Question About Mary ??

[zcharry]

It is not a restriction. I’m not force against my will, nor other seminarians and priests who been doing the service for God to feed his flock.

I even stated Paul recommended it. Jesus had no issue against celibacy.

Second, do you assumed that this problem existed prior to? This issue is much better. It’s a SOCIETY ISSUE sex scandal is a society issue. Not just Catholics. You might as well tell that to the Protestant Minister who have sex with a male hooker.

((continue))

To be a Priest and be married in the Catholic Church you can not do both.
It is a restriction. I will not diagee that not marrying is in the Bible. But so is marraige for priestin the Bible. They just should have the choice of being able to do both.

I have read your other post on different threads and I have come to the conclusion that you M/O is one of a attack.
What does a comment of a reformed Pastor and a male hooker have to do with anything.
A better statement would be of a Pastor preying on young kids that trust the man to be a man of God and sexully abusing them for years turning what they thought of Church and God into a sexually perverted act for years to come. That would have been a better comparison.

God Bless

 

[zcharry]

This has nothing to do with marriage. There are lots of married pedophiles. Pedophilia is a specific type of sickness, not something that happens to people who get horny from not having enough sex.

As one who is nearing the end of his age, I can attest to the FACT that some of the crazy-horniest men in the world are married.

Frankly I am not opposed to allowing a married category of priest. It isn’t my decision, mind you, but I don’t see anything at all wrong with it. If the Holy Father were to allow ordination for older married men whose children were already grown and gone, I think that’d be a great way to get more pastoral help in the parishes where the priests are horribly overworked.

I agree you with that marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia.
But it has been proven that 75% men or the few select women, who are pedophiles married as a cover for there sickness or because of society norms.
I could go on with other facts, my work is in law enforcement, but
this is not the proper place to have this disscussion.

God Bless

 

[Allweather]

I agree you with that marriage has nothing to do with pedophilia.
But it has been proven that 75% men or the few select women, who are pedophiles married as a cover for there sickness or because of society norms.
I could go on with other facts, my work is in law enforcement, but
this is not the proper place to have this disscussion.

God Bless

I won’t question your 75% figure, because I don’t know the stats on this, nor do I know how researches could “prove” such a thing. The obvious suggestion is that some pedophile men chose to go into the Catholic priesthood because it would serve as a good cover for them, while giving them access to young children to abuse. My guess is that this has happened, but I’d be flabbergasted if it were more than the tiniest fraction of cases. For a man to go through the difficult priestly formation process, all the while lying about his vocation, just so he could have access to young children, would make absolutely no sense whatever, from a strictly logical point of view. It’d be easier, and give greater access, to just become a public school teacher.

The larger issue, and one that your opinions reflect at least in part, is the theory that the celibate priesthood creates an atmosphere for priests that makes them more likely to be sex abusers, and I believe that this is complete nonsense. This is an argument being made by people who are attacking the priesthood from a variety of angles. It makes sense to carnal people who don’t grasp the possibility that a person can choose celibacy as a way of life, as a sign of complete commitment to a life of service to God’s people. These are people who think that man is at the mercy of his/her sex drives, rather than given the ability to control them.

 

[Allweather]

To be a Priest and be married in the Catholic Church you can not do both.
It is a restriction. I will not diagee that not marrying is in the Bible. But so is marraige for priestin the Bible. They just should have the choice of being able to do both. God Bless

I’ve often wondered why a non-Catholic would have an opinion on this issue. It seems like Protestants are the most vocal opponents of the celibate priesthood. Why would a Protestant care whether Catholic priests are married or not? Do they somehow have an iron in this fire?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

To be a Priest and be married in the Catholic Church you can not do both.
It is a restriction. I will not diagee that not marrying is in the Bible. But so is marraige for priestin the Bible. They just should have the choice of being able to do both.

I have read your other post on different threads and I have come to the conclusion that you M/O is one of a attack.
What does a comment of a reformed Pastor and a male hooker have to do with anything.
A better statement would be of a Pastor preying on young kids that trust the man to be a man of God and sexully abusing them for years turning what they thought of Church and God into a sexually perverted act for years to come. That would have been a better comparison.

God Bless

If we’re going on this tangent - there is a book by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests. It was determined that between** .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 **percent. You can read more here.

 

[Sabda]

Interesting history. However, what we must look at is --what was the attifude of marriage and children in this time period? That is what has bearing on this. Clearly the Jews considered children a gift of the Lord and to be childless to be a disgrace.

sigh Apparently you either have not read though the whole thread or you missed/ignored my post way back when. I have already dealt with this. I’ll be nice and quote it for you so you do not have to go looking for it.

Another thing to think about. How could Mary and Joseph devote their whole life to Jesus if they had other children? I don’t know about the others on here but I have more than one child. It is IMPOSSIBLE to remain focused on only one child. ESPECIALLY when it comes to older children versus younger getting attention. The younger ones are, for the most part, going to be getting most of the parent’s attention. Since we know that Jesus was the first born than that means that as soon as the other children came along he would have been been taken out of the spotlight, so to speak. Mary and Joseph, knowing darn good and well who Jesus was, would have wanted to give him their whole attention. That meant no other children. Another way to put it is that they gave up their whole life to Jesus at the expense of having other children.

I’ve noticed that no one seems interested in responding to Numbers 30.

I’m aware that the NIV does not add abstinence to the sentence. Interestingly enough Strong’s Greek and Hebrew concordance confirms the NABs translation on this, so the chapter is dealing with vows of abstinence. Not just vows of any old nature.

 

[Zooey]

All I can say to this is that the Pope did not call Gods word inspired by God did in his word.
God is all powerful and he put in His book what was needed for people’s salvation and to say anything more is require to add to Gods word is to put man above God.

That’s circular reasoning, hoss, and circular reasoning is no reasoning as all. That’s why they call it a fallacy!!
You may not like to admit it, but the truth is, without the Catholics, there would be no Bible for you to come around here, trying to whap somebody upside the head with it.
Them’s the facts. You all don’t get another choice. History happened all ready, while you were running in that little circle…

Keep in mind that there are many references in the NT that she did indeed have other children. That is the plain reading of the texts and has strong support from the way brothers and sisters are used in greek.

There is not one such reference. Not one that will stand up to honest scrutiny. That is why nobody, that’s nobody–Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox–ever believed in such a thing, before some bunch of young’uns that hated Catholics more than they loved Jesus started to fiddle around straight out of “blab school” instead of learning first & preaching 2nd, like the more honest Bible scholars who went before them!!

 

[Zooey]

That’s due because protestants know it cannot be grounded in Scripture.

Pfui!! Every Protestant on the planet believed it, and taught it, right up into the 19th century…and into the 20th C.
It’s only those foolish few back there, that were so full of hate for the teachers who went before them, that they decided to toss out the whole of what Bible scholars, and believing historians had known for nearly 2 millenia… Instead, they cozened onto the fables of unbelievers like the Unitarians & Deists & Freemasons, because it gave them something more to rag on the teachers who would not accept that they were sapping the heart out of the comfort of the Gospel, for spite.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi my Christian friends!
I respect your religion nevertheless I would say that in my opinion the Christians have neither given the status to JesusYeshuaIssa nor to MaryMeriumMaryam they deserved on merit, only under unjustified and clever influence of Paul who robbed them of their truthful honor to establish his own hegemony over the simple people of that times called Christians, I am sorry to say, but that is a fact, to me. As Paul was disrespectful to Jesus’ disciples, he did not go to Jerusalem when they summoned him to clarify certain things, towing the same line he belittled Mary so much so that one does not find any account of her life after when JesusYeshuaIssa and MaryMeriumMaryam last met at Galilee. They both were alive on a journey to far off lands among the lost ten tribes of the houe of Israel, but due to communication problems had lost contact with Jerusalem.In that positions Paul got Jesus cleverly ascended to heavens to pave his way for absolute hegemony over the church going people; and disciples and Mary he never cared about them. This might be because perhaps even the subsequest Popes who succeeded Paul did not know it, so much so that to rectify this grey patch, at a very late stage Pope Benedict XIV corroborated lately also by Pope Pius XII ; they invented the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma ( now one could see how the NTGospels had been inspired/made up): that their Immaculate Mother of God, their ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life ( while they knew nothing about her historically, or if they knew they opted to conceal it from the public for their vested interests) was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." The establishment of this dogma as “necessary to salvation” is widely taken to be an example of the Pope’s invoking papal infallibility (which in fact is a proof of Pope’s fallibility and his clear attempt at corrupting the Christian faith in the ages gone bye). So this is how Paul and Popes dealt with the Christianity; how cruel they had been to humanity? Would the Christians now realize it, if they wake up from their great slumber of two thousands+ years!
But Quran is graceful and magnanimous, it not only gave a lofty status to JesusYeshuaIssa he deserved but in its own style Quran made Mary one of the highest example of the believers till the end of the world.
Thanks

 

[kujo313]

You have any eyewitnesses that say she wasn’t a virgin? (Other than the already debunked “until” stuff.) If she wasn’t why was it the overwhelming belief up until modern times?

Why is it so important to you that is wasn’t a virgin? I think both questions have the same answer.

Who cares if she was a virgin or not? From Acts 1 to Jude, it didn’t matter. Their focus was on reconcilliation with God through Jesus Christ. Wether Mary had only one or she had a dozen, it doesn’t really matter.

If it does, why?

 

[kujo313]

You may not like to admit it, but the truth is, without the Catholics, there would be no Bible for you to come around here, trying to whap somebody upside the head with it.
Them’s the facts. You all don’t get another choice.QUOTE]

Actually, there was already Greek versions of the New Testament. People in the 2nd century was quoting it.

 

[mirandajb]

Quoting somebody in the 4th century doesn’t cut it. Need some eyewitnesses. IF anything was written by the Apostles at the time that they was alive, they could be disputed by non-believers. Then, if it was in writing, it would’ve been in the “catholic Bible” in the 4th century when they was disputing what was worthy to be IN the Bible or not.

The only reliable thing to go by is what is between the covers of the Holy Bible the way we have it now.

** (answer this one) WHAT does it matter to our Salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not?

BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT SEE, YET BELIEVE. Here’s a proposal, why don’t you pray to Jesus fervently and ask Him to reveal His mother to you…I dare you to it.
My born again experience was in a Protestant environment, although I am a cradle Catholic…that is because the typical Catholic -like me - does not know the Word of God enough. Now that I have really been studying the Bible, day and night, I am truly disappointed with the Protestants for the untruths that they preach of my Blessed Mother. I too had a lot of doubts (about M Mary) and could not even recite the Rosary for a long time. To a large extent, I think only the Holy Spirit can teach you about Mother Mary…after all the Holy Spirit was Mother Mary’s spouse in ‘fathering’ Jesus. Have you thought of that ?? AND OUR GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD (Ex34:14). Hope that answers the question on relevance of M Mary’s virginity.
Reading the “Poem of the Man God” by Maria Valtorta, the mystic, helped to a large extent in truly coming to know Jesus and how much He loved and respected His mother.
If you truly believe Gal 2:20 (20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ) - you would do what Jesus did - honor and respect His mother!!
Jesus came to fulfill the Law (Mt 5:17) and included in the Law is honoring one’s father and MOTHER.
I truly would like to see the faces of those who do not honor Mary when they get the Heaven (IF they get there) - when they see the high honor accorded to M Mary by God Himself and how they have slighted her when they were on Earth.
Whether Mary was a virgin or not - our salvation is not in any way affected. But why do you read the Bible if not to know your Maker better and His attributes. The Bible is our Life Manual. Just like how you would make sure and understand the Operating Manual of a product that you just purchased - in order to maximise efficiency - we need to understand and know our God so that our lives would glorify and honor Him.
Lord have mercy.

 

[LilyM]

Zooey;2312331:

You may not like to admit it, but the truth is, without the Catholics, there would be no Bible for you to come around here, trying to whap somebody upside the head with it.
Them’s the facts. You all don’t get another choice.QUOTE]

Actually, there was already Greek versions of the New Testament. People in the 2nd century was quoting it.

Nuh-uh. They were quoting parts of the Gospels and Epistles maybe - and also quoting non-Canonical material like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas alongside it. There weren’t manuscripts of the whole kit and caboodle full text New Testament as canonised at Hippo and Carthage all together in a nice neat leather binding.

 

[kujo313]

BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO DO NOT SEE, YET BELIEVE. Here’s a proposal, why don’t you pray to Jesus fervently and ask Him to reveal His mother to you…I dare you to it.
My born again experience was in a Protestant environment, although I am a cradle Catholic…that is because the typical Catholic -like me - does not know the Word of God enough. Now that I have really been studying the Bible, day and night, I am truly disappointed with the Protestants for the untruths that they preach of my Blessed Mother. I too had a lot of doubts (about M Mary) and could not even recite the Rosary for a long time. To a large extent, I think only the Holy Spirit can teach you about Mother Mary…after all the Holy Spirit was Mother Mary’s spouse in ‘fathering’ Jesus. Have you thought of that ?? AND OUR GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD (Ex34:14). Hope that answers the question on relevance of M Mary’s virginity.
Reading the “Poem of the Man God” by Maria Valtorta, the mystic, helped to a large extent in truly coming to know Jesus and how much He loved and respected His mother.
If you truly believe Gal 2:20 (20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ) - you would do what Jesus did - honor and respect His mother!!
Jesus came to fulfill the Law (Mt 5:17) and included in the Law is honoring one’s father and MOTHER.
I truly would like to see the faces of those who do not honor Mary when they get the Heaven (IF they get there) - when they see the high honor accorded to M Mary by God Himself and how they have slighted her when they were on Earth.
Whether Mary was a virgin or not - our salvation is not in any way affected. But why do you read the Bible if not to know your Maker better and His attributes. The Bible is our Life Manual. Just like how you would make sure and understand the Operating Manual of a product that you just purchased - in order to maximise efficiency - we need to understand and know our God so that our lives would glorify and honor Him.
Lord have mercy.

Old Testament
“A virgin shall give birth…” nothing else about her.
“For unto us a child is born… he shall be called…” no mention of His mom.
“A lamb without spot or blemish”… no mention of the lamb’s mother.

Why? Don’t matter. It’s all about the Messiah.

New Testament
Acts: little bit
Romans: nope
Corinthians: nope

Do I *really* need to continue?  No mention of her.  

Why?  It's all about the Messiah.

Spent a long time thinking and praying. From a lowly handmaid to “queen of Heaven”. Looking back at the 1st century church and then to today’s RCC, I’d say that the RCC made a wrong turn at Alberquerque. (Bugs Bunny fan, couldn’t help it)

Now if you want to collect statues of Mary, hang paintings of Mary, and even have a little “Mary” on the dashboard of your car, that’s on you.
It’s not wether or not we accept Mary as our “mother”, it’s wether or not we accept God’s Sacrificial Lamb, Jesus, as our Savior.
If you accept Mary as your “mother”, but are not born again, you will not see Heaven. BUT, if you do not accept Mary as your “mother” AND you are born again, you will see Heaven as promised by Jesus.

I’d rather see Jesus and kneel at His feet instead of saying, “I’m here to see ‘mom’”.

 

[kujo313]

kujo313;2312484:

Nuh-uh. They were quoting parts of the Gospels and Epistles maybe - and also quoting non-Canonical material like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas alongside it. There weren’t manuscripts of the whole kit and caboodle full text New Testament as canonised at Hippo and Carthage all together in a nice neat leather binding.

And the whole “kit and caboodle” did not mention Mary as “queen” or prayer beads.

Don’t matter.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;2312506:

And the whole “kit and caboodle” did not mention Mary as “queen” or prayer beads

Don’t matter.

Thank you for admitting that you’re wrong and know nothing about the history of the compilation of the Bible

By the way it certainly does mention Mary as Queen. It names Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It follows of necessity that Mary, being His mother, is Queen. Every mother of a King mentioned in the Bible is a Queen. Mary is no exception.

Prayer beads? No, they’re not mentioned. Neither are cars, computers or aeroplanes. Neither are we required to use prayer beads. So it means nothing that they’re not mentioned.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I must say that I find Kujo’s whole attitude
smart-alecky and outrageously sacrilegious.
He does not merely display a neutrality toward Mary,
he manifests a loathing of her. A hostility that is not from God.
It’s as if he regards her as not much more than a lump of dung.
A hostility toward the kindest, gentlest, most godly woman
to ever walk this earth. A hostility toward a woman who is one of God’s most dear and beloved friends. That is truly sad.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[kujo313]

kujo313;2312589:

Thank you for admitting that you’re wrong and know nothing about the history of the compilation of the Bible

By the way it certainly does mention Mary as Queen. It names Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It follows of necessity that Mary, being His mother, is Queen. Every mother of a King mentioned in the Bible is a Queen. Mary is no exception.

Prayer beads? No, they’re not mentioned. Neither are cars, computers or aeroplanes. Neither are we required to use prayer beads. So it means nothing that they’re not mentioned.

No admitance at all. Name some mothers in the Bible and where I can find them.
Mary does not have anything to do with your salvation. It’s all about Jesus. If you want to go “outside the box”, that’s on you.
This “if this, then that” attitude is certainly unBiblical and against the Word of God. Why else does it NOT say what to do with the sacrifical lamb’s mother? How can Moses and the prophets be so rude to not mention the sacrifical lamb’s mother?

Still, if Mary wasn’t mentioned by name at all, it’d still be the same: unless you are born again, you shall not see Heaven.

 

[kujo313]

I must say that I find Kujo’s whole attitude
smart-alecky and outrageously sacrilegious.
He does not merely display a neutrality toward Mary,
he manifests a loathing of her. A hostility that is not from God.
It’s as if he regards her as not much more than a lump of dung.
A hostility toward the kindest, gentlest, most godly woman
to ever walk this earth. A hostility toward a woman who is one of God’s most dear and beloved friends. That is truly sad.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

Funny, I don’t recall anybody asking me what I think about her. You can bet, though, it’s not what you think of her.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;2312626:

No admitance at all. Name some mothers in the Bible and where I can find them.
Mary does not have anything to do with your salvation. It’s all about Jesus. If you want to go “outside the box”, that’s on you.
This “if this, then that” attitude is certainly unBiblical and against the Word of God. Why else does it NOT say what to do with the sacrifical lamb’s mother? How can Moses and the prophets be so rude to not mention the sacrifical lamb’s mother?

Still, if Mary wasn’t mentioned by name at all, it’d still be the same: unless you are born again, you shall not see Heaven.

Umm, Kings 1 and Kings 2? They list every King of Israel and his Queen-Mother from Solomon and Bathsheba on down.

And Genesis certianly does mention Mary. She’s the woman whose seed (Jesus) crushes the serpent. She, together with Him, is in ENMITY with the Devil (total opposition, impossible for any normal sinful person).

And yes, the prophets (Isaiah at least) most certainly DO mention Mary - she’s the Virgin who gives birth to Emmanuel, d’uh.

Really, you should be ashamed of how little of the Bible you know, especially considering that you claim your faith is based entirely on it. You should be able to quote every chapter and verse to me if that’s the case.