Mary

[edwinG]

Lorarose:

First verse…
First of all…Jesus did NOT claim Mary was not blessed because she bore him and nursed him.
Rather he stated she was blessed “more than that” because she is included in “those who hear the word of God and keep it”
So…she IS blessed because she bore him (all generations will call me blessed) AND she is even MORE blessed because she heard God’s word and kept it.

Second verse …what 's the problem?
His mother DID hear the word of God and did it.

Hi Lorarose,
I have never heard any say that Mary was not blessed. Nor do I say it myself.
walk in love
edwinG

 

[Della]

edwinG:

Hi Della,
Yes I truly believe that it is our faith and all that that implies which makes us righteous.
walk in love
edwinG

So, what is the problem? What is it about Catholic teaching about Mary that bothers you that you bring it up?

You know, every person who reads the Bible has his own way of interpreting it. That’s why there are literally thousands of Protestant churches, groups, sects, and denominations. There are so many because they will not acknowledge the simple historical truth that the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, both Old and New Testaments. If the Catholic Church had not decided which books are canonical, compiled them into one volume and saved it down through the centuries by painstakingly copying it by hand, no Protestant would have it to challenge Catholic teaching. Ironic, isn’t it? I think so.

 

[BjBarnett]

If Jesus is saying that saying Mary is blessed is wrong then the bible contradicts itself because the bible says that Mary is blessed among women.

 

[John_17_3]

Della:

So, what is the problem? What is it about Catholic teaching about Mary that bothers you that you bring it up?

You know, every person who reads the Bible has his own way of interpreting it. That’s why there are literally thousands of Protestant churches, groups, sects, and denominations. There are so many because they will not acknowledge the simple historical truth that the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church, both Old and New Testaments. If the Catholic Church had not decided which books are canonical, compiled them into one volume and saved it down through the centuries by painstakingly copying it by hand, no Protestant would have it to challenge Catholic teaching. Ironic, isn’t it? I think so.

There are just as many differences within Catholicism as in Protestantism! Ask a group of Catholics what they believe about a particular Church teaching and you will get a variety of contradicting answers.

The Bible is not a Catholic book! The Old Testament was accepted as Scripture long before there ever was a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not decide which books were canonical, all did was reaffirm whay had already been accepted as Scripture.

 

[BlackKnight]

John 17 3:

There are just as many differences within Catholicism as in Protestantism! Ask a group of Catholics what they believe about a particular Church teaching and you will get a variety of contradicting answers.

The Bible is not a Catholic book! The Old Testament was accepted as Scripture long before there ever was a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not decide which books were canonical, all did was reaffirm whay had already been accepted as Scripture.

Whooooaaaa!
You are so far off topic! I see you are a newb so you must not know yet that around here you’re among Catholics who actually know our faith and so the answers will be pretty consistent. That notwithstanding…individual Catholics who choose to dissent do not represent the catholic teaching that we believe…unlike at whatever church you come from where you can hold pretty much whatever interpretation you please so long as you say that the Holy Spirit “revealed” it to you. You guys can’t even agree on how to baptize or whether its’ necessary for salvation…meanwhile some of you are yelling that you have to speak in tongues to be saved and filled with the Holy Ghost and the others are worrying about dinosaurs in the Bible. As for the DCs…they were there when Jesus read the Ot in the temple and you have no assurance of the canon of your Bible without the Catholic church having checked it out and decided under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. History shows that the reformers removed the Dcs and Luther even more…so get off that High horse of yours and lay off the attack dog routine…

 

[John_17_3]

BlackKnight:

Whooooaaaa!
You are so far off topic! I see you are a newb so you must not know yet that around here you’re among Catholics who actually know our faith and so the answers will be pretty consistent. That notwithstanding…individual Catholics who choose to dissent do not represent the catholic teaching that we believe…unlike at whatever church you come from where you can hold pretty much whatever interpretation you please so long as you say that the Holy Spirit “revealed” it to you. You guys can’t even agree on how to baptize or whether its’ necessary for salvation…meanwhile some of you are yelling that you have to speak in tongues to be saved and filled with the Holy Ghost and the others are worrying about dinosaurs in the Bible. As for the DCs…they were there when Jesus read the Ot in the temple and you have no assurance of the canon of your Bible without the Catholic church having checked it out and decided under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. History shows that the reformers removed the Dcs and Luther even more…so get off that High horse of yours and lay off the attack dog routine…

Talk about an attack dog routine!

The Church I belong to is The Body of Christ. It consists of all true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. That being said, let me address your misrepresentations.

There is little difference between what a Baptist believes and let’s say a Free Methodist because the Scriptures are our rule of faith. In other words there is far more unity amoung those who hold to Sola Scriptura that those who subscribe to an infallible interpreter, such as Roman Catholicism or Mormonism. Oh yes, we have differences of opinion on many secondary issues, but when it comes to the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith there is near unanimity.

The Roman Catholic church says they proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament. Actually the Catholic Church in 397 the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Ccripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible. The Synod of Antioch in 266 AD. had rejected Paul of Samosata’s teaching (a modalist) as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament. When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the New Testament and quoted from almost every book. He said they were the springs of salvation do not add nor take away.
Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Church’s. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had accepted and used these books for many years before them. Are we to accept the premise that 300 years passed with confusion and we waited for the church to decide in 397 A.D. what was to be our Scripture? Generations would have come and gone not having the whole Bible. The truth is that we can produce almost the entire Bible we have today from the early church writings in the mid 100’s to 200’s.

In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern.

 

[Della]

John 17 3:

Talk about an attack dog routine!

The Church I belong to is The Body of Christ. It consists of all true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. That being said, let me address your misrepresentations.

There is little difference between what a Baptist believes and let’s say a Free Methodist because the Scriptures are our rule of faith. In other words there is far more unity amoung those who hold to Sola Scriptura that those who subscribe to an infallible interpreter, such as Roman Catholicism or Mormonism. Oh yes, we have differences of opinion on many secondary issues, but when it comes to the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith there is near unanimity.

The Roman Catholic church says they proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament. Actually the Catholic Church in 397 the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Ccripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible. The Synod of Antioch in 266 AD. had rejected Paul of Samosata’s teaching (a modalist) as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament. When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the New Testament and quoted from almost every book. He said they were the springs of salvation do not add nor take away.
Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Church’s. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had accepted and used these books for many years before them. Are we to accept the premise that 300 years passed with confusion and we waited for the church to decide in 397 A.D. what was to be our Scripture? Generations would have come and gone not having the whole Bible. The truth is that we can produce almost the entire Bible we have today from the early church writings in the mid 100’s to 200’s.

In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern.

I have never read a better defense for Sacred Tradition. You are right–the CHURCH accepted what was and what wasn’t a part of the canon pretty early on. There were many gospels and other writings, some heretical and some not, but only 27 books of all that material was deemed canonical because the CHURCH made that decision in its councils. So, it was the CHURCH people looked for the teachings of Christ more than anything else because it had the authority from Christ himself to decide matters of faith and morals, and the canon of the Bible certainly comes under the heading of matters of faith.

 

[deb1]

John 17 3:

There is little difference between what a Baptist believes and let’s say a Free Methodist because the Scriptures are our rule of faith. In other words there is far more unity amoung those who hold to Sola Scriptura that those who subscribe to an infallible interpreter, such as Roman Catholicism or Mormonism. Oh yes, we have differences of opinion on many secondary issues, but when it comes to the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith there is near unanimity.

As a person coming from a Protestant background, I have to strongly disagree with this. My church claimed to be directed only by the bible, but the Pastor was very suspicious of other churches. He even instructed one of our members that she couldn’t take communion in her friend’s Methodist Church. WHen I informed him that my dear younger sister was Lutheran, he rolled his eyes and sighed heavily. I’ve been to other churches and talked with Protestant friends and I can attest to the fact that my pastor’s attitude was not a solitary one. It is common one among Fundamentalist.

The Roman Catholic church says they proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament.

Actually if you want to debate the history of the bible, start another thread. THat is what most people do and it helps keep things ordered.

 

[John_17_3]

Della:

I have never read a better defense for Sacred Tradition. You are right–the CHURCH accepted what was and what wasn’t a part of the canon pretty early on. There were many gospels and other writings, some heretical and some not, but only 27 books of all that material was deemed canonical because the CHURCH made that decision in its councils. So, it was the CHURCH people looked for the teachings of Christ more than anything else because it had the authority from Christ himself to decide matters of faith and morals, and the canon of the Bible certainly comes under the heading of matters of faith.

I agree with your following comment:
You are right–the CHURCH accepted what was and what wasn’t a part of the canon pretty early on.
The problem is that “The Church” is not the Roman Catholic Church! The word “church” is from the Greek word ekklesia, and means “the called out.” Thus, the church is that body of people who have been called out of the world by the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14), by obedience thereto (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Christ rules as the singular head of the church (Colossians 1:18), and the Spirit dwells within her (Ephesians 2:22, 23).

The church is singular in number. There is one fold (John 10:16). The church is that fold (Acts 20:28). There is one body (Ephesians 4:4); that body is the church (Ephesians 1:22, 23). The Lord taught the monogamy of marriage (Romans 7:1-4) and the church is his bride (Ephesians 5:22-33).
The church of Christ is that one, true New Testament church which existed in the first century.

The history of the events leading to the universal acceptance of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as inspired Scripture spans several centuries. However, it should be noted that the role that church councils played in the process is often overstated by Roman Catholics.
The first councils to have addressed the question as to which books were inspired and were rightfully part of the Bible appear to have been the North African Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The list of books accepted by the Council of Hippo no longer exists. The Council of Carthage, however, is believed to have repeated the same list and its decree on the matter is extant.

Both councils were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole fourth-century church.

It is also important to note that by the time these councils addressed the matter at the close of the fourth century, the canon or list of books recognized as forming the New Testament was well established. F. F. Bruce comments:

**What is particularly important to notice is that the New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any Church Council. When at last a Church Council, the Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397, listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. **

Furthermore, the decision reached by these councils has never been universally accepted. The controversy centers around writings referred to by Roman Catholic scholars as the deuterocanonicals and by Protestant scholars as the Apocrypha. In that non-Catholics have never accepted the decision of the councils to accept the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, it can hardly be argued that were it not for the Roman Catholic Church no one would know with certainty which books belong in the Bible.

I hope this helps.

 

[John_17_3]

deb1:

Actually if you want to debate the history of the bible, start another thread. THat is what most people do and it helps keep things ordered.

I’m sorry I got off topic but I was just responding to another post. I’m new to this and in the future I will attempt to not allow myself to be drawn off topic.

 

[mercygate]

John 17 3:

The church of Christ is that one, true New Testament church which existed in the first century.

And then it disappeared?

Both councils [Hippo & Carthage] were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. . . . These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole fourth-century church.

But the Church accepted and ratified that list.

It is also important to note that by the time these councils addressed the matter at the close of the fourth century, the canon or list of books recognized as forming the New Testament was well established. F. F. Bruce comments:

**What is particularly important to notice is that the New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any Church Council. When at last a Church Council, the Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397, listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. **

Arbitrary decree? The decrees of councils are “arbitrary?” So you’re saying that the council only ratified what was already agreed upon, therefore the authority of the council doesn’t count and we don’t need to agree with it because it only stated what the Church already held to be canonical? Amazing! http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/whacky.gif

Furthermore, the decision reached by these councils has never been universally accepted.

Except by the universal Church.

. . . . In that non-Catholics have never accepted the decision of the councils to accept the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, it can hardly be argued that were it not for the Roman Catholic Church no one would know with certainty which books belong in the Bible.

Amazing! http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/whacky.gif Even Martin Luther gave us that much!

 

[John_17_3]

edwinG:

Hi ,
How do Roman Catholics understand these passages from scripture.
Luke11:27,28
“And it happened , as He spoke these things that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You , and the breasts which nursed You.’”
But He said, “More that that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”

Luke 8:21 “But He answered and said to them " My mother and brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Walk in love,
edwinG

When I was Catholic I wasn’t sure what to think about this passage. When it was read at Mass, the priest would never give a logical explanation. It seemed to me that Jesus was distancing Himself from Mary and was saying that following the word of God was more important than having biological ties. I now know that it is possible that, at the time, Mary did not fully believe in Jesus. This seems to be a valid position since at the time, Jesus could have said, “You are right and in fact, this woman is full of grace and the most blessed woman to ever walk the face of the earth. In fact, you should refer to her as Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix, Advocate and Mother of God. You should go through her rather than Me and put your trust in her intercession.” But instead, Jesus downplays Mary’s status as His mother and implies that His new spiritual family is more important than His biological family.

In Christ alone

 

[Church_Militant]

John 17 3:

[/indent]Furthermore, the decision reached by these councils has never been universally accepted. The controversy centers around writings referred to by Roman Catholic scholars as the deuterocanonicals and by Protestant scholars as the Apocrypha. In that non-Catholics have never accepted the decision of the councils to accept the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, it can hardly be argued that were it not for the Roman Catholic Church no one would know with certainty which books belong in the Bible.

I hope this helps.

Oh but the decision of those councils WAS universally accepted…by the only church that existed at that time. The Catholic Church since it was “universally” referred to as the Catholic Church as early as 107AD by Ignatius of Antioch who was not only bishop of that city, but was a close friend and disciple of St. John the Apostle and wrote about that in a letter to the church at Smyrna within just a very few years of the death of St. John. This is off topic, so I’ll stall it right here.

 

[John_17_3]

mercygate:
And then it disappeared?

But the Church accepted and ratified that list.

Arbitrary decree? The decrees of councils are “arbitrary?” So you’re saying that the council only ratified what was already agreed upon, therefore the authority of the council doesn’t count and we don’t need to agree with it because it only stated what the Church already held to be canonical? Amazing! http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/whacky.gif

[/indent] Except by the universal Church. Amazing! http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/whacky.gif Even Martin Luther gave us that much!

The Roman Catholic Church is not the Universal Church! It did not exist in the first century!

Hmm- Roman/Universal???

Now let’s please get back to the topic before I get accused of trying to highjack this thread!

 

[jimmy]

John 17 3:

The Roman Catholic Church is not the Universal Church! It did not exist in the first century!

Hmm- Roman/Universal???

Now let’s please get back to the topic before I get accused of trying to highjack this thread!

I am going to start a topic on this in the apologetics forum, I would like to see you there. I will title it, “Apostolic Tradition and the history of the Church of Rome”.

 

[Church_Militant]

John 17 3:

The Roman Catholic Church is not the Universal Church! It did not exist in the first century!

Hmm- Roman/Universal???

Now let’s please get back to the topic before I get accused of trying to highjack this thread!

Bunk…history sure doesn’t support you there…
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/ignatius06.cfm
Ignatius of Antioch…the 2nd century bishop of that church (as in 107AD…who was a close friend and disciple of St. John (y’know him…authored his gospel, 3 letters, and the book of Revelation?) would certainly disagree with you.
Have a peachy keen day there bucko
Pax vobiscum,

 

[John_17_3]

Church Militant:

Bunk…history sure doesn’t support you there…
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume01/ignatius06.cfm
Ignatius of Antioch…the 2nd century bishop of that church (as in 107AD…who was a close friend and disciple of St. John (y’know him…authored his gospel, 3 letters, and the book of Revelation?) would certainly disagree with you.
Have a peachy keen day there bucko
Pax vobiscum,

Wrong again bucko! The Roman Catholic church is not The Church founded by Jesus Christ!

 

[John_17_3]

Let’s get back to the topic!

Luke11:27,28
“And it happened , as He spoke these things that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You , and the breasts which nursed You.’”
But He said, “More that that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”

Luke 8:21 “But He answered and said to them " My mother and brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

When I was Catholic I wasn’t sure what to think about these passages. When read at Mass, the priest would never give a logical explanation. It seemed to me that Jesus was distancing Himself from Mary and was saying that following the word of God was more important than having biological ties. I now know that it is possible that, at the time, Mary did not fully believe in Jesus. This seems to be a valid position since at the time, Jesus could have said, “You are right and in fact, this woman is full of grace and the most blessed woman to ever walk the face of the earth. In fact, you should refer to her as Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix, Advocate and Mother of God. You should go through her rather than Me and put your trust in her intercession.” But instead, Jesus downplays Mary’s status as His mother and implies that His new spiritual family is more important than His biological family.

 

[Zooey]

Two points here: You say that “at this time Mary did not fully believe in Jesus”. Does that mean that you are denying the Virgin Birth?? Because when an angel shows & tells you that you will be having a child by the Holy Spirit, that He will be called the “Highest”, and that His kingdom will never end, and then you indeed have this miraculous Child, I think that you are going to KNOW & fully believe in Him from before His birth.
Second, the “more than that” is a common idiom in Hebrew studies. It does* not* mean that the first thing is not true; it means that you are building on that recognized fact to argue your case. (Paul uses this same language a lot).
So what Jesus is saying here is something like: “Yes, my mother is blessed, and it therefore follows that those who hear the word of God & follow it will also be blessed.” The former blessing [of Mary]is the proof of the promise of the later blessing[of those who follow Jesus as Lord].
God bless.

 

[Genesis315]

John 17 3:

Let’s get back to the topic!

Luke11:27,28
“And it happened , as He spoke these things that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore You , and the breasts which nursed You.’”
But He said, “More that that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”

Luke 8:21 “But He answered and said to them " My mother and brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

When I was Catholic I wasn’t sure what to think about these passages. When read at Mass, the priest would never give a logical explanation. It seemed to me that Jesus was distancing Himself from Mary and was saying that following the word of God was more important than having biological ties. I now know that it is possible that, at the time, Mary did not fully believe in Jesus. This seems to be a valid position since at the time, Jesus could have said, “You are right and in fact, this woman is full of grace and the most blessed woman to ever walk the face of the earth. In fact, you should refer to her as Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix, Advocate and Mother of God. You should go through her rather than Me and put your trust in her intercession.” But instead, Jesus downplays Mary’s status as His mother and implies that His new spiritual family is more important than His biological family.

Actually, Mary heard the word of God and kept it better than anyone in history, which is why we honor her so much.