Split: Another Marian Debate

[Alexius]

Originally Posted by Needanswers
What assurance do I have that the Catholic Church has never erred? Can’t Matthew 16:18-19 be interpreted as meaning that the truth of God will never be stamped out. That there might be periods of darkness and confusion, but the Gospel will never completely disappear?

I can accept the possibility of the Assumption, but the Immaculate Conception and Mary as Mediatrix of all graces is very difficult to accept. Several church fathers attributed sins, especially minor ones, to Mary. Origen and Tertullian imputed the sin of unbelief on Mary. Basil and Hesychios of Jerusalem interpreted the sword of Simeon as the doubt Mary experienced because of the Cross. Saint John Chrysostom accuses her of vainglory. How can saints and/or learned men not be aware of any apostolic tradition that claimed Mary was sinless or immaculately conceived and attribute sins to her?

What solid basis do we have to claim that all graces must past through Mary’s hands first before reaching us? What basis do we have to say that Mary offered her son at Calvary? How do we know what she was thinking that moment? All of this sounds extremely speculative to me and not sound doctrine.

Thanks

From an Eastern perspective, the Theotokos (Mother of God) is an essential element of the Christian faith. She has always been venerated as she herself proclaims, “From this day forward, all generations will call me blessed…” I wonder why you accept the Assumption (or “Dormition” in the east), but struggle with her sinlessness. Orthodoxy rejects the Immaculate Conception, as it is founded on the false doctrine of Original guilt as hammered out by Blessed Augustine. She is also not called the “Mediatrix,” because the doctrine of grace is slightly different in the east. However, she is honored as much in the east as she is in the west. That the Blessed Virgin Mary lived an unstained life, there is no doubt. For instance, St. John Chrysostom believed that the Theotokos sinned when she interfered with Christ at the wedding in Cana, but that she was cleansed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, so that she died pure and without sin. Many of the Church Fathers believe differently regarding her sinlessness, but you must remember that they are not infallible, but rather individuals interpreting Scripture. The Church, though, receives the belief that she did not sin in life. As for the Immaculate Conception and Mediatrix, I can’t say that you’ll find much help from the Church Fathers on these doctrines…

P.S. In the Roman Catholic Church, the doctrines of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are dogmas - you must accept them! There is no dogma on Mary being “Mediatrix of all graces” though…yet!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[rr1213]

That the Blessed Virgin Mary lived an unstained life, there is no doubt…The Church, though, receives the belief that she did not sin in life…
P.S. In the Roman Catholic Church, the doctrines of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are dogmas - you must accept them! There is no dogma on Mary being “Mediatrix of all graces” though…yet!

Is the belief that Mary was without sin also constitute dogma in the Orthodox Churches? In other words, in today’s world can you be a faithful Orthodox in good standing and believe that Mary was subject to the statement in Romans that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”? Must you accept the belief?

 

[Alexius]

rr1213: Is the belief that Mary was without sin also constitute dogma in the Orthodox Churches? In other words, in today’s world can you be a faithful Orthodox in good standing and believe that Mary was subject to the statement in Romans that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”? Must you accept the belief?

Dearest rr1213:

In the Orthodox Church, the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary is not dogma, but this does not mean that one should practice “pick 'n choose” or “cafeteria” Orthodoxy by rejecting such a teaching. The Orthodox teaching is that Mary is panagia: all-holy/ immaculate. Dogma tends to be more of a formality in Orthodoxy, meant to put an end to a major heresy against a foundational teaching. That is the case with of the most theological definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. For example, the dogma that Christ is fully divine was officially proclaimed in order to battle the heresy of Arius.

In response to your comment that to believe in the sinlessness of Mary is to disregard Romans 3:23, that is simply not the case . All of us are born with the effects or consequences of the original sin. To be born with sin does not imply we have committed any personal sin! It is the weakened state we are born into: corruption (distorted image) and desire to commit personal sin. You must remember that St. Paul is Jewish. He and all the other followers of Christ would have taught from the continued traditional Jewish notions of birth. Christ would have taught this way as he was considered a rabbi! Unfortunately, many Christians forget this and assume that St. Paul is preaching with the same notion of sin as Blessed Augustine ! If you pick up any traditional Jewish Commentary on the Old Testament and read what it says about the Fall of Man, you will see the correlation between the teaching of the Prophets and the teaching of the early Church and Orthodoxy:thumbsup: .

BTW, if an Orthodox Catholic didn’t believe in Mary’s sinlessness, then they would still be part of the faith; they would not go to hell for their disagreement. I would hope, however, that they would seek to understand the ENTIRE Orthodox Faith they claim to believe: Belief = Practice…

Here is a good article in response to your question: unicorne.org/orthodoxy/septembre02/sinlessness.htm

Hope this helps-
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[maryj]

Is the belief that Mary was without sin also constitute dogma in the Orthodox Churches? In other words, in today’s world can you be a faithful Orthodox in good standing and believe that Mary was subject to the statement in Romans that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”? Must you accept the belief?

Romans 3:23 “All have sinned”. It is evident that St. Paul is speaking of personal sins people commit, as opposed to original sin we inherit. St. Paul does not mean “all” in an absolute sense, which would include every single peson. Some obvious exceptions? Jesus, Adam and Eve before the fall and children below the age of reason. Catholics believe Mary to be another exception. Earlier in Romans 3:9-10 st.paul says “all men, both Jew and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not no one, no one understands, no one seeks God.”
St. Paul is quoting Psalm 14, when he quotes the OT he always respects the original context.He never twists a verse to mean something opposite of what the author intended. What did King David mean by"there is none that does good, no, not one” (vrs 3) david is lamenting wide spread rebellion in Israel. His enemies are not just the gentiles nations, but also fellow Israelites such as Absalom and Saul, members of his own covenant family. He is using “all” in the collective sense of including large proportions of each group (Jews and Gentiles) not in the distributive sense of including each and every individual. We know this because David immediately distinguishes “all the evildoers” from “my people” and the “generations of the righteous”. If absolutely “no one” is righteous, how can David refer to “the generation of the righteous”? St. Paul uses this quote in the same collective, not distributive sense: Gentiles are not the only group sinning against God, even God’s covenant people, the Jews are rebelling. likewise Romans 3;23 is using “all” in a collective sense. St. Paul is saying there is no distinctions between circumsized Jews and non-circumsized Gentiles. Both groups( “all”) commit personal sins.

 

[suburbanbanshee]

Re: Mary as the mother of all Christians

Even Jesus wasn’t ashamed to call Abraham his father, and I see to recall that “Father Abraham” is still a pretty popular campsong. Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that Abraham is our father in faith? We aren’t as used to hearing “Mother Sarah”, but indeed, that is one of her titles among all three Abrahamic religions. Likewise, there used to be much talk of Father Adam and Mother Eve, and similar patriarchs.

Mary is the proto-Christian, the heiress of the patriarchs of the House of David, and Jesus’ mother. So she would be our mother in faith even without “Behold your mother”, or her position as Queen-mother in Heaven to our King Jesus.

Beyond that, I have to say I’m always surprised to see people get het up over rhetorical titles like this, which are usually not just both Tradition and Bible-based but literally true, assuming one believes in the Incarnation of Jesus. For example, you can hardly doubt that Mary is “the source of our hope”, assuming you believe that Our Hope resided for nine months in her innards. Which I hope you do.

 

[rr1213]

Dearest rr1213:

In the Orthodox Church, the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary is not dogma, but this does not mean that one should practice “pick 'n choose” or “cafeteria” Orthodoxy by rejecting such a teaching. The Orthodox teaching is that Mary is panagia: all-holy/ immaculate. Dogma tends to be more of a formality in Orthodoxy, meant to put an end to a major heresy against a foundational teaching. That is the case with of the most theological definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. For example, the dogma that Christ is fully divine was officially proclaimed in order to battle the heresy of Arius.

In response to your comment that to believe in the sinlessness of Mary is to disregard Romans 3:23, that is simply not the case . All of us are born with the effects or consequences of the original sin. To be born with sin does not imply we have committed any personal sin! It is the weakened state we are born into: corruption (distorted image) and desire to commit personal sin. You must remember that St. Paul is Jewish. He and all the other followers of Christ would have taught from the continued traditional Jewish notions of birth. Christ would have taught this way as he was considered a rabbi! Unfortunately, many Christians forget this and assume that St. Paul is preaching with the same notion of sin as Blessed Augustine ! If you pick up any traditional Jewish Commentary on the Old Testament and read what it says about the Fall of Man, you will see the correlation between the teaching of the Prophets and the teaching of the early Church and Orthodoxy:thumbsup: .

BTW, if an Orthodox Catholic didn’t believe in Mary’s sinlessness, then they would still be part of the faith; they would not go to hell for their disagreement. I would hope, however, that they would seek to understand the ENTIRE Orthodox Faith they claim to believe: Belief = Practice…

Here is a good article in response to your question: unicorne.org/orthodoxy/septembre02/sinlessness.htm

Hope this helps-
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Thanks for the response. I’m afraid that I haven’t yet discerned the major areas of disagreement between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church (other than the Papacy, original sin and the filioque). I appreciate your explanation.

 

[rr1213]

Romans 3:23 “All have sinned”. It is evident that St. Paul is speaking of personal sins people commit, as opposed to original sin we inherit. St. Paul does not mean “all” in an absolute sense, which would include every single peson. Some obvious exceptions? Jesus, Adam and Eve before the fall and children below the age of reason. Catholics believe Mary to be another exception. Earlier in Romans 3:9-10 st.paul says “all men, both Jew and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not no one, no one understands, no one seeks God.”
St. Paul is quoting Psalm 14, when he quotes the OT he always respects the original context.He never twists a verse to mean something opposite of what the author intended. What did King David mean by"there is none that does good, no, not one” (vrs 3) david is lamenting wide spread rebellion in Israel. His enemies are not just the gentiles nations, but also fellow Israelites such as Absalom and Saul, members of his own covenant family. He is using “all” in the collective sense of including large proportions of each group (Jews and Gentiles) not in the distributive sense of including each and every individual. We know this because David immediately distinguishes “all the evildoers” from “my people” and the “generations of the righteous”. If absolutely “no one” is righteous, how can David refer to “the generation of the righteous”? St. Paul uses this quote in the same collective, not distributive sense: Gentiles are not the only group sinning against God, even God’s covenant people, the Jews are rebelling. likewise Romans 3;23 is using “all” in a collective sense. St. Paul is saying there is no distinctions between circumsized Jews and non-circumsized Gentiles. Both groups( “all”) commit personal sins.

With the exception of Jesus, all human beings have sinned. All who are capable of active sin have sinned and those who are not so capable (babies and those who are mentally incompetent) still suffer from original sin. We believe that this also applies to Mary, a saint and most blessed among women, but still a sinner in need of her saviour. Unfortunately, this is one of the significant areas on which Catholics and Protestants (and based on Alexius’ post above, Orthodox) disagree fairly vigorously.

 

[AlegreFe]

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?

Should I laugh? I hope you’re just being facetious.

rr1213:

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.”

Oh come on, you can’t do better than George Orwel? His words hold the same weight in the Catholic Church as your words do. He had clear disregard for any kind of authority. So this is nonsense to me.

rr1213:

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.

You’re right in saying that the Church does not teach anything contrary to Scripture. And if the CCC says one thing about Scripture and you disagree, then you are reading scripture wrong.

rr1213:

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.

I’ll be glad to put the scripture verse right here. I love putting scripture verses here where you can read it. I’ll even put protestant versions here for you to read and clearly see that Jesus never said, “John, here is your mother” or “John, behold your mother.”

26 When Jesus saw his mother there,
and the disciple whom he loved
standing nearby, he said to his mother,
“Dear woman, here is your son,”
27 and to the disciple, “Here is your
mother.” From that time on, this
disciple took her into his home.
John 19:26-27 NIV

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the
disciple whom he loved standing nearby,
he said to his mother, “Woman, behold,
your son!”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold,
your mother!” And from that hour the
disciple took her to his own home.
John 19:26-27 ESV

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother,
and the disciple standing by, whom he
loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman,
behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold
thy mother! And from that hour that
disciple took her unto his own home.
John 19:26-27 KJV

I don’t see, “John, behold…” do you?

rr1213:

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.

The Catholic Church only reads what the Holy Spirit is telling her to read and nothing more.

rr1213:

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.

I’m glad you respect the Catholic Church. But you have a funny way of showing it.

rr1213:

Yet, it also has a tendency at times to make Scripture say what it does not say

Wrong!

rr1213:

…although other Protestant Churches -]do the same in different ways/-] "make Scripture say what it does not say."

Right!

 

[AlegreFe]

There is Apostolic Succession:

Catholics got it and Orthodox got it.

I think you have to make clear as to which “Orthodox” have Apostolic Succession.

I. Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus’ Ministry and Authority

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert the world…

I just thought I’d add the link from where you got this information. I love the Scripture Catholic website. I read from there myself so I recognized it right away. I’m sure John Salza wouldn’t mind you taking information from his website but it would be respectful to put the link in if you’re going to copy and paste information.

 

[AlegreFe]

II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority…

There you go, I added the link for this one too. That’s a great website Manny!

 

[AlegreFe]

III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority

Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves…

John would surely appreciate you linking his website giving him credit for all his work.

 

[AlegreFe]

Tradition / Church Fathers / History
I. The Church Has Apostolic Succession

** II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination**

Just giving credit where credit is due. You picked a great website Manny!

 

[DRIVING_BEAR]

First off everone read Matt 1:24-25
"Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angle of the
lord commanded him and took to him is wife

and did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn Son
And he called his name Jesus"

here is what i think about this verse

1. Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus.
   2 After the birth why would mary need to remaim a virgin?
   3 Verse 25 states that that jesus was her firstborn.
   4 since the text says firstborn , the "first"part of firstborn
   implys that their was a second . else the text would have said she brought forth her only child.
2. I think i don’t have to spell out what “know”
3. to suggest that she remained a virgin suggest that their is something wrong about sex

 

[Church_Militant]

First off everone read Matt 1:24-25
"Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angle of the
lord commanded him and took to him is wife

and did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn Son
And he called his name Jesus"

here is what i think about this verse

1. Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus.
   2 After the birth why would mary need to remaim a virgin?
   3 Verse 25 states that that jesus was her firstborn.
   4 since the text says firstborn , the "first"part of firstborn
   implys that their was a second . else the text would have said she brought forth her only child.
2. I think i don’t have to spell out what “know”
3. to suggest that she remained a virgin suggest that their is something wrong about sexReally? You better build a time machine and go back and starighten out the three pillars of the reformation then. They believed she was both Mother of God and ever virgin.

My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.

The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, all believed that Mary was the mother of God.

Mother of God

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them… Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, Vol. 7, page 572)

John Calvin: “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor…Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” (Calvini Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Vol. 45, page 348 and 335.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.” ( Zwingli Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. Comp., Vol.
6, I, page 639.)

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

 

[AlegreFe]

First off everone read Matt 1:24-25
"Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angle of the
lord commanded him and took to him is wife

and did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn Son
And he called his name Jesus"

here is what i think about this verse

1. Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus.

Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 <-click
(Joseph knew her “not until”)
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her
“not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son.
Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph
had relations with Mary after she bore a son.
This is an erroneous reading of the text because
“not until” does not mean “did not…until after.”
“Heos” references the past, never the future.
Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up
to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms
that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus.
Here are other texts that prove “not until” means
“not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the
world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us
after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the
point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John
“was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point
that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not
a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my
hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.”
Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at
His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.
**
1 Tim. 4:13** - “up to the point that I come,” attend to
teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing
“until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the
point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth.
The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the
point that” he does His promise. This does not
mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one
knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean
that “they did not know place until today.”
**
2 Sam. 6:23** - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless
“up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with
child after her death.

Here is the link for the complete section about Mary on that Scripture Catholic website.

 

[Church_Militant]

Furthermore…this in no way indicts Catholic belief about sex and you cannot provide a single dogmatic Catholic source that supports your allegation. It is nothing more than rhetorical non-Catholic propaganda. If you look it up in the teachings of the Catholic Church (Like the Catechism for instance) you’ll find a very balanced and Biblical position on sex within the confines of marriage.
Pax tecum,

 

[LilyM]

First off everone read Matt 1:24-25
"Then Joseph being aroused from sleep did as the angle of the
lord commanded him and took to him is wife

and did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn Son
And he called his name Jesus"

here is what i think about this verse

1. Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus.
   2 After the birth why would mary need to remaim a virgin?
   3 Verse 25 states that that jesus was her firstborn.
   4 since the text says firstborn , the "first"part of firstborn
   implys that their was a second . else the text would have said she brought forth her only child.
2. I think i don’t have to spell out what “know”
3. to suggest that she remained a virgin suggest that their is something wrong about sex

Not anything wrong with sex per se - but definitely something wrong and unfair about raising up half-brothers and half-sisters for the Son of God …

Can you imagine if any of them got less than 100% in their religious studies (“Jesus never got 99%!”) or indeed if they simply behave like a normal child(“Jesus never hits his little sister!” “Jesus never stole an apple from the neighbour’s tree!” “Jesus always helps with the dishes!” and on and on and on)

And definitely hints that Mary was indeed planning on perpetual virginity. Think about her response to Gabriel - he says ‘you will bear a child (doesn’t say when) and that child will be the Son of God.’

Now why would a woman who is engaged to be married, and expecting the normal results of marriage (sex and babies) say 'how can this be? I am a virgin!" Notice - not ‘how will my child be the son of God’, but very much ‘how can it be that I will even HAVE a child’.

Now being that her body was not just a normal body - it was a vessel or a dwelling place specially made to contain God in the flesh - it is very similar in tons of ways (too many to mention here - look in the CAF library to get the info) to the Ark of the Covenant in the OT. A holy of holies. And thus untouchable. People who touched the Ark in the OT were literally struck dead!

 

[nasb]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rr1213
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?

Should I laugh? I hope you’re just being facetious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rr1213
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.”

Oh come on, you can’t do better than George Orwel? His words hold the same weight in the Catholic Church as your words do. He had clear disregard for any kind of authority. So this is nonsense to me.

AlegreFe

I believe that St. Ignatius of Loyola is the orginator of the black and white quote. I’m sure you would agree that he does some **“weight” **in the Catholic Church.

 

[HailMary]

I can accept the possibility of the Assumption, but the Immaculate Conception and Mary as Mediatrix of all graces is very difficult to accept.

It is very difficult to accept once you let go. Christ is the Head, and we are His Mystical Body. Do you recall the image from Scripture? Good.

Since Mary is the closest to her Son, and since Mary cannot be the Head (since that is Jesus’ place) where is Mary’s place? Just another member in the “Body”? I don’t think so. She is “BLESSED”+“HIGHLY FAVORED”+“FULL OF GRACE” + “CROWNED WITH TWELVE STARS” (making her a Queen). With all this into consideration, the reason we say all graces pass through Mary’s hands is because her place in the Mystical Body of Christ is the neck. Therefore, the flow of grace to the members of the body pass through her.

Let me put it differently (taken from St. Bernard or St. Louis I believe):
The world was unworthy to receive Christ directly from His Father, so the Father gave us Christ by the means of the Blessed Virgin (by the mystery of the Incarnation). So should we not honor the gift of Mary (“Women, behold they son!”) and does it make sense that we can come to know Jesus through Mary since this is the same route that Jesus came into the world?

What I am poorly describing, is the quote on my signature.

God Bless.

 

[AlegreFe]

2 After the birth why would mary need to remaim a virgin?

Because she’s the New Ark of the Covenant. Nothing or no one can touch her just as no one could touch the Ark in the OT.
DRIVING BEAR:

3 Verse 25 states that that jesus was her firstborn.
-]4/-] since the text says firstborn , the "first"part of firstborn
implys that their was a second . else the text would have said she brought forth her only child.

You didn’t even notice that it even says “firstborn” as to imply that Jesus Christ was created and not begotten? But of course this does not mean that He was created. But this is not your concern here so let me get at your main concern here with this phrase.

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to
as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a
common Jewish expression meaning the first child
to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother
having future children.
Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born”
son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not
require a “second” born.

A lot more to read from that link.

Here is something else for you to think about. Colossians 1:15 states that Jesus is the “firstborn” over all creatures. That does not mean that there is a “secondborn” over all creation.

15 He is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn over all creation. Col 1:15

And yet something else you can think about. If this is the case, what you say since “firstborn” was mentioned then there had to be a “secondborn” according to you. Then they would have to wait until another child is born to determine that indeed He was the “firstborn” and not the “only child” born. That would be totally ridiculous in those days for the Jews. All baby boys to open the womb first were called “firstborn” without having to wait to see if there was going to be a “secondborn” son.