Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Randy_Carson]

By the “Ark of the New Covenant” argument that Mary was so holy she couldn’t be touched, I again ask – are you suggesting she avoided all physical contact? Or perhaps just her womb was overshadowed by God, instead of her whole person?

If she was set apart, touching her at all would be unthinkable, if your assertions of Jewish mentality are correct.

Are you being argumentative or merely simplistic?

Is it completely inconceivable to you that Joseph may have declined to sully the virginal womb which bore the Son of God into the world? Yeah, I understand that marriage is a good thing and that there is nothing wrong with procreation, etc. I’ve done some procreating myself. However, your inability to grasp the magnitude of what happened at the Incarnation indicates you need to spend some time in serious reflection. I have a real hard time believing that you would have dared to have intercourse with Mary if she had been your wife. Either that, or it’s abundantly clear why God did not choose someone as obtuse as you to take on the responsibility that Joseph was asked to shoulder.

In other words, for almost all of you, it comes down to having faith in the church’s teachings, not in a substantiable bit of evidence of reasonable antiquity and credibility.

Completely ignoring, of course, that the fact that the Church teaches them is in and of itself definitive proof of their credibility.

See ya folks!

:clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I wouldn’t impose upon it. I would recognize the figure of speech and go with it.

What does it mean to “eat someone’s flesh”?

 

[ChrisWRIT]

That’s your whole defense? “…and took her as his wife and he kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a son…” To me, like Luther’s justification by faith “alone,” the text connotatively demands it. I do not agree with everyone on this thread that Matt. 1:25 is totally undefined on the issue, or that Matthew himself intended it to be so. I’m not forcing an interpretation out of it, nor, like others, am I imposing upon it an external dogma. When left alone the text clearly speaks for itself.

Inserting the word “alone” is not connotatively demanded except to the exclusion of everything else.

The thing that most Catholics disagree with is your “individual revelation” or “private interpretation”, which asserts that the verse can be interpreted “alone”, without taking anything else into account. This is not supported by the rest of the Bible, by the language of the time, by the cultural norms of the time, nor by the infallible authority of the Catholic Church.

As you’ve been asked repeatedly now, can you show exactly where the Bible states that these brothers and sisters of Jesus were Mary’s biological children?

In other words, for almost all of you, it comes down to having faith in the church’s teachings, not in a substantiable bit of evidence of reasonable antiquity and credibility.
…
See ya folks!

Nice. “Discussion over. You can’t answer me so I guess that’s that.”

Sad, but apparently not uncommon.

After repeated answers explaining why we Catholics believe as we do, the claim is always *“I see, so you can’t answer my question, huh?” *

In reality, they just haven’t received any answers that they will accept – basically, no answers have been provided that fit into what they have already decided.

It’s just like how every conversation on these forums turns into a “authority of the Church magisterium” discussion at some point. I’m pretty sure every non-Roman-Catholic here has heard the arguments for that point, so bringing it up in here seems pointless…except as a fall back position when you have nothing else to point to.

Yes, pretty much every conversation on these forums evolves into a discussion on the issue of Church authority. There are two reasons for this:

1. Every answer already given by Catholics (whether based in scripture, ECF writings, historical writings, or whatever) are ignored, dodged, distorted or dismissed out of hand by the original questioner, and
2. The rejection of Church authority lies at the heart of every objection to Catholic teaching - it is not a different subject, no matter how fervently the objector(s) wish it were.

Sola Scriptura devotees may not like it, but if one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church and its position as the “pillar and defender of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), and are unwilling to hear or accept any answer that challenges that rejection then there’s little reason for any objection to Catholic teaching to be answered, but for those who ARE actually looking for answers.

Respectfully,

Chris

 

[guanophore]

No. You didn’t understand what I wrote, apparently. See, what it comes down to is that you have faith that the church is right in what it says about itself (that it is the church established by Jesus and that it cannot err).

Althought I agree that the Church does testify to itself, it is Jesus’ testimonly, and that of the HS, as well as the Bible that all bear witness to the fact that she is reliable.

On the other hand, I don’t believe either of those things to be true. I don’t think the RCC represents the “Divine Deposit of Faith”.

That is a relief, since the RCC does not teach that about itself. I object to the reference of “Roman” used here.

If I actually thought Jesus instructed in a particular way on this matter, I wouldn’t argue against it at all.

I would pursue this, but it is off topic here.

If you really are bothered with it, start another thread on the subject, but I’ve already explained my use of the term at least once, and no one proposed a suitable alternative given the criteria I have.

I am not going to start a new thread to showcase your disrespectful and ignorant behavior, thanks anyway. It is possible that I missed your post, explaining why you perpetrate prejudice of this kind. I don’t recall your criteria, and frankly, can’t think of any that would make it acceptable.

No one argues this. What is disputed is whether or not current church teaching is the same as the “Sacred Tradition”.

It is when it comes to Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Sum it up to say that Roman Catholics do not possess the fullness of truth, as I understand them currently.

Sounds like you fired the Pope, and took over the job for yourself!

Or, perhaps it is the acceptance of that authority that causes Roman Catholics to accept the supposed “evidence” without question.

I object to the word “Roman” used here. Do you really think that Catholics, Roman and otherwise, never ask questions about their faith?

I never said that the church did universally teach it. What the RCC teaches or does not teach is not the measuring rod I use.

Why are you on this forum?

I don’t recall him being called “only begotten son of Mary” in scripture (or elsewhere in early church history).

Keep studying your family history. You will come to it.

 

[guanophore]

Some do, no doubt. It’s just like how every conversation on these forums turns into a “authority of the Church magisterium” discussion at some point. I’m pretty sure every non-Roman-Catholic here has heard the arguments for that point, so bringing it up in here seems pointless…except as a fall back position when you have nothing else to point to.

It does seem to be the nature of the forum that most dissent and disagreement springs from rebellioun against the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ. If the Teaching of Jesus is a “fall back position” then it seems like a great solid place to fall!

But that’s not specific to Mary’s perpetual virginity.

You asked how it interferes with worship. I am pointing out that it separates one from the unity that christ intended. That disunity is what affects the worship.

That’s just a blanket “here’s why it’s bad to disagree with the RCC on anything”. I’d like something more specific to the issue we’re discussing here.

I object to the use of the term “Roman” here. Furthermore, I did not say “it’s bad to disagree”. I said that departure from the Apostolic and Divine Deposit of Faith separates the faithful from communion, and this compromises worship. It does not matter which doctrine the separation swirls around.

I never said she was. I said that her perpetual virginity, or lack thereof, is minutia.

Why are you here? why are you engaged in the discussion? If it means so little to you, why are you investing so much time into it?

Well then, if the complete and total truth about everything is what he was referring to, then someone should be able to definitively answer my question about Mary's age.

I am not sure what this is in reference to, but if it is about the Catholic Church having the fullness of faith/truth, then I would venture that the fullness is found in Jesus. To Jesus, Mary is timeless, as He knew about her before the beginning of time.

If it's a matter of being truthful in our spiritual worship of God, rather than being in knowledge of all truth, then sincerity is the key.

Error in doctrine will detract from true worship.

Nope -- far more simply, I'm saying you are incorrect about your interpretation of what he said.

What did you think He meant, when He said He would send His Spirit to guide us into all truth?

The only other argument received is that it’s wrong to disbelieve in this because the RCC says so, but that argument is nothing unless one already accepts the authority of the RCC.

This is a misrepresentation, since the Roman Rite has no independent authority. Aside from that, it is just getting down right annoying, and the reader must wonder if the poster is doing it intentionally for that purpose.

In other words, for almost all of you, it comes down to having faith in the church's teachings, not in a substantiable bit of evidence of reasonable antiquity and credibility.

It is sad that you cannot accept Jesus and the HS as credible witnesses.

 

[apophasis]

And if you were reading that phrase for the very first time and never heard that phrase at all?

I would use the power of common sense and natural experience. Anyway, people recognize it’s a figure of speech even without ever knowing or understanding its etymology.

But in respect to Matt. 1:25, apart from imposing an external dogma upon it, what Matthew wrote is quite clear. ESPECIALLY when not imposing an external dogma upon it.

 

[apophasis]

How do you know that it is a figure of speech?

The same way you would know it is not.

 

[apophasis]

What does it mean to “eat someone’s flesh”?

Depends on the context.

 

[Mommyof02green]

I would use the power of common sense and natural experience. Anyway, people recognize it’s a figure of speech even without ever knowing or understanding its etymology.

But in respect to Matt. 1:25, apart from imposing an external dogma upon it, what Matthew wrote is quite clear. ESPECIALLY when not imposing an external dogma upon it.

How do you know what Mathew wrote is clear when you are unwilling to understand what the words mean in Greek. The language that Mathew wrote in…

He didn’t write the passage in English.

I have another question for you. When will Christ no longer be King? When will his reign end?

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

What takes a greater leap of faith?

Catholic posistions on Mary

or

Existence of God and the fact that Bible is a work of truth and not a work of mythology?

Well, I think it’s pretty clear that, given that the HS moved in my life at a very early age, and that the existance of God was never really in question (for me, at least), that it’s the former rather than the later.

But I suspect you intended more with your question than that.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Oh, I agree. But those of us that have accepted the Apostolic deposit of faith know that He did, indeed, start with His mother.

I think the sticking point for me is an obsessive desire for proof. Not to brag, but I have changed my views on many things, over time - even a good chunk of Marian Doctrine/Dogma. Why? Because someone took the time, and made the effort, to challenge me to study the original Greek and the individual word’s meaning in context. Because someone pointed me to the writing of an ECF.

While I understand and accept, that you as a Catholic believe these things without question, I, sadly, am looking for substantiation of why you do so.

Of course! It is quite clear to us. It does not appear in the NT because the time had not yet come. There were many truths about Jesus that took centuries to clarify.

Yes. We can agree on this. No Christian doesn’t believe in the Trinity, and remain within the pale of Orthodoxy. And Trinitarianism didn’t come about over-night.

Not necessarily. I was listening to the days’ readings on the radio this morning. Paul is writing to Timothy, and tells Timothy to bring him parchments. Why is this in the holy writ? What bearing does it have on my salvation? On the contrary…

Paul was writing letters. In this case, to a dear friend. Of course someting esoteric slips in. Hey, not everything I type is worth the powder it would require to blow it up! And besides, Paul didn’t know before hand that we’d be reading his letters 2000 years later!

I have received a pattern of teaching from the Apostolic source that has been entrusted to the faithful by way of the succession. this pattern includes the Divne Revelation, found in the Holy Writings, and the Sacred Traditions. According to that Tradition, Mary was ever virgin.

And on this point, we agree 100%

From Today’s Mass, ps.145

The LORD is just in all his ways
and holy in all his works.
The LORD is near to all who call upon him,
to all who call upon him in truth.

May His justice shine upon you, and may He make Himself Holy in you and yours (his works) and be near to you as you call upon HIm in truth. Amen.

Thank you, my friend.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Perhaps the epistle to the Galatians 4:21-31 should be taken into consideration:

hacked down for brevity

An interesting, and thought provoking, post. You went to a lot of trouble assembling that, and** I thank you**. But my reply here will be short because I need time to digest.

Think…then speak.

 

[Good_Fella]

Correspondence with St. John the Apostle

---

First Epistle to St.John
Ignatius, and the brethren who are with him, to John the holy presbyter.

We are deeply grieved by your delay in strengthening us by your addresses and consolations. If your absence be prolonged, it will disappoint many of us. Hasten then to come, for we believe that it is expedient. There are also many of our women here, who are desirous to see Mary the mother of Jesus, and wish day by day to run off from us to you, that they may meet with her, and touch those breasts of hers which nourished the Lord Jesus, and may inquire of her respecting some rather “secret matters”. But Salome [the daughter of Anna], also, whom you love, who stayed with her five months in Jerusalem, and some other well-known persons, relate that she is FULL OF GRACES AND ALL VIRTUES, AFTER THE MANNER OF A VIRGIN, FRUITFUL IN VIRTUE AND GRACE. And, as they report, she is cheerful in persecutions and afflictions, free from murmuring in the midst of penury and want, grateful to those who injure her, and rejoices when exposed to troubles: she sympathizes with the wretched and the afflicted as sharing in their afflictions, and is not slow to come to their assistance. Moreover, she shines forth gloriously as contending in the fight of faith against the pernicious conflicts of vicious principles or conduct. She is the lady of our new religion and repentance, and the handmaid among the faithful of all works of piety. She is indeed devoted to the humble, and she humbles herself more devotedly than the devoted, and is wonderfully MAGNIFIED BY ALL, while at the same time she suffers detraction from the scribes and Pharisees. Besides these points, many relate to us numerous other things regarding her. We do not, however, go so far as to believe all in every paricular; nor do we mention such to you. (The Protogospel of James records Mary made her vow of virginity at the age of three while ascending the Temple steps. But it’s unlikely this actually happened. Yet such accounts as this one reflect how highly the Christians in Jerusalem esteemed her. GF) But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary, the mother of Jesus, an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity. And such reports as these have greatly excited our emotions, and urge us eagerly to desire a sight of this (if it be lawful so to speak) heavenly prodigy and most sacred marvel. But do you in haste comply with this our desire; and fare well. Amen.

Second Epistle to St.John
His friend Ignatius to John the holy presbyter.

If you will give me leave, I desire to go up to Jerusalem, and see the faithful saints who are there, especially Mary the mother, whom they report to be an “object of admiration and of affection” to all. For who would not rejoice to behold and address her who bore the true God (Theotokos) from her own womb, provided he is a friend of our faith and religion? And in like manner, I desire to see the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, and in method conduct, AS IF HE WERE A TWIN BROTHER OF THE SAME WOMB. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus Himself as to all the features and aspects of His body. Moreover, I desire to see the other saints, both male and female. Alas! Why do I delay? Why am I kept back? Kind teacher, bid me hasten to fulfill my wish, and fare well. Amen.

Correspondence with the Virgin Mary

---

Her friend Ignatius to the Christ-bearing Mary.

You oughtest to have comforted and consoled me a neophyte, and a disciple of your beloved John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting your son Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from you, who was always intimate and allied with Him, and who was acquainted with all His secrets. I have also written to you at another time, and have asked you concerning the same things. Fare well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted by you, and in you. Amen.

Reply of the Blessed Virgin Mary to his letter:

The lowly handmaid of Christ Jesus to Ignatius, her beloved fellow-disciple.

The things which you have learned and heard from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which you have embraced, and conform your habits and life to your profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit you, and those who are with you. Stand fast in the faith, and show yourself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move you, but let your spirit be strong and rejoice in God your Saviour. Amen.

The neophyte Ignatius would eventually become the Bishop of Antioch and one of the great early Church Fathers.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

An interesting, and thought provoking, post. You went to a lot of trouble assembling that, and** I thank you**. But my reply here will be short because I need time to digest.

Think…then speak.

The intellectually honest and Christian thing to do is first digest our thoughts and then speak.

Since the Catholic Church has already authoritatively spoken of Mary as Mother of the Church and of all the human race, perhaps neither of us have anything critical to think about. Of course, Protestants, more those of the post-Enlightenment era, prefer to ignore or discard the Faith of our Fathers and substitute the historic Christian faith for newfangled theories.

A very significant frescoe found in the catacombs of St.Agnes depicts Mary situated between St.Peter and St.Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This frescoe reflects the earliest symbol of Mary as “Mother of the Church”. Whenever the two key apostles are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of apostolic authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile: the entire human race. Mary’s prominent position between St.Peter and St.Paul indicates the recognition by the early Church of the maternal centrality of the Saviour’s Mother. We must ask ourselves why the figure in between the two great apostles isn’t Jesus Himself. :yup: The figure of the Mother of God meant something very profound and true for the early Christians.

The Son of God became man through “the” (not “a”) Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings…And through her was He born.
St.Justin Martyr (d.165)

Our first great mariologist, St.Irenaeus of Lyons (d.202) also spoke of Mary as the New Eve and saw her as our spiritual mother.

It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from Paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God…Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary Mother of salvation.
St. Ambrose (d.397)

As Eve is our ancestral biological mother, so Mary is our given spiritual Mother. She completely became our mother too the moment Jesus died on the Cross. Our Lord’s precious gift to the Church and all mankind was anticipated as soon as He performed his first miracle and began his ministry at the wedding feast in Cana. From that moment on, Mary was no longer exclusively the mother of Jesus. Their relationship between mother and son had radically begun to be transformed in all natural ways. Mary is the “Mother of salvation”. Salvation is the Church. And thus Mary is the Mother of the Church.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[apophasis]

As Eve is our ancestral biological mother, so Mary is our given spiritual Mother. She completely became our mother too the moment Jesus died on the Cross. Our Lord’s precious gift to the Church and all mankind was anticipated as soon as He performed his first miracle and began his ministry at the wedding feast in Cana. From that moment on, Mary was no longer exclusively the mother of Jesus. Their relationship between mother and son had radically begun to be transformed in all natural ways. Mary is the “Mother of salvation”. Salvation is the Church. And thus Mary is the Mother of the Church.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

And the leaven permeated.

 

[guanophore]

And the leaven permeated.

Indeed! Everywhere the name of Mary is blessed, the Kingdom grows!

20 And again he said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.” Luke 13:20-21

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Perhaps the epistle to the Galatians 4:21-31 should be taken into consideration:

“(21) Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? (22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one (Ishmael) by a slave (Hagar) and one (Isaac) by a free ‘woman’ (Sarah). (23) But the one of the slave was born (Gen 16:15) according to the flesh, the son of the free ‘woman’ through promise (Gen 17:15-16; Isa 7:14; Lk 1:35). (24) NOW THIS IS AN ALLEGORY (typology): THESE WOMEN ARE TWO COVENANTS. One is from Mt.Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. (25) Now Hagar is Mt.Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. (26) BUT THE JERUSALEM ABOVE IS FREE, AND SHE IS OUR MOTHER. (27) For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.” (28) NOW WE, BRETHREN, LIKE ISAAC ARE CHILDREN OF PROMISE. (29) But as at that time HE WHO WAS BORN ACCORDING TO THE FLESH PERSECUTED HIM WHO WAS BORN OF THE SPIRIT, so it is now. (30) But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of a slave shall not inherit with the son of the free ‘woman’.” (31) So, brethren, WE ARE NOT CHILDREN (sons) OF THE SLAVE BUT OF THE FREE WOMAN.”

Absolutely. Paul comes right out and clearly defines and builds the archetype.

I will concede that the fact that he does so, sets a precedence that other such typology might well exist in the Scriptures. And I will even take one step farther into Catholic territory and admit that while Paul’s is explicit, not all which exist will be. There might be implicit archetypes as well.

But (and you knew that was coming, didn’t ya!) …

Another poster made the comment of “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”. I won’t claim to speak for his/her motivations, but on it’s face, the comment came off as cynical. Be that at is may, there’s some truth contained in that statement that applies here.

There’s great potential for “runaway train syndrome”. Once you start looking for typology in the Scriptures, you WILL find them. And perhaps in places that they were not intended. It is my fear that the Catholic Church, rushing to the defense of their veneration of Mary (and of course, they and you, have to defend the faith! No less would be expected by a rational person), has at times, done just this.

Don’t get me wrong. While raised Protestant, I’ve bended and in some cases broken on several of the CC’s positions on Mary. I’m not where I was even six months ago (and this forum has done much to change me, praise God). Yet I see all of these dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary: some Scriptural (virgin birth), some clearly evident from the writings of the ECF(ever virgin), and some the result of archetypes and logical gynmastics (no negative connotation implied here). Where does it end…or rather…where should it? Which constructs are validly intended for our edification and revelation, and which are merely convenient for the point that you, or I, are attempting to make?

Therin lies the rub, Good Fella. Maybe someday I’ll be pursuaded in full. Maybe not. I’ll let the HS dictate either way, with the assistance of you and other thoughtful posters.

Until the, I’ll do my best to remain Christian and intellectually honest in my responses.

 

[Good_Fella]

And the leaven permeated.

In Matthew 15:3, Jesus condemns human traditions that make the Word of God void. Protestants also use this verse, along with the parable you allude to, to condemn Sacred Tradition and the spoken word of the Apostles and their ordained successors. But this verse and the parable you allude to have nothing to do with the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church handed down to us from the Apostles. They have been taken out of context to suit Protestant bias against the Church. In Matthew, for instance, the Pharisees in their human tradition gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this dismissed God’s commandment of honouring our parents. There is a distinction between human tradition, which we must reject, and Apostolic Tradition, which we must accept and adhere to (Mk 7:9). Paul also wrote against the human tradition of his fathers and human precepts and doctrines which regarded Judaic laws and customs. For the Christian community these laws and customs were no longer necessary (Gal 1:14; Col 2:22). The faithful obeyed Apostolic Tradition. Their obedience was not to Scripture alone. Tradition (‘paradosis’) means to “hand on teaching” (Acts 2:42). Jesus prayed for all who believe in him through the spoken word of his apostles. Our Lord protects all Apostolic teaching handed down to us (Jn 17:20). Paul commended the faithful for maintaining the Apostolic Tradition which they had received. The spoken word is protected by the Holy Spirit (1Cor 11:12). And Paul clearly commands us to obey the spoken Apostolic Tradition. He tells us to stand firm and hold to the traditions which we were taught either orally or written ( 2 Thess 2:15). He exhorts us to guard what has been “entrusted” to us. The word “entrusted” is ‘paratheke’ which means a “deposit”. Sacred Tradition is part of what the Church calls the Deposit of Faith. It is coupled with Sacred Scripture (1Tim 6:20). Paul says what we have “heard” from him is to be entrusted to faithful men who will be able to teach others also after he is gone. This is what we mean by Apostolic Tradition: the handing on of apostolic teaching (2 Tim 2:2). The Church has been identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein (Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22).

“But how are they to believe Him who they have not heard? And how do they hear if no one preaches? And how are men to preach unless they are sent?..Faith begins on hearing, and hearing on the word of Christ.” {Romans 10:14-17}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Absolutely. Paul comes right out and clearly defines and builds the archetype.

I will concede that the fact that he does so, sets a precedence that other such typology might well exist in the Scriptures. And I will even take one step farther into Catholic territory and admit that while Paul’s is explicit, not all which exist will be. There might be implicit archetypes as well.

But (and you knew that was coming, didn’t ya!) …

Another poster made the comment of “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”. I won’t claim to speak for his/her motivations, but on it’s face, the comment came off as cynical. Be that at is may, there’s some truth contained in that statement that applies here.

There’s great potential for “runaway train syndrome”. Once you start looking for typology in the Scriptures, you WILL find them. And perhaps in places that they were not intended. It is my fear that the Catholic Church, rushing to the defense of their veneration of Mary (and of course, they and you, have to defend the faith! No less would be expected by a rational person), has at times, done just this.

Don’t get me wrong. While raised Protestant, I’ve bended and in some cases broken on several of the CC’s positions on Mary. I’m not where I was even six months ago (and this forum has done much to change me, praise God). Yet I see all of these dogma and doctrine revolving around Mary: some Scriptural (virgin birth), some clearly evident from the writings of the ECF(ever virgin), and some the result of archetypes and logical gynmastics (no negative connotation implied here). Where does it end…or rather…where should it? Which constructs are validly intended for our edification and revelation, and which are merely convenient for the point that you, or I, are attempting to make?

Therin lies the rub, Good Fella. Maybe someday I’ll be pursuaded in full. Maybe not. I’ll let the HS dictate either way, with the assistance of you and other thoughtful posters.

Until the, I’ll do my best to remain Christian and intellectually honest in my responses.

Yes, let’s be intellectually honest. Perhaps the Jews are right and we Christians are wrong: the suffering servant in Isaiah is Israel, not Jesus Christ; Isaac is not a prefigurement of the Son of God who would be the one to be sacrificed by his heavenly Father. If we discard OT typology altogether, then we have to renounce our fundamental Christian beliefs. Are we prepared to do that? Or shall we just accept a little measure of good old fashioned OT typology to satisfy our beliefs, or are they prejudices? Now that would not be intellectually honest.

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.”
{2 Tim 1:13-14}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[apophasis]

Indeed! Everywhere the name of Mary is blessed, the Kingdom grows!

20 And again he said, “To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? 21 It is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.” Luke 13:20-21

Acts 4:12. There is only one “NAME” given to us. Mary’s words were true that from that time on all generations would call her “blessed.” But nowhere does she state that all, or any, who call on her “name” will be blessed. Once you elevate her to “name” status within the faith, you’ve transformed her into deity.Matt. 12:21 “And in His name the Gentiles will hope.”