png
Xavier:
Jesus I love You is selfish?
Click to expand...
You can bet on it, because of the use of “I” in that prayer there is an essential element of self that is revealed. There is no praise for God by saying “Jesus I love you”. If you were praising God you would be saying something like:

Blessed be God
Blessed be His Holy Name

and you would be repeating the words of the Angels:

“Holy Holy Holy Lord, God of power and might, Heaven and earth are full of your glory, hosanna in the Hightest.”

Or something like:

“All praise to you Lord Jesus Christ”

The repetitive Jesus prayer is more about self than it is about Jesus.

Maggie
 
40.png
Xavier:
Until was not needed if Mary remained a virgin.
One would say Maggie never devulged the secret or She never told the secret when she was alive.
Click to expand...
You and your sources are wrong about the “until” not being needed. It most definitely was needed, as proof that the child Jesus was not the son of Joseph. If this could not be proved then Jesus was not the son of God.

Maggie
 
40.png
dcdurel:
Not flawed at all.
Mary is the mother of God, because Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus. But Mary is not the mother of all three persons of the Trinity. Mary is not the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. But, since Jesus is God and Mary is His mother than Mary is the mother of God. Mary is also the spouse of God and the daughter of God, because Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the daughter of the Father.

Your fallacy is similar to this one:
"Jesus is God!
**
*God is a Trinity, *
Jesus died on the cross,
*God died on the cross. *

God the Father subsists within the Trinity,
God died on the cross
*God the Father died on the cross. *

Hmmm, "Does not compute." because God the Father cannot die. Therefore Jesus did not die on the cross OR only the humanity of Jesus died on the cross."

Either way, this leads to heresy. If Jesus did not die than we are not saved. If only the humanity of Jesus died, then Jesus is two persons, which is the Nestorian heresy, and again, we are not saved.

Once again, my friend, you are wrong! God, in His divinity, cannot be conceived and born any more than He can die. It cannot therefore be said of Mary that she bore God(and hence, bears the designation “mother of God”), any more than it can be said of the Jews that they killed God. Jesus in His humanity had a mother; Jesus in His divinity was "without father or mother; without genealogy, without begining of days or end of life!

Just where did you get this baloney about Mary being “the spouse of God and the daughter of God.” This is heresy!
Click to expand...
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
and who is employing extra-Biblical doctrine? Here is a list that is not verified by Scripture:
  1. Sola Scriptura
  2. Sola Fide
  3. Sola Gratia
  4. Once Saved Always Saved
  5. the Rapture
Actually all of the above are verified by Scripture! It is your belief in extra-biblical doctrine that has clouded your vision!

All of these doctrines have a few things in common:
  1. they were not taught by Jesus and the Apostles;
  2. they lead to misinterpretation of the Scripture;
  3. they seek to deny the Truth of Scripture;
  4. they are not Christ oriented;
    5 they are selfish because the centrepiece of these doctrines is “me” alone.
Again you are incorrect on all counts! But aren’t you a little off-topic?

As I have said repeatedly the Marian doctrines are Christ centred, not Mary-centred. Every declaration of the Church on these matters has involved some aspect of Jesus that is being denied at the time the doctrine was declared. Yet the heresies continue and we go full circle: Helvidius and his claim that Mary had other children.

You’ve got to be kidding! The Marian doctrines are an attempt to elevate Mary not Jesus!!! They make Mary into another Christ! Jesus was sinless, Mary is sinless. Jesus was a virgin, Mary is Ever-virgin. Jesus is the Redeemer, Mary is Co-Redemptress. Jesus is the one Mediator, Mary is Mediatrix. Jesus is bodily assumed into heaven, Mary is bodily assumed into heaven.
It seems that there’s a pattern here!
:yup:
Click to expand...
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
then you were not paying attention to what you were doing. If you were you would never say such a thing because you would know your Scripture.

Maggie
Click to expand...
You are so blinded by your indoctrination that you can’t see the truth when it stares you in the face! Praying to the dead is condemned by Scripture. Mary is physically dead whether you believe it or not! She cannot hear your prayers nor the millions said to her each day. She is not omniscient and is powerless to help you. Prayer is to be directed to God ALONE!
 
40.png
John1717:
You are so blinded by your indoctrination that you can’t see the truth when it stares you in the face! Praying to the dead is condemned by Scripture. Mary is physically dead whether you believe it or not! She cannot hear your prayers nor the millions said to her each day. She is not omniscient and is powerless to help you. Prayer is to be directed to God ALONE!
Click to expand...
Please, stop spouting your 'traditions of men" and you indoctrinations. You need to go to this thread if you want to discuss you points of contention… If you dare!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36091

Peace
 
John, I presume that you believe you have the right (and maybe even the duty), to privately interpret sacred scripture, am I correct? That is, you believe that since the holy spirit resides in you and I, that this gives us all we need to interpret God’s word as we feel the Holy Spirit is guiding us, right?

If you agree with this, then how can you say that our interpretation is wrong? (i.e. the Catholic interpretation of Mary’s perpetual virginity). I mean, surely you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit has misguided so many people, right? …People who believe that they are being faithful to God, and who sincerely believe that they are doing exactly what they believe Jesus would want by giving his most blessed mother the honor she deserves.

Or, surely you aren’t going to tell me that the holy spirit resides only in you, but not in all of us, right?

After you comment on that, please tell me why not ONE Church Father taught your belief. Lack of infallibility has nothing to do with why history is important to understand this here. I mean after all…some of them LIVED with the apostles, so don’t you think that one of those apostles would have said something about Jesus having other uterine brothers? They would have happily set them straight, right?

There are MANY other examples of our ability to back-up our belief in sacred scripture, most of which are in this thread, but according to scripture, Jesus gave his mother to John the apostle at the foot of the cross, whom we know was a distant cousin of our Lord. This would be shameful and unheard of in ancient oriental culture if Jesus had other brothers to care for her.

please comment.

oh…p.s…
Do you know what the Bible says about private interpretation of scripture?

Who’s your guide?
 
40.png
John1717:
…She cannot hear your prayers nor the millions said to her each day. She is not omniscient and is powerless to help you. Prayer is to be directed to God ALONE!
Click to expand...
  1. Where does the Bible say that the saints can’t hear us?
  2. No one ever said she is omniscient.
  3. Do you have the ability to help others get to heaven? If so, then how is it that you are “more powerful” than her? She’s a LOT closer to Jesus than you and I, wouldn’t you agree?
 
John 1717 wrongly alleges…as usual…
Once again, my friend, you are wrong! God, in His divinity, cannot be conceived and born any more than He can die. It cannot therefore be said of Mary that she bore God(and hence, bears the designation “mother of God”), any more than it can be said of the Jews that they killed God. Jesus in His humanity had a mother; Jesus in His divinity was "without father or mother; without genealogy, without begining of days or end of life!
Click to expand...
Just where did you get this baloney about Mary being “the spouse of God and the daughter of God.” This is heresy!
Click to expand...
“Spouse of the Holy Spirit” Luke 1:34-35 “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

"Daughter of God? Are ya kidding? Aren’t ALL believers the sons and daughters of God? Of whom Mary was inarguably the very first.

You must not believe the Bible then…because it says:

Colossians 1:19: “For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell,”

John 1:1-5 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

You cannot comprehend it and cannot adequately explain it because it is a spiritual reality (Just like the trinity).
But Mary DID bear God in her womb…you are the one that is espousing heresy…Nestorianism to be exact… See this tract on this ma(name removed by moderator)age.
catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: “God-bearer” or, less literally, “Mother of God”). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos (“Christ-bearer” or “Mother of Christ”).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate (“in the flesh”).

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

Monophysitism (5th Century)

Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.

So…There ya go. My only advice is from scripture:
2nd Timothy 2:15: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”

Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
John1717:
Once again, my friend, you are wrong! God, in His divinity, cannot be conceived and born any more than He can die. It cannot therefore be said of Mary that she bore God(and hence, bears the designation “mother of God”), any more than it can be said of the Jews that they killed God. Jesus in His humanity had a mother; Jesus in His divinity was "without father or mother; without genealogy, without begining of days or end of life!

Just where did you get this baloney about Mary being “the spouse of God and the daughter of God.” This is heresy!
Click to expand...
John1717

you are repeating the heresy of the Cathars and all of the others who follow the dualist formula that God cannot be matter.

You are also negating what is written in the Scripture:

"**In the beginning was the Word:
the Word was with God
and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning
Through Him all things came to be,
not one thing had its being but through him.
All that came to be had life in Him
and that life was the light of men,
a light that shines in the dark,
a light that darkness could not overpower…

The Word was the true light
that enlightens all men;
and He was coming into the world.
He was in the world that had its being through him
and the world did not know Him.
He came into His own domain
and his own people did not accept Him
But to all who did accept Him
he gave power to become the children of God,
to all who believe in the name of him
who was born not out of human stock
or urge of the flesh
or will of man
but of God Himself
The Word was made Flesh
he lived among us
and we saw his glory,
the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father,
full of grace and truth…
It is the only Son, who is nearest to the Father’s heart
who has made Him known" (John1: 1-18)

This prologue confirms that Jesus is both human and Divine. The important verse is “The Word was made Flesh, he lived among us” and this goes hand in hand with the opening verses of the prologue: “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God”.

It is the Woman in Scripture, that is one who is named Mary who in fact bore “The Word made Flesh” in her womb. The Word as defined in John’s Gospel is Jesus, who is Son of God. This great mystery that we have before us is that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, and it is she who gave Flesh to the Son of God. Jesus is the “seed” of Mary’s womb.

Jesus is both human (born of a virgin) and Divine. You cannot separate the Divine soul from the human flesh, and as such Mary is the mother of the MAN-GOD. That makes her Mother of God.

Maggie

**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top