Split: Another Marian Debate

[maryj]

No, that’s an **inference **that you can draw from scripture. A reasonable inference, yes, but not more than an inference. In response, I might point out that Jesus entrusted his beloved mother to John, the disciple whom Jesus loved. We know that Jesus loves everyone so, if the scripture makes a point to emphasize that John is the particular disciple whom Jesus loved, then the two must have been very close and the best of friends. It is not unheard of to trust a close friend more than a sibling. So, what did I just draw here? An inference, nothing more nothing less. But also no less reasonable than the one you suggest.

If I may…Inference, noun, The reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgement on the basis OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and prior conclusion rather than on the basis of direct observation.
If I may again… Matthew 15: 3-9 He said to them in reply, “And why do you break the commandment of God for your tradition (giving all your wealth to the temple, so as to ignore the needs of aging parents) For God said, “Honor your mother and father,” and “whoever curses father or mother shall die,” But you say” whoever says to father and mother, Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God," need not honor his father. You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Hypocrites well did Isiah prophesy about you when he said: This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.
ahhhhhh…circumstantial evidence, that’s what you’d call the words of our Lord on the subject of honoring your mother and father??? Nothing more, nothing less??? I have no response to that kind of logic.

 

[rr1213]

ahhhhhh…circumstantial evidence, that’s what you’d call the words of our Lord on the subject of honoring your mother and father??? Nothing more, nothing less??? I have no response to that kind of logic.

Ok, you’re pulling the old bait and switch here. As you can tell from my post above, my observation as to the inference which you equated with biblical proof was directed towards Jesus’ giving of Mary to John at the cross, not to Jesus’ condemnation of the phariseess exaltation of the religious traditions of man over the mandates of scripture…a problem we actually face today in some quarters…

 

[Mattgkarl]

Interesting parallels all. But they don’t say that Mary was the new Arc of the Covenant or that she is an exception to sin.

Perhaps, but the last one or two verses of Chapter 11 and all of Chapter 12 of Revelation tell an interesting story.

 

[maryj]

Ok, you’re pulling the old bait and switch here. As you can tell from my post above, my observation as to the inference which you equated with biblical proof was directed towards Jesus’ giving of Mary to John at the cross, not to Jesus’ condemnation of the phariseess exaltation of the religious traditions of man over the mandates of scripture…a problem we actually face today in some quarters…

 

[maryj]

Ok, you’re pulling the old bait and switch here. As you can tell from my post above, my observation as to the inference which you equated with biblical proof was directed towards Jesus’ giving of Mary to John at the cross, not to Jesus’ condemnation of the phariseess exaltation of the religious traditions of man over the mandates of scripture…a problem we actually face today in some quarters…

My father used to use that saying, and yet I can assure you I’m not trying to pull anything. Both of these things show that the Blessed Virgin was just that, a perpetual virgin. How is it that Christ would vehemently condemn the Pharasees for trying to shirk their responsibilities for their parents, and then “give” his mother to another man to protect and take care of(deeper meanings in this also, but I don’t want to mix that in with this statement) if He had siblings of His own. It is inconceivable to think that Christ would do the old “do what I say, not as I do” thing. After all, Jesus is the Word, and that word was handed down (oral tradition).

 

[seremina]

Jesus was not referring specifically to John when he was passing on the care of his mother, Mary. He was referring to all of us. We know this because in the culture of the time, a widow was usually cared for by her husband’s brother or by her son. In this case, she was cared for by Jesus, her son. Now…

Consider for a moment…she had no other sons to go to. She had no male relatives to go to. She supposedly would’ve been doomed to the horrific fate of living as a widow at that time, all alone in the house. At that time, it was hell on Earth for a widow. It was very difficult to support yourself in order to feed yourself, let alone any children you may have. The culture NEVER gave a son’s mother to his friends.

So Jesus gave ALL of us his mother.

 

[rr1213]

Jesus was not referring specifically to John when he was passing on the care of his mother, Mary. He was referring to all of us. We know this because in the culture of the time, a widow was usually cared for by her husband’s brother or by her son. In this case, she was cared for by Jesus, her son. Now…

Consider for a moment…she had no other sons to go to. She had no male relatives to go to. She supposedly would’ve been doomed to the horrific fate of living as a widow at that time, all alone in the house. At that time, it was hell on Earth for a widow. It was very difficult to support yourself in order to feed yourself, let alone any children you may have. The culture NEVER gave a son’s mother to his friends.

So Jesus gave ALL of us his mother.

Yes, I know this is what Catholics teach, but it is not what the Scripture says.

 

[seremina]

Look at the verse. Do you see a name listed? No mention of John.

Yes, I know this is what Catholics teach, but it is not what the Scripture says.

 

[rr1213]

Look at the verse. Do you see a name listed? No mention of John.

Well, the authors of Mathew, Mark and Luke did not consider the episode to be important enough to record. In John 19, it states:

“25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.”

As you can see from the text, Mary was given to the disciple whom Jesus loved, who is identified in numerous other places in Scripture as John, who is also held to be the author of the Gospel of John. Jesus specifically gives Mary to John, telling Mary “here is your son” and telling John (the disciple whom he loved) “here is your mother.” Jesus does not say to John “here is your mother and you, John, represent the entire Church and so my giving her to you represents my making Mary the Mother of the Church”. Instead, he says to John, here is your mother. The words, and the act, apply to John. Apply the same sort of literalism that Catholics apply to Christ’s words at the Last Supper to Christ’s words at the cross.

 

[mikeledes]

Well, the authors of Mathew, Mark and Luke did not consider the episode to be important enough to record. In John 19, it states

So if something is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, its not really that important? It doesn’t matter how often something is recorded. Once is enough in order to be (name removed by moderator)ortant!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[maryj]

Yes, I know this is what Catholics teach, but it is not what the Scripture says.

Sorry, one in the same:yup:

 

[AlegreFe]

Yes, I know this is what Catholics teach, but it is not what the Scripture says.

You’re wrong, it’s not what Catholics teach; but it is what the Catholic Church teaches. And it is what scripture says. You just don’t want to see it.

This is why we need the Catholic Church. Only you think that is not what the scripture says. So you need a teaching authority to actually tell you what the scripture says. You can’t go by what you think is your gut feeling on what the scripture means. You can’t go by what you think is the Holy Spirit telling you what it means. If that’s the case then why are there so many different protestant denominations? (rhetorical question). Because there is no teaching authority present among the different denominations. But there is a teaching authority in the Catholic Church.

 

[rr1213]

You’re wrong, it’s not what Catholics teach; but it is what the Catholic Church teaches. And it is what scripture says. You just don’t want to see it.

This is why we need the Catholic Church. Only you think that is not what the scripture says. So you need a teaching authority to actually tell you what the scripture says. You can’t go by what you think is your gut feeling on what the scripture means. You can’t go by what you think is the Holy Spirit telling you what it means. If that’s the case then why are there so many different protestant denominations? (rhetorical question). Because there is no teaching authority present among the different denominations. But there is a teaching authority in the Catholic Church.

And if with your own eyes you see that the Scripture says “white”, yet the Catholic Church teaches that the Scripture actually says “black” will you believe it to be white or black? To paraphrase George Orwel, being Catholic means “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Church discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white.”

Wait, don’t answer that one. I know. The Catholic Church would never teach anything that is contrary to Scripture and, if it should ever appear that the Church teaches something contrary to Scripture, that is just evidence that you are reading the Scripture incorrectly, not the Church.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus gives Mary to John, the disciple whom he loved, to care for. That is what the Scripture says. It speaks in terms such as Woman behold your Son and, to the disciple John, here is your mother. The Catholic Church is reading things into this Scripture that are not present in the text. That is wrong whether it is the Catholic Church doing it or the Episcopal Church doing it. Or anyone else for that matter.

I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church, especially how it has been so faithful in holding the line in teaching morality when the World constantly teaches to the contrary. Yet, it also has a tendency at times to make Scripture say what it does not say…although other Protestant Churches do the same in different ways.

 

[San_Patricio]

And if with your own eyes you see that the Scripture says “white”, yet the Catholic Church teaches that the Scripture actually says “black” will you believe it to be white or black? To paraphrase George Orwel, being Catholic means “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Church discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white.”

Wait, don’t answer that one. I know. The Catholic Church would never teach anything that is contrary to Scripture and, if it should ever appear that the Church teaches something contrary to Scripture, that is just evidence that you are reading the Scripture incorrectly, not the Church.

Absolutely. I just wish you were being genuine and not facaetious.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus gives Mary to John, the disciple whom he loved, to care for. That is what the Scripture says. It speaks in terms such as Woman behold your Son and, to the disciple John, here is your mother. The Catholic Church is reading things into this Scripture that are not present in the text. That is wrong whether it is the Catholic Church doing it or the Episcopal Church doing it. Or anyone else for that matter.

No. Stop. Jesus gives His mother to “the beloved disciple” and him to her. Where do you see the name John in the exchange?

I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church, especially how it has been so faithful in holding the line in teaching morality when the World constantly teaches to the contrary. Yet, it also has a tendency at times to make Scripture say what it does not say…although other Protestant Churches do the same in different ways.

No it doesn’t and never has. It always says Scripture says what Scripture means. To steal an analogy from John Martignoni, if I say “it’s raining cats and dogs” are you going to expect cats and dogs to fall from the sky? Are you going to say I’m wrong if they aren’t? Of course not, because you’d know what I meant. It really helps a lot if you have a context in which to interpret what someone says. The Church has that context with regards Scripture and has been faithfully passing it on for near 2000 years.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The point has been made, I’m sure, that nowhere in the Scriptures does it come out and specifically say that God the Father = God the Son = God the Holy Spirit. Three Divine Persons in One God.

However, most Christian churches do believe exactly that.

Why?

Because the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has given us the correct interpretation of Scripture.

If there, why not in all interpretation? The answer, of course, is yes, the Holy Spirit does guide the Catholic Church in all its interpretation of Scripture.

It is impossible for anyone, Catholic or Protestant, to deny that Protestants have different teachings because they have different interpretations.

Lutherans teach consubstantiation. Some Episcopalians say they teach transsubstantiation, some ‘memorial’. Baptists, UCC, Assembly of God etc. teach ‘memorial only.’

That is just one example where people in these denominations honestly feel that they can interpret “scripture says” but totally disagree on what “scripture says.”

Divorce ok? Yes for many Protestants. Ditto with abortion, homosexual actions, ordination of women.

Even if you can cite Scripture, somehow for them it is totally okay to say, “but Scripture meant. . .”

But they accuse Catholics of misinterpreting Scripture–the same people who do NOT change their teachings with every politically correct cause or to be ‘in step’ with contemporary society?

Surely seems strange to me!

 

[rr1213]

No. Stop. Jesus gives His mother to “the beloved disciple” and him to her. Where do you see the name John in the exchange?

And who do think was the beloved disciple? Read the rest of the Gospel of John, it is beyond dispute that this was John.

Look, for example, at John 21:

"20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?" 

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."

John, the author of the Gospel of John, is the disciple whom Jesus loved and the disciple who testifies to these things, AND the disciple to whom Mary was given at the cross.

 

[rr1213]

That is just one example where people in these denominations honestly feel that they can interpret “scripture says” but totally disagree on what “scripture says.”

Divorce ok? Yes for many Protestants. Ditto with abortion, homosexual actions, ordination of women.

Even if you can cite Scripture, somehow for them it is totally okay to say, “but Scripture meant. . .”

But they accuse Catholics of misinterpreting Scripture–the same people who do NOT change their teachings with every politically correct cause or to be ‘in step’ with contemporary society?

Surely seems strange to me!

A legitimate point. Nonetheless, Catholics also misinterpret Scripture as well, as shown above, not that anyone of you will concede or believe the point.

 

[runandsew]

I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church, especially how it has been so faithful in holding the line in teaching morality when the World constantly teaches to the contrary. Yet, it also has a tendency at times to make Scripture say what it does not say…although other Protestant Churches do the same in different ways.

But if the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallibly led by the Holy Spirit in its interpretation, then if that interpretation differs from your interpretation, wouldn’t it be prudent to give way to the Catholic interpretation, if it is truly led by the Holy Spirit?

When you say as a Protestant that the Catholic Church has a tendency to make scripture say what it does not say, I read this to say, that it does not match your interpretation of scripture, and you think that your interpretation is correct, therefore the catholic interpretation is wrong.
You know in the Bible, there are several old testament passages which Jesus, the Apostles and Paul interpret, which I read and think, Hey this is not what that passage is saying, but I submit to their authority to interpret the old testament.

 

[rr1213]

You know in the Bible, there are several old testament passages which Jesus, the Apostles and Paul interpret, which I read and think, Hey this is not what that passage is saying, but I submit to their authority to interpret the old testament.

Nicely said. Profound actually. I’ll think about it.

 

[Alexius]

You’re right ! The Bible is about Jesus:thumbsup: ! But isn’t it also about a lot of other people too? Yes! Mary may not be mention in too great a magnitude in Scripture, but does that mean that she is unimportant? No. She is the Mother of Christ and if you believe Christ to be divine, then she is the Theotokos. That is not too extravacant a title !

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius