P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m not really sure what that means.
- Status
N
NonCatholic
Guest
B
Benadam
Guest
I really wasn’t addressing the transmission of sin but of the disharmony between the notion that Mary isn’t sinless and the symbolivc language used throughout the bible. The biblical symbols attached to Jesus and His mother which are consistent throughout it’s literary history are violated when they are viewed with such a division as are the sinfull and sinless.
The patterns of archetype established by the spirit of prophecy are violated as well. For example: Just as Adam could say about Eve " flesh of my flesh bone of my bone" so can the mother of Jesus; This consistencvy is preserved in the Catholic view of prophecy but corrupted by the views that sacrifice the sublime unity of a maternal bond with God in order to be able to accept that Jesus is distinct.
R
rinnie
Guest
I am not sure what you are saying here. But i am guessing you are saying that Magnificamus is said after making a confession. So if thats what you are saying, Im still not seeing how this would disagree with a soul to :magnify the Lord. Because again is this is said right after confession then it would be a soul magnify the Lord. because right after confession the soul would be indeed sinless. Correct. is that not why confession is good for the soul. unless of course I am not understanding this point correct, if not I stand to be corrected in advance.A quotation for you:
“Laudamus Te
Benedicimus Te
Glorificamus Te
Magnificamus Te
Adoramus Te
Gratias agimus Tibi propter magnam gloriam Tuam”
This is after making confession of sins & sinfulness [see the liturgical texts for more confessions of sinfulness & the like]
So the answer would seem to be: **easily**
B
bella_mama
Guest
Much simpler? Try going through the Lenten Season as an Orthodox! Seriously, I understand what you were trying to say…
N
NonCatholic
Guest
That’s because the Latin Vulgate translated the passage incorrectly, which effectively changed the entire context…any other Bible translation I have seen does not change the original context of the oldest manuscripts. I don’t expect you to follow me; you are unable.
R
rinnie
Guest
I think that for A RC its real easy. Especially if like myself that all your know. RC or any other kind of Catholic Faith is just what you are used to. ITs like comming home at Christmas its just what it is Home. The Roman Catholic Church to me is just Home. And I am lucky to say I had a wonderful happy home. And a wonderful happy home in the RCC. But just like other faiths seem so complicated to me, I can see how ours can be that way to them. Like how People can’t understand the authority of the Pope. To me its
How could you not, Its what we our used to and what we are I guess,
R
rinnie
Guest
And on what authority are you speaking? No offense but a person with the name of Noncatholic is going to tell me the Catholic Pope is teaching it wrong?
M
mardukm
Guest
God never left Mary
So either way, your argument does not affect the Immaculate Conception.
I think I explained what I meant by “for the sake of Christ” clearly. She was immaculate not ONLY because Christ was in her, but also because God made her specifically to receive Himself.
And? I never said “only.”
So only Christ is God?
Neither you nor I nor anyone in the history of the world contained the FULLNESS of divinity within them except Mary. Do you deny that Christ is the FULLNESS of divinity? Do you claim that YOU contain the FULLNESS of divinity? If so, what Scripture can you give to support your claim?
I responded to you accurately. You are trying to imply that because Mary died she must have sinned. Mary did not die because she sinned. She died because she inherited the natural, unglorified body of all humans which ages and is subject to corruption, the effect of the sin of our first parents.
Someone here has erroneously claimed that Jesus died merely because he was murdered. The orthodox truth is that Jesus had the capacity to die because he inherited, like Mary, a natural, unglorified human body, even though He was sinless.
Per that famous movie whose name escapes me, you make this statement only because “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!”
You simply can’t refute the fact that the dogma of the IC was intended to distinguish between the spiritual and physical conceptions. Your trying to wish away that fact does not cancel the fact, nor the weakness of your argument.Blessings,
Marduk
B
Benadam
Guest
This is too close to the I say tomato you say …kind of thing…sins aren’t removed from the world or our lives or even our souls but forgiveness is something tangible and the means of which any kind of removal is accomplished .Except for Baptism…big oops
Nevertheless , I do agree with you about the terms and forgive me for engaging you in semantics.
I don’t understand how I’m adding to the account. Joseph and Mary’s marriage was a covenant that included the community they lived with. To divorce Mary meant to subject her and Jesus to a life on the margins of the community and extreme poverty viewed as a whore and a bastard. I assume that Joseph had decided to not allow his bloodline to be contaminated by remaining legally married yet still didn’t know eneogh about what was happening to condemn her to that kind of life. I think it reasonable to conclude that for both of these objectives to be met Joseph would have to submit to a life that outwardly appeared the same as always but was inwardly and more importantly legally unbound.
R
rinnie
Guest
Actually from what I was taught, Joseph was very old when he married the Blessed Mother. That is the big reason why he did not want to marry her. Joseph had already had Children, older then the Blessed Mother. Joseph’s wife had been dead for years, and that is why he did not want to marry her. It kinda makes sense too, because its like Joseph married the Blessed Mother heard a little about him when Jesus was little and that was it. You wonder where was he when Jesus was crucified. Then it makes sense he was already dead. Scripture really does tie into itself. And seems to always come up with the teachings of the Church. Also shows how Jesus could have had Step brothers or sister also. But never half because no Blood. Except of course we all belong to God. But you know what I mean.
B
Benadam
Guest
I think that in the minds of the apostles the primary concern was establishing who Jesus is and once that happens it was not a problem for people of that time to believe that His mother was assumed to heaven. Enoch and Elisha were not doubted why would the mother of the person they call Lord?
B
Benadam
Guest
I don’t really subscribe to the old Joseph line of thinking. I know it is ancient but it makes the story sterile, without passion and I just don’t see the kind of human experience in it I believe is required to be able to make visible the heroic virtrue that would make Mary and Joseph worthy of establishing a new archetype for marriage and family… I know it solves the Jesus siblings problem but I am willing to sacrifice that for the depth gained by seeing Joseph and Mary as a young couple s in a heroic struggle to support and preserve one another’s virtue.Rinnie, besides even an old Joseph wouldn’t want an unknown man’s blood to contaminate his family line.
R
rinnie
Guest
Actually from what I was taught, He had no problem. He was chosen by the High Priests at the Church at the time because he was so righteous. Then the angel told him not to worry about it, he was the chosen one and it would be just fine. Actually her being with child was no problem. Remember in those days those people were really Holy. Her being with child was no problem to the chosen select that understood. His problem was never her with child, it was his age.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
Jesus Christ, the Word.And on what authority are you speaking? No offense but a person with the name of Noncatholic is going to tell me the Catholic Pope is teaching it wrong?
N
NonCatholic
Guest
If we were both dogmatic, then we would both be in error; because we are speculating on what might or could, but we cannot verify it…that’s all I mean.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The scriptures do not teach what you wish to privately interpret the written word to mean outside the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. The new Marian theology you mention arose in the modern era among reformed evangelical Protestants who have no connection with the historic Christian faith. Bad interpretations of the scriptures concerning Mary have been made at worst by modern Protestants. It was because of the poor theology of modern Protestant exegetes and the confusion of beliefs they had created in Christendom that Pope Pius lX felt compelled to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as dogma.
*
“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not always keeping to the same opinions with regard to the same things [sounds like the early Protestant reformers], as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom [Tradition], and be nourished in the Lord’s scriptures.”*
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2 (A.D. 180)
"For as Eve was seduced by an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying His word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that * * theVirgin Mary might become * the advocate of the virgin Eve . As the human race was subjected to death through the act of a virgin, so it was * saved by a virgin ."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19, 1 (A.D. 180)
As I pointed out in my last reply, Marian devotion has been a part of the Church’s Sacred Tradition since apostolic time. Sacred Scripture must be interpreted in light of that tradition according to the consistent teachings of the apostles and Church Fathers who succeeded them.
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain in them some things hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3: 15-16
N
NonCatholic
Guest
Nothing to say in regards, except as always…Scripture is ignored in place of a sinful man. What does the Bible say concerning Mary? No need to answer that question, I already know.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The wonder of the the single passage from Gen.3:15 “Woman’s seed” true is dealing with the messiah, but what is hidden from God’s word is that a Woman does not carry a seed, only a man carries the seed. Gen.3:15 is stating that this woman will be a “Virgin”. When God then states to satan that He “God” "will put enmity between the Woman and satan, meaning that satan will not be able to ever taint this Woman or her seed with sin, thus “The Immaculate Conception”.
Then the bruising of satan’s head comes next after the Immaculate conception and the virgin birth, from the Woman’s seed who will bruise his heel, the Crucifixion.
Why do non catholics doubt the power of God, to reside in a sinless vessel of the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, whom from all ages (past, present, future) will call her blessed. God would not be God incarnate if ? Mary was not without sin from her conception, to become the New Ark of the New Covenant to house the Word of God made flesh.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Allow me to show you where in three cases among others modern day Protestants have erred in their private interpretations of Scripture with regard to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which by the way is off topic.
Conerning Matthew 1:18, the expression “to come together” translated from the Greek is never used on thirty occasions in the New Testament to mean sexual relations. So it makes no sense that it would be used as such a euphemism by Matthew in this passage. In fact Matthew uses the verb “to know” when referring to sexual relations in 1:25. The expression “to come together” means “to live together” which does not necessarily imply that Mary and Joesph had conjugal relations after the first stage of their marriage (betrothal) was completed. It was at the beginning of the second stage of the legally contracted marriage that the husband brought his wife to his home where they would live together as a married couple (Mt 1: 20,24). All Matthew is telling us is Mary and Joseph were betrothed (the term when the husband couldn’t take his wife to live with him in his home in accord with Mosaic Law) and at that time before Joseph could take Mary into his home she conceived a child of the Holy Spirit.
Concerning Matthew 13:55-56, James and Joseph are the sons of Mary of Cleopas (Alphaeus). These two brothers can be found in the list of the apostles along with their brother Judas (Thaddeus) and Simon (a Canaanite, not a Nazorean). I doubt Jesus had uterine brothers whose names coincided with those of four of his apostles. You are begging the question by ignoring the list of the apostles. The term “brothers” (adelphos) has a wider meaning reflecting Semitic usage of the term. “Brothers” often refers to extended kin or disciples or both in the New Testament. The same applies to “sisters”.
The word “sister” (adelphe) is used in the Old Testament to refer to female tribal and family members other than siblings. In one instance Rebekah is referred to as “sister” by her own mother.
They (Rebekah’s mother and brother) blessed Rebekah, and said to her, “May you our sister (adelphe = kin) become thousands of ten thousands, and may your descendants possess the gate of those who hate them.”
Genesis 24, 60
The word “sister” (adelphe) does not strictly refer to female siblings in Semitic usage, which the Greek translation in the Septuagint reflects. ‘Achoth’ is the Hebrew word for “sister” derived from ‘ach’ which is the Hebrew word for brother. The Greek word ‘adelphe’ is translated from the Hebrew, so it reflects the Hebraic usage of the word ‘achoth’.
kia eulogisan Rebekkan thn adelfhn autwn kai auth adelfh hmwn ei ginou eiv xiliadev muriadwn kai klhronohmsatw to sperma sou tav poleiv twn upenantiwn twn.
Genesis 24, 60
With regard to Psalm 69, the expression “my mother’s sons” in v.8 should be taken in its primary context, David’s relationship with his siblings, as should the expression “when he commits iniquity, I will chasten him”. Verses 8-9 find a secondary fulfillment in John 1:11: ‘He came to his own, but his own people did not receive him.’ Here we have the expression “his own” [neuter: literally his own property and possession] and “his own people” [the Israelites, who belonged to God as his own chosen possession but nonetheless rejected his Only-begotten Son, the Mesiah]. In this sense it would be accurate to say that the psalm was fulfilled when Jesus (the Messianic King) was rejected by the Jews, his brethren [adelphos] (cf. Isa 53:3; Jn 19:14-16). The idea of siblings having an essential role to play in our salvation is ludicrous. So I doubt the evangelists would even bother to record something as incidental and mundane as a sibling rivalry.
- Status