New Guy with some questions

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey everybody. I’m new to the forum, I wasn’t actually able to find the section for new people to introduce themselves, maybe it’s just late and I’m blind…I am a recent “convert” to catholicism. I had lost my faith as a protestant my first deployment to Iraq, and became a catholic during my second one. I am currently fresh out of the Army and had some specific questions about some things, since my Dad is extremely curious about my choice to become catholic. I do not question the beliefs of the church, but I like to have a firm grasp of things.

1. When people refer to Mary being in heaven “body and soul” based off of Revelations 11 and 12, I am not following the inference. It seems more like people are saying she is there bodily because she was assumed, rather than saying that she was assumed because she is pictured there bodily. Basically, what is to prevent one from reading that passage and simply seeing it as referring to her soul in heaven, with her body awaiting the resurrection? I am aware of the other arguements for her assumption, but leaving those out, I am curious how we come to the conclusion that these passages refer to her *body *and soul in heaven.
2. I think this may have been covered elsewhere but I can’t seem to find it. How does the “queen mother” feature of the davidic line factor in if David did not have a “queen mother?” Also, since Jesus is the fulfillment of David himself and not necessarily only the davidic line, why would Jesus necessarily have to have a “queen mother?”
3. My understanding of original sin is of a loss of our supernatural grace, which God restores through baptism. So Mary was prevented from “falling into the pit” preemptively (that appears to be the most popular way of demonstrating it). She could then serve as a pure vessel and pass on this sinless human nature to her son. The confusion for me is this:

A. Firstly, why is it important that she was immaculately conceived, as opposed to just being “overshadowed” or “full of grace” at any point in her life? Baptism purges us and makes us blameless by fillling us with grace. She was filled with grace, accomplishing to my understanding the same thing is baptism. Why is it so important, then, that she have this happen at her conception? Why not anytime? This leads to the next part of this topic

B. Why does it matter that she was full of grace at all? God is holy, and she was without original sin, yes. But two baptized catholics that have a child still pass original sin on to that child. Since baptism accomplishes an infusion of supernatural grace, and we still can pass on original sin, it would seem by that logic that Mary would still pass a sinful nature on to Jesus. Can anyone clear this up?

1. I get the “telestai means paid in full” argument tossed at me a lot. Now correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t this word have multiple meanings in the Greek determined by context? I had heard somewhere that it was, yes, used as an accounting term, but that it could sometimes be stamped and simply mean “finished” or “terminated” instead of “paid in full.” Does anybody know anything of this? I tried explaining the fourth cup idea, and I had the “it doesn’t mean ‘it is finished’ it means ‘paid in full’” statement tossed at me.
2. When I dwell on the implications and read all the literature out there about the sacrifice on the cross, it makes my head hurt, seriously. It keeps me up quite a bit. What exactly does it mean when he took all the sin on Him at the cross and “bore our punishment?” Did is separate him from God (since God and sin don’t mix)? People often point to his agony in the garden as he contemplated taking on the sin of the world and the incredible burden it was, but has anybody really thought about what that means? I can’t quite grasp the kind of suffering he was dealing with when it says that “he became sin.” Any thoughts or a point to some literature that is in accord with church teaching?
3. I understand the basics behind the primacy of Rome, but I am unclear as to how it actually came about that Rome took center stage; becoming more than just “a first among equals.” I ask because I had an eastern orthodox buddy, and for the longest time I thought they were simply the eastern rite of the church, it took me a bit more study to realize they aren’t. History is not and never will be my strong point so any help would be great here.
4. Lastly, I was reading about the Jesus “breath” prayer on an orthodox website. It talked about other forms of prayer, as well as combining the “jesus” prayer with breathing, and another method involving following the breath with your mind down inside yourself, into your lungs and body, then back out. It then promptly stated the obvious extreme dangers of such a method and discouraged it in the strongest terms. Besides seeming somewhat like breathing exercises of far eastern mysticism, what exactly are they worried about here?

 

[VociMike]

Hi Nathan,

First of all, thank you for your service.

Now, as far as your questions, it’s much better to post one question per thread, so things don’t get out of hand. I’m just going to take up the question of why Mary “had to be” immaculately conceived.

In the first place, the Church doesn’t say that she had to be so conceived, only that it was fitting. Why was it fitting? Well, what is Jesus Christ? He is God Incarnate, the perfect union of divine and human. He acquired his divine nature from a Father who is perfect. And it makes sense that he should obtain his human nature from a Mother who is also perfect. If Jesus Christ is to be the perfect unification of God’s divine nature and our human nature, then the human nature that should enter that unification should also be perfect.

So the answer to your question is found in an understanding of what the Incarnation is about, what it involves.

 

[MarcoPolo]

For question #2, I’ll post this link by Dr. Scott Hahn. Do a search for the word “Queen”.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hi guys, just keeping my topic near the top of the list so it doesn’t get buried haha. I appreciate the quick responses. I know it is fitting for Mary to have been free with all sin. But my Dad is a smart man. A smart, protestant man. And if nothing else you should know that arguments based on feelings and tradition don’t help with protestants. I am having some luck explaining it to him based on the differing conceptions of original sin, and based off Genesis 3:14 and comparing her to the ark. But saying “it is fitting”, although making perfect sense to a catholic, is like throwing a vase of flowers against a wall. The flowers are beautiful, but it’s a waste. I take full credit for that analogy. His natural response is that okay, he can accept her being filled with grace, but what is the point of being filled with grace at her conception?

Any answers to the other questions?

 

[Della]

Hi guys, just keeping my topic near the top of the list so it doesn’t get buried haha. I appreciate the quick responses. I know it is fitting for Mary to have been free with all sin. But my Dad is a smart man. A smart, protestant man. And if nothing else you should know that arguments based on feelings and tradition don’t help with protestants. I am having some luck explaining it to him based on the differing conceptions of original sin, and based off Genesis 3:14 and comparing her to the ark. But saying “it is fitting”, although making perfect sense to a catholic, is like throwing a vase of flowers against a wall. The flowers are beautiful, but it’s a waste. I take full credit for that analogy. His natural response is that okay, he can accept her being filled with grace, but what is the point of being filled with grace at her conception?

Any answers to the other questions?

When the devil took Jesus up on the mountain to be tempted he never once mentioned Jesus’ lineage. Why is that? If Jesus were born of a mother who had ever had a taint of sin, don’t you think he’d have made an issue of it? God wanted the mother of his Son to be perfect so that his Son would come of a totally pure vessel/mother.

All the Marian doctrines and dogmas are safeguards for aspects of Jesus’ person, life, and mission. She was just a human being, but she was also a perfect human being–like Eve was before the fall. Mary is the 2nd Eve who bore the 2nd Adam. In order for the 2nd Adam to be a pure as the first Adam was at his creation, Mary was fittingly made perfect too.

Also, Catholics are not “people of the book” as Protestants are. We don’t get our doctrines from the Bible, rather the Bible is a witness to the doctrines (teachings) of Christ and his Church. I think that understanding will help you immensely as you come up against those who put all their faith in the Bible instead of in Christ and the Church he established as the interpreter of all Holy Writ.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I also kind of answered my own question, because it would seem based of Genesis 3:14 that the woman and her seed were never under the power of the serpent, although I could be wrong there…

How about the other questions?

 

[VociMike]

Hi guys, just keeping my topic near the top of the list so it doesn’t get buried haha. I appreciate the quick responses. I know it is fitting for Mary to have been free with all sin. But my Dad is a smart man. A smart, protestant man. And if nothing else you should know that arguments based on feelings and tradition don’t help with protestants. I am having some luck explaining it to him based on the differing conceptions of original sin, and based off Genesis 3:14 and comparing her to the ark. But saying “it is fitting”, although making perfect sense to a catholic, is like throwing a vase of flowers against a wall. The flowers are beautiful, but it’s a waste. I take full credit for that analogy. His natural response is that okay, he can accept her being filled with grace, but what is the point of being filled with grace at her conception?

Well, the problem is that God doesn’t always explain exactly why he does what he does. God chose that Mary should be perfect from her conception. We know this from his revelation. That revelation is not entirely contained in the bible, it is also contained in Sacred Tradition. So if your father rejects one component of God’s revelation, then the discussion pretty much grinds to a halt right there. That’s like saying “explain Christianity to me but don’t use any of the letters from N-Z”.

So all this talk about what seems right is just people trying to explain why God may have done what he did. If the explanations are not convincing, that doesn’t mean that God didn’t do what he did. I could give a bad explanation as to why the Civil War began, but that wouldn’t change the fact that the Civil War did begin.

If you want you can change the focus to your dad’s rejection of one component of God’s revelation, since that is at the core of his problem with Catholic teaching on Mary.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Here’s more on Mary from Scripture alone (although no Protestant can provide evidence for why Scripture alone is the rule)

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY - Mary is the New Testament type of the Ark of the Covenant (see obvious parallels in chart here). The Ark was not to be touched (1 Chr 13:10).

Another way to see it is Mary’s response to the angel who told her she would bear a son. “How can I since I don’t know man?” she says. Well, since she was about to be married, the obvious answer to her would have been because she’d bear Joseph’s son. But if she had taken a vow of chastity, as some Jewish women did, then her question makes sense.

There are others who believe that the way Jesus entered the world (her womb) will never be crossed again by man:
Ezekiel 44:2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

The “brothers” mentioned in Scripture are not His fraternal brothers.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION/SINLESS LIFE - Again, Mary is the new Ark, which was made of gold and perfection, untouchable, spotless. And NT types are even more glorious than their OT types.

In Luke 1:28, she is called in the Greek, kecharitomene. The word is in the perfect passive participle, the only time this word appears in Scripture. It indicates a completed past action with continuing results. In other words she has been graced and continues to be so in two directions of time. More here.

The other way is to recognize Mary as the NT type of Eve. Again, since NT types are holier versions of their OT types, consider Eve was created without sin. So too, all the more was Mary.

Also, Mary is the woman referenced when God spoke to Satan:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Since Jesus is the one who crushes Satan, Mary is the woman between which God has placed enmity between her and Satan.

ASSUMPTION - To clarify, Mary did not “ascend”. That term is reserved for Jesus who ascended of His own power. She was assumed, meaning by the power of Christ. The precendent is with Enoch and Elijah who were assumed into heaven (Hb 11:5, 2 Kg 2:11). That she was assumed as well is the natural progression of her Immaculate Conception. The Assumption, incidentally, was the most recent to be defined of the Marian dogmas.

Hope that helps.

 

[Catholicc]

Nathan,
Have you read this yet? If not, you should. It’ll take about 20 minutes to read:
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

 

[ERose]

1. When people refer to Mary being in heaven “body and soul” based off of Revelations 11 and 12, I am not following the inference. It seems more like people are saying she is there bodily because she was assumed, rather than saying that she was assumed because she is pictured there bodily. Basically, what is to prevent one from reading that passage and simply seeing it as referring to her soul in heaven, with her body awaiting the resurrection? I am aware of the other arguements for her assumption, but leaving those out, I am curious how we come to the conclusion that these passages refer to her *body *and soul in heaven.

It is Catholic Sacred Tradition that teaches the Blessed Mother has already been resurrected and assumed into heaven. This is not a biblical teaching. The theology of these chapters in Revelations refers to here as the mother of Christ and the mother of the Church. Which makes sense after referring to St Pauls references that the Church is the “Body of Christ”, thus Mary must also be the mother of the Church as well.

1. I think this may have been covered elsewhere but I can’t seem to find it. How does the “queen mother” feature of the davidic line factor in if David did not have a “queen mother?” Also, since Jesus is the fulfillment of David himself and not necessarily only the davidic line, why would Jesus necessarily have to have a “queen mother?”

Jesus as God does not need to have a queen mother. He chose to have one. The references of the queen mother in the Davidic line are significant because of an emphasis of the preceived importance of the role in the Davidic kingdom. Many have used typology to reference the importance of our mother with that of the office of the queen mother in early Isreal. Scott Hahn has a great speech that discusses this in greater detail.

1. My understanding of original sin is of a loss of our supernatural grace, which God restores through baptism. So Mary was prevented from “falling into the pit” preemptively (that appears to be the most popular way of demonstrating it). She could then serve as a pure vessel and pass on this sinless human nature to her son. The confusion for me is this:

A. Firstly, why is it important that she was immaculately conceived, as opposed to just being “overshadowed” or “full of grace” at any point in her life? Baptism purges us and makes us blameless by fillling us with grace. She was filled with grace, accomplishing to my understanding the same thing is baptism. Why is it so important, then, that she have this happen at her conception? Why not anytime? This leads to the next part of this topic.

In my opinion two reasons: 1) Mary is the “Ark of the New Covenant”. As in the Ark of the Old Covenant where found the “10 Commandments” and the “bread from heaven” so was found in the Ark of the New Covenant the Word of God and the Bread of Heaven that is Jesus. As the OC Ark was the most sacred and holy object in the Old Covenant so is the NC Ark the most sacred and holy person in the New Covenant outside of God. She was made pure so that she could hold that which was pure. No one but Mary could be the Ark of the New Covenant. She was made specifically for this task by God. 2) Mary is the New Eve. As sin entered this world through the disobedience of one man and one women so salvation entered into this world through the obedience of one man and one woman. Without Mary there is no salvation. People forget that. Remember the dialogue between Mary and Gabriel concerning her purpose in Salvation history. She was asked not told. She was asked to be the Mother of our Lord. For Jesus to become human, Mary had to first accept her role. She could have walked away from it but she didn’t. She said "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me as you say"

B. Why does it matter that she was full of grace at all? God is holy, and she was without original sin, yes. But two baptized catholics that have a child still pass original sin on to that child. Since baptism accomplishes an infusion of supernatural grace, and we still can pass on original sin, it would seem by that logic that Mary would still pass a sinful nature on to Jesus. Can anyone clear this up? Jesus being God could not have any stain of sin. Thus His mother had to be perfect and pure without the touch of original sin. Also her purpose as the new Eve also required her to be as Eve was before the fall.

1. I get the “telestai means paid in full” argument tossed at me a lot. Now correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t this word have multiple meanings in the Greek determined by context? I had heard somewhere that it was, yes, used as an accounting term, but that it could sometimes be stamped and simply mean “finished” or “terminated” instead of “paid in full.” Does anybody know anything of this? I tried explaining the fourth cup idea, and I had the “it doesn’t mean ‘it is finished’ it means ‘paid in full’” statement tossed at me.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey guys, yes I have read the majority of the information out there. I apologize if I asked too much at once, I am going to make spearate posts.

 

[ERose]

1. When I dwell on the implications and read all the literature out there about the sacrifice on the cross, it makes my head hurt, seriously. It keeps me up quite a bit. What exactly does it mean when he took all the sin on Him at the cross and “bore our punishment?” Did is separate him from God (since God and sin don’t mix)? People often point to his agony in the garden as he contemplated taking on the sin of the world and the incredible burden it was, but has anybody really thought about what that means? I can’t quite grasp the kind of suffering he was dealing with when it says that “he became sin.” Any thoughts or a point to some literature that is in accord with church teaching? The best way to look at this is that Jesus did not commit any sins. He was never sinful nor did He at anytime fall from Grace. What Jesus did was take all the consequences of sin upon Himself and bore that punishment on the Cross. In a true since the punishment that Jesus bore was greater than what pain he felt from being on the cross. The punishment or pain that he felt was nearly infinite in magnitude because of the amount of sin he took upon Himself. That is the reason that only God can save us for only He could indure the total suffering that we as a human race deserves.
2. I understand the basics behind the primacy of Rome, but I am unclear as to how it actually came about that Rome took center stage; becoming more than just “a first among equals.” I ask because I had an eastern orthodox buddy, and for the longest time I thought they were simply the eastern rite of the church, it took me a bit more study to realize they aren’t. History is not and never will be my strong point so any help would be great here.Here you need to read about the primacy of St. Peter and those that succeeded him where bishops of Rome.
3. Lastly, I was reading about the Jesus “breath” prayer on an orthodox website. It talked about other forms of prayer, as well as combining the “jesus” prayer with breathing, and another method involving following the breath with your mind down inside yourself, into your lungs and body, then back out. It then promptly stated the obvious extreme dangers of such a method and discouraged it in the strongest terms. Besides seeming somewhat like breathing exercises of far eastern mysticism, what exactly are they worried about here?If you are referring to the Jesus prayer then I do not think that there is anything wrong with it if used correctly. I say the Jesus prayer frequently and many mystics in the Eastern Churches use it to move to contemplative prayer which has many similarities mostly by accident with Zen Buddism meditation practices. Contemplative prayer is an advanced form of prayer that those we call mystics use.

 

[ERose]

Hope this helps.

 

[Bella85]

Nathan, I am a long-time reader of this forum, but I’ve never joined and replied to anything, but your post made me do it. I don’t have any answers for you, but rather I am just so impressed by your knowledge and obvious love for the Church - as a cradle Catholic, I have so much respect and admiration for people who find the Catholic Church on their own despite the difficulties of family not understanding, etc. I don’t even know how to e-mail somebody privately on this thing, but I would love to hear how your story about how you came to the Catholic Church. Good luck with your dad.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

hey, haha thanks. Well my email is nathanwagar@yahoo.com, my military one is getting deleted soon I imagine…Anybody is welcome to privately email me.

I guess my issue is, I don’t understand how he bore our “punishment” for sin. As I myself know, the more I sin, the less I feel, if anything. And since a natural punishment for sin is hell, and Jesus didn’t go to hell (although I’ve read some people that seem to think he did), I am unsure as to the *nature *of his suffering.

Also, I am aware of the primacy of Rome, since even the easter orthodox admits to Rome as a “first among equals.” What my question regards is at what point did the bishop of Rome become univeral over the whole church? Even Steven Ray’s book “Upon this Rock” appears a bit fuzzy about this prcoess. He shows the primacy of Peter, then the primacy of Rome, but he is not as clear about when and how Rome moved into more than mere primacy. Eastern Orthodox would claim that Rome basically decided to bring everybody under Rome.

Please be aware that I have heard the arguments from Matthew, Isaiah, etc. I am not debating this. I am just a bit rusty on actual history.

 

[ziapueblo]

Nathan,

I live in Albuquerque and can give you a list of some of our wonderful Parishes here

1. My understanding of original sin is of a loss of our supernatural grace, which God restores through baptism. So Mary was prevented from “falling into the pit” preemptively (that appears to be the most popular way of demonstrating it). She could then serve as a pure vessel and pass on this sinless human nature to her son. The confusion for me is this:

A. Firstly, why is it important that she was immaculately conceived, as opposed to just being “overshadowed” or “full of grace” at any point in her life? Baptism purges us and makes us blameless by fillling us with grace. She was filled with grace, accomplishing to my understanding the same thing is baptism. Why is it so important, then, that she have this happen at her conception? Why not anytime? This leads to the next part of this topic

B. Why does it matter that she was full of grace at all? God is holy, and she was without original sin, yes. But two baptized catholics that have a child still pass original sin on to that child. Since baptism accomplishes an infusion of supernatural grace, and we still can pass on original sin, it would seem by that logic that Mary would still pass a sinful nature on to Jesus. Can anyone clear this up?

There is a theological answer to this question, and I’m sure someone with post it, but for me it’s as simple as this: Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, conceived Jesus in her womb, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Jesus had to be carried in the most precious vessel imaginable. This vessel of course is the Virgin Marry. There are many passages in Scripture that link Theotokos and the Ark of the Covenant. Scroll down to Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant.

God bless,
ZP

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

ziapueblo, yeah that would be great. My move date is the 20th and I will be just outside albuqurque in rio rancho. My wife and I would like to find a good church. We are both pretty orthodox, so we are trying to avoid one that tends to play a bit loose with the actual teachings.

What about part B of question 3 though? Everybody seems to be skipping that one…

 

[ziapueblo]

ziapueblo, yeah that would be great. My move date is the 20th and I will be just outside albuqurque in rio rancho. My wife and I would like to find a good church. We are both pretty orthodox, so we are trying to avoid one that tends to play a bit loose with the actual teachings.

What about part B of question 3 though? Everybody seems to be skipping that one…

Mary: “Full of Grace” will hopefully answer part B.

God bless,
ZP

 

[Through_Him]

Nathan, I am a long-time reader of this forum, but I’ve never joined and replied to anything, but your post made me do it. I don’t have any answers for you, but rather I am just so impressed by your knowledge and obvious love for the Church - as a cradle Catholic, I have so much respect and admiration for people who find the Catholic Church on their own despite the difficulties of family not understanding, etc. I don’t even know how to e-mail somebody privately on this thing, but I would love to hear how your story about how you came to the Catholic Church. Good luck with your dad.

Go to profile then private messages and then to send a new message;
You have to have the persons correct spelling of his sign on name or it might go to someone else. Put a topic in such as hello or so and just click submit at the bottom. You can use smilies etc.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Maybe I should have said “part B of part B.” haha.

Basically, it’s a question about the nature of baptism as well. Adam passed on his fallen state as a lack of grace to his children because of his role as covenant head. I do not understand why two baptized people do not pass on their “graceful” status to their children. Their children still need to be baptized.

Because being baptized infuses you with supernatural grace, which is what Mary experienced, and yet our children still need to be baptized, I don’t see how Jesus would not have still inherited a sinful nature. It seems logically inconsistent to me that we can pass on a state of “gracelessness” but then in other scriptural cases pass on a state of “gracefullness”