Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

[LakeFever]

Firstly, I resent the statement that current Lutherans do not believe the same things as taught by Luther. Not only does it lump all Lutherans together (and, more likely, all Protestants) but I don’t think it’s accurate. Catholics, too, are divided on their beliefs; I’ve met many who don’t venerate Mary or agree that Priests shouldn’t marry. While it’s true that Luther regarded Mary in the same regard early on, even after the Reformation, it’s quite clear that he didn’t feel this way at the end.
“The papists declared also to the people, in their sermons, that the only Mediator between God and man, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, was a severe and an angry judge, who would not be reconciled with us, except we had other advocates and intercessors besides himself. By this doctrine, people were seduced, and carried away to heathenish idolatry, and took their refuge in dead saints to help and deliver them, and made them their gods, in whom they put more trust and confidence than in our blessed Saviour Christ Jesus; and especially, they placed the Virgin Mary, instead of her Son Christ, for a mediatrix on the throne of grace.” reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Table_talk/table_talk.html
“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still, honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” (Sermon, Christmas, 1531). Also, read the sermon here: abcog.org/luther.htm
It’s clear that Luther saw the worship of Mary as a distraction to our true Savior. And, I will grant you also that he believed until his death in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He didn’t deem it important enough to mention in the Augsburg Confession or even preach extensively on, though. And Lutherans have never held Luther’s statements to the level Catholics do their bishops and Popes.
To Mary being the New Ark of the Covenant- This theology is something I’d never really heard before. Inkaneer raised some interesting parallels. (Although it’s never explicitly stated in the Bible- interesting in light of ALL the OT references and parallels mentioned, especially by Paul). And yet, even if Mary is the symbolic the New Ark of the Covenant, I don’t think comparisons of this sort are ever 1:1. This covenant is an entirely new one; Jesus had done away with the ceremonial law. For example, God’s presence was continually in the Ark; Jesus left Mary’s womb after 9 months, so she no longer would’ve been carrying the physical presence of God. And I don’t think because God struck down Uzzah that He would’ve done the same to anyone who so much as touched Mary (especially her own husband!). Do you mean to say Joseph and Mary even slept in different beds? Sex within marriage is natural, God-pleasing and what our bodies were designed for, and I don’t think in so doing Mary would’ve been any less devoted to God. In 1 Corinthians, Paul instructs married believers not to abstain.
Lastly, Luke’s account is the most in-depth of the four Gospels. Luke mentions that he has carefully investigated all these things (many scholars assume Luke would’ve actually interviewed Mary for him to mention things like the pondering in her heart). Luke mentions all the other accounts which he probably diligently poured through (including, undoubtedly, uninspired accounts). Luke gives the most historical and well-organized document on the birth. Why, then, doesn’t he write of Mary’s immaculate conception as well? If this was the case, certainly other of the accounts he searched through would’ve included them, and it would’ve come up in his interviews with Mary.
The only thing we can determine conclusively from Matthew 1:25 is that Mary was a virgin until Christ was born. No further explanation is necessary, because it doesn’t matter what happened after that, not to the Gospel writers and not to me. I think the language does imply that they may have consecrated their marriage after this point, but I’m not going to say anyone needs to agree with me on that one way or the other. It would’ve been the easiest thing in the world for Luke (in fact- even easier than the way he wrote it) to say Mary and Joseph lived celibate lives or that she had no union with a man until death or that she never knew a man. What’s important to me is that God accomplished His plan of salvation even through a human. What’s important is that our Savior was in that crib.

 

[LakeFever]

Sorry for the double post, but I noticed one more thing:
“Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

If the immaculate conception was something the Apostles and Witnesses of these first things taught, why doesn’t Luke verify this teaching as well? It certainly would’ve been one of the harder things to accept.

 

[inkaneer]

Sorry for the double post, but I noticed one more thing:
“Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

If the immaculate conception was something the Apostles and Witnesses of these first things taught, why doesn’t Luke verify this teaching as well? It certainly would’ve been one of the harder things to accept.

You quoted the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles [without the proper notation] so you will have to ask Luke that question. But I think Luke will tell you that he did do just that and refer you to Luke 1:28 and ask you how could Mary be “full of grace” before the age of grace began? He might even give you a lesson in Greek and tell you that kecharitomene does not mean ‘favored one’. If so, he might tell you that Jerome got it correct when he translated kecharitomene into Latin as gratia plena. Also Luke does not write Acts as a course in Christianity for Theophilius. Luke says he is writing this so that Theophilius could be assured of what he has already been taught. So what was Theophilius taught? Luke doesn’t say and you nor anyone else knows.

 

[LakeFever]

You quoted the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles [without the proper notation]

I quoted Luke1:3-4 (Unless you have a different Bible than I do?)
It was kinda a continuation from my last paragraph which talked about the beginning of Luke’s account, sorry for not citing my sources.

Anyway, I won’t trouble ya’all with anymore Lutheran beliefs.

 

[inkaneer]

Firstly, I resent the statement that current Lutherans do not believe the same things as taught by Luther. Not only does it lump all Lutherans together (and, more likely, all Protestants) but I don’t think it’s accurate. Catholics, too, are divided on their beliefs; I’ve met many who don’t venerate Mary or agree that Priests shouldn’t marry. While it’s true that Luther regarded Mary in the same regard early on, even after the Reformation, it’s quite clear that he didn’t feel this way at the end.

The difference is of course is that when it comes to defined dogma it doesn’t matter what individuals think. Two Lutherans can disagree on doctrine and at worst, the result is another protestant sect to add to the myriad formed in just 500 years. But when an individual disagrees with a define doctrine of the Catholic Church they are no longer Catholic. They are outside the Church and their salvation is in peril. You know, when Jesus prayed to the Father that His followers be one Catholoics believe He sincerely meant it. But I really can’t say the same for protestants.

 

[inkaneer]

To Mary being the New Ark of the Covenant- This theology is something I’d never really heard before. Inkaneer raised some interesting parallels. (Although it’s never explicitly stated in the Bible- interesting in light of ALL the OT references and parallels mentioned, especially by Paul). And yet, even if Mary is the symbolic the New Ark of the Covenant, I don’t think comparisons of this sort are ever 1:1. This covenant is an entirely new one; Jesus had done away with the ceremonial law. For example, God’s presence was continually in the Ark; Jesus left Mary’s womb after 9 months, so she no longer would’ve been carrying the physical presence of God. And I don’t think because God struck down Uzzah that He would’ve done the same to anyone who so much as touched Mary (especially her own husband!). Do you mean to say Joseph and Mary even slept in different beds? Sex within marriage is natural, God-pleasing and what our bodies were designed for, and I don’t think in so doing Mary would’ve been any less devoted to God. In 1 Corinthians, Paul instructs married believers not to abstain.
Lastly, Luke’s account is the most in-depth of the four Gospels. Luke mentions that he has carefully investigated all these things (many scholars assume Luke would’ve actually interviewed Mary for him to mention things like the pondering in her heart). Luke mentions all the other accounts which he probably diligently poured through (including, undoubtedly, uninspired accounts). Luke gives the most historical and well-organized document on the birth. Why, then, doesn’t he write of Mary’s immaculate conception as well? If this was the case, certainly other of the accounts he searched through would’ve included them, and it would’ve come up in his interviews with Mary.
The only thing we can determine conclusively from Matthew 1:25 is that Mary was a virgin until Christ was born. No further explanation is necessary, because it doesn’t matter what happened after that, not to the Gospel writers and not to me. I think the language does imply that they may have consecrated their marriage after this point, but I’m not going to say anyone needs to agree with me on that one way or the other. It would’ve been the easiest thing in the world for Luke (in fact- even easier than the way he wrote it) to say Mary and Joseph lived celibate lives or that she had no union with a man until death or that she never knew a man. What’s important to me is that God accomplished His plan of salvation even through a human. What’s important is that our Savior was in that crib.

Firstly, if all we had was Mt 1:25 for Mary’s perpetual virginity then you might have some wiggle room. But we have Jesus on the cross giving His mother to John for him to care for her in her old age. If Jesus was the first born son then this is not His duty. It is the duty of the youngest son to care for the parents. So why does Jesus usurp his alleged “brothers” obligation? Now if you don’t agree with that duty being the obligation of the youngest then why is Jesus giving it to the youngest of the Apostles who He Himself called His brothers adelphos]? [See Mt 12:49; Joh 7:10 and John 20:17] If it was the duty of the oldest then He should have given it to the oldest Apostle, whoever that was. But He gave it to the youngest because that is who would have the duty if Mary had other children. The only way that Jesus, the first born and therefore the oldest, would have that obligation is if He was an only child because then He would be the oldest as well as the youngest. So the first born of Mary is dying on the cross and yet He still fulfills His obligation as the youngest son of Mary. He does so properly because he is an only child.

Augustine summed up the beliefs of the early church when he wrote these two quotations:

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Continued…

 

[inkaneer]

Continuing…

Secondly, regarding Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, I can’t believe that a sola scripturist has never heard of Typology and I am therefore, sure you have. Generally speaking typology is the study of types, symbols, or symbolic meaning or representation. In christian theology typology is the idea that events in the Old Testament are seen as pre-figuring events or aspects of Christ in the New Testament, and, in the fullest version of the theory, that is seen as the purpose behind the Old Testament events occurring. In a nut shell, the OT prefigures [or is a shadow] of the NT and the NT is a perfection of the OT. Thus Isaiah 22:22 prefigures Matthew 16:19. Jesus used typology in John 6:49-51 when He compared Himself to the OT manna. Same is true of the Father sacrificing Jesus with that of Abraham sacrificing his son. Paul uses typology when he compares Christ to Adam in Romans 5:14 [He even says that Adam was “…a type of one to come.”] The early church writers were well aware of this typology between the OT and the NT. Many of them commented on this regarding Mary but Irenaeus is typical:

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

So this comparison of Mary to Eve was not ignored by the early church.

 

[Canto]

It’s clear that Luther saw the worship of Mary as a distraction to our true Savior.

Lukily then Catholics have never worshiped Mary.

Luke’s account is the most in-depth of the four Gospels. Luke mentions that he has carefully investigated all these things .

He does not say he felt the need to write everything down
Just an orderly account

Why, then, doesn’t he write of Mary’s immaculate conception as well?

He starts off with the conceptions of John and Jesus. How far back should he have gone? The Bible is about Jesus, not Mary.

The only thing we can determine conclusively from Matthew 1:25 is that Mary was a virgin until Christ was born.

I think the language does imply that they may have consecrated their marriage after this point,

And when Jesus told the disciples in the Garden before his Passion to stay there unitl (heous hou) he had gone over to prayer. Does that imply the disciples left after that point?

It would’ve been the easiest thing in the world for Luke (in fact- even easier than the way he wrote it) to say Mary and Joseph lived celibate lives

It would have been the easiest thing in the world for God, who authored the Bible, to jot down somewhere in it’s pages how many books there should be in it, but alas, something so important and the Bible doesn’t even mention it. And thus Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Jews all have a different number of books.

What’s important to me is that God accomplished His plan of salvation even through a human. What’s important is that our Savior was in that crib.

And he wouldn’t have been in that crib if he wasn’t in that womb.

---

Luther: …thus **from the first moment **she began to live she was free from all sin.

(Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527)

Luther: She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.

(Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522)

Luther: It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.

(Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

Zwingli: I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.

(Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

 

[Mike_Harrison]

Sorry if I gave the impression that my interpretation is infallible. My interpretation is no more infallible than your interpretation of your Church’s teachings (unless you believe that you have infallible knowledge of what your Church teaches). QUOTE]

As Catholics, there is really no reason we need to interpret the Church’s teachings. We have the official Catechism of the Catholic Church to guide us. For my Catholic sisters and brothers, refer to section 499. It is very specific in the last sentence. "And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”

I researched this in the Catechism because I too was troubled by verse 25 in as much as I would like to be an effective apologist for the Church. I have a very long way to go but, on this topic, I wanted to be able to effectively represent my faith. I am applying for a position in a non-profit that supplies counseling and medical support to mothers at risk of choosing the abortion route. The organization is Protestant in nature and I will be required to annually sign a “doctrine of faith” document stating the only authority for our faith is the Bible. I believe that principle to be true but, as this discussion shows, the Bible gets interpreted differently depending on who interprets it. So, I took the example of Mt 1:25 to research so I could defend it.

Of course, I began by reviewing Mt 1:25 and the notes in the New American Bible. The New American Bible is an approved Bible of the Catholic Church and, in fact, was translated from original scriptures by a large group of Catholic scholars. It has the Nihil Obstat as well as the Imprimatur and was approved by the USCCB on September 30, 2010. What I read caused me concern.

In Mathew Chapter 1, which describes the birth of Jesus, verse 25 in the New American Bible reads “He had no relations with her (Mary) until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” It references a foot note that reads “[1:25] Until she bore a son: The evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. *The Greek word translated as “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.” *(Italics are mine).

The note was ambiguous so I referenced the Catechism. The Catechism underscores the fact that Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and even cites Mathew 1:18-25 (see Section 497]). It doesn’t address Mt. 1:25 specifically though or the idea of Mary remaining a virgin after Jesus’ birth. However, **section 499 ** is very specific in the last sentence. "And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”

We are ALL Christians and united in the service, praise and glory of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I’m hoping the information I provided above will settle any concerns among my Roman Catholic sisters and brothers. As an aspiring apologist for the Roman Catholic church, I’m very interested in any feedback from my catholic Protestant sisters and brothers in Christ. If you don’t want to post here (I don’t know why you wouldn’t), email me at mike@colfaxnet.com.

Your servant in Christ,
Mike

 

[Arandur]

Cachonga;5489130:

The organization is Protestant in nature and I will be required to annually sign a “doctrine of faith” document stating the only authority for our faith is the Bible. I believe that principle to be true but, as this discussion shows, the Bible gets interpreted differently depending on who interprets it.

I think you may want to talk with them about just what they mean by their “doctrine of faith.” If it really says, “the ONLY authority for our faith is the Bible,” then I’m not sure a Catholic, accepting Sacred Tradition and Christ himself as the head of our Church, could really agree without subverting the words and the intent of that contract.

If they dropped the “only,” then you may have more freedom, but Catholics are not believers in sola scriptura. Of course, if they were honest, they would accept that even they do not see the Bible as their only authority–because they likely place much stock in their ministers who interpret it for them, their own interpretations, and would admit that Christ himself is a greater authority than his written words. If they truly wouldn’t admit all that, they’d be pledging idolatry, with book worship as the object of their faith rather than Christ himself.

Anyway, I’d suggest talking it over with them so you don’t fall into the situation of quietly subverting their words or working under false pretenses. Please do make it clear to them that Catholics believe everything in the Bible and do see it as a sacred and cherished true guide and benchmark of our faith. But it does not explicitly contain all that Christ in His authority has given to His Church.

 

[inkaneer]

I researched this in the Catechism because I too was troubled by verse 25 in as much as I would like to be an effective apologist for the Church. I have a very long way to go but, on this topic, I wanted to be able to effectively represent my faith. I am applying for a position in a non-profit that supplies counseling and medical support to mothers at risk of choosing the abortion route. The organization is Protestant in nature and I will be required to annually sign a “doctrine of faith” document stating the only authority for our faith is the Bible. I believe that principle to be true but, as this discussion shows, the Bible gets interpreted differently depending on who interprets it. So, I took the example of Mt 1:25 to research so I could defend it.

Of course, I began by reviewing Mt 1:25 and the notes in the New American Bible. The New American Bible is an approved Bible of the Catholic Church and, in fact, was translated from original scriptures by a large group of Catholic scholars. It has the Nihil Obstat as well as the Imprimatur and was approved by the USCCB on September 30, 2010. What I read caused me concern.

In Mathew Chapter 1, which describes the birth of Jesus, verse 25 in the New American Bible reads “He had no relations with her (Mary) until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” It references a foot note that reads “[1:25] Until she bore a son: The evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. *The Greek word translated as “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.” *(Italics are mine).

The note was ambiguous so I referenced the Catechism. The Catechism underscores the fact that Mary conceived and gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and even cites Mathew 1:18-25 (see Section 497]). It doesn’t address Mt. 1:25 specifically though or the idea of Mary remaining a virgin after Jesus’ birth. However, **section 499 ** is very specific in the last sentence. "And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.”

We are ALL Christians and united in the service, praise and glory of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I’m hoping the information I provided above will settle any concerns among my Roman Catholic sisters and brothers. As an aspiring apologist for the Roman Catholic church, I’m very interested in any feedback from my catholic Protestant sisters and brothers in Christ. If you don’t want to post here (I don’t know why you wouldn’t), email me at mike@colfaxnet.com.

Your servant in Christ,
Mike

Mike, your post is disturbing to say the least. I would say this. First, your Catholicity is not showing and I question whether you are really Catholic in your heart. That is not a good thing for someone who wants to be a Catholic apologist. How can you be an apologist for Catholicism when you admit you disagree with one of the basic Catholic doctrines??? Second, as this organization wants you to sign a *"‘doctrine of faith’ document stating the only authority for our faith is the Bible" *it appears you have either accepted the heretical sola scriptura argument that the Bible is the only authority or you are willing to lie in order to be part of this organization. Neither one is good. Third, you make the classic sola scripturist mistake of trying to interpret one verse in the Bible and ignoring the rest of scripture. This is the prime reason why protestantism is so fractured.

Finally you last paragraph smacks of the protestant “Big Tent” idea that all christians, no matter if they are Catholic or protestant, are all Ok. I will remind you that Jesus established ONE church and He didn’t do that in the 16th century. Jesus prayed that His followers be ONE just as He and the Father were ONE. You say you are Catholic. I say you are not. You want to straddle the fence but you can’t. You sign that “‘doctrine of faith’ document” and you have effectively renounced your Catholic faith. You can’t be luke warm here. Jesus would prefer that you be hot or cold but He says if you are luke warm He will vomit you out of His mouth. This is decision time Mike.

 

[White_Peony]

In greek, until means basicallly nothing.
If you look at Luke 9:27 it says, “‘But i tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see teh kingdom of God’”
Well, we aren’t going to die in heaven. So this verse is an example of the “untils” that mean nothing.

More verses with invalid “tills” Psalm 112:8 Psalm 123:2

 

[Mike_Harrison]

Dear Arandar,

Your post made some excellent points and I will take your suggestion.

Dear Inkaneer,

Wow! Your post was definitely not helpful or even constructive. Not only did you pounce on my post in a most vociferous and hateful way, your diatribe materially (having real importance or great consequences) misrepresented what I said. Please go back and reread my post. I’ve inserted comments in the quote from your post that I included in this response. My responses are denoted by <>. I did this to forestall any confusion as to what points I’m responding to.

Mike, your post is disturbing to say the least. I would say this. First, your Catholicity is not showing and I question whether you are really Catholic in your heart. That is not a good thing for someone who wants to be a Catholic apologist. How can you be an apologist for Catholicism when you admit you disagree with one of the basic Catholic doctrines???

<“I question whether you are really Catholic in your heart.” Inkaneer, this is the first hateful thing you said. Which basic doctrine do you perceive I disagree with? If you are saying I disagree with the ever virginity of Mary, I didn’t say that! Reread my first paragraph. "As Catholics, there is really no reason we need to interpret the Church’s teachings. We have the official Catechism of the Catholic Church to guide us. For my Catholic sisters and brothers, refer to section 499. It is very specific in the last sentence. "And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.” >

Second, as this organization wants you to sign a *"‘doctrine of faith’ document stating the only authority for our faith is the Bible" *it appears you have either accepted the heretical sola scriptura argument that the Bible is the only authority or you are willing to lie in order to be part of this organization.

<Inkaneer, this is the first material thing you misrespresent about my posting. I didn’t say that I would sign this agreement nor did I say I believe the only source or foundation of my faith is the Bible. Reread paragraph 1 yet again.>

Neither one is good. Third, you make the classic sola scripturist mistake of trying to interpret one verse in the Bible and ignoring the rest of scripture. This is the prime reason why protestantism is so fractured.

<You are right in that I didn’t refer to the entire first chapter in Mathew regarding the birth of our Lord in my post. However, you are wrong to infer that I was trying to interpret one verse in the Bible. I merely noted that the verse is controversial and serves as an example of the difficulty I would have in signing such a “doctrine of faith” document.>

Finally you last paragraph smacks of the protestant “Big Tent” idea that all christians, no matter if they are Catholic or protestant, are all Ok. I will remind you that Jesus established ONE church and He didn’t do that in the 16th century. Jesus prayed that His followers be ONE just as He and the Father were ONE.

<I’m not sure what you mean by “Ok” but please let me elaborate on my intent before judging me. The Roman Catholic Church is the true church as Jesus founded and the Holy Spirit gave birth to at the Pentacost. But catholic, as I’m sure you know, has a broader meaning, universal. Over time, as you referred to by refererencing the 16th century, i.e. the Reformation led by Martin Luther, split off from the Roman Catholic Church preserving only the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. These protesters (hence Protestant) eventually split into over 3,000 different Protestant churches. However, as compared to Jewism and Islamism, the two other faiths that are based on the Bible, Christians have the common belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ as the only Son of God and our Redemptor. The Catholic Church acknowledges this in section 871 of the CCC: “The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through Baptism, have been constituted as the people of God; for this reason, since they have become sharers in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal office in their own manner, they are called to excercise the mission which God has entrusted in the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each onel”. Further the Church states that the Catholic Pope, as successor to Peter and Vicar of Christ, is responsible for spiritually governing all Christians per section 937 of the CCC. Thus it makes no difference to the truth if the Protestant churches do not acknowledge Pope Benedict as the spiritual leader of their religions. These passages from the Catechism (CCC) are the basis for my statement “…feedback from my catholic Protestant sisters and brothers in Christ.” Please note that catholic is in lower case indicating a reference to the universal church, universal as defined in sections 830 and 831.>

to be continued…

 

[Mike_Harrison]

continuation of my response:

You say you are Catholic. I say you are not. You want to straddle the fence but you can’t. You sign that “‘doctrine of faith’ document” and you have effectively renounced your Catholic faith. You can’t be luke warm here. Jesus would prefer that you be hot or cold but He says if you are luke warm He will vomit you out of His mouth. This is decision time Mike.

<I believe we all have an obligation to reprove our fellow Christians when they mistakenly state things that are in error. I do NOT believe we have any right to JUDGE them as you so obviously have done with me. That right is reserved to God through Jesus Christ. And yes, I still say I am Roman Catholic despite your judgement that I am not. My pastor believes this too or he wouldn’t have recommended I become a Deacon. Finally, our Lord and Savior is the One Who truly judges my faith and yours for that matter.

Inkaneer, you couuld have more charitably and helpfully responded to the real question, at least inferred, in my post that was intended for my fellow Catholics. What are your thoughts about the ambiguous footnote in our Bible versus the very clear and definitive statement in our Catechism?

For all who might be wondering what my response to this job and the need to sign their doctrine of faith…I am withdrawing myself from consideration if their doctrine states that the Bible is the only source of my faith and refuses to allow me to acknowledge the authority Christ gave our Holy Mother Church.

Your servant in Christ,
Mike

 

[inkaneer]

****Allow me to answer you point by point. First, you said:

"I am applying for a position in a non-profit that supplies counseling and medical support to mothers at risk of choosing the abortion route. The organization is Protestant in nature and **I will be required to annually sign a “doctrine of faith” document stating the only authority for our faith is the Bible. I believe that principle to be true **but, as this discussion shows, the Bible gets interpreted differently depending on who interprets it.

Let me repeat the heretical part one more time, okay? THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR OUR FAITHIS THE BIBLE. That is heresy pure and simple. Then you add: “I BELIEVE THE PRINCIPLE TO BE TRUE.” So how can you be a Catholic and believe in a heresy? You can’t. That is why I said that I doubted if you were a Catholic in your heart. You think that is hateful? How about when Jesus rebuked Peter and called him Satan? Was Hehateful too?

Second point, I wrote, "Second, as this organization wants you to sign a “‘doctrine of faith’ document stating the only authority for our faith is the Bible” it appears you have either accepted the heretical sola scriptura argument that the Bible is the only authority or you are willing to lie in order to be part of this organization.

You then wrote: “Inkaneer, this is the first material thing you misrespresent about my posting. I didn’t say that I would sign this agreement nor did I say I believe the only source or foundation of my faith is the Bible. Reread paragraph 1 yet again.”

Well I did reread your first paragraph. Here is what I read:

“I am applying for a position in a non-profit that supplies counseling and medical support to mothers at risk of choosing the abortion route. The organization is Protestant in nature and I will be required to annually sign a “doctrine of faith” document stating the only authority for our faith is the Bible. I believe that principle to be true…”

So why are you applying to this protestant organization knowing full well that they will require you to sign a document that violates the Catholic faith? And if you don’t believe that the Bible is the only authority for our faith Then why did you write: **
I BELIEVE THIS PRINCIPLE TO BE TRUE…"**

Third point. I wrote: " Third, you make the classic sola scripturist mistake of trying to interpret one verse in the Bible and ignoring the rest of scripture. This is the prime reason why protestantism is so fractured."

You answer with: “You are right in that I didn’t refer to the entire first chapter in Mathew regarding the birth of our Lord in my post. However, you are wrong to infer that I was trying to interpret one verse in the Bible. I merely noted that the verse is controversial and serves as an example of the difficulty I would have in signing such a “doctrine of faith” document.”

By the term “the rest of scripture” I was not referring to the entire first chapter of Matthew or the entire gospel of Matthew or the entire New Testament. I was referring to scripture in its totality, ALL 73 BOOKS!!! If you do not do that then the chances of error is greatly increased as we can plainly see by the myriads of protestant denominations who do exactly that. The verse is not controversial provided it is interpreted correctly and that means that it is interpreted in accord with other scripture that bears on that point. Jesus was an only child. See my prior post on Jesus giving his mother to John.

Final point. I wrote: “Finally you last paragraph smacks of the protestant “Big Tent” idea that all christians, no matter if they are Catholic or protestant, are all Ok. I will remind you that Jesus established ONE church and He didn’t do that in the 16th century. Jesus prayed that His followers be ONE just as He and the Father were ONE.”

You answered, “<I’m not sure what you mean by “Ok” but please let me elaborate on my intent before judging me. The Roman Catholic Church is the true church as Jesus founded and the Holy Spirit gave birth to at the Pentacost. But catholic, as I’m sure you know, has a broader meaning, universal. Over time, as you referred to by refererencing the 16th century, i.e. the Reformation led by Martin Luther, split off from the Roman Catholic Church preserving only the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. …”

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. First, it is not THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. That is it official name. Use it. It is called the CATHOLIC CHURCH because it is the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. It got that name very early. Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of that city after Peter and Elvodius used that term taking it from the book of Acts where the Greek words ECCLESIA KATA HOLIS are used and where English Bibles have translated as “the church throughout all” Also, there is no EUCHARIST in any protestant denomination. No protestant minister has the authority needed to consecrate the bread into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ as does a priest.

 

[inkaneer]

I wrote: “You say you are Catholic. I say you are not. You want to straddle the fence but you can’t. You sign that “‘doctrine of faith’ document” and you have effectively renounced your Catholic faith. You can’t be luke warm here. Jesus would prefer that you be hot or cold but He says if you are luke warm He will vomit you out of His mouth. This is decision time Mike.”

You answered: “I believe we all have an obligation to reprove our fellow Christians when they mistakenly state things that are in error. I do NOT believe we have any right to JUDGE them as you so obviously have done with me. That right is reserved to God through Jesus Christ. And yes, I still say I am Roman Catholic despite your judgement that I am not. My pastor believes this too or he wouldn’t have recommended I become a Deacon. Finally, our Lord and Savior is the One Who truly judges my faith and yours for that matter.”

WRONG AGAIN! I am not judging you. I am REPROVING you. I am correcting you when you state error. I am discerning that you are not, in your heart, Catholic. I have said nothing about your ultimate destiny be it heaven or hell.

You write: “Inkaneer, you couuld have more charitably and helpfully responded to the real question, at least inferred, in my post that was intended for my fellow Catholics. What are your thoughts about the ambiguous footnote in our Bible versus the very clear and definitive statement in our Catechism?”

What I did was issue a warning. You say you are Catholic but you believe protestant heresy. I called your attention to that. That is charity. Sometimes charity is subtle. Sometimes it is not.

you write: “For all who might be wondering what my response to this job and the need to sign their doctrine of faith…I am withdrawing myself from consideration if their doctrine states that the Bible is the only source of my faith and refuses to allow me to acknowledge the authority Christ gave our Holy Mother Church.”

That is far different than what you said originally which was, "I BELIEVE THE PRINCIPLE [that the Bible is the sole authority for our faith] TO BE TRUE."

 

[NotWorthy]

Inkaneer? Can you and Mike Harrison continue your discussion on whether or not Mike is Catholic or not with PM messages?

That would allow the thread to continue with the topic, “No relations until she bore a son…”

 

[wynnejj]

I have to thank Arandur for her(?) post #26 and post #27 which were very interesting reflections on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and Assumption. There was a term “chiasmic tradition” which had me scratching my head. When I looked it up, it appears to mean the intersection of two lines or cross-over as in an “X”. This made me think of the “X Files” and “Trust No One” and “The Truth is Out There”. In fact Sacred Tradition appears to be much like this. Miracles follow the Saints attesting to a truth that is out there. If several saints have the same story, especially if accompanied by apparitions of Mary whereby she reveals more mysteries not covered in the Bible, then that becomes part of the Sacred Tradition. The problem is that like the X Files, more of the story is unfolding all the time and the facts have to checked, cross-referenced, and double checked with the intuition of a true believer. Jesus instituted His Church to be the interpreter of the truth as God chooses to reveal more, but one doesn’t have to stray too far from the Bible to get what you need to be saved.

Some thoughts about the Immaculate Conception of Mary and how it relates to Creationism versus Evolution…

Creationists will posit that a new species does not spring from mutations. That is, a higher order of being cannot be created from a bad copy of the original. A mutation is strictly a degraded version of the original. That if man started out as SuperMan, the perfect original man, then after the fall every reproduction of man on earth is just another variation of Bizarro. Evolutionists suggest that every once in a very great while a mutation does create a “better copy” and a new enhanced species.

So with respect to Mary, I suggest her Immaculate Conception as the one mutation in the history of man on Earth where God’s plan restores Mary to man’s original prototype without stain of original sin, and truly in the image and likeness of God.

As to the original post, my belief is that Matthew 1:25 has to be understood the light of his witness sworn on a stack of Bibles, “So help me God!”, of what he knows for sure, explicitly qualifying what he does not know for sure.

Matthew knows for sure that there were no pre-marital relations based on his belief in Jesus as the Messiah due to His Teachings and Miracles, and the fact that OT prophesies stated that the Messiah would be born of Virgin, thus corroborated by the testimony of Mary’s words at the Annunciation. This is important… Mary’s testimony to a Virgin Birth is simply corroborating testimony. Matthew could not in good conscience leave the statement unqualified and felt compelled to explicitly state that he knows nothing beyond Jesus birth about marital relations between Mary & Joseph either one way or the other.

 

[Mike_Harrison]

Inkaneer? Can you and Mike Harrison continue your discussion on whether or not Mike is Catholic or not with PM messages?

That would allow the thread to continue with the topic, “No relations until she bore a son…”

You are quite right NotWorthy. We have digressed substantially at this point from the principle topic of this thread “Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?”. I’m sorry. I note though that you believe our discusssion is about whether or not I’m a Catholic. Inkaneer’s decision that I’m not a Catholic is judgemental, regardless of what he claims. Don’t you agree? That’s my last post in this forum about the topic of my Catholcism. Inkaneer, you can contact me at mike@colfaxnet.com if you want to continue the discussion. PM discussion don’t work for me as I don’t allow pop-ups.What is your email address? Send me an email and I’ll respond to your last post.

Your servant in Christ,
Mike

 

[inkaneer]

First some house cleaning, I have no intentions of continuing any discussions with Mr. Harrison. He posted what he posted and now wants to change it. That tells me my initial discernment was correct. I don’t know if he is really Catholic or someone posing as one [it has happened before, many times in fact] but I would think a Catholic would know that sacramentally Lutherans do not have the Euchrist and a Catholic cannot believe in sola scriptura. It is heresy, pure and simple.

Now back to topic. I posted this once before on a similar topic as it does come up again and again and always citing Matthew 1:25 along with the verses that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters ( Mt 12:46; Mt 13:55; Mr 3:31,32; Lu 8:19,20; etc.). There is also the famous words of St. Paul in Ga 1:19 where he calls the Apostle James the Lord’s brother. However, a careful reading of the scriptures will show you that of the two Apostles named James neither one was a son of Mary and Joseph. These latter verses are used as “proof” of Mt1:25 and require a strict interpretation of the Greek word adelphos as meaning a sibling brother born of the same parent. However, the fallacy of that logic is demonstrated by Mt 28:10 [where Jesus calls the Apostles his brothers (*adelphos)] and Lu 22:32 [where Jesus calls the Apostles, Peter’s brothers again using the word *adelphos]. In both instances the Greek word translated as brother (brethren) is adelphos. What this means is that the word adelphos is used to portray other relationships other than that of a sibling brother. To force a strict meaning onto the word in the face of other evidence to the contrary is to inflict violence onto the scriptures.

But there is something else. It is what I call the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to admit is there let alone talk about. That is the evidence from the early church. In an age where relationships meant something, when, for instance, Jude claims of being a brother of James (Jude 1:1 ) there is not one single claim of anyone claiming to be either a sibling brother of Jesus or a child of Mary. WHY? Where are these alleged sibling brothers? If you wanted to “drop an name” then what two bigger names could one drop in christianity than Jesus or Mary? But no one ever did. Why? The answer consists of two reasons. First, there were no sibling brothers of Jesus. Second, the christian world knew it. Anyone making such a claim would have been immediately reviled by christians because they knew the truth, that Jesus was the only child of Mary.