Split: Another Marian Debate

[Pauli]

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

Fr. Paqua the other night on EWTN quoted an old woman somewhere down south who, hearing someone doubt that Mary remained virgin, said something like "Since Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph wouldn’t dare]“know” her! Yes, that will mean that Jesus was conceived without a sex act, but that doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with sex. And after His birth Mary has still a closer relationship to God than any other human being. Daughter of God the Father, mother to Jesus, and spouse of the Holy Spirit. No one else can ever say that.

Jesus was the first born. In a spiritual or mystical sort of way, we are her other children, if we want to be. (Why do we call Jesus our brother?)

 

[rr1213]

If the Church is saying that something is black and you think it is white then you are wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Yes, “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Church discipline demands this…also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white.”

If you can’t answer an easy question like this, how can you deal with the case where it is not black and white but shades of gray?

 

[rr1213]

I’m talking about a link for post 251, not for any bible verses. I don’t remember what post 251 says, especially because it’s on a different page already when you posted this request to read post 251.

Fair enough. I suppose I could have put a cite to post no. 251.

 

[AlegreFe]

I don’t know what your problem is rr1213 with accepting Mary as your mother. Of what are you afraid? Are you afraid if you accept Mary as your mother that God will strike you dead or something. What gives?

If you are supposed to be like Jesus in every way, and Jesus loved and honored His mother, then what is stopping you from accepting, loving and honoring your Mother in Heaven? She is your mother whether you accept her or not anyway. So just accept her. If you do, you will soon find out that it’s not gonna kill ya. You will soon find out that Jesus will love you for accepting His mother as your own. Mary just wants you to be with Jesus that’s all. Jesus loves you anyway, but He will be very appreciative if you accept His mother and He will no longer be offended by all these things you are saying against His mother.

 

[rr1213]

Honor and veneration for our Blessed Mother is an ultimate imitation of Christ.

Lets not forget the 30 years that Jesus spent in obedience to our Blessed Mother and his adoptive father Joseph.

Who do we think we are not to imitate Christ in this same fasion?

2:51. “And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart.”

Luke 2:51

Yes, and I honor my mother as well. It’s one of the Ten Commandments and, more importantly, I love her. (Now come the rejoinders about how Mary is our mother also and how we love her and so we should venerate her and…)

The discussion is starting to get predictable…

 

[AlegreFe]

Yes, “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Church discipline demands this…also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white.”

If you can’t answer an easy question like this, how can you deal with the case where it is not black and white but shades of gray?

I already answered this question. I stated that this question is a dead question because the Church will never teach contradition to Sacred Scripture. It is only that way in your mind because it is so tightly shut to anything that could be possibly correct. But you just refuse to see. I will just end this here with this black and white thing because I have to accept that God has not graced you to see yet.

 

[AlegreFe]

Yes, and I honor my mother as well. It’s one of the Ten Commandments and, more importantly, I love her. (Now come the rejoinders about how Mary is our mother also and how we love her and so we should venerate her and…)

The discussion is starting to get predictable…

That’s because you’re blind that’s all.
I pray that God remove the scales from your eyes soon.
And if it’s getting predictable just end it here and agree to disagree.

 

[AlegreFe]

rr1213, maybe you could take a break from the thread and come back in a few days and read through it again after you have prayed and opened your heart and mind?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

“a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Church discipline demands this…also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white.”

Are you, rr, producing this quote from a particular source, and what is the full frame of reference?

You see, society can (and has) said that “black is white”. Abortion, they say, is not murder. IOW, White is not white, it is black. Abortion is not murder but a loving act, or a right, or a power.

So yes, the Catholic Church discipline can call on us to say that what society says is black is really white–because it is the teaching of the Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

The Church will never say that the trinity is really the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four, though–and even some Protestant groups have said that God is not triune but one, or that Jesus is not coequal with the Father, etc. And you know what? They have based their arguments on Scripture. They will point to as many passages about Jesus saying He is the “son of Man” to deny His Divinity.

Scripture is not ‘easy’ because it is multifaceted, because the Old Testament foretells the New in its passages and because the New Testament has the Old cradled within it as well. A passage that looks simple and straightforward, “Jesus wept” can be understood in many more ways than to think it is a simple station of an action Jesus took at hearing of the death of Lazarus. Otherwise, the gospel becomes nothing “more” than some scraps of words and deeds of a man which took place once and existed only for that ‘once’.

 

[Eden]

Yes, and I honor my mother as well. It’s one of the Ten Commandments and, more importantly, I love her.

You are using “honor” as a verb in this context. A verb denotes an action. How, specifically, do you honor Mary? I’m sure you could give me concrete examples of how you honor your mother. Why is it difficult to give concrete examples of how you honor His mother?

 

[rr1213]

I already answered this question. I stated that this question is a dead question because the Church will never teach contradition to Sacred Scripture. It is only that way in your mind because it is so tightly shut to anything that could be possibly correct. But you just refuse to see. I will just end this here with this black and white thing because I have to accept that God has not graced you to see yet.

But your response begs the question, doesn’t it?

You believe that the Catholic Church is incapable of error regarding the interpretation of Scripture. So, if you personally were reading a passage and came to a conclusion as to what it meant–but then learned that the Church taught something completely different–as a faithful Catholic you would fall on your sword and admit that you were wrong and the Church is right—even if that interpretation differs greatly from what you had previously believed.

Now, there are two explanations for the behavior set forth above: (i) that the Church’s interpretation is always correct and that you are simply conforming your understanding to the correct understanding or (ii) that you have demonstrated “a loyal willingness to say that black is white when the Church demands this and, also, the ability to believe that black is white, and what’s more, to know that black is white.”

You say that the first option is what you are doing, not the second, but to merely assert this position begs the question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, and I honor my mother as well. It’s one of the Ten Commandments and, more importantly, I love her. (Now come the rejoinders about how Mary is our mother also and how we love her and so we should venerate her and…)

The discussion is starting to get predictable…

As is your response to it.

What would you have us do? Make up something new to keep things interesting for you?

Since the truth cannot be changed, all of our responses must ultimately lead to the same predictable conclusions.

We do not apologize for that.

 

[rr1213]

Interestingly, as pointed out above by someone, the “black/white illustration” does appear to have some basis with Loyola:

“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides.”

St. Ignatius of Loyola

209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:iusmgySAF4kJ:www.jesuits.ca/index.php+loyola+black+white+catholic+jesuit+church+ignatius&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18

 

[rr1213]

As is your response to it.

What would you have us do? Make up something new to keep things interesting for you?

Of course not, unless you are capable of doing so. Sometimes there is more than one way to skin the same cat, right? As long as the cat gets skinned…

Also, let me be clear that I am not excepting the Protestant position from being predictable as well. It is clear that these issues have been debated for a very long, long time and, since there is nothing new under the sun, it is unlikely that anyone on this forum, Catholic or Protestant, will make a point that hasn’t been made yet.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And WHERE does it state that this relates to “Scripture” and not to other things?

As I stated, western society states that, among other things, abortion is not murder. Scripture states it is murder.

Society says black is white. The hierarchy of the Church says that no, it is black. So, we in the church are believing that society’s “white” is black, because the Church tells us so.

 

[rr1213]

A passage that looks simple and straightforward, “Jesus wept” can be understood in many more ways than to think it is a simple station of an action Jesus took at hearing of the death of Lazarus.

There’s more than one way to read “Jesus wept”? Is there a peculiar Catholic reading to this verse? Seriously?

 

[rr1213]

And WHERE does it state that this relates to “Scripture” and not to other things?

As I stated, western society states that, among other things, abortion is not murder. Scripture states it is murder.

Society says black is white. The hierarchy of the Church says that no, it is black. So, we in the church are believing that society’s “white” is black, because the Church tells us so.

I only used Scripture as an example. I understand that you do not limit the concept of inerrancy just to interpretations of the written Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course not, unless you are capable of doing so. Sometimes there is more than one way to skin the same cat, right? As long as the cat gets skinned…

Also, let me be clear that I am not excepting the Protestant position from being predictable as well. It is clear that these issues have been debated for a very long, long time and, since there is nothing new under the sun, it is unlikely that anyone on this forum, Catholic or Protestant, will make a point that hasn’t been made yet.

Fair enough. And I will try to make my points as interestingly as possible.

My goal here, btw, is to learn things about my own faith as well as to share what I know with others.

Perhaps, something I say one day will cause someone to say, “gee, I hadn’t considered that.” One plants the seed, another waters it, someone else hoes the weeds…

 

[Eden]

There’s more than one way to read “Jesus wept”? Is there a peculiar Catholic reading to this verse? Seriously?

You might want to start here:

Interpretation

Significance has been attributed to this phrase for a number of reasons, including the following:

• Weeping demonstrates that the Christ was indeed true man, with real bodily functions (such as tears, sweat, blood, eating and drinking - note, for comparison, the emphasis laid on Jesus eating during the post-resurrection appearances). His emotions and reactions were real; the Christ was not an illusion or spirit (see Docetism). Pope Leo I referred to this passage when he discussed the two natures of Jesus: “In his humanity Jesus wept for Lazarus; in his divinity he raised him from the dead.”
• The sorrow felt by Jesus presages the suffering of his own crucifixion.
• The sorrow, sympathy, and compassion Jesus felt for all mankind.
• Jesus’s weeping demonstrates that Lazarus had genuinely died. The raising of Lazarus was therefore not a fraud or a case of misdiagnosis.
• Most people interpret his weeping to mean that Jesus was sorrowful for the fact that Lazarus had died (which was the interpretation of the bystanders in verse 36). However, an alternate explanation considers this to be unreasonable, given his full knowledge that he was about to resurrect Lazarus. This view instead argues that every single person whom Jesus talked to in John chapter 11 (his disciples, Martha, Mary, and the Jews) was blinded by their misconceptions of Jesus and by their failure to recognize that, as he declared in verse 26, he himself was “the resurrection and the life”. Thus, “he groaned in the spirit and was troubled” (New King James, verse 33). This view holds that he wept because even those who were closest to him were still blinded by their concepts to the fact that he really was “the resurrection and the life”—beyond mere doctrine (verses 25-27)—in spite of all his plain words to them. A striking point in this view is that the only person in the chapter who had no misconceptions was the dead man Lazarus, who promptly obeyed and received life when commanded to come forth. Finally, this view holds that the bystanders in verses 36-37, just like most readers today, were blinded by their own misconceptions and so did not understand that Jesus was actually weeping for them, not for Lazarus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_wept

 

[rr1213]

You might want to start here:

Interpretation

Significance has been attributed to this phrase for a number of reasons, including the following:

• Weeping demonstrates that the Christ was indeed true man, with real bodily functions (such as tears, sweat, blood, eating and drinking - note, for comparison, the emphasis laid on Jesus eating during the post-resurrection appearances). His emotions and reactions were real; the Christ was not an illusion or spirit (see Docetism). Pope Leo I referred to this passage when he discussed the two natures of Jesus: “In his humanity Jesus wept for Lazarus; in his divinity he raised him from the dead.”
• The sorrow felt by Jesus presages the suffering of his own crucifixion.
• The sorrow, sympathy, and compassion Jesus felt for all mankind.
• Jesus’s weeping demonstrates that Lazarus had genuinely died. The raising of Lazarus was therefore not a fraud or a case of misdiagnosis.
• Most people interpret his weeping to mean that Jesus was sorrowful for the fact that Lazarus had died (which was the interpretation of the bystanders in verse 36). However, an alternate explanation considers this to be unreasonable, given his full knowledge that he was about to resurrect Lazarus. This view instead argues that every single person whom Jesus talked to in John chapter 11 (his disciples, Martha, Mary, and the Jews) was blinded by their misconceptions of Jesus and by their failure to recognize that, as he declared in verse 26, he himself was “the resurrection and the life”. Thus, “he groaned in the spirit and was troubled” (New King James, verse 33). This view holds that he wept because even those who were closest to him were still blinded by their concepts to the fact that he really was “the resurrection and the life”—beyond mere doctrine (verses 25-27)—in spite of all his plain words to them. A striking point in this view is that the only person in the chapter who had no misconceptions was the dead man Lazarus, who promptly obeyed and received life when commanded to come forth. Finally, this view holds that the bystanders in verses 36-37, just like most readers today, were blinded by their own misconceptions and so did not understand that Jesus was actually weeping for them, not for Lazarus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_wept

Interesting. Demonstrate that Christ was indeed true man? Definitely. The reference to Jesus eating after his resurrection shows this also as noted, as does the fact that the Son of Man “came eating and drinking”. In his humanity Jesus wept and in his divinity he raised him from the dead? Yes, most certainly. A foreshadowing of Christ’s own suffering? Maybe. Probably. A reasonable inference, but we really don’t know for sure. Jesus wept because of his sorrow for the misconceptions of his friends? I don’t know about this one; it really pulls alot out of a very short verse. Perhaps. Is that Catholic dogma or simply a possible explanation offered by Catholic scholars?