Mary's Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter irish1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mt_28_19_20 said:
So, this Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, was lost and bewildered at the sight of Mary’s virginity and purity?
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed.
This is where you need to ask yourself the question, after being in the presence of God for who knows how many years, does your reaction to His awesome majesty and holiness, diminish over time and does the holiness I see in others diminish likewise?

I don’t think so. On the contrary, I would argue that after experiencing the Holiness of God, you would be more attuned to experiencing the holiness of God AND His created beings.

This is precisely why the Angel was was “bewildered” as the hymn put it.

“Lord, what have you done with her?”, was probably the first thing he asked God after coming back home.
 
Joseph was amazed as he saw what was supernatural. He understood, O Virgin, the rain upon the fleece In thy conception without seed. And he understood the bush that burned without fire and was unconsumed, And Aaron’s rod, which blossomed. Indeed, thy betrothed and guardian cried out to the priests: "A virgin gives birth, and after the birth remains a virgin.
**The Kontakia of Romanos, Vol. II, On the Annunciation II **
 
Mickey said:
Oh for cryin’ out loud–chill out!!! It is a beautiful and traditional Orthodox hymn which emphasizes the veneration due Our Lady. We worship the Holy Trinity–we venerate Our Lady and the Saints. Sheesh!
Click to expand...
Mickey,
Code: 
 Why the need for "Oh for cryin' out loud-chill out!!!" and "Sheesh!" Because I question why the angel Gabriel would be lost and bewildered at the sight of Mary, for  whom he had a message from God. Given Luke 1:19 ""I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God.", why would an angel who for so long stands in the presence of God and acts as a messenger for God be "lost and bewildered" at the sight of "the beauty of your virginity and the exceeding radiance of your purity,"? Is not the radiance and purity of God exceedingly greater than that of Mary? Or was Gabriel just lost and bewildered all the time he was in the presence of God? Should we wonder how he kept his wits about him enough to remember the messages he was entrusted with?
 And this was not the angel Gabriel's first speaking role: "Daniel 8:16-20 "And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, "Gabriel, give this man an understanding of the vision." So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; but he said to me, "Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end." Now while he was talking with me, I sank into a deep sleep with my face to the ground; but he touched me and made me stand upright. He said, "Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end."
Ps 113:4 “The LORD is high above all nations; His glory is above the heavens.”

Rev 15:3 "And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
Since the angel Gabriel, and Mary, were created by God, they would both would be saying “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” I can’t picture Gabriel lost and bewildered before God because of Mary’s virginity and purity.

God bless,

Michael
 
Mt_28_19_20 said:
Mickey,
Code: 
 Why the need for "Oh for cryin' out loud-chill out!!!" and "Sheesh!" Because I question why the angel Gabriel would be lost and bewildered at the sight of Mary, for  whom he had a message from God. Given Luke 1:19 ""I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God.", why would an angel who for so long stands in the presence of God and acts as a messenger for God be "lost and bewildered" at the sight of "the beauty of your virginity and the exceeding radiance of your purity,"? Is not the radiance and purity of God exceedingly greater than that of Mary? Or was Gabriel just lost and bewildered all the time he was in the presence of God? Should we wonder how he kept his wits about him enough to remember the messages he was entrusted with?
 And this was not the angel Gabriel's first speaking role: "Daniel 8:16-20 "And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, "Gabriel, give this man an understanding of the vision." So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; but he said to me, "Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end." Now while he was talking with me, I sank into a deep sleep with my face to the ground; but he touched me and made me stand upright. He said, "Behold, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end."
Ps 113:4 “The LORD is high above all nations; His glory is above the heavens.”

Rev 15:3 "And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
Since the angel Gabriel, and Mary, were created by God, they would both would be saying “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.” I can’t picture Gabriel lost and bewildered before God because of Mary’s virginity and purity.

God bless,

Michael
Click to expand...
If you are in amazment of a painting and are “bewildered” by it, you give glory to the painter whether you know it or not. In the end, all the honor given to Mary glorifies God, since He is the author of all.
 
Mt_28_19_20 said:
Mickey,

Why the need for “Oh for cryin’ out loud-chill out!!!” and “Sheesh!”
Click to expand...
With all due respect, it is because you speak like a protestant.

The ancient poems and hymns of the Holy Apostolic Church, as well as the writngs of the Church Fathers and Sacred Tradition, are poetically beautiful and teach us much about Our Lady–the Panaghia. And I will defend the Sacred Tradition against those such as yourself who attempt to spin such beautiful prose into something which it is not. If I come off too harsh for you, please forgive me, for I am but a wretched sinner. But I will defend the Apostolic understanding of Our Lady until my last breath–and then some. 😉
 
“God rests in holy places; that is (in) the Theotokos and all the Saints. These are they who have become likenesses of God as far as it is possible, since they have chosen to cooperate with divine election. Therefore, God dwells in them.”
St. John of Damascus
 
Mickey said:
“God rests in holy places; that is (in) the Theotokos and all the Saints. These are they who have become likenesses of God as far as it is possible, since they have chosen to cooperate with divine election. Therefore, God dwells in them.”
St. John of Damascus
Click to expand...
There was one saint who was given a vision and saw a heavenly being. Immediately the saint fell down on her face and worshiped. The Lord then told her, why are you not worshiping me?" And the saint responded with, “I thought it was you Lord”. The Lord replied, what you saw, was a soul in a state of grace.

Given that this was a private revelation, it only points out what St. John Damascus was suggesting, that if God dwells in us, anyone in your presence would likewise be in awe. Who other than the Blessed Virgin can actually say that God, PHYSICALLY and SPIRITUALLY dwelt in her? Not even God the Father, nor the Holy Spirit can say, “flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone” when contemplating the God-Man suffering on the cross.

Mary is the “Garden enclosed” where Jesus took his delights. God dwells in her more so than any other created being.

Song of Solomon 4:12
*My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up. *

Therefore, Her Spirit is the Spirit of God.
 
HailMary said:
There was one saint who was given a vision and saw a heavenly being. Immediately the saint fell down on her face and worshiped. The Lord then told her, why are you not worshiping me?" And the saint responded with, “I thought it was you Lord”. The Lord replied, what you saw, was a soul in a state of grace.

Given that this was a private revelation, it only points out what St. John Damascus was suggesting, that if God dwells in us, anyone in your presence would likewise be in awe. Who other than the Blessed Virgin can actually say that God, PHYSICALLY and SPIRITUALLY dwelt in her? Not even God the Father, nor the Holy Spirit can say, “flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone” when contemplating the God-Man suffering on the cross.

Mary is the “Garden enclosed” where Jesus took his delights. God dwells in her more so than any other created being.

Song of Solomon 4:12
*My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up. *

Therefore, Her Spirit is the Spirit of God.
Click to expand...
Amen to you, my friend in Christ. Amen.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif
 
Mt_28_19_20 said:
Well, if “the bravest (and or stupidest) of men isn’t going to want to “touch”” Mary because she is the new Ark of the Covenant, how much more so would men and women not want to touch Jesus? Did Mary touch Jesus? Did Joseph touch Jesus? Did Peter touch Jesus? A woman came up and touched His cloak!

Luke 8:43-44 “And a woman who had a hemorrhage for twelve years, and could not be healed by anyone, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak, and immediately her hemorrhage stopped.”

Did Joseph never touch Mary because she was the Ark of the Covenant? Would a kiss be permissable? Would anything that was consistent with the Ten Commandments be permissible?

God bless,

Michael
Click to expand...
Note: For the inference challenged “touch” = “have sex with” in my previous.

No. Noone had sex with Christ either.

Chuck
 
Randy_Carson said:
Wouldn’t it be more proper to say that Joseph would have refrained from touching Mary not out of fear but out of respect for God?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Folks don’t seem to be gettin it so I thought maybe being a little more “graphic” might help.

Apparently I failed to paint the picture I wanted.

I can’t even imgine thinking of having sex with the woman God Overshadowed and who thus became the Mother of God.

Ok al you guys, say it slowly to yourself and see if this sounds like a good idea.

“I’m going to have sex with the Mother of God.”

Chuck

Chuck
 
Mickey said:
Jesus Christ establishes the New Covenant. Without Christ, there is no New Covenant. Hence, the Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant for she carried in her womb the God-Man who establishes the New Covenant. 😉
Click to expand...
I did some resarch on the ark and it doesn’t fit with Mary being a type of it. For one thing God’s presence did not dwell inside the box, but remained over the Ark, in between the two Cherubim.
Aren’t catholics claiming that because Mary carried Christ in her womb that this makes her a type of ark? If so, then having God outside the ark and not in would mean that Mary being a type of ark would not apply.
 
On the Ark of the Covenant “type”:

Old Testament Ark of the Covenant

Vessel containing the Word of God.

i.e. Gold Box with the Word of God written on tablets inside.

New Testament Ark of the Covenant.

Vessel containing the Word of God.

i.e. Woman with the Word of God made flesh inside.

What’s inconsistent about this?

Chuck
 
PC_Master said:
This debate still hasn’t gone anywhere. RCs blindly assert that Mary was a temple virgin who took a vow of celibacy, married Joseph (who was a widower sworn to protect Mary), and never had sex at any time in her life.

Here’s the flaws…
  1. You have not established that God actually approved of the role of temple virgins and that these were not just one of the many flawed things in Judaism.
  2. You have not established that Mary actually took a vow of celibacy.
Provide some proof of that and I’ll believe it.

Again, I don’t expect much of a response, because there really is no proof of the Roman Catholic position.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you try this over on the Eastern forum? They are distinctly non (if not anti) Roman, and they received this also from the Apostles…
 
Randy_Carson said:
This is an assertion without argument. Please provide support for your claim.
Click to expand...
Hardly an assertion on my part. Go back and read my posts. The idea of an “ark” connected to the New Covenant is your assertion and the teachings of men. It’s a foreign concept to the Scriptures.

So it’s really your burden to prove the New Testament reality of your assertion and their teachings. Maybe you can start out by pointing me to the name(s) of the Apostle(s) who referred to Mary by that title, or even taught that the ark of the Old Covenant was a type of Mary. That would be a good start.
 
Mickey said:
Noting the close paralell between the Visitation (Luke 1:39-56) and the transportation of the Ark (2 Samuel 6: 1-14), it is quite obvious that Our Lady is the Ark of the New Covenant.

But now we are somewhat off topic.
Click to expand...
Not entirely. the Ark was never used to carry anything profane (common). IT was considered perpetually hallowed, and treated with Holy 'reverence due to it’s nature and contents.

Kids weren’t allowed to play in or on it, it was consantly guarded and kept in a special place. People didn’t just stash their personal items inside it.
 
apophasis said:
Hardly an assertion on my part. Go back and read my posts. The idea of an “ark” connected to the New Covenant is your assertion and the teachings of men. It’s a foreign concept to the Scriptures.

So it’s really your burden to prove the New Testament reality of your assertion and their teachings. Maybe you can start out by pointing me to the name(s) of the Apostle(s) who referred to Mary by that title, or even taught that the ark of the Old Covenant was a type of Mary. That would be a good start.
Click to expand...
Tell you what, I will take the affirmative meaning that the burden of proof is on me.

However, before we begin, I would like to ask three questions:
  1. Does the Old Testament contain types that are found more fully present in the New Testament?
  2. Since forum rules prohibit me from copying articles at length, are you willing to read articles on the subject that I link to if I promise not to bury you with them?
  3. Do you think we should start a new thread to avoid hijacking this one any further?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top