Question About Mary ??

[justasking4]

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.

Would you happen to know when in Tradition this information was given?

 

[zcharry]

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?

You make good points, but once again just like my posting it is just you opinion or the way you read the information. There is no hard proof of this either way. No I do not need proof to have faith. In the Bible there are many things that God says that require us to have faith. He is almost silent in this matter so faith of a unknown is not require.

 

[zcharry]

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.

I have never said she did or did not. I will repeat again NO one knows the truth. God has decided to remain almost silent on this in scripture. Either way could be correct but for the Church to say it is fact is the only part I’m have a problem with

 

[justasking4]

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

Again, this is speculation. Revelations 12 does fit what we know about Mary from the gospels. Such things were not said about her in them.

 

[zcharry]

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

Just so I understand the Roman Catholic position on this, you are saying that any Priest can marry and it is only a choice that the priest makes. There is no one in the Roman Catholic Church that is restricted from Marriage. The Pope could get married if he wanted to?

 

[jmcrae]

The scripture can be trusted because it was inspired by God. Something your church believes in.

Yes but we know it is inspired in the same way that we know that Mary is ever-virgin. By the decree of a Catholic Pope, after investigation into the facts of the matter by groups of Bishops and Church theologians.

The Holy Spirit did not simply show up one day and make a broadcast to the whole world out of the clouds, “HEY, THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED AND INERRANT, AND HERE IS THE CANON OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS,” - no. This was researched by the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and once the research was completed, the announcement was made in an infallible proclamation by the Pope.

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.

And where is this written in the Bible?

If there was more it would have been included in the Bible.

Why? Since originally, the Gospels and the Book of Acts were used as teaching documents for new converts, and the letters were circulating individually to the various different Dioceses. There was no thought of putting every single bit of information into any of them, but rather, simply to have a written source (like Cliff Notes or PowerPoint slides) to assist with the oral teaching and oral proclamation of the Gospel.

I will give one example of this that is off thread
Why does the Church restrict Priest to marry.

So that they can be light on their feet, having only very few possessions that fit into one or two suitcases, so that when they are moved to a different parish, either in the same city or on the other side of the world, they can make the move in one or two days. If they have a wife and kids, then they have to deal with changing schools for the kids, and moving a lot of furniture, etc., which causes the move to take a lot of time and expense.

It also ensures that the priest is 100% “on” for his duties as a priest - he will never be called home to care for a sick child, and he will have the freedom to work as late into the night as necessary with people who are troubled and need help in their lives.

The regrettable situations you bring up don’t happen only to priests - in fact, many times as many married men as Catholic priests have these problems. Statistically, a child is in many times more danger from his own father at home than from a Catholic priest. He is certainly in much greater danger at public school and while playing sports than while at a Catholic church.

These cases with priests became famous because we simply don’t expect that sort of behaviour from priests; it is so rare. But within the regular population, it’s not “news” because it is actually quite common.

 

[jmcrae]

Just so I understand the Roman Catholic position on this, you are saying that any Priest can marry and it is only a choice that the priest makes. There is no one in the Roman Catholic Church that is restricted from Marriage. The Pope could get married if he wanted to?

They can’t get married after ordination. (No Apostle ever got married after ordination.) But a married man could become a priest, under certain (rather unusual) circumstances.

Normally, however, we choose our priests from among men who have already freely taken a vow of celibacy, before they ever knew whether they would become priests, or not.

 

[justasking4]

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.

Where is the evidence for this? What was the content of it?

Without the Tradition, the Scriptures cannot be trusted either, since it is because

Let’s start in the NT. Do any writers in the NT claim that Mary was always a virgin?

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.

Secondly, it would not diminish in the least the incarnation of Christ in the least if she had other children. In fact it would strenghten the connection Christ would have with humanity if He did have other brothers and sisters by identifying with us not in His flesh but in our family relationships.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Again, this is speculation. Revelations 12 does fit what we know about Mary from the gospels. Such things were not said about her in them.

These doctrines especially the Assumption is not new. They were believed from the beginning at the time of death at Mary. History shows it. You just want to ignore history like the rest of the Protestant Christians.

Mary assumed into heaven period. This is Truth, this is fact. It happened.

You can only disprove it if you find Mary’s bones.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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).

“[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).

“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).

“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).

“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346), (ante A.D. 733).

“St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” John of Damascene, PG (96:1) (A.D. 747-751).

“It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.” John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96,741), (ante A.D. 749).

“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself.” Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda (ante A.D. 795).

“[A]n effable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s Assumption is something unique among men.” Gallican Sacramentary, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).

“God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.” Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).

“[T]he virgin is up to now immortal, as He who lived, translated her into the place of reception.” Timotheus of Jerusalem (8th Century).

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

Second, you won’t find an Early Christian that denied that Mary assumed into heaven.

 

[LJN21]

Just so I understand the Roman Catholic position on this, you are saying that any Priest can marry and it is only a choice that the priest makes. There is no one in the Roman Catholic Church that is restricted from Marriage. The Pope could get married if he wanted to?

No they take a vow of Celibacy as a general rule. This is a matter of disciple not dogma. It would be rather problematic for a priest to have a large family to support.

There are exception made this is not common but it does happen.

 

[guanophore]

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

Let me try plugging some other doctrine into this line of reasoning:

"With all their writings, the Apostles would have undoubtedly documented such important (doctrines as the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union) as being essential to the faith. The fact that these words are not found in the Bible or the writings of the Apostles anywhere makes a better case that they are not true.

To say the concepts of a Triune God and that Christ had two natures in one person would just be passed orally does not play to reason. Believe what you will, but to say it is fact does not agree with the evidence in hand."

What we have, zcharry, is evidence in hand. We have the Divine Deposit of Faith handed down to us from the Apostles. In this we can have complete confidence, because we have complete confidence in Christ:

John 17:17-19
17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth."

Jesus consecrated HIs apostles in the truth, then directed them to fill their offices:

2 Tim 2:1-2
2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

This was done by consecration, and the laying on of hands, and has been done successively from the time of the Apostles until now. Those faithful men have born witness to the Apostolic teaching.

 

[Allweather]

Just so I understand the Roman Catholic position on this, you are saying that any Priest can marry and it is only a choice that the priest makes. There is no one in the Roman Catholic Church that is restricted from Marriage. The Pope could get married if he wanted to?

The discipline of celebacy started among the monastic orders, and was later adopted by the diocesan type priests. For several hundred years priests were allowed to marry, or rather, married men were allowed to be ordained.

In my town there is an Episcopal priest, married with several children, who has converted to Catholicism, and has applied to be ordained as Catholic priest. There were a couple of newspaper articles about him a few weeks ago. There are a few hundred of these types of Catholic priests, who were priests or ministers in other denominations, and after converting were ordained as Catholic priests. My understanding is that these priests do not serve as pastors, but perform other non-pastoral duties, but maybe it is possible they act occasionally as assistant pastors.

The discipline of priestly celebacy could be ended tomorrow by the Pope if he so desired. It is not a dogma. It is a discipline, and one which is not going to go away anytime soon, I’m sure of that.

 

[zcharry]

Yes but we know it is inspired in the same way that we know that Mary is ever-virgin. By the decree of a Catholic Pope, after investigation into the facts of the matter by groups of Bishops and Church theologians.

The Holy Spirit did not simply show up one day and make a broadcast to the whole world out of the clouds, “HEY, THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED AND INERRANT, AND HERE IS THE CANON OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS,” - no. This was researched by the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, and once the research was completed, the announcement was made in an infallible proclamation by the Pope.

And where is this written in the Bible?

Why? Since originally, the Gospels and the Book of Acts were used as teaching documents for new converts, and the letters were circulating individually to the various different Dioceses. There was no thought of putting every single bit of information into any of them, but rather, simply to have a written source (like Cliff Notes or PowerPoint slides) to assist with the oral teaching and oral proclamation of the Gospel.

So that they can be light on their feet, having only very few possessions that fit into one or two suitcases, so that when they are moved to a different parish, either in the same city or on the other side of the world, they can make the move in one or two days. If they have a wife and kids, then they have to deal with changing schools for the kids, and moving a lot of furniture, etc., which causes the move to take a lot of time and expense.

It also ensures that the priest is 100% “on” for his duties as a priest - he will never be called home to care for a sick child, and he will have the freedom to work as late into the night as necessary with people who are troubled and need help in their lives.

The regrettable situations you bring up don’t happen only to priests - in fact, many times as many married men as Catholic priests have these problems. Statistically, a child is in many times more danger from his own father at home than from a Catholic priest. He is certainly in much greater danger at public school and while playing sports than while at a Catholic church.

These cases with priests became famous because we simply don’t expect that sort of behaviour from priests; it is so rare. But within the regular population, it’s not “news” because it is actually quite common.

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.

You are correct in the danger kids outside of the Catholic Church and it is not only a problem in the Church only. This still does not excuse the Churches stand a marriage and the fallout it causes.

 

[Mannyfit75]

justasking4,

I gave you Biblical Proof text and all you do is ignore it.

If you strictly go that all doctrine must be in the Bible, you might as well throw away the Trinity because that Word is not there.

The Bible hints that Mary did ASSUMED its right THERE IN REVELATION 12:1

Who is the male child then? He ruled all nations, and we know that Jesus who is the King of Kings is this child. Who is the Mother of Jesus? Mary.

We can break it down and identify the woman as Mary. Jesus in the Gospel of John often call Mary woman, twice. One at the Miracle in Cana, and Second, at Cross when Jesus gave John Mary.

The title Woman is often invoke in Genesis 3:15 where God put emnity between the serpent and the woman. That the seed of the woman would crush the seed of the serpent.

The seed is Jesus, since he will crush Satan just like he did in the Book of Revelation.

 

[LJN21]

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.

You are correct in the danger kids outside of the Catholic Church and it is not only a problem in the Church only. This still does not excuse the Churches stand a marriage and the fallout it causes.

So where did the bible come form? How do we know it is in fact the inspired Word of God?

 

[jmcrae]

Let’s start in the NT. Do any writers in the NT claim that Mary was always a virgin?

Luke alludes to it in Mary’s conversation with the Angel Gabriel. The Angel Gabriel announces to Mary (a young woman who is about to be married) that she is going to get pregnant. Most young women who are about to get married would say, “Duh-uh, no kidding - I don’t think I need a visitation from an angel to tell me that.”

Mary, however, responds with surprise, saying. “How can this be, since I know not man?” Even though she is just about to start living with Joseph.

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.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So where did the bible come form? How do we know it is in fact the inspired Word of God?

The Catholic Church canonized the Bible.

 

[justasking4]

After reviewing the Bible, it is time to look at what the earliest Christians taught about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

B]Protoevangelium of James

Isn’t this from a source that the church rejected as being the truth?

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

---

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

---

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

---

**Epiphanius **

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“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.)

 

[Mannyfit75]

Isn’t this from a source that the church rejected as being the truth?

The source was rejected but not the assumption of Mary or Dormition of Mary. It’s odd that only two ancient Christian traditions Catholic and Orthodox venerate Mary and Protestants do not…