Split: Another Marian Debate

[Damascus]

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

It would depend on who it was I should be asked to kill…

LOL. Nope, I would not do it. But, thankfully I wont be asked. Unless,

No, that would be too harsh. LOL.

 

[boppaid]

It would depend on who it was I should be asked to kill…

 

[julebenn]

At that time when Jesus was on the cross and Mary was there, John was also there. But Jesus gave His mother to all of us and that is why He did not mention the name of “John” when He said, "behold your mother."

eta… oh btw, a link sure would’ve been nice for post 251. I always put links in my posts when appropriate.

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple who he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the** disciple** took her to his own home.

There were other disciples beneath the cross. He addressed Mary and John as individuals. If he meant she was the mother of us all or the Church he would have addressed all the disciples present.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple who he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the** disciple** took her to his own home.

There were other disciples beneath the cross. He addressed Mary and John as individuals. If he meant she was the mother of us all or the Church he would have addressed all the disciples present.

That does not fit. The word used was disciple. Jesus did not address “John” The Master said disciple. Jesus does not choose words for no reason.

Why did He address His mother as “woman” The typology goes to Eve also addressed as woman, who was mother of us all, so too Jesus speaks from the cross to any who would be His disciple. The wording was consciously universal.

Recognizing Jesus as God, truly God, makes any other interpretation, nonsensical. God had a gift for Mary and a gift for us, His disciples; to say he was setting up a retirement fund for her is a ludicrous interpretation that detracts from the significance and context of this greatest of events, the sacrifice, and from the Master Himself.

The proper interpretation also calls us into our adoption as sons and daughters of God through Jesus, which if you are Jesus’ brother, geuss who your mother is?

 

[rr1213]

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple who he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the** disciple** took her to his own home.

There were other disciples beneath the cross. He addressed Mary and John as individuals. If he meant she was the mother of us all or the Church he would have addressed all the disciples present.

Correct. And, for what it’s worth, the disciple whom Jesus loved is identified elsewhere in John as being…John.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Correct. And, for what it’s worth, the disciple whom Jesus loved is identified elsewhere in John as being…John.

Jesus did not say John, though yes He was speaking to John. Why did He say Disciple and Woman? Again Jesus does not choose words for no meaning. He addressed disciples by name, but here he does not. He does something very different. Why? Pray. Pray on this, please.

Where was He when He said it?
What was He doing when He said it?
Who said those words?

This is completely scriptural.

 

[Church_Militant]

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.

However, there is nothing an any of those beliefs that violates any Biblical principle is there? No…there is not.

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.

But since Sola Scriptura has an even weaker basis in scripture, there is no reason to be concerned. It’s really as simple as that.

Furthermore, Mary was not virgin born, so I hope that you are actually speaking of the the virgin birth of Our Lord.

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

So, you encourage doubt among Catholics? I encourage you to doubt the fundamental teaching of your denomination, the idea that all Christian belief must come from the Bible, without reference to Sacred Tradition and Christian history. An error that has led to a host of trickle-down style errors and even heresies as over the last 500 years.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Church_Militant]

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple

who he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the** disciple** took her to his own home.

There were other disciples beneath the cross. He addressed Mary and John as individuals. If he meant she was the mother of us all or the Church he would have addressed all the disciples present.This is one of the worst cases of non-sequitur I have ever seen.

Can you tell me what other apostles were there? I don’t think so.

As for disciples, you ignore the fact that Jesus had no blood siblings (More the case for her perpetual virginity) and since her step children would not have been responsible for her, Our Lord gave her into the care of John, and through that to us all.

You n-Cs just dismiss or discount far too much that is in the New Testament about the Blessed Virgin.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Damascus]

Correct. And, for what it’s worth, the disciple whom Jesus loved is identified elsewhere in John as being…John.

That post really made me belly laugh! Good one rr1213, hate to admit it but good one.

disclaimer I can laugh and still be a devout Catholic, this was just funny.

 

[AlegreFe]

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!

Muchísmas gracias 3sonsasa!! and you can call me Sandy!

Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to
hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical
Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord,
the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same
Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our
souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the
ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed
and governed.

I totally agree with this! With that said, I normally see black as black even though I don’t know that is what the Church says. I later find out that is what the Church says so I am then assured in my beliefs. I say this because of my previous post in saying since I know Truth, I recognize False. It’s that simple. If you rr1213, cannot see black (what the Church says something is) and instead you see white, then you have not been given the Grace from God to see what the Church says is black.

rr1213, I think you might be misinterpreting this “rule” of St. Ignatius. I don’t think it is something that would obviously be white and the Church says it’s black. To me, an “obviously” would be in St. John’s gospel chapter 6 where Jesus says, “This is my body, take eat…” This is so obviously black and the Church says that it is black. But you see white and it makes no sense to me that anyone would see white when this is so obviously black. I guess there would be some things that are not so obviously black but at the same time not so obviously white either. I hope that wasn’t too confusing for you.

To 3sonsasa; Et cum spíritu túo!

 

[AlegreFe]

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?

I guess not everything is obvious to Catholics. But I will say this, I am so glad that you want to understand the Catholic stance on this issue which is so very important.
God bless you for that!

(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

. ???

Oh my goodness! :whacky: How can it make no difference?! Of course it makes a difference. Mary held in her womb the King of Kings, God! No one touches the Holy of Holies! For the Jews God was in the Holy of Holies! Did anyone dare go into the Holy of Holies if they were not a High Priest? And even then, he could only go in once a year on the day of atonement when he would go in to give a blood sacrifice for the sins of Israel. And before he could do that, he had to make a ceremonial cleansing of himself.
Wow, that sounds an awful lot like our Catholic Mass (except for the blood part). http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/omy.gif
I wonder why! http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Grin.gif

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.

This is the problem, we don’t think of Mary as a “goddess.” This is what Protestants think that we Catholics think, but they’re wrong. We don’t even think of her “almost like” a goddess. Either God is God or He’s not; of course we know that He is. There is no “almost” here. Mary is NOT God nor is she “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.

WRONG again! These titles do not only come from her Perpetual Virginity.

Therefore, it is necessary to examine this issue in hopes of providing a more biblical position. ???

WHAT??
The Catholic viewpoint IS a Biblical position!! Non-C’s just can’t see it that way!

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.

But it is NOT straight forward as we know the English language today. They did not speak English back then. And the language they spoke is not straight forward to US as we see the English language! Even in the English language today there could be times when the word “until” does not indicate a change afterward.

Here, I’ll refer you to this link from Envoy Magazine. There’s a lot to read there; and because of that I would like to just paste part of the last paragraph from that webpage right here so you can read it right now.

I would close with the following question I’d ask them to
ponder before they deny Mary’s perpetual virginity: If Joseph
was a just man and a faithful Jew, if he believed that the God
he worshipped, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the
God who was present in the Holy of Holies, was present also
in Mary’s womb as Father of her Child - is it really likely that
he would have had relations with his wife once the Child
had been born?
My answer to this. NO!

 

[Leeta]

Dear Christ is Lord,

The words of scripture are clear, 'Mary said, all generations will call me blessed…"

So tell me how and when protestants ever call Mary blessed? (except for some Anglo-Catholics, etc.)

Protestants are not obeying the word of God.

Again the Angel Gabriel called Mary as her title or name, “full of Grace”. St Jerome translated from the original languages, into Latin as ‘gratia plena’. Look that up and see how it translates into English.
St. Jerome was a master of Greek and Latin. He actually lived in Palestine and translated from Hebrew which he had also mastered. He died in Bethlehem on September 30, 420 A.D.

So be honest, protestants just ignore Mary, even though they have a lot to thank her for and they are actually obliged by the Holy Scriptures to call her blessed. That means to honor her. Protestants have no problem honoring Bro. So and So, Pat Robinson or James Dobson for the fine work they have done. So what is the protestants’ problem with honoring someone like the Blessed Mother, especially since they are commanded by Holy Scripture to do so?

All I can say is ask her to help you obey God. Jesus obeyed the Blessed Mother and still continues to do so. Jesus fulfilled and obeyed the 10 commandments perfectly. One of those commandments is, “Honor your father and mother that your days may long on earth…” So we Catholics are following Jesus’ example and obeying His Mother, too.

But don’t worry,she does not want to usurp God’s position or Jesus’ unique role in our salvation. Like at the wedding feast of Cana, she told the servants to go to Jesus and “do whatever He (Jesus) tells you.”
She only wants whatever is God’s will, so we can be sure that what ever she does or says is only by God’s power and grace. Especially since she is dead to this life on earth, she can only be aware of our prayers through the power of God. You don’t have to ask for her prayers on your behalf, but knowing my own weakness, I am happy to get everyone I know or even total strangers to pray for me, if they are willing. God commands us to pray for one another.
Why do you think that Mary, the first believer, would not obey God and pray for us Christians or those seeking God here on Earth? if she is to be called blessed by all generations, than she must be a Christian and thus be full of concern for fellow Christian still fighting it out in this life. And being a Christian, she died in the Lord and is with Him in Heaven. Do you believe in the Resurrection only for us moderns and not for the early Christians?

I used to be protestant. We were not taught to call Mary blessed as the scriptures commanded because it didn’t fit our theology. We just read over that passage and had no comments on it and we did not obey the scripture. Although we claimed to believe that the Bible was the sole source of truth about God and salvation.

 

[Leeta]

By the way there is probably a thread or threads on whether or not the Blessed Mother was perpetually a virgin. Go to those because there is quite a lot of biblical and other support for theis doctrine.

But the main problem the Protestants have is just obeying the Holy Bible and honoring our Lady.

 

[maryj]

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.

St Athanasius, discourse against the Arians,2,70. He explicitly calls Mary “ever virgin”
Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son .
Read this:newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
The Protoevamgelium of James
How about this-read it all the way, youll see Luther and Calvin both agreed that Mary was ever Virgin.
scborromeo.org/papers/virgin.PDF

How much more will you need?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

St Athanasius, discourse against the Arians,2,70. He explicitly calls Mary “ever virgin”
Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son .
Read this:newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
The Protoevamgelium of James
How about this-read it all the way, youll see Luther and Calvin both agreed that Mary was ever Virgin.
scborromeo.org/papers/virgin.PDF

Calvin and Luther were both influenced by centuries of bad teaching within the Roman Church. Further reflection by Reformed theologians, based on the Early Church Fathers and the Bible, enabled them to jettison many of the superstitions that had entered into the Church by the time of the Reformation, including the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Irenaeus and Tertullian both denied the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Tertullian, John Chrysostom and other church fathers denied that Mary was sinless. These 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. These are not apostolic doctrines, though. Not only are modern Roman Catholic views of Mary not supported by the New Testament, but they’re also contradicted by some of the church fathers.

How much more will you need?

A lot more. Citing one, albeit great, Church father doesn’t do it. (I love Athenasius–he saved our faith from Arianism)

**The burdon of proof in on Roman Catholics **to show that there was general agreement amongst the Early Church Fathers regarding these and other ideosyncratic Roman Catholic beliefs that are supported entirely or substantially by “oral tradition”. The Council l of Trent ruled that there had to be substantial unanimity in the Church Fathers for a dogma that has arisen through tradition to be accepted. Since there is not unanimity amongst the Fathers regarding many of the current extra biblical Marian beliefs, by its own standards established at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church should jettison these, as the Protestant churches have.

What this shows also is that the modern Roman Catholic Church is vastly different than the Early “Catholic” church. Evangelicals can with good reason claim to be 1st Century catholics and completely in line with apostolic tradition.

I hope, for the good of the Body of Christ, that the modern RC church will someday jettison the perpetual virginity and other contentious issues that divide us. But I am not hopeful.

 

[runandsew]

Irenaeus and Tertullian both denied the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Tertullian, John Chrysostom and other church fathers denied that Mary was sinless.

Well, I guess this proves that the Church fathers were not inerrant.

Do you say that the RC teachings at the time of Luther and Calvin were wrong, because it doesn’t agree with your theology and interpretation of the Bible.

Why don’t you trust Jesus?

He said he would lead the Church in all truth, and He would be with them until the end of times, and he has kept his promise.

 

[maryj]

Calvin and Luther were both influenced by centuries of bad teaching within the Roman Church. Further reflection by Reformed theologians, based on the Early Church Fathers and the Bible, enabled them to jettison many of the superstitions that had entered into the Church by the time of the Reformation, including the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Bad teachings? Influenced? superstitions? and let’s not forget the Jettisoning of the eucharist as the real presence, another one of those bad teachings. oops back on topic. so lets see, this tells me that calvin and Luther could be influenced,hmmm…

Irenaeus and Tertullian both denied the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Tertullian, John Chrysostom and other church fathers denied that Mary was sinless. These 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. These are not apostolic doctrines, though. Not only are modern Roman Catholic views of Mary not supported by the New Testament, but they’re also contradicted by some of the church fathers.
this has been addressed multiple times on this thread, it is supported, it has been shown.

A lot more. Citing one, albeit great, Church father doesn’t do it. (I love Athenasius–he saved our faith from Arianism)
PLEASE RE-READ THE LINKS , iT GIVES MULTIPLES, I’ll also include St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary against Helvidius.

**The burdon of proof in on Roman Catholics **to show that there was general agreement amongst the Early Church Fathers regarding these and other ideosyncratic Roman Catholic beliefs that are supported entirely or substantially by “oral tradition”. The Council l of Trent ruled that there had to be substantial unanimity in the Church Fathers for a dogma that has arisen through tradition to be accepted. Since there is not unanimity amongst the Fathers regarding many of the current extra biblical Marian beliefs, by its own standards established at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church should jettison these, as the Protestant churches have.

What this shows also is that the modern Roman Catholic Church is vastly different than the Early “Catholic” church. Evangelicals can with good reason claim to be 1st Century catholics and completely in line with apostolic tradition.
Let’s provide some proof please

I hope, for the good of the Body of Christ, that the modern RC church will someday jettison the perpetual virginity and other contentious issues that divide us. But I am not hopeful.

another difference, I am hopeful. God bless.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**We were not taught to call Mary blessed as the scriptures commanded because it didn’t fit our theology. **

It is not commanded though. The Bible says that all generations will call her blessed. I call her blessed and I’m a Protestant. But there is no command to do so.

Hmm…one Catholic on here believes that Mary died. Peace.

 

[The_Catholic]

Calvin and Luther were both influenced by centuries of bad teaching within the Roman Church. Further reflection by Reformed theologians, based on the Early Church Fathers and the Bible, enabled them to jettison many of the superstitions that had entered into the Church by the time of the Reformation, including the perpetual virginity of Mary and the assumption of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Irenaeus and Tertullian both denied the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Tertullian, John Chrysostom and other church fathers denied that Mary was sinless. These 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. These are not apostolic doctrines, though. Not only are modern Roman Catholic views of Mary not supported by the New Testament, but they’re also contradicted by some of the church fathers.

A lot more. Citing one, albeit great, Church father doesn’t do it. (I love Athenasius–he saved our faith from Arianism)

**The burdon of proof in on Roman Catholics **to show that there was general agreement amongst the Early Church Fathers regarding these and other ideosyncratic Roman Catholic beliefs that are supported entirely or substantially by “oral tradition”. The Council l of Trent ruled that there had to be substantial unanimity in the Church Fathers for a dogma that has arisen through tradition to be accepted. Since there is not unanimity amongst the Fathers regarding many of the current extra biblical Marian beliefs, by its own standards established at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church should jettison these, as the Protestant churches have.

What this shows also is that the modern Roman Catholic Church is vastly different than the Early “Catholic” church. Evangelicals can with good reason claim to be 1st Century catholics and completely in line with apostolic tradition.

I hope, for the good of the Body of Christ, that the modern RC church will someday jettison the perpetual virginity and other contentious issues that divide us. But I am not hopeful.

Please show me how Evangelicals are 1’st century catholics and are in line more with apostolic tradition than modern Catholics. This statment seriously makes me wonder if you know Church History. And I’m not just talking about the Ever Virgin Mary or Marian doctrines. Compare modern Protestantism and Catholicism with the early Church and tell me what you see. This isn’t a hard issue. To deny Catholicism in the early Church is like denying the laws of thermodynamics or gravity.

Also, I’m not saying that the Catholic Church today is exactly the same as the early Church. But that can you see doctrines and beliefs in the early Church similar to the Catholic Church today? The Real Presence, Baptism Regeneration, Bishops and Preists, The Papacy, The Trinity and Divinity of Christ, Sacred Tradition, etc.??

God bless you.

 

[Redbandito]

I’d still like to see Catholic posters honestly answer this question…“yes” or “no”?

That is an unfair question. Since it has never, and can never happen, it is like saying if Jesus never rose from the dead, would you still believe in Him. The fact is He did. As the facts are that the Church will never put the faithful in such a bind.