T
teachccd
Guest
Thank you!! TTYL…“For what it’s worth”.
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
For those who have more interest in bashing Catholicism than they do in loving Christ, you have ignored numerous explanations of the history of Church doctrine. Truth trudges along while Ignorance flashes like lightning.
The ignorant and unstable twist scripture to their own destruction.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I don’t know about PROVING you wrong, but I’ll be happy to counter your assertions, and I hope that they are helpful to you. You’ve written a lot for us to digest, so I’m going to ask you to read a fair bit in response.
You seem to have forgotten that God Himself commanded the Israelites to make graven images.
Exodus 25:18-20
And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them.
Numbers 21:4-9
They traveled from Mount Hor along the route to the Red Sea, to go around Edom. But the people grew impatient on the way; they spoke against God and against Moses, and said, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.
So, the issue is not the creation of images, but the WORSHIP of images as false gods that is at issue. Catholics DO NOT worship statues.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Nowhere does the Bible tell us that we CAN’T pray to Mary. However, there is no question that intercessory prayer is taught and encouraged by the Bible.
Mary as Mediatrix Proved From Scripture
The Catholic Church recognizes Mary’s role in salvation history and invokes her under the title of Mediatrix. However, many people struggle to understand how Mary can have this role which they reserve for Christ alone, and they cite the following verse in support of their position:
1 Timothy 2:5-6
5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.
Hebrews 7:24-25
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Here we see that Jesus “always lives to intercede” for “those who come to God through him.” The role of the mediator and the intercessor are synonymous; a mediator lives to intercede for others.
All Christians are called to be mediators or intercessors for one another because we are all members of Christ’s body as we see from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:
Ephesians 1:22-23
“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
Paul referred to himself as a co-laborer with Christ when he wrote:
1 Corinthians 3:9
For we are God’s fellow workers.
Paul went further in his understanding of our responsibility as co-laborers with Christ when when he wrote:
Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.
Is anything lacking from the perfect sacrifice that Christ offered upon the Cross? Paul clearly indicates that more is to be done and that he makes up what is “still lacking” in his own flesh.
2 Corinthians 1:6
If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation
Additionally, we know that we are called to share in the priesthood of all believers (cf. 1 Peter 2:5-9), and a priest, by definition, is called to be a mediator between God and men. Each of us is called to this role and to be a mediator or mediatrix for others before God.
Therefore, if we are all called to this role of mediator and intercessor for one another, how much more can this be said of Mary who said, “Yes” to God and brought Christ into the world?
Speaking of this, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus) of the Church.
968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.”
969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”
970"Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it." “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)
Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.
The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest. For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.
Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.
Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.
Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:
1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.
“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)
3. There are two apostles named James.
“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.
“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**
“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)
6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.
7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.
“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)
8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.
“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)
**9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary. **
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Articles on Perpetual Virginity
Mary: Ever Virgin
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp
**A Biblical Basis For Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? **
http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html
**How to Explain the Perpetual Virginity of Mary **
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
Was Jesus an Only Child?
By Father Mateo
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea2.asp
Mary: Ever Virgin
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp
**A Biblical Basis For Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? **
http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html
**How to Explain the Perpetual Virginity of Mary **
By Jason Evert
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
Was Jesus an Only Child?
By Father Mateo
catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea2.asp
T
Truthstalker
Guest
To be fair, I posted this on another CAF thread. No answer yet.
I haven’t heard a satisfactory Catholic explanation of Ps 69:8:
an alien to my own mother’s sons
which is immediately before
and the insults of those who insult you fall on me (NIV)
The passage and context are clearly messianic, meaning it is in reference to Jesus. The Hebrew parallelism equates brothers with mother’s sons. According to the exegetical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, this supports the inference that “brother of Jesus” in the New Testament is to be taken at face value. The context seems to rule out the idea that one verse applies to Jesus and the previous does not.
I recognize that “brother” can be used in a wider sense than “son of the same parent” but this seems to rule it out.
Just my :twocents:.
I haven’t heard a satisfactory Catholic explanation of Ps 69:8:
Code:
Quote:
I am a stranger to my brothers,which is immediately before
Code:
Quote:
for zeal for your house consumes me,The passage and context are clearly messianic, meaning it is in reference to Jesus. The Hebrew parallelism equates brothers with mother’s sons. According to the exegetical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, this supports the inference that “brother of Jesus” in the New Testament is to be taken at face value. The context seems to rule out the idea that one verse applies to Jesus and the previous does not.
I recognize that “brother” can be used in a wider sense than “son of the same parent” but this seems to rule it out.
Just my :twocents:.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”
The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.
These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.
When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.
Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m sorry I missed your post in the other thread, but I’m happy to help you out with this.To be fair, I posted this on another CAF thread. No answer yet.
I haven’t heard a satisfactory Catholic explanation of Ps 69:8:“I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons”
which is immediately before"for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me." (NIV)
The passage and context are clearly messianic, meaning it is in reference to Jesus. The Hebrew parallelism equates brothers with mother’s sons. According to the exegetical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, this supports the inference that “brother of Jesus” in the New Testament is to be taken at face value. The context seems to rule out the idea that one verse applies to Jesus and the previous does not.
I recognize that “brother” can be used in a wider sense than “son of the same parent” but this seems to rule it out.
Just my :twocents:.
Psalm 69:8 – Jesus’ Mother’s Sons
"What about Psalm 69:8? It prophesied that Mary would have children when it says in regard to Jesus, ‘I have been a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother’s sons.’"
If you take this Psalm to be a literal prophecy of Christ, you run into bigger problems. Look three verses earlier, “O God, thou knowest my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee” (emphasis added). Since Jesus did no wrong and had no follies, it seems clear we shouldn’t take this passage literally.
The prophecy in verse 8 is fulfilled by the fact that Jesus was rejected by his own relatives (Mark 3:21). Besides, if the “brethren” of the Lord were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage, though they were not Mary’s biological children, legally they would be considered her sons.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
He took our sins upon Himself as if they were His own. This is not at all a problem.
Jesus was rejected by His relatives, yes. But your response doesn’t cut it. It specifically mentions “my mother’s sons” - not step brothers or cousins. We see nothing in Scripture about Joseph having children from a prior marriage. You are arguing from speculation.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I’m no theologian, but I am speculating that maybe he means Mary’s spiritual children - Christians who get baptized (and thus become her spiritual children, since Christ becomes our brother in the spirit when we are baptized) and then fall away from the Faith.
S
Seatuck
Guest
It could also mean his countrymen. Israel is also “mother”. Jesus was rejected by the Jews.I’m no theologian, but I am speculating that maybe he means Mary’s spiritual children - Christians who get baptized (and thus become her spiritual children, since Christ becomes our brother in the spirit when we are baptized) and then fall away from the Faith.
F
FCEGM
Guest
The “brothers” are not the speaker’s (the Messiah’s) literal
brothers, but his fellow Israelites; and the “mother” in question is Israel itself. Thus, the Psalmist is referring to isolation from the Chosen People - an abandonment on the part of those who should support Him. We see this theme of Israel as a mother and fellow-Jews as one’s brothers all through both Testaments. Just have a look at Hosea 2:4 where similar imagery is used:
“Protest against your mother, protest! For she is not my wife and I am not her Husband.”
Other passages in the Old Testament, illustrate a very long-standing Scriptural tradition of speaking of Israel (or the synagogue) as a “mother” and of fellow Jews as one’s “brothers.” As in Hosea, Israel is frequently depicted as an unfaithful wife and mother - a mother who commits spiritual fornication with other gods (i.e., Baal: Hosea 2:15, 2:18-19, etc.), and who violates the relationship with her true husband, God the Father. Yet, God will reform His “unfaithful wife” (Hosea 2:9-16), and make her His own forever (Hosea 2:21-22).
So, perhaps there is a good reason why using Psalm 69 as a means to cast doubts on the Catholic teaching about Mary is not a common argument in Protestant circles - it is self-defeating once one reads the entire Psalm and know the meaning in the language employed.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
We are all theologians, as a church elder once told me when I denied being one.I’m no theologian, but I am speculating that maybe he means Mary’s spiritual children - Christians who get baptized (and thus become her spiritual children, since Christ becomes our brother in the spirit when we are baptized) and then fall away from the Faith.
Paul says “Jerusalem above, she is our mother.” Your reasoning would work even without Marian theology (not that I am Mother-slapping). It’s only that Paul’s quote would be a more direct line of reasoning using this approach, if one moves away from the literal meaning to the figurative, which I am not sure is allowed by the passage. Saying that on top of the" sins upon him" takes some cheek. Is the one allowed and the other not? Hmmmm.
A
AaronK88
Guest
I am sorry that you feel this way, and pray that you will read these posts and have a better understanding.
I am not Catholic yet, I am in the process of becoming a Catholic. Never once have any of my Catholic friends, most who are hardcore Catholics, nor have priests, teachers, nuns, sisters, brothers etc ever told me to worship Mary. Yes, they pay her a lot of respect, but it is not a worship respect.
God bless you!
F
FCEGM
Guest
You’ve received excellent responses that I hope you’ve found helpful; I also hope you will read some of the many fine articles at “This Rock” (see the link at the top of the page) touching on Mary’s role in Salvation History.
I wonder, though, why you already left the Church if you hope to be proved wrong? Wouldn’t it have been the wiser course to investigate thoroughly why the Church teaches as she does on this before leaving?
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Anytime I come up with a theological novelty it turns out to be exactly that.
We get into the question of how to exegete. If it can only be taken literally, then Catholic theology just took a hit. If it can be taken figuratively, then no. Your argument is not the standard “your interpretation is against CT so it must be wrong” but relies on a wider context of what “mother” may mean in the OT.
Well done.
Now show why, in the context of this passage, the interpretation cannot be literal.
B
BayernAnhaenger
Guest
I suppose the Jews were wrong to build Cherubim for the Ark of the Covenant?
Over the Ark, at the two extremities, were two cherubim, with their faces turned toward one another (Leviticus 16:2; Num. 7:89).
That’s a graven image. OH NO!
C
Contrabass101
Guest
The Hebrew and the Aramaic (which is probably what was spoken in NT and recorded in Greek) term for brother can mean anything from literal brother, to cousin, to countryman.
If Jesus had been speaking Greek, and the setting had been Greece, there would probably be some trouble arguing that the term was broader than literal brother, but since that’s not the case…
If Jesus had been speaking Greek, and the setting had been Greece, there would probably be some trouble arguing that the term was broader than literal brother, but since that’s not the case…
- Status