perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aidanbradypop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pocohombre said:
Originally Posted by FathersKnowBest
Click to expand...
Sorry. St. Jude reiterates this event, warning that the sin of Korah is very much present in the Messianic age:
Jude 1:11 Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.
That was old, when there were separate priests and we needed propitiaition, intercesssion, and could not enter the holy of holies and only a Levite could approach. We have the flip side of Korah now, where some still hold to the old and insist we need Levite intermediaries. But we are all of the tribe of Judah, even a kingdom of priests, per St. Peter and Paul’s words. Thru Christ our Lord all can enter thru to the holy of holies.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess St. Jude shows yet again another error in your theology. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
 
Protestor said:
Originally Posted by pocohombre
You are a testament too late . That was old, when there were separate priests and we needed propitiaition, intercesssion, and could not enter the holy of holies and only a Levite could approach…We have the flip side of Korah now, where some still hold to the old and insist we need Levite intermediaries. But we are all of the tribe of Judah, even a kingdom of priests, per St. Peter and Paul’s words. Thru Christ our Lord all can enter thru to the holy of holies.
Click to expand...
2Ti 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings,
Click to expand...
 
Kliska said:
No, I don’t believe that is an “official” teaching of the RCC/ECC. But, I do have to say that one of the “problems” some of us protestants see is that the RCC/ECC has made Mary, and doctrines about Mary, a hinge of salvation. In other words there are now some things that one MUST believe about Mary in order to become a part of the RCC/ECC which is supposedly where all truth is.

Do you see my point? I can espouse all the same beliefs about Jesus Christ as the RCC/ECC teaches, but if I don’t agree about Mary, I’m not allowed to be in good standing. So, in effect, now beliefs about Mary have become mandatory. As a “good” protestant I do have to say that I don’t see that in scripture at all. When the gospel is clearly laid out, and someone asks “what must I do to be saved” the answer is always about Christ, to be baptized one must accept truth about Jesus and to faithe on Jesus.

The RCC/ECC has now made that “not enough.” CS Lewis is one of my favorite writers and he put it like this “You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert:we see in Rome the faith smothered in a jungle.” Biblical Christianity shouldn’t be that way, IMO. What does this have to do with the thread? It is just an example of the focus on Marian doctrine. And IF the Marian doctrines are truly to teach about Jesus, then it should be possible to agree on Jesus directly even if we disagree slightly about Mary.
Click to expand...
Kliska are you trying to say that the Catholic Church will be Better, without the Mary Doctrine ? Or You will be Catholic If is not Mary Doctrine?
 
PRmerger said:
That’s exactly my point. That’s exactly why the saying, “I’ll know Scripture when I hear it!” is so circular.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understand my point. I am not saying that as soon as I first heard scripture I said to myself “yup this is scripture”. I have spent a significant amount of time in the scripture. I have read things from around the same time period. You are not accepting my premise that I can know God’s voice, which I am interpreting to mean scripture, when I hear it. I am not saying that I came into this all willy nilly. I did look up ancient cannon lists to first see which books were most trustworthy. I did not know scripture when I first came to Christ. Did my friends use scripture to evangelize to me? Yes, this does not mean that those scriptures are the only ones that I accept.

I accept the NT as is canonical today. At least one of the ancient list did not contain Revelation, I still accept it. Martin Luther like I said did not accept James at first, I accept it. I bring up these examples because I feel like these were parts of the NT that I could have rejected and the ones I went in most skeptical about. I now have read Revelation like 24 or 25 times, and James is my favorite non-gospel. I am not saying that I went into the bible with no presuppositions or that I was completely objective about it. Subjectivity when reading the bible is a position which all humans are in at least those who have read it. I am only using a few examples I can use more if you want.

I do not, and did not, have to accept any book of the bible. I will repeat I know which books are God breathed because God has revealed it to me. I accept the ones I have not studied on faith.

How many letters do you think Corinth received? Some of those letters probably claimed to be from the mouth of God, and yet we do not have a record of these letters. Paul’s letter was received as being divinely inspired and was preserved as such. So yes I do think that when they heard Paul’s letter the Christians in that audience knew it as well as the leaders who choose to share it and enforce the beliefs held in it and preserve it. I live in a privileged age where I have a codified version of all that God has shared with our generation. I have proclaimed that books are not of scripture: the book of mormon, the books put out by the christ ahnsahnghong people (man is it hard to get a hold of a copy of that guys writing in english), the gospel of thomas.

I think what you are searching for is where I have proclaimed a book canonical that is not in the current cannon. I am sorry that I have not. How glorious would it be to have more God breathed scripture. I am not sure why I am at fault for either having divine revelation or faith that Tradition got the NT right.
 
Kliska said:
No, I don’t believe that is an “official” teaching of the RCC/ECC. But, I do have to say that one of the “problems” some of us protestants see is that the RCC/ECC has made Mary, and doctrines about Mary, a hinge of salvation. In other words there are now some things that one MUST believe about Mary in order to become a part of the RCC/ECC which is supposedly where all truth is.

Do you see my point? I can espouse all the same beliefs about Jesus Christ as the RCC/ECC teaches, but if I don’t agree about Mary, I’m not allowed to be in good standing. So, in effect, now beliefs about Mary have become mandatory. As a “good” protestant I do have to say that I don’t see that in scripture at all. When the gospel is clearly laid out, and someone asks “what must I do to be saved” the answer is always about Christ, to be baptized one must accept truth about Jesus and to faithe on Jesus.

The RCC/ECC has now made that “not enough.” CS Lewis is one of my favorite writers and he put it like this “You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert:we see in Rome the faith smothered in a jungle.” Biblical Christianity shouldn’t be that way, IMO. What does this have to do with the thread? It is just an example of the focus on Marian doctrine. And IF the Marian doctrines are truly to teach about Jesus, then it should be possible to agree on Jesus directly even if we disagree slightly about Mary.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is what it really comes down to. According to the Papal encyclical “Mortalium Animos”, section 9, “all who are truly Christ’s believe” the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary just as surely as they believe the doctrine of the Trinity. Anyone who questions the necessity of the Marian doctrines as a required belief is now outside the Church according to this encyclical, and we are not “truly Christ’s”.
 
Kliska said:
No, I don’t believe that is an “official” teaching of the RCC/ECC.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you’re right in saying that it isn’t an official teaching. (If one of my fellow Catholics reading this knows that it is an official teaching, please let me know.) Granted, of course, there are other Marian teachings that are official …
Kliska said:
But, I do have to say that one of the “problems” some of us protestants see is that the RCC/ECC has made Mary, and doctrines about Mary, a hinge of salvation. In other words there are now some things that one MUST believe about Mary in order to become a part of the RCC/ECC which is supposedly where all truth is.

Do you see my point? I can espouse all the same beliefs about Jesus Christ as the RCC/ECC teaches, but if I don’t agree about Mary, I’m not allowed to be in good standing. So, in effect, now beliefs about Mary have become mandatory. As a “good” protestant I do have to say that I don’t see that in scripture at all. When the gospel is clearly laid out, and someone asks “what must I do to be saved” the answer is always about Christ, to be baptized one must accept truth about Jesus and to faithe on Jesus.
Click to expand...
Pretty much, but I want to comment on your statement that “if I don’t agree about Mary, I’m not allowed to be in good standing.” Certainly if a protestants wants to “switch teams” so-to-speak and join the Roman Communion, well that’s a very serious move (in either direction) and we would expect him/her to agree with all official teachings. But that also doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church is okay with intercommunion with some groups like the Polish National Catholic Church, without requiring agreement with dogmas like the Immaculate Conception.

P.S. It seems to me that many protestants put the cart before the horse: asking “Would joining the Roman Communion mean that I’d have to rethink my attitude toward Mary?” instead of asking “If I’m not going to join the Roman Communion, can I rethink my attitude toward Mary anyhow?”
 
Amo_a_Jesus said:
Kliska are you trying to say that the Catholic Church will be Better, without the Mary Doctrine ? Or You will be Catholic If is not Mary Doctrine?
Click to expand...
Neither. lol I can’t really take away anything I just said, It’s phrased to show the point that I’m making. It hinges on the idea that the RCC/ECC has made Mary a salvational figure; as in I now MUST believe certain things about Mary (not Jesus) in order to become a member of the RCC/ECC (the IC and Assumption). That isn’t supported anywhere in scripture; meaning when we see the idea of salvation, and the gospel, or even baptism there is zero mention of certain beliefs, like the IC and Assumption of Mary.

Again, I can espouse all the exact same beliefs about the person of Christ, that He is the Second Person of the Trinity, His life, death and resurrection, I can recite the Apostle’s creed, etc… but if I disagree on the Assumption of Mary, I can’t be a member in good standing of the RCC/ECC, as I understand it.
 
aidanbradypop said:
These two got me. Are you stating that one needs to be Catholic in order to be fully united to Christ?
Click to expand...
Yep.

To fully participate in the New Covenant, you need to partake in the Last Supper, and eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of God. Just as He commanded. That is why He commanded it, and He wants us to become the Body of Christ. We become what we eat. And just as Jesus asked Saul why he was persecuting HIM (not the Church, but HIM), it shows that we need to be a full participant in His Church to be fully part of His Body.
 
AbideWithMe said:
I agree. This is what it really comes down to. According to the Papal encyclical “Mortalium Animos”, section 9, “all who are truly Christ’s believe” the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary just as surely as they believe the doctrine of the Trinity. Anyone who questions the necessity of the Marian doctrines as a required belief is now outside the Church according to this encyclical, and we are not “truly Christ’s”.
Click to expand...
Well, I won’t suggest that we should put that in a closet, nor will I dismiss your concern with a snort and a “That was before Vatican II.” But at the same time, don’t ignore everything *since *Vatican II either.
 
Peter_J said:
Yes, I think you’re right in saying that it isn’t an official teaching. (If one of my fellow Catholics reading this knows that it is an official teaching, please let me know.) Granted, of course, there are other Marian teachings that are official …

Pretty much, but I want to comment on your statement that “if I don’t agree about Mary, I’m not allowed to be in good standing.” Certainly if a protestants wants to “switch teams” so-to-speak and join the Roman Communion, well that’s a very serious move (in either direction) and we would expect him/her to agree with all official teachings. But that also doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church is okay with intercommunion with some groups like the Polish National Catholic Church, without requiring agreement with dogmas like the Immaculate Conception.

P.S. It seems to me that many protestants put the cart before the horse: asking “Would joining the Roman Communion mean that I’d have to rethink my attitude toward Mary?” instead of asking “If I’m not going to join the Roman Communion, can I rethink my attitude toward Mary anyhow?”
Click to expand...
PV of Mary is de fide
 
zz912 said:
Yep.

To fully participate in the New Covenant, you need to partake in the Last Supper, and eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of God. Just as He commanded. That is why He commanded it, and He wants us to become the Body of Christ. We become what we eat. And just as Jesus asked Saul why he was persecuting HIM (not the Church, but HIM), it shows that we need to be a full participant in His Church to be fully part of His Body.
Click to expand...
Hmmm… I do partake in the Last Supper each and every Sunday. I do not persecute Christ by being an Episcopalian and to say so is actually really rude. I hope that is not what you were getting at and I simply took your words out of context. 🤷
 
regarding the verses in scripture that mention brothers of Jesus.

the words were, most likely, spoken in aramaic and translated in to the greek that is the language of our earliest versions of the gospels. accordingly, none of us know from text, word and language analysis why the greek word used was chosen. reliable and educated sources believe that the greek word(s) used do not limit their meanings to full blood brothers and sisters of Jesus.

knowing this, i am of the opinion that the most likely aramaic word spoken was the aramaic word that is the equivalent of our english word “relative(s)”. we often use relative when we are referring to someone to whom we are related but do not want to go in to all of the particulars of the nature of the relationship, for any number of possible reasons.

also, the early Church would have known absolutely, without question, whether or not Mary had other children.

if Mary had children after the birth of Jesus, the early Church would have anathametized anyone who had claimed Mary’s perpetual virginity. that did not occur. instead, the opposite occurred. we see direct evidence that the early Chuch did believe in Mary’s PV.

irenaeus writes in the second century. irenaeus was a bishop of the RCC and as a consequence had been determined by other bishops as being qualified to speak with apostolic authority about the gospel. when irenaeus’ writings on the subject became known, any number of bishops would have challenged him had the tradition been opposed to what he wrote.

in the fourth century, we see the first evidence of any self-proclaimed christians raising down about Mary’s PV. i am unaware that any of those casting doubt are considered orthodox successors to the apostles.

right reason leads a person to accept without question the PV of the BVM.

those who reject the doctrine are not relying on right reason.
 
Lochias said:
Three words: Westboro Baptist Church. They use ALL the arguments that you do. Would you call what they believe and do a corruption of the body of Christ, or not?

.
Click to expand...
Lochias, I want to briefly say that I think using the Westboro Baptist Church as a proof against Sola Scriptura makes for a weak argument. I think the WBC is one of the many fruits of the “new” (post-Reformation) concept of religious liberty. But that’s for another thread.
 
Peter_J said:
Pretty much, but I want to comment on your statement that “if I don’t agree about Mary, I’m not allowed to be in good standing.” Certainly if a protestants wants to “switch teams” so-to-speak and join the Roman Communion, well that’s a very serious move (in either direction) and we would expect him/her to agree with all official teachings. But that also doesn’t change the fact that** the Catholic Church is okay with intercommunion with some groups like the Polish National Catholic Church, without requiring agreement with dogmas like the Immaculate Conception.**

P.S. It seems to me that many protestants put the cart before the horse: asking “Would joining the Roman Communion mean that I’d have to rethink my attitude toward Mary?” instead of asking “If I’m not going to join the Roman Communion, can I rethink my attitude toward Mary anyhow?”
Click to expand...
The bolded bit above is indeed an aspect of the Catholic faith that confuses me. So, they will accept and recognize a whole Church that doesn’t hold certain things about Mary dogmatically, but they will not accept an individual that does the same. As a “low-church” protestant that kind of thinking doesn’t make sense to me.

If anyone wants they can read my view of Mary here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11554267&postcount=1 In short, I don’t feel I have any type of wrong attitude toward Mary to rethink. I can appreciate it if someone thinks I’m missing out on some good info about Mary, but to make that info a hurdle to jump before I could join a church doesn’t quite sit well with me in what I see in scripture.
 
aidanbradypop said:
Hmmm… I do partake in the Last Supper each and every Sunday. I do not persecute Christ by being an Episcopalian and to say so is actually really rude. I hope that is not what you were getting at and I simply took your words out of context. 🤷
Click to expand...
I wasn’t saying you persecute Jesus, I was only using the reference to show how Christ equates His Church with Himself. Sorry for any confusion.

And you partake in the one sacrifice of Christ that He offers to the Father eternally in Heaven that we see in Revelation? You partake of His actual Blood and Body?
 
zz912 said:
I wasn’t saying you persecute Jesus, I was only using the reference to show how Christ equates His Church with Himself. Sorry for any confusion.

And you partake in the one sacrifice of Christ that He offers to the Father eternally in Heaven that we see in Revelation? You partake of His actual Blood and Body?
Click to expand...
Yes. Holy Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ. The RP!

But this has nothing to do with the topic. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top