Question About Mary ??

[Randy_Carson]

Salvation. Through Christ, we are “justified” or “just-if-I’d never sinned”.

Amen! This reminds me of Ezekiel 36:25-26:

25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Wow! Sprinkling of water (baptism) washes us clean. Good Catholic doctrine there. And as you pointed out, we receive a new heart and a new spirit, and it’s “just-if-I’d” never sinned. So, righteousness is infused, not imparted…we’re not “snow-covered dunghills” after all. So, much for Calvinism…the Catholic Church’s view of justification has been right all along.

What does it matter, therefore, if Mary remained a virgin or not? Wether Jesus was an “only child” or if he was one of 10 kids, He was STILL the first-born, the child parents dedicated to God.

It has no effect to our Salvation if Mary remained a virgin or not.
What would probably matter is if Mary was in submission to her husband.

Fair enough.

However, the fact that Protestantism has gotten its facts on this one issue so completely wrong should cause you to stop and ask, “What else does the Catholic Church have correct that I don’t?”

Hee, hee…kinda undermines the credibility of sola scriptura now, don’t it? :yup:

I really hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[mirandajb]

The evidence that Mary had no children apart from Jesus really is overwhelming. But one has to wonder why the Protestants labor so feverishly to try to “prove” that she did? What’s the point of that?

,especially when the early reformers including Martin Luther, Wesley, and Calvin, believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. These reformers are considered scriptural scholars by modern Evangelicals. Yet despite being the founders of the reform, their views on this issue are in complete contrast to modern Evangelical thought. These reformers had no problem with scriptural references to Jesus’ “brothers” while maintaining their conviction that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth.
One has to look at the Torah to know that God’s Holy items (set apart) was only for His use e.g. the ‘recipe’ for the incense and oil used in ceremonies. Surely Mary’s womb was holy i.e set apart for only God to use.

 

[kujo313]

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

(cont.)

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?

 

[LJN21]

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.

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?

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

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

 

[zcharry]

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.

Whether Mary remain a virgin after the birth of Christ IS NOT PROVED either way.
What is proved is that God has told us through his word that Christ was born from a virgin fathered by the Holy Spirit and that brought a Son into this world that save us from our sin.

Anything else in the matter of Marys state after Christ is no concern of us as if it made a difference either way God would have given us the information if He felt we needed it!!!

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Whether Mary remain a virgin after the birth of Christ IS NOT PROVED either way.
What is proved is that God has told us through his word that Christ was born from a virgin fathered by the Holy Spirit and that brought a Son into this world that save us from our sin.

Anything else in the matter of Marys state after Christ is no concern of us as if it made a difference either way God would have given us the information if He felt we needed it!!!

Ah, but the kicker is that Catholics believe we have been given the information, and it’s given in Sacred Tradition. It doesn’t have to be recorded within the pages of the Bible to be true.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying that if a “pope” teaches something that is clearly anti-biblical or anti-Christ, then you are not to believe it?

No, she is saying that if someone who calls himself the pope teaches that way, Catholics will not believe it, because calling himself a pope does not make him one.

 

[guanophore]

Seriously guys, can we drop this anti-pope stuff. It has absolutely no bearing on the topic of this thread.

p.s. I think Popes should have an army, that would be awsome.

I think the bearing on the thread, at least from kujo’s point of view, is that the Pope is teaching antichrist, anti biblical doctrine in pronouncing the on Mary. He does not find the immaculate conception, the assumption, and the rosary in the New Testament, yet they are all Marian elements promulgated by popes.

 

[zcharry]

Ah, but the kicker is that Catholics believe we have been given the information, and it’s given in Sacred Tradition. It doesn’t have to be recorded within the pages of the Bible to be true.

You can have all the traditions you want. I think that is Great.
But it stops being a tradition and starts to be a condition of faith when you say it has to be that way.
If they were to say that this is what the church believes in and we would like to hold up this tradition, but there is some question whether it is back up in scripture and doubt that it is true. I would agree with that statement…

God Bless

 

[Jaypeeto4]

You can have all the traditions you want. I think that is Great.
But it stops being a tradition and starts to be a condition of faith when you say it has to be that way.
If they were to say that this is what the church believes in and we would like to hold up this tradition, but there is some question whether it is back up in scripture and doubt that it is true. I would agree with that statement…

But what you don’t understand is that some traditions are AUTHORITATIVE because they can be demonstrated to be the Oral Tradition of the Apostles, the INTERPRETATIONS that the Apostles taught to all the churches that they preached in for DECADES and which those they appointed to take over the preaching in their place also taught throughout the entire church.
The way we know that Mary’s perpetual virginity is an Apostolic Teaching is the fact that the entire, the ENTIRE, Early Christian Church all over the Empire, in Europe, in Africa, in Arabia, and in India (which was evangelized by the Apostle Thomas) - the ENTIRE church believed and affirmed that the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” were not the children of Mary’s womb.
If the WERE Mary’s children, this teaching could not have gotten off the ground. One of the “brothers,” James, was the bishop of Jerusalem for petes sake.
A couple of centuries after apostolic times, two or three writers, namely Tertullian when he was pulling away from the unity of the Church, and Vigilantus, mentioned in passing in their writings that they thought the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of Mary herself. And the ENTIRE church, even at that early,
pre-Constantine Time, POUNCED all over these men for putting forth such a novel teaching. That was NOT the teaching that had been handed down from the Apostles. Mary’s perpetual virginity WAS.

We honor that teaching, and the Church defined it solemnly.
Not because we are “saved” by Mary being perpetually a virgin,
but because her perpetual virginity happens to be TRUE.

Oh, and by the way, no pope invented the doctrine of the Assumption. There was no big deal made of it in the writings of the earlly church, but everybody basically knew it had happened throughout the entire church. Finally, as the church began to celebrate more and more feasts in honor of historic events in the life of Jesus and his family, the Feast of the Assumption began to be celebrated in the 400s. You don’t assign a Feast in celebration of a novel theory. You assign a feast to celebrate something which was handed down from the beginning.
And not a soul in the Church, East or West, objected to the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. Everyone knew it was true.
No one was prepared to say that the holy body of Mary, in which GOD HIMSELF had dwelled fully for nine months, was lying somewhere rotting and stinking in the Earth. The very idea was sacrilegious. Another proof is that the early church was very big about enshrining and preserving the bodies and relics of the Saints they held to be very holy, and Mary was one of them. Yet not a soul in history has ever claimed to have any relics of Mary.
Her relics would be very, very, very HIGHLY prized and jealously sought after. But nobody ever sought them. Everyone just knew there weren’t any to find, she was gone from this Earth.

God bless.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[guanophore]

Not ashamed. Don’t have to go outside the Word to preach the Gospel and Salvation through Christ, alone.

I left the religion of “What if…?” and “What about…?” and found a place that worships the Lord.
Looking at Scripture and the actions of the apostles, I’m sure that the denomination that I left is NOT the Church. I believe that the “Church” is not concentrated in one denomination but in the hearts of the believer. Those who go outside Jesus, Himself, for Salvation is a spiritual whore and is not in the Will of God.

In these threads, non-catholics are invited to speak and then are criticized for when they do.

You are not criticized in herer for speaking, kujo. What gets you criticized are your uncharitable remarks and your misrepresentation of Catholicism. You put forth your erroneous view of the Catholic Church, and then slam it with invectives. An example is given above, where you imply that Catholicism is a religion of “what if” and 'what about". I am not sure what that means, but clearly you consider it derogatory or you would not have left. You also imply that Catholics go “outside Jesus for salvation”, which is not true, and then imply that the Catholic Church is a spiritual whore.

So you see, it is not the fact that you speak up in the forum that is the problem, but the uncharitable and erroneous manner in which you do so. You clearly have a lot of unresolved feelings from your life as a Catholic and I pray that you begin getting over them now, lest you find yourself at the gate of heaven standing next to us!

 

[jmcrae]

You can have all the traditions you want. I think that is Great.

Tradition comes from the Apostles. BEFORE they wrote even one word of Scripture. The Tradition is* older than* the New Testament, by a good twenty years, at least.

Without the Tradition, the Scriptures cannot be trusted either, since it is because the Scriptures conform to the Tradition that they were even translated and published, in the first place.

The information that Mary was ever-virgin has always been contained in the deposit of Tradition.

 

[zcharry]

You can have all the traditions you want. I think that is Great.
But it stops being a tradition and starts to be a condition of faith when you say it has to be that way.
If they were to say that this is what the church believes in and we would like to hold up this tradition, but there is some question whether it is back up in scripture and doubt that it is true. I would agree with that statement…

But what you don’t understand is that some traditions are AUTHORITATIVE because they can be demonstrated to be the Oral Tradition of the Apostles, the INTERPRETATIONS that the Apostles taught to all the churches that they preached in for DECADES and which those they appointed to take over the preaching in their place also taught throughout the entire church.
The way we know that Mary’s perpetual virginity is an Apostolic Teaching is the fact that the entire, the ENTIRE, Early Christian Church all over the Empire, in Europe, in Africa, in Arabia, and in India (which was evangelized by the Apostle Thomas) - the ENTIRE church believed and affirmed that the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” were not the children of Mary’s womb.
If the WERE Mary’s children, this teaching could not have gotten off the ground. One of the “brothers,” James, was the bishop of Jerusalem for petes sake.
A couple of centuries after apostolic times, two or three writers, namely Tertullian when he was pulling away from the unity of the Church, and Vigilantus, mentioned in passing in their writings that they thought the brothers and sisters of Jesus were children of Mary herself. And the ENTIRE church, even at that early,
pre-Constantine Time, POUNCED all over these men for putting forth such a novel teaching. That was NOT the teaching that had been handed down from the Apostles. Mary’s perpetual virginity WAS.

We honor that teaching, and the Church defined it solemnly.
Not because we are “saved” by Mary being perpetually a virgin,
but because her perpetual virginity happens to be TRUE.

Oh, and by the way, no pope invented the doctrine of the Assumption. There was no big deal made of it in the writings of the earlly church, but everybody basically knew it had happened throughout the entire church. Finally, as the church began to celebrate more and more feasts in honor of historic events in the life of Jesus and his family, the Feast of the Assumption began to be celebrated in the 400s. You don’t assign a Feast in celebration of a novel theory. You assign a feast to celebrate something which was handed down from the beginning.
And not a soul in the Church, East or West, objected to the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. Everyone knew it was true.
No one was prepared to say that the holy body of Mary, in which GOD HIMSELF had dwelled fully for nine months, was lying somewhere rotting and stinking in the Earth. The very idea was sacrilegious. Another proof is that the early church was very big about enshrining and preserving the bodies and relics of the Saints they held to be very holy, and Mary was one of them. Yet not a soul in history has ever claimed to have any relics of Mary.
Her relics would be very, very, very HIGHLY prized and jealously sought after. But nobody ever sought them. Everyone just knew there weren’t any to find, she was gone from this Earth.

God bless.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

With all their writings, the Apostles would have undoubtedly documented such an important event as Mary being sinless, taken straight to heaven, or co-redemer. The fact that nothing is written to these events by the Apostles anywhere make a better case that they did not happen.
To say that this would just be past orally being that it would only be the second time in creation that someone was without sin or taken to heaven in body does not play to reason.
I’m not saying I’m right, but I’m not saying I wrong, there is just not enough information on this to say either way.
Believe what you will, but to say it is fact does not agree with the evidence in hand.

In Christ

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Believe what you will, but to say it is fact does not agree with the evidence in hand.

I’m sorry, good soul,
but logically, YES it DOES.

But only the Holy Spirit can convince you of the Catholic Faith’s truth and divine origin. I can’t. Nobody on these forums can.
Just keep praying to the Lord.

And God bless you, too.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[LJN21]

With all their writings, the Apostles would have undoubtedly documented such an important event as Mary being sinless, taken straight to heaven, or co-redemer. The fact that nothing is written to these events by the Apostles anywhere make a better case that they did not happen.
To say that this would just be past orally being that it would only be the second time in creation that someone was without sin or taken to heaven in body does not play to reason.
I’m not saying I’m right, but I’m not saying I wrong, there is just not enough information on this to say either way.
Believe what you will, but to say it is fact does not agree with the evidence in hand.

In Christ

Where is the evidence she did Sin and was not assumed in to heaven? Surely the apostles would have noted her grave and taken care of it.

Co-redeemer is not a teaching of the church at this point.

 

[Mannyfit75]

With all their writings, the Apostles would have undoubtedly documented such an important event as Mary being sinless, taken straight to heaven, or co-redemer. The fact that nothing is written to these events by the Apostles anywhere make a better case that they did not happen.
To say that this would just be past orally being that it would only be the second time in creation that someone was without sin or taken to heaven in body does not play to reason.
I’m not saying I’m right, but I’m not saying I wrong, there is just not enough information on this to say either way.
Believe what you will, but to say it is fact does not agree with the evidence in hand.

In Christ

Christian history shows that it was a common belief that Mary assumed into heaven. The term Assumption was not used. In the East, its called Dormition of Mary, which also celebrated on Aug 15, by the Orthodox Church.

This Tradition has patristic sources whom were instructed by the disciples of Apostles, and their successors.

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.”
Epiphanius,Panarion,78:23(A.D. 377),in PG 42:737

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…”
Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),in JUR,III:306

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ,our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”
Modestus of Jerusalem,Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae(PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634) from Munificentis simus Deus

“It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.”
Theoteknos of Livias,Homily on the Assumption(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,57

No ECF claim that she didn’t assumed. It’s ironic though that some Protestants believe in the Rapture. They believe they will be taken up into heaven before the Great Tribulation yet they deny the same concept that Mary, the Mother of the Lord was “raptured up.”

Of course I know not all Protestants believe in this Rapture.

I also like to add that in Revelation 12:1 there is a WOMAN appeared in the heaven. It’s a hint that Mary assumed since this woman in Revelation 12:1 gave birth to a male child who will rule all nations. This male child is Jesus. We know this because the child was taken up to His throne. It sounds like Jesus ascended to the Right Hand of God.

 

[zcharry]

Tradition comes from the Apostles. BEFORE they wrote even one word of Scripture. The Tradition is* older than* the New Testament, by a good twenty years, at least.

Without the Tradition, the Scriptures cannot be trusted either, since it is because the Scriptures conform to the Tradition that they were even translated and published, in the first place.

The information that Mary was ever-virgin has always been contained in the deposit of Tradition.

The scripture can be trusted because it was inspired by God. Something your church believes in.
Second you make my point. Of course there was tradition or better said, the word of God was there orally. Since the New Testament was written after the Apostles started to preach Gods Word. All traditions that were needed to have faith and believe in was put in the Bible. If there was more it would have been included in the Bible.

I will give one example of this that is off thread
Why does the Church restrict Priest to marry.
If it is by oral tradition then that oral tradition is wrong.
Scripture clearly states that some of the Apostles were married and was not restricted by the Church.
So to say that Priest can not marry goes against scripture.
So what is to be believed, if you are going to say tradition over scripture then were does the digress stop. Your church has decided to create its own wishes over Gods in this example.
It is not wrong to say that it would be better to not marry, but to restrict it goes against scripture.
In this example it has proved to be a thorn in the Churches side with its problems of Priest transgressions. Does this revert back to scripture where it states it is better to marry if you can not control yourself. Maybe God know better than mans traditions

God Bless

 

[jmcrae]

With all their writings, the Apostles would have undoubtedly documented such an important event as Mary being sinless, taken straight to heaven, or co-redemer.

They thought that Jesus was coming straight back, and that the Second Coming was right around the corner. Since everyone knew Mary (she lived with John until the late 60s or early 70s AD - she actually outlived three of the Gospel writers as well as St. Paul, which explains why they don’t mention her Assumption), it would have been like writing down, “The sky is blue,” or “grass is green” - they were writing to the Churches on various matters of discipline, and they were writing the Gospels to be used as teaching tracts in RCIA, because they were under persecution and being martyred daily - they just didn’t have time to make statements of the obvious.

They do allude to Mary, throughout the New Testament, however - the Woman being assumed into Heaven as reported by John is most likely Mary, since Jesus had named her Woman, after the name that Adam gave to Eve, mother of all the living - and St. Luke reminds us that the Angel called her Full of Grace (meaning without sin) - Luke also alludes to the custom of Nazarite marriage (which is celibate) when speaking of Joseph.

He didn’t go into detail about these things because they weren’t his subject matter, but does it make any sense that he would allude to them, no matter how vaguely, if they weren’t true?

 

[zcharry]

Christian history shows that it was a common belief that Mary assumed into heaven. The term Assumption was not used. In the East, its called Dormition of Mary, which also celebrated on Aug 15, by the Orthodox Church.

This Tradition has patristic sources whom were instructed by the disciples of Apostles, and their successors.

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.”
Epiphanius,Panarion,78:23(A.D. 377),in PG 42:737

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…”
Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),in JUR,III:306

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ,our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”
Modestus of Jerusalem,Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae(PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634) from Munificentis simus Deus

“It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.”
Theoteknos of Livias,Homily on the Assumption(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,57

No ECF claim that she didn’t assumed. It’s ironic though that some Protestants believe in the Rapture. They believe they will be taken up into heaven before the Great Tribulation yet they deny the same concept that Mary, the Mother of the Lord was “raptured up.”

Of course I know not all Protestants believe in this Rapture.

I also like to add that in Revelation 12:1 there is a WOMAN appeared in the heaven. It’s a hint that Mary assumed since this woman in Revelation 12:1 gave birth to a male child who will rule all nations. This male child is Jesus. We know this because the child was taken up to His throne. It sounds like Jesus ascended to the Right Hand of God.

Your first qoute is from 300 + years after the fact. As I stated earlier that would have been only the second time history that someone was taken to heaven in body. It would have been documented the day it happen and I’m sure a shrine or Church would have be built on the site. Volumes would have been written about it. I do not know the truth and it is not told to us by God.

 

[LJN21]

The scripture can be trusted because it was inspired by God. Something your church believes in.
Second you make my point. Of course there was tradition or better said, the word of God was there orally. Since the New Testament was written after the Apostles started to preach Gods Word. All traditions that were needed to have faith and believe in was put in the Bible. If there was more it would have been included in the Bible.

I will give one example of this that is off thread
Why does the Church restrict Priest to marry.
If it is by oral tradition then that oral tradition is wrong.
Scripture clearly states that some of the Apostles were married and was not restricted by the Church.
So to say that Priest can not marry goes against scripture.
So what is to be believed, if you are going to say tradition over scripture then were does the digress stop. Your church has decided to create its own wishes over Gods in this example.
It is not wrong to say that it would be better to not marry, but to restrict it goes against scripture.
In this example it has proved to be a thorn in the Churches side with its problems of Priest transgressions. Does this revert back to scripture where it states it is better to marry if you can not control yourself. Maybe God know better than mans traditions

God Bless

Celibacy in the Priesthood is a matter of discipline not teaching. There are in fact married priests in the Church today.