perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[rbarcia]

the Marian doctrines were part of the teachings the RCC received from Jesus through His apostles.

Prove this statement. This is not true. You do not have any record of Jesus or the apostles teaching.

• Queen of heaven
• Co-Redemptrix
• Mary Being Sinless
• Immaculate Conception
• Perpetual Virginity

None of these were passed down all the way from the time of Jesus. Irenaeus is the earliest record of mariology and introduced terms like “cause of salvation”. But this was not teaching he received from apostles and such, but his own thinking. And many later, people developed full out theologies around these single sentences and such.

Only Jesus is the author and finisher (Beginning and end) of our salvation. Using author and finisher is a way of giving exclusivity

Hebrews 12:1-2

Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Mary maybe part of the cloud of witness, but contributes nothing to the act of saving.

 

[Peter_J]

I didn’t realize you wanted to be.

It’s more of an academic question. lol

But really, is that not how it would work? With all of us talking and praying for unity, I think it is an important question.

I’d have to answer your question Yes *and *No.

By way of illustration, we Melkite Catholics have a strong desire to reunite with our Orthodox brethren (separated since 1726). However, at the present time the only way for us to reunite with them would be to break-off our existing communion with Rome – to switch sides as it were. I don’t believe in using division to achieve union.

 

[PRmerger]

Prove this statement. This is not true. You do not have any record of Jesus or the apostles teaching.

You don’t have any record of Jesus or the apostles teaching, “The Epistle to the Hebrews is the inspired Word of God and the Epistle of Barnabas is not”.

And yet you believe that, I presume, the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos and the EoB is not?

 

[PRmerger]

Mary maybe part of the cloud of witness, but contributes nothing to the act of saving.

Do you know that St. Paul states that he contributes to the act of saving?

In fact, he even says that we Christians contribute to the act of saving ourselves.

So why can’t Mary contribute to the act of saving?

 

[PRmerger]

But if we look at this particular teaching, even those that deny the PV of Mary, like me, don’t see that as a slam on Mary; how could we? There is nothing sinful or wrong about sex in marriage or procreation; both are blessings given by God.

That’s because you view the PV of Mary as a statement about sex in marriage.

It is no more a statement about sex in marriage (as in denigrating it) than saying, “Jesus is Divine!” is a statement which denigrates humanity.

Rather, the teaching on Mary’s PV, as all Marian teachings, only serves to enhance and enrich our understanding of Christ and His Divinity.

It’s all about Him, and not about Mary’s sex life.

 

[rbarcia]

Do you know that St. Paul states that he contributes to the act of saving?

In fact, he even says that we Christians contribute to the act of saving ourselves.

So why can’t Mary contribute to the act of saving?

He does by preaching the gospel. But he is not involved in the actual redemption process.

1 Cor 9

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[a] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,** but under law toward Christ[c]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[d] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

Paul knew the gospel was the power of salvation.

Romans 1

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

Just like any Christian today can preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to unbelievers, that they might be saved.

So in an evangelism way, we can all participate by just delivering the message. But it is the message and not the messenger that saves

That is not the same thing, and you know it.

I am pointing to the specific co-redemptix doctrine that Mary’s suffering under the foot of the cross contributes to salvation. And that is a teaching that is not true. Only Christ’s suffering does that.

This does not change the fact that there is no record of this being taught by Jesus and the apostles, so stay on that point.

Asking “Why Not” is not the same as what is true and what is not. the art of possible is not always reality.**

 

[PRmerger]

He does by preaching the gospel. But he is not involved in the actual redemption process.

How does that tell you that Hebrews is theopneustos but the Epistle of Barnabas is not?

 

[rbarcia]

You don’t have any record of Jesus or the apostles teaching, “The Epistle to the Hebrews is the inspired Word of God and the Epistle of Barnabas is not”.

And yet you believe that, I presume, the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos and the EoB is not?

The topic of Canon is a different topic for another thread. If the poster I responded to says

*“the Marian doctrines were part of the teachings the RCC received from Jesus through His apostles.” *

And I challenge that, why do I have to go off topic about Canon of Scriptures.

I want proof that Marian Doctrines were part of teachings Jesus and Apostles passed down.

You just want to go off the topic to get away from the original challenge.

 

[rbarcia]

How does that tell you that Hebrews is theopneustos but the Epistle of Barnabas is not?

Answer me first:
How do we know this?

“the Marian doctrines were part of the teachings the RCC received from Jesus through His apostles”.

I just want some backing of this

After that, I will get into a discussion on Canon of Scripture (probably on a different thread). You can point to councils in 3rd, 4th century if you want. You can try to prove early councils were really RCC councils. But this is a trap to get away from the fact that we have no proof of the statement I challenged.

 

[stewstew03]

…
I am pointing to the specific co-redemptix doctrine that Mary’s suffering under the foot of the cross contributes to salvation. And that is a teaching that is not true. Only Christ’s suffering does that.

…

Paul also says that an unbelieving spouse is “sanctified” (Greek: hagiázō) by the believing spouse. Think about that – a ritual performed in a church can ultimately lead to a non-believer being covered with the righteousness of the believing spouse. Put another way, God permits the believing spouse to serve as a conduit of His grace for the unbelieving spouse, even the children! What are the implications for Mary’s role as mediatrix?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:14[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

He does by preaching the gospel. But he is not involved in the actual redemption process.

Well, he says that he saves people. That’s in the Bible, rbarcia.

 

[PRmerger]

Paul also says that an unbelieving spouse is “sanctified” (Greek: hagiázō) by the believing spouse. Think about that – a ritual performed in a church can ultimately lead to a non-believer being covered with the righteousness of the believing spouse. Put another way, God permits the believing spouse to serve as a conduit of His grace for the unbelieving spouse, even the children! What are the implications for Mary’s role as mediatrix?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:14[/BIBLEDRB]

Wow! Love that!!

:clapping:

 

[PRmerger]

The topic of Canon is a different topic for another thread. If the poster I responded to says

*“the Marian doctrines were part of the teachings the RCC received from Jesus through His apostles.” *

And I challenge that, why do I have to go off topic about Canon of Scriptures.

Because it shows your inconsistency.

You object to a belief because “Jesus never said it, nor any of his apostles”.

Yet you embrace a belief, even if “Jesus never said it, nor any of his apostles”, (each and every time you quote from the Epistle to the Hebrews.)

I want proof that Marian Doctrines were part of teachings Jesus and Apostles passed down.

It’s right there after the proof that Jesus and the Apostles passed down that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the inspired word of God.

You just want to go off the topic to get away from the original challenge.

You just don’t want to address it because it makes you look inconsistent. :sad_yes:

 

[rbarcia]

Paul also says that an unbelieving spouse is “sanctified” (Greek: hagiázō) by the believing spouse. Think about that – a ritual performed in a church can ultimately lead to a non-believer being covered with the righteousness of the believing spouse. Put another way, God permits the believing spouse to serve as a conduit of His grace for the unbelieving spouse, even the children! What are the implications for Mary’s role as mediatrix?

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 7:14[/BIBLEDRB]

Huh?

*1 Cor 7

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?*

This is just saying that the unbelieving spouse in seeing the believing spouse live the gospel might lead the unbeliever to believe in Jesus. Therefore, the believing spouse should not divorce because it might be part of God’s plan, and the unbelieving spouse might believe later. Upon believing, the precious blood of Christ redeems her, and His Death pays her fine.

This has nothing to do with some ritual in a church, that is not even mentioned. Sanctification is to be “to be set apart.” , or made holy. The presence of a believer in a home should bring in Christ’s teaching into the home and reduce sin more than a home that has no believers.

But the unbelieving spouse is not saved until they repent and believe themselves.

This is not relevant to Mary’s suffering under the cross being some kind of a conduit to Christ’s suffering.

 

[stewstew03]

Prove this statement. This is not true. You do not have any record of Jesus or the apostles teaching.

• Queen of heaven
• Co-Redemptrix
• Mary Being Sinless
• Immaculate Conception
• Perpetual Virginity

None of these were passed down all the way from the time of Jesus. Irenaeus is the earliest record of mariology and introduced terms like “cause of salvation”. But this was not teaching he received from apostles and such, but his own thinking. And many later, people developed full out theologies around these single sentences and such.
…

Just curious - why are you dismissing Irenaeus as insignificant? I wonder if you know who he is…?

“Since then faith is the perpetuation of our salvation, we must needs bestow much pains on the maintenance thereof, in order that we may have a true comprehension of the things that are. Now faith occasions this for us; even as the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us.”
Ireneaus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book III, Chapter IV

 

[rbarcia]

Because it shows your inconsistency.

You object to a belief because “Jesus never said it, nor any of his apostles”.

Yet you embrace a belief, even if “Jesus never said it, nor any of his apostles”, (each and every time you quote from the Epistle to the Hebrews.)

It’s right there after the proof that Jesus and the Apostles passed down that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the inspired word of God.

You just don’t want to address it because it makes you look inconsistent. :sad_yes:

Show me where? What document says they received this teaching from Jesus and the Apostles. You have no answer, so you go after me and call me inconsistent and that is fine.

I asked first, show me a document (outside of the Bible if you want) that says that Jesus and the Apostles passed Marion doctrine to them.

The poster made the claim, why do I have to go to a different topic?

I said I would talk about it in another thread if you want. Canon of Scripture.

 

[wmscott]

Show me where? What document says they received this teaching from Jesus and the Apostles. You have no answer, so you go after me and call me inconsistent and that is fine.

I asked first, show me a document (outside of the Bible if you want) that says that Jesus and the Apostles passed Marion doctrine to them.

The poster made the claim, why do I have to go to a different topic?

I said I would talk about it in another thread if you want. Canon of Scripture.

try reading The Protoevangelium of James

newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

 

[PRmerger]

Show me where? What document says they received this teaching from Jesus and the Apostles. You have no answer, so you go after me and call me inconsistent and that is fine.

Which teaching are you even talking about?

The teaching that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos?

 

[rbarcia]

Just curious - why are you dismissing Irenaeus as insignificant? I wonder if you know who he is…?

“Since then faith is the perpetuation of our salvation, we must needs bestow much pains on the maintenance thereof, in order that we may have a true comprehension of the things that are. Now faith occasions this for us; even as the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us.”
Ireneaus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book III, Chapter IV

I did not say early church writings are not significant. You are accusing me of that. They are not inspired like the Word of God, but I never said it was not significant.

But saying “Mary’s suffering at the foot of the cross contributes to Christ suffering” is a teaching from Christ based on a sentence by Ireneaus about Mary being a second Eve does not change the fact that the Co-Redemptrix did not appear until the 15th century.

Irenaeus was trying to make an argument himself about Eve based on what Paul said about Christ being the second Adam. He used what was passed on to him by Paul, to create his own argument. The Eve teaching was not passed down from Christ.

Nonetheless, Mary’s sinlessness and Co-Redemptrix are much more developed teachings that did not originate from Jesus or the apostles.

 

[rbarcia]

Which teaching are you even talking about?

The teaching that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos?

If you want to show me that go ahead, even though that is not what I asked.