Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[guanophore]

You might want to go back and read the O.T. account for yourself, G., say, starting with 1st Samuel. There you’ll see that the nation of Israel was to be a Theocracy, not a monarchy.

Oh, yes, most certainly. It is sometimes a mystery to me why God even gave into their whining for a King. Perhaps that was all part of His providential plan for the King of the Jews to be made manifest. But, He could have done it however He wanted. He did not have to allow such a monarchy.

God was to be their king (see 1 Sam. 8:7). It was the people themselves who insisted on having a king over them, that they might be like the Gentile nations (8:19-20). God granted their request but the king over them was still to be under God’s authority. He did not make the rules for the nation but was to carry out faithfully God’s desire for His nation.

I agree entirely.

Nowhere in the historical accounts does God instruct either Saul, David or Solomon to elevate their mother to “queen” position. Solomon was the first and he did it according to his own volition.

You make it sound as if a person, specially chosen annointed and guided by God can’t do something “according to his own volition”. Why is this a problem? When David wanted to build a temple for God, Nathan told him, basically, do whatever is in your own volition. When Nathan was told otherwise by God, he informed David. God could have done the same with the recognition of the queen mother, but did not.

And if I recall correctly, there was no such position in the Northern kingdom after the split. The position of “queen mother” was not ever divinely appointed but man-made from its inception in Israel.

It was understood that the King was divinely appointed. The status of the mother flows out of the status of the King. She has no status apart from her relationship with him. Such is the case with Mary as well.

We see the lack of divine appointment with Mary’s so-called “heavenly queenship” as well.

I don’t know who all these royal "we"s are, perhaps reformists? Having spent three years in Protestant Seminary, many decades in Evangelical and Fundamentalist congregations, I can certainly recognize that there are many who don’t see the divine appointment of Mary.

However, having returned to the Apostolic Faith into which I was born, I have been able to correct many errors in my theology, one of them rejecting the Sacred Traditions of the Church. I must say I am puzzled about why there is such an outcry against Mary. Why does it have to bother people if Jesus decides to do something special for His mother? Are people jealous of her? Is this the age old arguement of “who is the greatest”?

There is no divine revelation of it. There’s no such divine appointment. None whatsoever. It is asserted by men only.The fact that God recognized it in judgment doesn’t legitimize it as a divinely appointed position.

Your failure to recognize divine revelation in now way prevents if from existing. Just as another person’s failure to recognize the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God does not prevent them from being so.

However, I agree with you that the role of the Queen Mother did not become explicitly Divinely Appointed until the Angel Gabriel came to Mary to announce the Birth.

 

[guanophore]

And yet the church can provide no proof of God Himself exalting her as you describe, or “our Lord’s partiality” shown to her in ways asserted only by men.

Being limited by Sola Scriptura, I do not think that any of the available evidence can convince you. Short of a personal appearance to you by the Virgin, probably nothing will, until you get to heaven, and see her there!

 

[PC_Master]

The founding Church Fathers who succeeded the Apostles by “the laying on of hands” were guided by the Holy Spirit in their unified teachings about Mary.

Unified? What do you mean by this? Or is it simply more rhetoric?

 

[Good_Fella]

Unified? What do you mean by this? Or is it simply more rhetoric?

If you don’t know the meaning of the word “unified”, then consult your dictionary. :newidea:

Pax vobisum
Good Fella

 

[YADA]

And yet the church can provide no proof of God Himself exalting her as you describe, or “our Lord’s partiality” shown to her in ways asserted only by men.

And what do yuo think the Magnificat means…this is actually a hymn of praise…which means it probably fome forth from the liturgical actions of the earliest church…

My soul magnifiies the Lord,
My soul rejoices in God my Savior,
The Lord has lifted up the lowly,
The Lord ahas done mughtly deeds, Holy is His name…

All generations shall call me Blessed…

You can discount them, find other meanings, but with the historical teachings I respectfully find deeper meanings…and they deepen the reality of the mystery of Christ, the fullness of faith…

 

[Alisa]

I’ve always wondered why it was so important that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a virgin. What difference does it make one way or the other? I’m not trying to be controversial or stir up trouble. This is a sincere question. It seems to me what truly matters is the message of Christ to all human beings, not how he was born.
Alisa

 

[PC_Master]

Being born of a virgin, combined with that being the fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament, demonstrates that Jesus really was the son of God. If he’d been born after Mary and Joseph had sex, who would have believed he came about any way other than through the normal course of sexual relations. Even Mary and Joseph might not have believed.

Could God have done it differently? Certainly. Did he choose to? I don’t believe he did. Could Christ have died and not risen again, yet still made the atonement for our sins? Certainly. But again, I don’t think that’s the way it actually happened.

Asking why, while being a worthy endeavor, is attempting to figure out the mind of God, at least to a degree. Such an attempt, which as I said is worthwhile, is likely to never be completely fulfilled.

The important details are:

1. Christ had to be born of a virgin to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies.
2. Christ’s virgin birth proved to Mary and Joseph that Jesus truly was what the angel said.

I hope that helps a bit.

 

[Alisa]

Yes, thank you, that does help. But – I’m also disturbed about Mary being called “Co-Redemptrix”. Do you know exactly what that’s supposed to mean?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Co means with.

Mary shares in and wirth the redeeming of man.

For that matter we as disciples of Christ share in the redeeming of man when we feed the hungry or share the good news.

Co-Redemptrix freaks some Catholics and most all Protestants out–they think that it is putting Mary on Jesus’ level.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

At the present time the Catholic Church feels that it is not prudent to define Mary as Co-Redemptrix because it might be a stumbling block to our Protestant bretheren.

In the future it might define Mary as Co-Redemptrix as dogma.

Whatever the church decides will be right and the truth and will be guided by the Holy Spirit that knows when the right time is for all truths to be revealed.

Whatever the Catholic Church decides is fine by me. I’m not afraid of Mary being refered to as Co-Redemptrix–but I also respect Catholics who feel that the term should not presently be used.

 

[Alisa]

Thank you for your explanation, Jerry-Jet. So you’re saying that, for now, the deal is off? That Mary may be named the co-Redemptrix in the future, but not at present?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thank you for your explanation, Jerry-Jet. So you’re saying that, for now, the deal is off? That Mary may be named the co-Redemptrix in the future, but not at present?

I don’t think the Church would, and why would we need to defined it dogmatically? I don’t the church make it official. The Church need focus on reconciling with Eastern Orthodox so the two Apostolic Churches can be One Church again.

We also know for certain through the councils and the writings of the Fathers, that Mary remain a virgin.

 

[PC_Master]

Yes, thank you, that does help. But – I’m also disturbed about Mary being called “Co-Redemptrix”. Do you know exactly what that’s supposed to mean?

The reason the concept of a “co-redemptrix” (which is simply the feminine form of co-redeemer, in case anyone was unaware) is disturbing to many protestants is that it implies that Mary has a direct hand in the salvation of each person, which is certainly not the case. I don’t doubt that some devout Mary-venerators would have no problem with the concept, but I personally believe that there is only one mediator which bridges the whole gap between God and man, that being Jesus himself. That’s scripture, which even the RCC holds as infallible. Thus, a belief that Mary must somehow be involved in the redemption of our souls (other than her having previously been the earthly mother of Jesus) is a heresy.

“Marian devotion” has definitely gone way too far. If I believed Mary could see what was going on right now, I’d also have to believe she’d be crying in horror.

 

[as-a-child]

Actually pc you are called to be a co- redeemer to. You have a hand in the salvation (or damnation) of every person you come in contact with.
As christians we are called to be “little christs” to all those we meet. To share in Christs divine life is also to share in his redemption, and we only share in that redemption through his grace, And mary was full of his grace.

So how full is full?

 

[Pons]

Mannyfit75 started a new Co-redemptrix thread, see that.

 

[guanophore]

If I believed Mary could see what was going on right now, I’d also have to believe she’d be crying in horror.

Indeed I believe she does weep. Along with all those in the “great cloud of witnesses” described in Heb. 11, and those described in Revelation, who cry out for justice upon the earth.

 

[Good_Fella]

I don’t doubt that some devout Mary-venerators would have no problem with the concept, but I personally believe that there is only one mediator which bridges the whole gap between God and man, that being Jesus himself. That’s scripture, which even the RCC holds as infallible. Thus, a belief that Mary must somehow be involved in the redemption of our souls (other than her having previously been the earthly mother of Jesus) is a heresy.

Concerning 1 Timothy 2:5, the exegete Manuel Miguens has shown that this verse does not speak of an exclusivity of mediation. Translated properly it reads “There is one and the same God [for all], there is also one and the same mediator [for all].” This passage is not intended to exclude other mediators. Here we must also note “that in 1 Timothy 2:1-7 (the entire context), Paul exhorts all Christians to be mediators and intercessors for the human race because God is all of all and Christ is Christ for all.” He concludes by saying that he himself is a mediator, too, as a preacher and an apostle. The high point of the passage is verse 5, where he enthrones Christ as the mediator par excellence, who by uniting us to himself makes mediators of us all for all. The whole passage (vs 1-7) is a unit and must be read as a unit. It’s message is broadly ecumenical; it is a missionary message, a message of outreach." It is clear that the suffering of any person, when offered freely to God in Christ’s name, is incorporated by him in the salvific plan.“I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the Church” (Col 1,24). All baptized Christians can be co-redeemers in this sense. “For we are labourers together with God” (1Cor 3,9).

The possibility of our participation in the redemptive work of Christ is clearly emphasized in Colossians 1,24. Catholic theologian, Frank Sheed, writes “Paul not only speaks of something lacking in Christ’s sufferings, but says that he, Paul (and presumably other Christians), will ‘complete’ them for the sake of Christ’s body the Church. Whatever the God-man could do, Christ did. What was lacking could only be something which in the nature of the case could not be done by the God-man for men, but must be done by men for themselves. Men are not merely to be spectators of their own redemption. Purely human love, yours and mine (and that of a mother for her children: my emphasis), is not to be denied all place in the expiation of human sin.” Since the Reformation, Colossians 1,24 has been a major stumbling block to the Protestant ‘pantheistic denial of human mediation’ in God’s plan of salvation and the perverse concept ‘sola fide’ which denies all value and merit to good works and perceives human beings simply as puppets.

“Let him know, that he which converts the sinner from the errors of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” {James 5,20}

“We suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”
{Romans 8:17}

Mary’s suffering was united with that of Christ, although unequal to it, and formed a part of our Lord’s work of salvation. Without God there would be no redemption and Mary could not in any way have won for us salvation. But she was chosen by God for a special purpose to collaborate with him in our salvation. For this reason the Catholic Church calls Mary our co-Redemptrix. St. Jerome even stated as far back as the early fifth century, “By woman the whole world was saved.” He did not mean that Mary redeemed the world, but that through her submission to God’s will and her free consent to be his “co-worker”, our Saviour came into the world.

“This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death.” {Catechism of the Catholic Church, 964}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[PC_Master]

GoodFella> I disagree with you, but I find it futile to argue with you, for you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to consider the views of others.

Actually pc you are called to be a co- redeemer to. You have a hand in the salvation (or damnation) of every person you come in contact with.

I totally agree. However, that doesn’t make the involved with the redemption of every person who ends up in heaven, does it? Likewise, Mary is not such either. Therefore, calling her co-redemptrix is no more fitting than calling me co-redeemer. Surely you don’t expect me to call you “co-Redeemer” as a title, do you?

 

[Mannyfit75]

GoodFella> I disagree with you, but I find it futile to argue with you, for you have demonstrated that you are unwilling to consider the views of others.

I totally agree. However, that doesn’t make the involved with the redemption of every person who ends up in heaven, does it? Likewise, Mary is not such either. Therefore, calling her co-redemptrix is no more fitting than calling me co-redeemer. Surely you don’t expect me to call you “co-Redeemer” as a title, do you?

Co-Redemptrix has not been officially declare dogmatic by the Church.

Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix is completely subordinate and entirely dependent on Christ’s redemption and sacrifice

The primary meaning of Co-Redemptrix, that Mary cooperated in the Redemption through the Incarnation of Christ, there certainly is plenty of “biblical support” for the claim that Mary “with Christ redeemed mankind” (John 1:1,14; 3:16-17; 1 John 4:9-14). The Adam-Christ (Rom 5:12ff; 1 Cor 15:20ff) and Eve-Mary parallel is found throughout the early Fathers of the Church, from St. Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) forward showing us the entire history of Christianity believed that “Mary with Christ redeemed” the human race. This important early belief is stated explicitly by St. Irenaeus:

“By disobeying, Eve became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:22 c. 180 AD)