Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

[setarcos]

Both, like Jesus.

Mary is truly our spiritual mother. Satan hates Mary because it is through her that God will defeat him (Gen. 3:15)! If Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body, was born of Mary, it follows that the other members of the Mystical Body must also be spritually born of Mary.

It is my understanding that Mary is the conduit through which Christ was to gain his humanity. As per prophecy. Since to be fully human one must partake of human processes. I’m not sure how this would make her my spiritual mother lest this would make her more than human -perfect or not- and thereby destroy her purpose for Jesus.
I am not sure what you mean by quoting Gen 3:15 since it says nothing about the woman defeating the serpent and what’s more goes on to show God punish the woman for her disobedience in the first place. Hardly a good comparison to Mary since presumably Mary was never disobedient to God for example.
Ah but alas I may be wrong. Thank you for any help you may give me in my ignorance.

 

[setarcos]

God is the source of your creation, as well as the source of your salvation. Your parents are the cause of your creation and the Blessed Vigin is the cause of your salvation (S. Irenaeus, Adv. Hacr. III, 22, 4). Without the Blessed Virgin, your mother in the order of grace, you have no salvation. Just as, without your biological mother, you would not be born.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since Jesus is my savior and Mary berthed him it necessarily follows that without Mary Jesus would never have been born ergo I would never have had the opportunity to be saved because of this positive correlation.
You may as well say Mary’s parents berthed her so without them, no Mary, then no Jesus, then no salvation. Or Mary’s parents parents etc.; in infinitum in praeteritis…
The problem here I think is your assuming correlation proves causation. A questionable cause logical fallacy. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc -“with this, therefore because of this”- for those who love their latin. In other words, if no Mary; no Jesus. If no Jesus no salvation. The problem there is, as I see it, that Mary is a creature. Created along with everything else by God, for God’s good pleasure.
My parents are no more the cause of my creation than if they were the cause of making only female babies because that’s what they wanted. If I was to be born then I was to be born. Not because they had a conception of who I was to be but because God created a situation in which my berth was to happen. Don’t get me wrong though they serve a very important function. I respect them for loving me, teaching me, caring for my needs and not prematurely ending my life but I don’t revere them for being the arbitrary source of my creation.
Mary in that sense didn’t choose God, God chose to create Mary. Pick any other name you wish they would still be who they were created to be. Because we cling to this idea of free will we must allow for the fact that Mary, however unlikely given the circumstances of her heavenly visitation, could have refused to get pregnant. Though I’m not sure how she would have gone about that? Anyways, if so, then there is no apparent reason why some other creature couldn’t have, indeed they would have, berthed Jesus since that is how God chose it to be in his creation. A son IS born! Not; A son might be born.
It simply would have been a different created reality from the get go. We wouldn’t know it. Perhaps there were many “nos” in other realities which collapsed salvation and with it creation. I don’t know and neither do you I would guess. Our business is dealing with this creation.
Or you may as well say God chose Mary because he knew she would say yes. Mary was told she was blessed because she would give birth. The angel didn’t ask Mary if she would be so kind as to give birth for God. Since when does God ask? He tells it like it is. And so it shall be.
Once again though, i speak from the mind and may be wrong but also from the heart because I fear we raise up a creature to the level of the creator. Make no mistake though, I love Mary as much as I can humanly love my neighbor and no one can tell me I love her less because I attribute less to her, but I also love Christ more.
May God bless your imparted wisdom to me.

 

[setarcos]

You assumed she has intent to consummate. You assumed God intended for her to fulfill her marriage duties. You assumed Joseph wanted to insist on his conjugal rights. Her womb is holy. Unless you are suggesting that God intended to birth His Son in an unholy place. Joseph wasn’t consecrated as far as I can made out.

Thank you for your scholarly reply. You wisdom is truly a lamp in the darkness.
I did not mean to imply any assumptions. I was merely proposing possibilities.
Speaking of wombs Incidentally -I presume we agree that Mary was human- , considering how the uterus functions, even a “perfect” uterus would not be the same uterus that berthed Christ within weeks after the event. What would be left to be holy would have to be retroactive and I agree with you it sounds picky and absurd but that is my point. Thoughts?

God tell us to set aside certain things for holy purposes.Lev 10:10. You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean. For example he told Moses how to make Holy Oil and when and where to use it. However, you will not see Holy objects later on become common items. What has been consecrated to the Lord remains consecrated to the Lord. Can he un-consecrate it? He possibly could but he didn’t and wouldn’t because God is unchanging.

I’m not implying making what God has blessed into something suddenly not blessed. It seems here you are assuming that God hasn’t the ability to bless her and Joseph with a prosperous marriage. Or that being married and having children would be somehow unholy? Assuming it is within God’s power to make the marriage with Joseph a holy marriage, how does what is holy make what is holy unholy?

Of course not. Mary is a live person and expected to interact with the world around her.

I absolutely agree, that is my point.

Would you also say the contents of Mary’s womb is also symbolic and serve as remembrances? I hope not. The ark carried the stone tablets, the word of God. Mary’s womb carried Christ, The Word of God. The 10 commandments has God’s authority behind it, because it is God’s word. Jesus has authority, because all authority has been given to him. He is the Word of God. I think you are stepping on very shaky ground when you make assertions that the commandments carry no authority. That something takes on God’s authority when he commands it. And the authority behinds it continues to exist until he lifted it. We can not arbitrarily says " Oh that was 2000 years ago and therefore his commandments should have been symbolic by now." That is not up to us to decide. We can not cherry pick and says this one applies, and this one doesn’t. Jn 20:21-23. Christ gave the authority to forgive sins to men. It wasn’t symbolic, the authority still stands today because he didn’t withdraw it. So why do some Christians refuse to accept he has given the authority to men? The Father sent him, he sent us. Christ tell us to eat his body and do it in memory of him. 3 gospel writers tell us this very important instruction. Paul said it. ALL Church Fathers said so. And for 1500 years, we believe and do so. But many Christians today don’t even believe this. Ahhh, that can’t be true. Gotta be symbolic. Well, they have managed to compose their own Bible.

You’ve misunderstood here I think. I’m pointing out the important differences and dangers of equating the types.
My point is that while the contents placed in the ark have symbolic significance they hold no authority or power or what have you by themselves. Their significance was given to them by he who Is the power and authority. Conversely the contents of Mary’s womb was not of symbolic significance or merely a tool of power and authority, he is their very source! God sustains all things. Without that sustaining the contents of the ark may as well be dust under our feet.
When I say they were symbolic I don’t mean to imply they never existed nor haven’t power. I am merely stating what their relationship to us means or signifies. As in Aaron’s rod. It didn’t magically make Aaron a ruler. It was a symbolic, unambiguous, sign of God’s endorsement which could be seen and was real. It had meaning to the people even after Aaron’s death.
How bout the tablets? Do you suppose the commandments should be obeyed because they were written on them? Or should they be obeyed because there is a collection of “symbols” on them which when put together give a meaningful account of God’s wishes…symbolically.
Or the manna. It served a very real purpose at the time, but it also serves symbolically to tell all generations that God will sustain us in our need.

It depends on whether you want to see parallels or not. Both contained the word of God. Both came with authority. Both contained food from heaven, one is manna the bread from heaven, the other the Bread of Life. Both were given to us to eat literally. But the Bread of Life will give you everlasting life.

Do you not see though, these are symbolic parallels. Not equalities.

Why do we group things together based upon similarities? So that the lesson learnt in one can be extended to another. So that it help us reinforce the message that is consistent in both items. Some may say it is a useless exercise. For others, it highlight to them things told in one but implicitly told in another. I am sure you see the value in grouping things together and extrapolating/deducing the information content. Paul uses typology repeatedly in his writings.

I think we make them into intellectual curiosities when we attempt to equate them with each other and then impress upon the one restrictions based upon that comparison. Types I think are useful for contextualizing but dangerous tools used for conforming reality to an idea.
Continue

God bless you in all endeavors
Continue

 

[ericc]

I was merely proposing possibilities.
Speaking of wombs Incidentally -I presume we agree that Mary was human- , considering how the uterus functions, even a “perfect” uterus would not be the same uterus that berthed Christ within weeks after the event. What would be left to be holy would have to be retroactive and I agree with you it sounds picky and absurd but that is my point. Thoughts?

You may have misunderstood me or thought I might have implied it. We aged everyday. The uterus the next day is not the same uterus as yesterday. The high priest consecrated 10 years ago is not the “same” as he is today. But nothing has changed in God’s appointment. Remember God is outside of time. He sees yesterday, today, future all at once.

I’m not implying making what God has blessed into something suddenly not blessed. It seems here you are assuming that God hasn’t the ability to bless her and Joseph with a prosperous marriage. Or that being married and having children would be somehow unholy? Assuming it is within God’s power to make the marriage with Joseph a holy marriage, how does what is holy make what is holy unholy?

I am not assuming anything. To God nothing is impossible (except contradictions). However, you can not presume to know God’s plan. We know what is, not what could have , should have. God won’t make something holy unholy. But man can defile holy things. And we see that many times throughout the Bible and get punished for it…

You’ve misunderstood here I think. I’m pointing out the important differences and dangers of equating the types.

Hmmm, using words like “equate” seems to make A=B. But I thought typology doesn’t actually mean that. Perhaps “similar” would be a more apt word. I don’t know. Sometimes people stretch things a bit too far in typology and one would need an imaginative mind to comprehend it. They can see things which even if I triple blink still failed to see what they saw. Almost like the inkblot test.

My point is that while the contents placed in the ark have symbolic significance they hold no authority or power or what have you by themselves. Their significance was given to them by he who Is the power and authority. Conversely the contents of Mary’s womb was not of symbolic significance or merely a tool of power and authority, he is their very source! God sustains all things. Without that sustaining the contents of the ark may as well be dust under our feet.

Now that becomes tricky. Does that “symbol” possess the authority to do what it does? All power comes from God. Hence you can argue everything else are symbols. The holy oil, vestments etc have been consecrated. If they are only symbolic, then no harm done if one were to profane such symbolic objects. But God doesn’t share that view. You touched my things with dirty hands, you gonna get smacked.

When I say they were symbolic I don’t mean to imply they never existed nor haven’t power. I am merely stating what their relationship to us means or signifies. As in Aaron’s rod. It didn’t magically make Aaron a ruler. It was a symbolic, unambiguous, sign of God’s endorsement which could be seen and was real. It had meaning to the people even after Aaron’s death.

Holy objects are God’s objects. Reserved for his holy use. I don’t see them as merely symbolic. Perhaps non-Catholics do not have this relationship with God’s holy items. We do and we observe this relationship in OT to NT. For example, you have the Holy of Holies. And in the NT we have the Eucharist, God himself. All of these were instructed by God himself. When did these sacred objects became symbols, on whose command? What is the difference between a symbol and actuality? One is real, the other is not. The Eucharist is Christ body, not represent his body. The Holy of Holies was God’s dwelling place on Earth, not a symbol.

How bout the tablets? Do you suppose the commandments should be obeyed because they were written on them? Or should they be obeyed because there is a collection of “symbols” on them which when put together give a meaningful account of God’s wishes…symbolically.

Or the manna. It served a very real purpose at the time, but it also serves symbolically to tell all generations that God will sustain us in our need.

Things that are touched by God are holy. The constitution he gave us was not meant to be symbolic but to be lived. The manna has been replaced by the Bread of Life, Jesus himself. And it continues to sustain us. There is nothing symbolic about it. Jesus never use the word symbol to describe the manna or his Body. He treats them as real. The manna was real food, his Body is real food he says Jn 6:55. But the efficacy is different. Did he ever say to stop? No, he says do it in memory of him. (The English translation is a bit weak I was told. the Greek words carry more oomph on this instruction)

Do you not see though, these are symbolic parallels. Not equalities.

I didn’t claim equalities. Why do you feel you need to classify them as symbols in the first place? Just take it for what they are. Evidence of the actual presence of God. Or is it if you tag them as symbols you are not compelled to obey?? Only you can answer that.

I think we make them into intellectual curiosities when we attempt to equate them with each other and then impress upon the one restrictions based upon that comparison. Types I think are useful for contextualizing but dangerous tools used for conforming reality to an idea.

Not curiosities, education, knowledge. Not for fun, but for deeper understanding. We look for clues to get a better understanding of the mind of God.

 

[JM3]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since Jesus is my savior and Mary berthed him it necessarily follows that without Mary Jesus would never have been born ergo I would never have had the opportunity to be saved because of this positive correlation.
You may as well say Mary’s parents berthed her so without them, no Mary, then no Jesus, then no salvation. Or Mary’s parents parents etc.; in infinitum in praeteritis…
The problem here I think is your assuming correlation proves causation. A questionable cause logical fallacy. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc -“with this, therefore because of this”- for those who love their latin. In other words, if no Mary; no Jesus. If no Jesus no salvation. The problem there is, as I see it, that Mary is a creature. Created along with everything else by God, for God’s good pleasure.
My parents are no more the cause of my creation than if they were the cause of making only female babies because that’s what they wanted. If I was to be born then I was to be born. Not because they had a conception of who I was to be but because God created a situation in which my berth was to happen. Don’t get me wrong though they serve a very important function. I respect them for loving me, teaching me, caring for my needs and not prematurely ending my life but I don’t revere them for being the arbitrary source of my creation.
Mary in that sense didn’t choose God, God chose to create Mary. Pick any other name you wish they would still be who they were created to be. Because we cling to this idea of free will we must allow for the fact that Mary, however unlikely given the circumstances of her heavenly visitation, could have refused to get pregnant. Though I’m not sure how she would have gone about that? Anyways, if so, then there is no apparent reason why some other creature couldn’t have, indeed they would have, berthed Jesus since that is how God chose it to be in his creation. A son IS born! Not; A son might be born.
It simply would have been a different created reality from the get go. We wouldn’t know it. Perhaps there were many “nos” in other realities which collapsed salvation and with it creation. I don’t know and neither do you I would guess. Our business is dealing with this creation.
Or you may as well say God chose Mary because he knew she would say yes. Mary was told she was blessed because she would give birth. The angel didn’t ask Mary if she would be so kind as to give birth for God. Since when does God ask? He tells it like it is. And so it shall be.
Once again though, i speak from the mind and may be wrong but also from the heart because I fear we raise up a creature to the level of the creator. Make no mistake though, I love Mary as much as I can humanly love my neighbor and no one can tell me I love her less because I attribute less to her, but I also love Christ more.
May God bless your imparted wisdom to me.

Perhaps, you didn’t look up the reference I gave you. Here it is.

newadvent.org/fathers/0103322.htm

1. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word.” Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise “they were both naked, and were not ashamed,” Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.

The problem here I think is your assuming correlation proves causation.

The relationship between one thing and another doesn’t prove anything. It only helps to understand one thing, or the other.

 

[setarcos]

I am sorry.
I must admit I have not looked up your reference. I will do that and get back to you. I thank you for your patience.

 

[Good_Fella]

It is my understanding that Mary is the conduit through which Christ was to gain his humanity. As per prophecy. Since to be fully human one must partake of human processes. I’m not sure how this would make her my spiritual mother lest this would make her more than human -perfect or not- and thereby destroy her purpose for Jesus.

Mary was associated with her divine Son in his work of redemption as much as Eve participated in the fall of Adam. In this sense the Church has designated her as our co-Redemptrix. Mary’s role in the divine order of redemption was not merely a physical one. The divine Word could have become incarnate in the same way as Adam had been made man, by being formed out of the clay of the earth (cf. Gen. 2:7). The truth is that Mary’s association with Jesus was moral in nature, which required her meritorious act of faith by the grace of God (Lk 1:38). Eve morally contributed to the fall of Adam (mankind) by having first succumbed to the devil’s temptation on account of her inordinate self-love and then misleading Adam.

We read in the Gospel of Luke that a woman in the crowd which was following Jesus raised her voice and said to him: “Blessed (makaria) is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!” This woman obviously thought that Mary was blessed for being the mother of such great a prophet and teacher. She had no idea that Jesus was God incarnate. Because of her ignorance, she failed to see how Mary was truly blessed and the higher expression of her blessedness. Thus Jesus corrected her in allusion to his mother by saying: “Blessed (makaria) rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it” (Lk.11:27-28)

The Greek word for “rather” is menoun (mενοῦν) which means “more” or “further”. What our Lord implicitly told the woman was that his mother was blessed not only for having borne him, but more so for having borne him because of her faith. She was more blessed for her faith in God than she was in being the mother of the Lord, who came into the world as a result of her obedient act of faith. Since the woman was referring to Mary as the subject, Jesus must have alluded to the Annunciation when he spoke those words. She couldn’t have imagined that Mary’s motherhood involved the appearance of an angel and her salutary consent to be the mother of someone greater than a prophet or any rabbi, one who was in fact the Son of God who came into the world to save it from sin and death. The woman in the crowd should know that our Lord’s mother was not only blessed for having borne and nursed Jesus, but more importantly because she had crushed the head of the serpent with her heel by her act of faith. Blessed was she who believed that what was spoken to her by the Lord would be fulfilled (Lk 1:45).

As the free woman of promise, foretold by God in Genesis 3:15, Mary acted as a universal representative of mankind no less than Eve had. Our Blessed Mother helped restore the world to grace which our primeval biological mother was partly responsible for depriving the world of. By God’s validation of her free consent, Mary “untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience by her obedience.” As Eve “was made the cause of death both to herself and the human race” by “having become obedient,” Mary “became the cause of salvation both to herself and the human race” by “yielding to obedience” (Irenaeus: Against Heresies 3:22). According to His design, God willed that the divine Word become man by a virgin “so that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin” (Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho 100).

The Catholic doctrine of Mary being the new Eve – the spiritual mother of all the living who is at enmity with the devil – was universally accepted by the faithful as early as the 2nd century as part of the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. The idea must have germinated from what the apostle Paul had taught about Jesus being the new Adam ( Rom.5:12; 1 Cor.15:20-23, 45). The early Church Fathers appear to have placed the apostle’s words into the context of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace, the promise of redemption, and the final victory over Satan at the expense of his humiliating defeat initiated by a woman’s act of faith working through love. Meanwhile the Fathers saw the connection between the forbidden fruit which Eve had presented to Adam and the fruit which Mary had presented to mankind from her blessed womb ( Lk.1:42). Although Eve was Adam’s helpmate (Gen. 2:18), she failed him tragically. However, Mary collaborated with God faithfully by consenting to be the mother of our Lord and Saviour. By her fiat, she brought forth that fruit which alone can reconcile the world with God and regenerate mankind with His saving grace. Jesus confirmed Mary’s vital participation in his work of redemption from actually on the cross when he said to her: “Woman, behold your son,” and to the disciple, “Behold your mother” (Jn 19:26-27). It wasn’t until the fall that Adam no longer called his wife “woman”, but Eve which means “mother of all the living.” Mary is our mother in the order of grace.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I am not sure what you mean by quoting Gen 3:15 since it says nothing about the woman defeating the serpent and what’s more goes on to show God punish the woman for her disobedience in the first place. Hardly a good comparison to Mary since presumably Mary was never disobedient to God for example.

This first messianic prophecy in the wake of the fall of mankind includes the free woman of promise whose fulfilment is reached in Mary the new Eve. In light of Eve’s transgression and her direct involvement in the fall of Adam (mankind), God declares to the serpent in allusion to the mother of our Lord that He will put her (woman) in complete opposition and hostility with it. This enmity between Mary and Satan shall be in the same likeness with that of her divine Son’s with the devil’s offspring: sinful humanity.

καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."
Luke 1, 42

To understand what he means by Mary being blessed we must examine the particular Greek word he employs to describe Mary’s state. It isn’t the same word Luke uses in 1:45 which is makaria (μακαρία). The word he chooses to use here is eulogemene (Εὐλογημένη). This word is used on only one other occasion in the NT, and that being with reference to the Kingdom of Heaven: “Blessed (eulogomene) be the kingdom of our father David that cometh: Hosanna in the highest” (Mk. 11:10). Eulogemene is derived from the verb eulogeo (εὐλογέω). Luke is evidently drawing a parallel between Mary and the Kingdom of God to explain how it is that the mother of our Lord is blessed together with her divine Son. Obviously Mary’s blessed state is intended to mean much more than having been favoured by God to be the mother of Jesus and having cause to be happy because of this divine favour. It has to do with her personal affinity with him in a spiritual and mystical way: God rules in Mary’s soul as much as Christ’s divinity rules in his humanity.

Elsewhere Luke also writes: “The kingdom of God is within you” (17:21). The Greek word for “within” is entos (ἐντός) which can mean either “inside” (within) or “among” (in the midst of) the subject. This word originates from the preposition en (ἐν) which is “in”. Since Luke is comparing Mary with the kingdom of God in his description of her being individually and personally blessed, the former meaning is applicable here, and it has to do with her interior state which resembles that of her divine Son’s in his humanity. This becomes more apparent to us by looking at the following passages: ‘Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in (en) you?’ (1 Cor. 3:16); ‘Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”‘ (Jn. 2:19). Thus Elizabeth is pronouncing Mary blessed for the quality of her soul that enabled her to put her faith in God and trust in His goodness and mercy. Her kinswoman is truly blessed for having the Spirit of God dwell within her, whose sanctifying grace has made her pure as her divine Son is pure in his humanity (cf.1 Jn. 3:3).

As a partaker of the divine nature, Mary is free of all the corruption in the world caused by dark human desires (2 Pet. 1:4). By the light of the Spirit who dwells within her, divinity shines in her soul. Her divine Son is reflected in her divine image. By Mary’s love for God and humanity, the divine quality of her soul shines forth. The inner core of her being is undefiled and resembles the inherent righteousness of her divine Son in his humanity. In her blessed state she sees the God whom she desires within her as she gazes upon herself. In her state of the fullness of grace she finds that the Lord she longs to see face to face is inside her. The glory of God radiates her soul with its light as her soul proclaims His glory (Lk 1:46). The kingdom of God “is neither here nor there” but within Mary. She is with the Lord as fittingly as she should be in his work of redemption – at total enmity with Satan and the powers of darkness that rule the world within God’s providence.

It is no coincidence that the original Greek word eulogeo also occurs seven times in the Gospels with reference only to Jesus. We find it in the second clause of Luke 1:42 and in Mark 11:9: ‘And they that went before and they that followed, cried, saying: Hosanna, blessed (eulogemenos) is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.’ The blessed state of the kingdom of heaven where the Divine rules is in likeness the blessed state of the Lord: “full of grace and truth” (Jn.1:14) and his blessed mother: ‘And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women’ (Lk. 1:28). Hence, Jesus and Mary are described by Luke as uniquely blessed in common by being divinely favoured with the ability to accomplish the Divine objective: the redemption of mankind. Both are consecrated to God (set apart to serve Him) and sanctified by His grace (made holy) in their shared humanity so as to be fittingly able to meet God’s purpose of satisfying His justice and mercy.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Cathoholic]

Hello yinandyang.

MATTHEW 1:18 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

The verse is discussing the situation with the Blessed Virgin Mary (as it concerns the historical context of the ancient Hebrew wedding).

The marriage is commenced first with kiddushin or “betrothal” (the actual marriage).

Then later (sometimes MUCH later), a separate liturgy for the bride coming into the home of the groom (nisuin) happens.

Nisuin may occur many months later. The ancient Hebrew Bride did not go from the kiddushin wedding ceremony to immediately live under the roof of her husband in ancient Jewish weddings (although she IS AT THAT TIME, now legally married).

The verse is telling you that the Blessed Virgin was married, but not yet living in the home of St. Joseph when the Incarnation occurred.

A paraphrase might be something like . . .

When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit

paraphrased to . . . .

When his mother Mary had undergone kiddushin to Joseph, but before they underwent nisuin, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit

Is this link and this link helpful to you?

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[littlestsouls2]

This first messianic prophecy in the wake of the fall of mankind includes the free woman of promise whose fulfilment is reached in Mary the new Eve. In light of Eve’s transgression and her direct involvement in the fall of Adam (mankind), God declares to the serpent in allusion to the mother of our Lord that He will put her (woman) in complete opposition and hostility with it. This enmity between Mary and Satan shall be in the same likeness with that of her divine Son’s with the devil’s offspring: sinful humanity.

καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."
Luke 1, 42

To understand what he means by Mary being blessed we must examine the particular Greek word he employs to describe Mary’s state. It isn’t the same word Luke uses in 1:45 which is makaria (μακαρία). The word he chooses to use here is eulogemene (Εὐλογημένη). This word is used on only one other occasion in the NT, and that being with reference to the Kingdom of Heaven: “Blessed (eulogomene) be the kingdom of our father David that cometh: Hosanna in the highest” (Mk. 11:10). Eulogemene is derived from the verb eulogeo (εὐλογέω). Luke is evidently drawing a parallel between Mary and the Kingdom of God to explain how it is that the mother of our Lord is blessed together with her divine Son. Obviously Mary’s blessed state is intended to mean much more than having been favoured by God to be the mother of Jesus and having cause to be happy because of this divine favour. It has to do with her personal affinity with him in a spiritual and mystical way: God rules in Mary’s soul as much as Christ’s divinity rules in his humanity.

Elsewhere Luke also writes: “The kingdom of God is within you” (17:21). The Greek word for “within” is entos (ἐντός) which can mean either “inside” (within) or “among” (in the midst of) the subject. This word originates from the preposition en (ἐν) which is “in”. Since Luke is comparing Mary with the kingdom of God in his description of her being individually and personally blessed, the former meaning is applicable here, and it has to do with her interior state which resembles that of her divine Son’s in his humanity. This becomes more apparent to us by looking at the following passages: ‘Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in (en) you?’ (1 Cor. 3:16); ‘Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”‘ (Jn. 2:19). Thus Elizabeth is pronouncing Mary blessed for the quality of her soul that enabled her to put her faith in God and trust in His goodness and mercy. Her kinswoman is truly blessed for having the Spirit of God dwell within her, whose sanctifying grace has made her pure as her divine Son is pure in his humanity (cf.1 Jn. 3:3).

As a partaker of the divine nature, Mary is free of all the corruption in the world caused by dark human desires (2 Pet. 1:4). By the light of the Spirit who dwells within her, divinity shines in her soul. Her divine Son is reflected in her divine image. By Mary’s love for God and humanity, the divine quality of her soul shines forth. The inner core of her being is undefiled and resembles the inherent righteousness of her divine Son in his humanity. In her blessed state she sees the God whom she desires within her as she gazes upon herself. In her state of the fullness of grace she finds that the Lord she longs to see face to face is inside her. The glory of God radiates her soul with its light as her soul proclaims His glory (Lk 1:46). The kingdom of God “is neither here nor there” but within Mary. She is with the Lord as fittingly as she should be in his work of redemption – at total enmity with Satan and the powers of darkness that rule the world within God’s providence.

It is no coincidence that the original Greek word eulogeo also occurs seven times in the Gospels with reference only to Jesus. We find it in the second clause of Luke 1:42 and in Mark 11:9: ‘And they that went before and they that followed, cried, saying: Hosanna, blessed (eulogemenos) is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.’ The blessed state of the kingdom of heaven where the Divine rules is in likeness the blessed state of the Lord: “full of grace and truth” (Jn.1:14) and his blessed mother: ‘And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women’ (Lk. 1:28). Hence, Jesus and Mary are described by Luke as uniquely blessed in common by being divinely favoured with the ability to accomplish the Divine objective: the redemption of mankind. Both are consecrated to God (set apart to serve Him) and sanctified by His grace (made holy) in their shared humanity so as to be fittingly able to meet God’s purpose of satisfying His justice and mercy.

PAX
:heaven:

What an excellent response (as was the previous one)! A much better answer than I could have provided. I will keep an eye out for your posts in the future

 

[setarcos]

This first messianic prophecy in the wake of the fall of mankind includes the free woman of promise whose fulfilment is reached in Mary the new Eve. In light of Eve’s transgression and her direct involvement in the fall of Adam (mankind), God declares to the serpent in allusion to the mother of our Lord that He will put her (woman) in complete opposition and hostility with it. This enmity between Mary and Satan shall be in the same likeness with that of her divine Son’s with the devil’s offspring: sinful humanity.

Ah, the ole language game. Man does love to show off his amazing gifts for interpretive understanding.
The truth of which only he holds in defiance of others ignorance. In defiance it seems to me of the simplicity of Christs teaching, for he alone is lead by the holy spirit and he alone understands that which seems foolish to the world.
It is so confusing that one moment we express the ineffable qualities of God and the next attempt to
explain them. I feel so ignorant and foolish in light of others erudittion. There is hope for those like me though, praise be to God. For has it not been said, God has made the wisdom of this world as foolishness and taken the wise in their own craftiness. Yet we say, “Ah but mine is not the wisdom of the world but of God.”, and yet while saying it embrace the worlds wisdom to prove a point. “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” 1 Cor 2:11. …then we abuse that Spirit by saying it is ours alone and not yours.
But who am I to say? I am merely an ignorant farmer. Tasked like Adam to till the ground until I return to it.
Yet It has also been said, “let us reason together”. So with your patience we shall reason
together and God willing, you can impart your understanding of Gods wisdom to me.

Concerning your first statement,

This first messianic prophecy in the wake of the fall of mankind includes the free woman of promise whose fulfilment is reached in Mary the new Eve. In light of Eve’s transgression and her direct involvement in the fall of Adam (mankind), God declares to the serpent in allusion to the mother of our Lord that He will put her (woman) in complete opposition and hostility with it. This enmity between Mary and Satan shall be in the same likeness with that of her divine Son’s with the devil’s offspring: sinful humanity.
What is meant by “free woman of promise”? Where does this phrase come from? Where in the bible does it refer to Mary as the new eve and what does this indicate? Why do you believe Gen.3:15 is an allusion, either directly or indirectly, to the mother of our Lord since all verses before this clearly are talking about the “old” eve as well as those verses after this one? The mother of us all is the “old” eve that transgressed and it is her seed is it not which has enmity for the serpent? There is no discontinuence in the flow of diologue between God and Adam and Eve before or after when discussing Eves Motherhood. Its as if your saying, “This verse is not about Mary because it doesn’t fit Mary not having transgressed but this verse is about Mary because it fits our conception of who Mary is.” Hardly a level playing field when reasoning together.
As far as the devils offspring, Satan didnt bring sin into the world. Humans brought sin into the world through their transgression. Neither did Satan produce “offspring” like eve did. For eve is the Mother of ‘all’ the living. So what might it mean to put enmity between the woman and the serpent? Your last statement…‘same likeness with that of her divine Son’s’ perplexes me. What could this possibly mean? Marys enmity between herself and Satan must surely be total and complete opposition to and hatred of all Satan is and does as you indicated. Yet Christ came not in the same likeness as this to sinful humanity. Christ came to SAVE sinful humanity. Remember all have sinned? And as I have said Satan didnt “produce” sinful humanity, lest they have no free will. Satan has no power to create in this sense. Humanity through its own free will brought sin into the world.
Thank you so much with your participation in educating me. I do so wish to receive the truth of God into my soul.With your indulgence I will produce another post with my questions and understandings concerning the rest of your post. God bless.

 

[TxGodfollower]

i get tied of protestants trying to call our mother some kind of whore-because thats how it feels when they deny her perpetual virginity…
.which is a bit off track-but basically i think if you get them to think through the stupidity of mary and joseph doing that stuff with the Son of God near by is just so dumb.doing that sort of thing in the presence of God,or where He has been…it just does not make sense!its gross and just not right to think that…nup-it just does not work:doh2:

A wife having a physical relationship with her husband = whore?

Also, God’s presence is everywhere, so I don’t really get your other point.

I don’t see how Mary and Joseph having relations AFTER Christ is born has any impact on Christ’s Divine nature. That’s almost like saying Roman Empire fell because Germany lost World War II.

 

[Mintaka]

Obviously, it’s not right to say that a true wife sleeping with her true husband would be doing anything wrong. Marriage is holy.

(And actually, I think a lot of Protestants have a problem with Mary’s perpetual virginity because a lot of Protestant groups don’t think that single women or lifelong virgins have a vocation, and only married women or widows are doing God’s will. Cue the quote from Paul about being saved through having kids. Obviously Catholics are totally okay with single women and lifelong virgins also being saintly.)

But if Mary had cheated on God after becoming pregnant by Him, and without being divorced formally by Him (and of course Jesus tells us that He didn’t hold with divorce) –

Well, even if it had been by sleeping with Joseph (as her legal husband), it wouldn’t have been legal or moral by Jewish law. Even if the husband doesn’t mind, the Law doesn’t let you muck up the inheritance and genealogy like that. There were even some rabbis who held that a husband could never again sleep with a wife or betrothed who’d slept with another guy besides him.

I was actually reading about this in the Daf Yomi series in some Israeli newspaper…

The Talmud holds that if a guy marries a woman and they divorce, and she marries another guy and he dies or divorces her, the first husband can never remarry his ex-wife because that would just be wrong. (I can’t remember the exact reasoning.) This even applied if they were betrothed, or if they were just about to get betrothed but the ceremony never took place and the ketubah was never signed, because she slept with or married somebody else. Some even figured it counted if the marriage negotiations were broken off by their respective parents before anything was decided, but that was pretty extreme.

Mary’s parents had a right to arrange a marriage with Joseph. But God is the ultimate head of all families on Earth, and His declaration to Mary (through the angel Gabriel) trumped Joseph’s rights to have Mary as a true wife, or the mother of his children. Once Mary accepted God’s offer, she had an obligation to stay true to the Father of her Son. That’s just how Jewish law worked.

Virtue, for a man or a woman, meant that you stick with the spouse of your youth and the parent of your children. If one of the spouses is unfaithful, that can cause separation - but God was not unfaithful to Mary, by definition! If one of the spouses dies, there can be remarriage - but God didn’t die and leave Mary a widow!

More to the point, Mary sleeping with Joseph (even though they had a legal marriage in the eyes of the world) would have been exactly like Israel cheating on God by worshipping foreign gods. Instead of Mary representing the good bits of Daughter Zion, she would have been representing the bad bits (like the Samaritan woman who had slept with five guys/gods, and none of them her husband - ie, God Himself – who represented in her troubled life the problems that Samaria had made for itself).

 

[ericc]

I don’t see how Mary and Joseph having relations AFTER Christ is born has any impact on Christ’s Divine nature.

I don’ think they are arguing whether having sexual relations is wrong or whether that has any impact on Christ Divine nature. The topic is whether Mary is ever virgin. Church Traditions say she is. Church Fathers say she is. Church Councils say she is. You do accept the Church Councils pronouncements don’t you? If you only accept some, then which ones do you accept and why not the others. Because it is Church Councils that tell you what the Trinity is, the natures and wills of Christ and so on. The Book didn’t tell you all that.

 

[TxGodfollower]

I don’ think they are arguing whether having sexual relations is wrong or whether that has any impact on Christ Divine nature. The topic is whether Mary is ever virgin. Church Traditions say she is. Church Fathers say she is. Church Councils say she is. You do accept the Church Councils pronouncements don’t you? If you only accept some, then which ones do you accept and why not the others. Because it is Church Councils that tell you what the Trinity is, the natures and wills of Christ and so on. The Book didn’t tell you all that.

I don’t know any of the church council pronouncements, so I can’t comment as to my opinion of them. But the examples you gave, I don’t need a council pronouncement for, I found all of them in the Bible;

Trinity: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

Christ’s natures: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

"For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. " Hebrews 4:5

“and Jacob’s well was there. So Jesus, being wearied from His journey, was sitting thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour” John 4:6

“but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” Philippians 2:7

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know any of the church council pronouncements, so I can’t comment as to my opinion of them.

How about this Church council pronouncement: these are the books that belong in the New Testament and are theopneustos:

usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/

I presume that you accept this, yes?

 

[ericc]

I don’t know any of the church council pronouncements, so I can’t comment as to my opinion of them. But the examples you gave, I don’t need a council pronouncement for, I found all of them in the Bible;

Trinity: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

And where does it state that the 3 Persons are co-eternal and co-equal? Where does it say that there is one nature in God? That there are 3 persons in one God?

Christ’s natures: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

"For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. " Hebrews 4:5

“and Jacob’s well was there. So Jesus, being wearied from His journey, was sitting thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour” John 4:6

“but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” Philippians 2:7

So are there two distinct persons in the Incarnate Christ, one human and one divine or one person with two natures? How do you know which one is the correct one based upon the scriptures that you quoted?

Does Christ have one or two wills? How did you determine that?

Is Mary the Mother of God or the mother of a human being conjoined to God?

If you don’t know the church pronouncements, how do you know when to celebrate Easter and Christmas? And why do you celebrate Easter/Christmas? Because the Church says so and not the Bible.

If you do not know Church Council pronouncements , where do you think your Nicene/Apostle Creed comes from? And the Bible too as the other poster have pointed out.

And why do you go to Church on Sunday and not on Saturday the Mosaic Sabbath day?

 

[setarcos]

καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."
Luke 1, 42

To understand what he means by Mary being blessed we must examine the particular Greek word he employs to describe Mary’s state. It isn’t the same word Luke uses in 1:45 which is makaria (μακαρία). The word he chooses to use here is eulogemene (Εὐλογημένη). This word is used on only one other occasion in the NT, and that being with reference to the Kingdom of Heaven: “Blessed (eulogomene) be the kingdom of our father David that cometh: Hosanna in the highest” (Mk. 11:10). Eulogemene is derived from the verb eulogeo (εὐλογέω). Luke is evidently drawing a parallel between Mary and the Kingdom of God to explain how it is that the mother of our Lord is blessed together with her divine Son. Obviously Mary’s blessed state is intended to mean much more than having been favoured by God to be the mother of Jesus and having cause to be happy because of this divine favour. It has to do with her personal affinity with him in a spiritual and mystical way: God rules in Mary’s soul as much as Christ’s divinity rules in his humanity.

COLOR=“Black”]
First: I’m not sure why you believe Eulogemene being used in Luke 1:42 is of such significance that one can infer so much of what Luke uniquely meant by it. Yes it was not the same term he used in 1:45 and is the same term used in Mk. 11:10 but the verb it is derived from is used in several other verses. At least 36 other verses in the NT.
Second: I’m not sure what you mean by her personal affinity with him, personally, or mystically? Is this something that no other human being can achieve? I thought this is the whole point of our having a personal savior.
Third: I know one thing though. When Mary was visited by the angel she reacted as any other person would have in simular circumstances would have. She was frightened(Mk1:29,30) and she was incredulous(Mk:1:34). This i can understand. This is a human reaction. A believable reaction. How much does Christ’s divinity rule in his humanity? What do you mean?
If this is supposed to be a one to one correlation are you saying Christ was frightened by, and incredulous of, his divinity? Forgive me but you seem to be using too esoteric and vaguely definable phrases which border on the meaningless for my simple soul.
Bless you for all your diligent scholorship.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[setarcos]

καὶ ἀνεφώνησεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ καὶ εἶπεν Εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σου

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."
Luke 1, 42

To understand what he means by Mary being blessed we must examine the particular Greek word he employs to describe Mary’s state. It isn’t the same word Luke uses in 1:45 which is makaria (μακαρία). The word he chooses to use here is eulogemene (Εὐλογημένη). This word is used on only one other occasion in the NT, and that being with reference to the Kingdom of Heaven: “Blessed (eulogomene) be the kingdom of our father David that cometh: Hosanna in the highest” (Mk. 11:10). Eulogemene is derived from the verb eulogeo (εὐλογέω). Luke is evidently drawing a parallel between Mary and the Kingdom of God to explain how it is that the mother of our Lord is blessed together with her divine Son. Obviously Mary’s blessed state is intended to mean much more than having been favoured by God to be the mother of Jesus and having cause to be happy because of this divine favour. It has to do with her personal affinity with him in a spiritual and mystical way: God rules in Mary’s soul as much as Christ’s divinity rules in his humanity.
COLOR=“DarkOliveGreen”]PAX
:heaven:

First: I’m not sure why you believe Eulogemene being used in Luke 1:42 is of such significance that one can infer so much of what Luke uniquely meant by it. Yes it was not the same term he used in 1:45 and is the same term used in Mk. 11:10 but the verb it is derived from is used in several other verses. At least 36 other verses in the NT.
Second: I’m not sure what you mean by her personal affinity with him, personally, or mystically? Is this something that no other human being can achieve? I thought this is the whole point of our having a personal savior.
Third: I know one thing though. When Mary was visited by the angel she reacted as any other person would have in simular circumstances would have. She was frightened(Mk1:29,30) and she was incredulous(Mk:1:34). This i can understand. This is a human reaction. A believable reaction. How much does Christ’s divinity rule in his humanity? What do you mean?
If this is supposed to be a one to one correlation are you saying Christ was frightened by, and incredulous of, his divinity? Forgive me but you seem to be using too esoteric and vaguely definable phrases which border on the meaningless for my simple soul.
Bless you for all your diligent scholorship.

 

[PRmerger]

Third: I know one thing though. When Mary was visited by the angel she reacted as any other person would have in simular circumstances would have. She was frightened(Mk1:29,30) and she was incredulous(Mk:1:34).

Why would she be incredulous that she’s going to conceive a child? Wasn’t she betrothed to a man? Doesn’t that presume that she’s going to conceive?