Split: Another Marian Debate

[hoosierdaddy]

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

Yes, and it’s not the plain as day common sense interpretation that a Catholic wanted me to use in regards to another issue.

 

[maryj]

O.K. I’ll be the one who says it…If I believe something in scripture to be black, and the catholic church says it is white, then yes I will change my belief about it and say (know) it is white. But then let me expand on this notion, Here I am sitting on my couch in the dead of winter reading the Bible, I read through Revelation, yup I think I know what it means, I think…hmmmm…I’m not sure…maybe…I think I’ll just reach over here and click on the lamp…holy cow look how much better I can see now. That lamp, that light, that illumination is the catholic church, how was I expecting my eyes to see in the dark, of course it was black, but now it is white. Easy enough just turn on the lamp.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

O.K. I’ll be the one who says it…If I believe something in scripture to be black, and the catholic church says it is white, then yes I will change my belief about it and say (know) it is white. But then let me expand on this notion, Here I am sitting on my couch in the dead of winter reading the Bible, I read through Revelation, yup I think I know what it means, I think…hmmmm…I’m not sure…maybe…I think I’ll just reach over here and click on the lamp…holy cow look how much better I can see now. That lamp, that light, that illumination is the catholic church, how was I expecting my eyes to see in the dark, of course it was black, but now it is white. Easy enough just turn on the lamp.

What if the Catholic church told you to kill someone? Would you do it or look in Scripture to see that it’s wrong?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What if the Catholic church told you to kill someone? Would you do it or look in Scripture to see that it’s wrong?

Now you see, this is just getting silly. First, the Catholic Church doesn’t tell us to kill anyone (and no, it didn’t do that in the Crusades or the Inquisition either, so let’s stop that horse before it starts).

What if your archbishop (if you were Anglican) told you to kill somebody?
Or Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama, etc. etc.? Your leader might say something, are you then going to claim it’s the “Episcopal Church” or the Church of the Holy Rollers or whatever that is speaking?

Do you really think that the Catholic Church is going to have all us sheep (with our decoder rings and secret computer files on every poor Protestant) suddenly rise up at our Novus Ordo or TLM Mass and go out to kill you because “The Pope is telling you to?” (Remember even here, he is the ‘leader’ of the Church. . .not “the Catholic Church.”)

Since the teachings of the Catholic Church tell us not to murder—we’re not going to change.

In fact, we are among the few Christian churches that still do not permit the wanton murder of innocent unborn children. That is our teaching and we’ve stood by it.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Now you see, this is just getting silly. First, the Catholic Church doesn’t tell us to kill anyone (and no, it didn’t do that in the Crusades or the Inquisition either, so let’s stop that horse before it starts).

It’s not silly. It is a valid question. You have no right to interpet Scripture yourself or to question your leaders so I asked what you would do if they told you to kill someone. What would you do?

What if your archbishop (if you were Anglican) told you to kill somebody?
Or Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama, etc. etc.? Your leader might say something, are you then going to claim it’s the “Episcopal Church” or the Church of the Holy Rollers or whatever that is speaking?

If ANY of the above told me to kill someone I would take a look in Scripture, see that it is wrong (the proper response when one won’t convert is to kick the dust from your feet and not to kill them), and dismiss them as lunatics.

Do you really think that the Catholic Church is going to have all us sheep (with our decoder rings and secret computer files on every poor Protestant) suddenly rise up at our Novus Ordo or TLM Mass and go out to kill you because “The Pope is telling you to?” (Remember even here, he is the ‘leader’ of the Church. . .not “the Catholic Church.”)

I’m not saying he will. I do believe that he could. And you’d have no choice but to obey. Well, you could disobey. But you’d be excommunicated wouldn’t you?

Since the teachings of the Catholic Church tell us not to murder—we’re not going to change.

Did it forget its own teachings at certain times in history? The Catholic church has never changed one single belief?

In fact, we are among the few Christian churches that still do not permit the wanton murder of innocent unborn children. That is our teaching and we’ve stood by it.

Great. So do many Protestant churches. Now, if only you came on board with regards to other beliefs that are unscriptural.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hoosier sez:

**

I’m not saying he will. I do believe that he could. And you’d have no choice but to obey. Well, you could disobey. But you’d be excommunicated wouldn’t you?

**No, as a matter of fact we wouldn’t?

Hoosier, what anti-Catholic books have you been reading lately?

Authors? Titles? Websites?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Now you see, this is just getting silly. First, the Catholic Church doesn’t tell us to kill anyone (and no, it didn’t do that in the Crusades or the Inquisition either, so let’s stop that horse before it starts).

It’s not silly. It is a valid question. You have no right to interpet Scripture yourself or to question your leaders so I asked what you would do if they told you to kill someone. What would you do?

First, I can interpret Scripture myself and I do so whenever I read it. And then I avail myself of 2000 years’s worth of teaching from thousands of scholars–a great many of whom you regard as scholars as well–so that if I find myself in error, I don’t continue in error. I have an authority and it’s the Holy Spirit Himself, and it’s consistent; it isn’t one preacher here saying X, and another group saying Y, and yet another denomination which once taught A and now teaches Z. As for questioning our leaders, we can and do. All men are capable of error, but the Pope cannot teach error on faith or morals. He is protected from doing so. That means the Pope cannot suddenly tell us that the Trinity is now the Fab Four, or that Jesus did not really rise from the dead. Or that abortion or divorce have somehow magically become ‘okay’. He isn’t going to tell us to do something unscriptural, like kill innocents deliberately, or commit adultery, or lie, cheat or steal. It isn’t going to happen. It’s like you asking me what I would do if Jesus told me to kill somebody. He won’t, so why even bother to imagine it?

What if your archbishop (if you were Anglican) told you to kill somebody?
Or Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama, etc. etc.? Your leader might say something, are you then going to claim it’s the “Episcopal Church” or the Church of the Holy Rollers or whatever that is speaking?

If ANY of the above told me to kill someone I would take a look in Scripture, see that it is wrong (the proper response when one won’t convert is to kick the dust from your feet and not to kill them), and dismiss them as lunatics.

You’re missing the point. You don’t really think that any of those people would tell you to kill somebody, do you? But IF they did, you wouldn’t conclude that “the Episcopal Church” told its followers to kill. I guess you think that the Catholic Church is already so crazy and wrong that if our head somehow said this, was somehow afflicted with madness and said this (and again, it isn’t going to happen because the Spirit will protect us and indeed did so already back in the time of the Arian heresy), that we nutball Catholics wouldn’t think twice and would just go off and kill. That is, of course, ridiculous, and offensive to boot.

Do you really think that the Catholic Church is going to have all us sheep (with our decoder rings and secret computer files on every poor Protestant) suddenly rise up at our Novus Ordo or TLM Mass and go out to kill you because “The Pope is telling you to?” (Remember even here, he is the ‘leader’ of the Church. . .not “the Catholic Church.”)

I’m not saying he will. I do believe that he could. And you’d have no choice but to obey. Well, you could disobey. But you’d be excommunicated wouldn’t you?

You don’t know what excommunication is, or what the Pope’s duties and responsibilities are, or you wouldn’t say such a thing. And again you must think we’re mindless robots at the mercy of a madman. We aren’t, and he isn’t. But fear is an irrational thing. Luckily we don’t have fear because we have the word of Christ that He and the Spirit will guide and protect us. Mind you, He doesn’t say that we won’t be tested, indeed He tells us that we will suffer just as He did; but we have been assured that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (the Church). As you can see, we reverence the Scriptures so much that we totally believe in His Word.

Since the teachings of the Catholic Church tell us not to murder—we’re not going to change.

Did it forget its own teachings at certain times in history? The Catholic church has never changed one single belief?

No, the Church has not changed its beliefs–Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, we follow the commandments of God. We even eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life within us, as He commanded. No, we have not changed.

In fact, we are among the few Christian churches that still do not permit the wanton murder of innocent unborn children. That is our teaching and we’ve stood by it.
Great. So do many Protestant churches. Now, if only you came on board with regards to other beliefs that are unscriptural.
We have no unscriptural beliefs. If only you would embrace the fullness of faith with ALL of scripture (you’re missing a few books) and ALL of sacred tradition!

 

[AlegreFe]

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.

Since I started to learn more about my faith I was learning about the Truth. Since I had the Truth, I was able to recognize the false. With that I am able to read the bible through the heart of the Church. Once a person learns about the Catholic faith and is getting to know the Church then the chances of misinterpreting the bible is lowered significantly.

This question that you place is not something that I can personally answer because I have not experienced this “controversy” before. I cannot say that I ever misinterpreted anything that I have read in the Bible. That is not to say that it could never happen. I most certainly can misinterpret the bible if I take away the Church. But as of yet it has not happened. Why? Because I recognize Truth. When someone is armed with the Truth, then they easily recognize the false. Do you get what I’m saying here?

With all that said, let’s just say that one day I read something into Scripture that is not really there and I found out that the Church says it is something else. Then I would most definitely read the verses again and would then agree with the Church because I know that God has given the Church the authority to correctly interpret the Word of God (which is NOT limited to words on a page in a book). This is the Church that Jesus Christ built on Peter the Rock. So how can I disagree with the Rock?!

rr1213:

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

I don’t see it as having to conform my understanding because I don’t feel a “have to” tug here. My beliefs just are. I can’t explain it if you don’t have the same thing that I do. I don’t know what you want to hear about this. Perhaps someone that was a protestant and now is Catholic could answer this better for you.

rr1213:

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.”

It is not a “loyal willingness” either. It’s not something that I could explain to you. It’s not that I feel that I have to be loyal to the Church. I know that I WANT to be loyal to Jesus Christ because I love Him. God does not FORCE Himself on any of us so if I felt that “have to” tug then I don’t think it would hold as much value to God. Do you get what I’m saying? Perhaps I just don’t have the right words and even if I did, they are probably not what you want to hear.

rr1213:

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

When did I say that? And if I did say something to that effect then you probably misunderstood or I probably had the wrong words for you. I don’t know what else to say. There is no way you could ever understand this anyway. So I will stop here because this is not good for me. I will not spare anything good that I have from Jesus to try to satisfy you.

You are in my prayers.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hey Tantum, did the Catholic church ever kill people?

I’m not being silly and I’m not being offensive. I find it funny that you guys can always accuse me of being offensive but I can’t do the same thing. I’ve found things offensive but it doesn’t matter. Only you guys can do that.

I’m not going to bother with the rest of your post. I thank you for taking the time but you have an inkling of what I believe. If the Catholic church killed people before, I am not off base to posit that they could do it again. I never said they would; however, I think you are wrong to say they never could. There’s a difference.

 

[3sonsasa]

Hmm, I didn’t know that and obviously neither did rr1213. Do you have a link to this?

And yes, St. Ignatius of Loyola holds some weight in the Catholic Church.

AlegreFe, here is a link to the “Rules” of St. Ignatius of Loyola. It would be Rule #13.

ccel.org/ccel/ignatius/exercises.xix.v.html

Dominus Vobiscum!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dear Hoosierdaddy:

No, the Catholic Church has NOT ‘killed people before’.

The Baptist Church has not; the Lutheran Church has not, etc. ad infinitum.

People in any church (or outside any church, such as pagans or atheists) kill. Churches don’t.

Neither has the Church condoned killing.

Do you believe, for example, that people in the United States in 1775 (this is before the Declaration of Independence, remember) were justified in fighting and killing British troops in order to fight for their independence and to preserve their own lives and those of their families? Or were they “killers”?

How about World War I and World War II? Were troops in the U.S. and elsewhere justified in fighting?

Now picture a world in which one group is taking over another group–and then another, and another, and another; where you have those captured have some ‘limited’ freedoms but still cannot freely worship God as they choose, where there is always the chance that they will be killed arbitrarily at any time. The conquering group not only takes away lives and property but it takes away sacred places to others and refuses people access to those sacred places. (You would like, wouldn’t you, to see the places where Jesus walked, lived and died and rose, wouldn’t you? You can now. . .but only because others fought and died several hundred years ago to free people and to restore their rights to worship their Creator.)

Or picture a world where the people down the street, who came to your church and supposedly worshiped with you, were secretly not only not worshiping with you, but actively believed in another God. And were perhaps trying to get themselves into positions of power where they could put their beliefs over yours and once again keep you from worshipping your God. Your government (not your Church, but your government) had already spent centuries fighting to be able to worship freely, so it was very careful to look out for these people. People in your church (who know your faith) would ask questions to find out if those people really were Christians. If they weren’t, it was up to the GOVERNMENT to do what it saw fit. There was very little “killing” and what there was of it was by the government, not the church.

I really wish you’d read some history about the Church from an unbiased (i.e. not anti-Catholic) source. No, people in the church aren’t perfect, and that’s why people like the late Pope apologized for the actions of those in the church who did wrongs. Which is more than you’ll hear from leaders even of other churches. (I have yet to hear from the Archbishop of Canterbury that he regrets the killing of hundreds of English Catholics, for example).

 

[Ruben]

“And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

Revelation 12:17

 

[boppaid]

I found the Protestant response to this on CARM. When reading it, I cannot help but see that their response makes more sense to me than the Catholic viewpoint. Could you help me understand the Catholic one better?

(This addresses both the word “until” in scripture and when Jesus was on the cross.)

Mary’s virginity and Matt. 1:25
… Did she remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Answering the question can have a strong effect on subsequent doctrines. As far as Protestant theology goes, it makes no difference if Mary remained a virgin or not. But, in Roman Catholic theology, it is very important since it elevates Mary to such a high degree that she seems almost like a goddess. It also gives her titles such as co-mediatrix, queen of heaven, mother of the church, etc, which all stem, supposedly, from her perpetual virginity. Therefore, it is necessary to examine this issue in hopes of providing a more biblical position.
The word “virgin” in the New Testament is “parthenos” and it occurs 14 times. However, the word does not occur in Matt. 1:25. Instead, the literal Greek says, “and he knew her not until she gave birth to a son and called his name Jesus.”
This would seem pretty straight forward that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until the birth of Christ and that after the birth of Jesus, they had relations. The word “until” is a preposition and means, “up to that time, before a specified time, to the extent that.”

Up to the time of: “I ate until I was stuffed.” This means that I ate and stopped when I was full and designates a change of action. “I ate up to the time that I was stuffed.”
Before a specified time: “You can’t go until you’ve paid the fine.” This designates a condition required before a change can occur. “You can’t go before you’ve paid the fine.”
To the extent that: I worked until I was exhausted. Signifying an effect or condition as a result. “I worked to the point that I was exhausted.”

In Matt. 1:25 it says that Joseph kept marry a virgin until the birth of Jesus.  The implication is that she stopped being a virgin after the birth of Christ when they consummated their marriage.  But typical Roman Catholic apologists cannot accept this explanation.  Instead, they say she remained a virgin and site verses where "until" does not mean a change in condition. For example,

1 Cor. 15:25, “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.”
Phil. 1:10, “so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ.”
1 Tim. 6:14, “that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In each verse, we word “until” does not designate cessation of the condition mentioned. In 1 Cor. 15:25 Jesus still reigns after he puts all enemies under his feet. In Phil. 1:10 we will still be blameless after the day of Christ. In 1 Tim. 6:14, we are to still keep the commandments of God after Jesus returns. Therefore, the Roman Catholics say that Mary retained her virginity because the word “until” does not necessitate that she stopped being a virgin.
Of course, is just as easy to find verses that show a change in condition.

Acts 20:11, “And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.”
Acts 23:12, “And when it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul.”
Rev. 7:3, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads.”
In each verse above, the word “until” designates a change in condition/action. In Acts 20:11, Paul talked with them until daybreak and then left. In Acts 23:12, evil men would not eat or drink until after Paul had been killed. Rev. 7:3will prohibits harm to the earth, see, and trees, until the bond servants were sealed.
Therefore, we can see that the word “until” is used in different contexts and it is not appropriate to look to other persons to see how the word is used and transfer the meaning of that word to Matt. 1:25. What are we to do?
(cont in next post)

 

[boppaid]

(cont from previous post)
What does the Greek say?

 In Matt. 1:25, the Greek word e{w" (heos), "until", occurs 104 times in the NT with 41% occurring in Matthew.  56% of the usages denote a period of time.  For example, Matt. 2:1, "And he arose and took the Child and His mother by night, and departed for Egypt; 15 and was there until the death of Herod..."1  
 However, the Greek says e{w" ou| (heos hou), "until which".  This exact combination of words "occurs seventeen times in the NT, and all are temporal.  Two of these have the meaning of "while" (Matt. 14:22; 26:36) whereas the other fifteen occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of the subordinate clause and require the meaning "until a specified time (but not after)."2  
 This means that Mary was kept a virgin until Jesus was born.  After that, she had relations with Joseph.  This is why it says in Matt. 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit."  In other words, she was found to be pregnant before they had relations.  
 Something we must remember is that Matthew was writing a history. He said that before they had relations, she was found to be with child.  This is like a historian writing about a battle and saying the Romans moved up the hill before the sun rose.  It means that the sun rose but there was something that happened before that time.  Likewise, Mary was found to be pregnant before she had relations; that is, before she had relations with Joseph, she was pregnant.  After Jesus was born, she had relations and produced other sons, but Jesus was her first born son.  "And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn," (Luke 2:7).

"Had Matthew wanted to convey the notion that Joseph refrained from having sexual relations with Mary even post partum, he might have used ‘heos’ alone, since as many as 1/5 of all instances of the temporal use of heos in this form has this meaning. Better still, he could have used ‘heos an’ since, as has already been pointed out, all instances of this form are temporal, and most imply no limitation of the action of the main clause by the action of the subordinate clause, even when used with the negative…Whatever meaning we finally adopt for ‘heos hou’ and Matthew 1:25 must be tempered by the fact that this phrase never elsewhere has the meaning ‘until (and continuing)’ in the NT."3

Words mean what they mean in context

 Context is the most significant thing we must look at when determining the meetings of words.  The context of Matt. 1:25 is,

“Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, 25 and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus,” (Matt. 1:22-25).

 The context deals with a virgin bearing a child.  Virginity is here the important topic and Matthew clearly wants us to understand that Jesus was not the result of normal sexual relations between a husband and wife.  This is why Mary's virginity is cited in prophecy in the Old Testament and its fulfillment in the New.  The issue of her virginity is primary since Jesus is the son of God, the divine messiah.  Matthew then tells us that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son.  The most natural reading is to conclude that he kept her a virgin until Jesus was born; that is, she wasn't a virgin after Jesus was born because Joseph and she had sexual relations.

Conclusion

 Is this conclusion airtight?  No, it is not.  Even Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.  Whether or not Martin Luther, John Calvin, Roman Catholics, or anyone else believe Mary retained her virginity has no bearing on whether or not she did.  We must always appeal to the primacy of Scripture and not to the opinions of theologians.
 It is the opinion of CARM that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus; after that, she had other children.

(cont in next post)

 

[boppaid]

(cont from previous post)

Objection: While Jesus was on the cross, why didn’t he commit his mother Mary to one of his brothers instead of John? If he had brothers and/or sisters, shouldn’t Jesus have committed her to them? Since he didn’t, therefore it must mean that he didn’t have any brothers and sisters.
John 19:226-27, “When Jesus therefore 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 into his own household.”
Answers:
First, Jesus was separating himself from his mother, breaking the earthly ties (2 Cor. 5:16), and committing her to the one male disciple, John the Apostle, who was actually present and who apparently showed the greatest love for him by being there and possibly risking his own life in so doing. After all, everyone else had abandoned him.
“But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled," (Matt. 26:56).
"Then Jesus *said to them, “You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered,’” (Matt. 26:31).f
“I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons,” (Psalm 69:6). Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm.
In committing Mary to John, he was providing the best for Mary by not committing her to the siblings who had abandoned him. Also, he gave John a higher place than he gave to Peter regarding Mary. Notice that Jesus told Mary first to look to John, not John to Mary. Mary was given into his charge, not him into hers. This dispels any idea that Mary has any supremacy in the church. We later see in Acts that Mary took her place among (not over) the believers at a prayer meeting. “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers,” (Acts 1:14).
Second, there is biblical evidence that Jesus had siblings.
Matt. 13:55-56 says, "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
Third, it is possible that desired to have John take care of Mary (due to his faithfulness) instead of his brothers who had abandoned him (Matt. 26:31,56), it was necessary for Jesus to specifically declare what he wanted. This declaration can be seen as evidence that Jesus was speaking to make clear his intention that John take care of Mary, not his own brothers.

carm.org/catholic/mary_Matt1_25.htm

 

[boppaid]

Whew, that was a lot to type! But as a Catholic, that is another one of the tenants of our faith that I struggle with.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

As a good Berean Christian, you should struggle with these things. We all should. The Judeo-Christian tradition is not one of simply accepting all that a priest or rabbi says, but rather comparing that to Scripture. So well done.

The perpetual virginity of the mother of Jesus is an issue that was not universally accepted by the Fathers of the Church (unlike her virgin birth) and, as you have shown, it has rather weak scriptural basis for its support.

Hence, arguing from both tradition and scripture, I would encourage you that your doubts are well founded.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I’m not as scholarly as I should be. I can offer this witness. It meant a lot to me that Jesus gave me a disciple of His, His mother while He was on the cross doing the greatest work in all time and space and His love was such that He gave us His mother.

My devotion to the Rosary and my love for Mary have always helped me to a stronger relationship with Jesus. She has helped me with my prayerlife; she has helped me to love Her Son. Her gift to me by Her Son was another real demonstration of love for me, maybe because I love my earthly mother it is easier for me to appreciate this gift, more emotionally tangible to me. It is a way to grow in love and appreciation for all God has done for me. To think that His mother is my mother too and given at such a moment in time during such a painful time when the weight of the cross was upon Him, it humbles me. I adore Him.

 

[boppaid]

I’m not as scholarly as I should be. I can offer this witness. It meant a lot to me that Jesus gave me a disciple of His, His mother while He was on the cross doing the greatest work in all time and space and His love was such that He gave us His mother.

My devotion to the Rosary and my love for Mary have always helped me to a stronger relationship with Jesus. She has helped me with my prayerlife; she has helped me to love Her Son. Her gift to me by Her Son was another real demonstration of love for me, maybe because I love my earthly mother it is easier for me to appreciate this gift, more emotionally tangible to me. It is a way to grow in love and appreciation for all God has done for me. To think that His mother is my mother too and given at such a moment in time during such a painful time when the weight of the cross was upon Him, it humbles me. I adore Him.

Michael, that is a beautiful testimony. Thank you for sharing.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

For an enlightening look at really how far the modern Roman Catholic church is from the Early Church Fathers in its view of the mother of Jesus, I suggest the following article

members.aol.com/jasonte/mary.htm

There is a lack of coherency in Roman Catholic marian doctrine over time, as a study of the Early Church Fathers shows. As this article suggests:

Though Catholic apologists argue that Marian doctrines not supported by scripture are supported by post-apostolic evidence, the truth is otherwise. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:21:10) refers to Christ being born of Mary, who was “as yet a virgin”. The obvious implication is that she wasn’t always a virgin. Irenaeus uses the same phrase in reference to Eve, who obviously wasn’t a virgin throughout her life. And Tertullian, writing not too long after Irenaeus, denied that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ, 7), Basil (Epistle 260), John Chrysostom (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 44), and other church fathers denied that Mary was sinless. Exalted Marian doctrines, such as perpetual virginity and sinlessness, began to be proposed by some church fathers from the third century onward, especially with the rise of asceticism. None of these doctrines can actually be traced back to the apostles, though. Not only are modern exalted views of Mary not supported by the New Testament, but they’re also contradicted by some of the church fathers.